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
-
-
-
-
-
You're fine Oh Wise One, no worries.
Point taken. I think I need to dust myself down a little again. It is SO wearing to be told again and again and again that if I had a crisis pregnancy (and although I don't know first hand how that feels, I am a woman and I have been in many crises) and couldn't bear to have another child, that I would deserve 14 years imprisonment for choosing to abort a non-sentient being, smaller than the hen's egg I ate for breakfast.
Whatever about etiquette of posting reasoned arguments and that this needs to be learned to some extent, I think it should be quite clear to anyone who makes that kind of comment, that they are talking to real people with real feelings and there are real effects from this apparent inability to walk a few steps in someone else's shoes.
I think the biggest challenge to this debate is the moral claim human rights make on us. This is at its core a debate of rights where neither side agrees to a common interpretation. Thus we have two main sets who see the world very differently. Naturally, there's going to be hot and fiery moments. The temptation with any ethics discussion is to decide the opposing party is lacking something in humanity that your own party has. So when we say there are real people both sides needs to understand that they actual see 'people' very differently. That's the biggest challenge to a discussion on this issue. Then there are all the various intersecting sub sets to consider. . .
Not easy by any means easy, but I personally think that at times these two megathreads have been exemplary.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
Also call me pessimistic.
Unless the foetal abnormality issues keeps getting pushed I think everything is going to stay static for the next decade. I would love to think that someday Ireland will change drastically but I just don't see it.
Honestly as awful as it sounds if the travel to Britain was restricted because of some war or plague things would probably accelerate a whole lot faster (shuddup physicists!). We have the Irish solution to the Irish problem at the moment and there's not really any strong political will to push beyond that.0 -
-
-
-
Also call me pessimistic. Unless the foetal abnormality issues keeps getting pushed I think everything is going to stay static for the next decade. I would love to think that someday Ireland will change drastically but I just don't see it.
I don't think it will, I think there will be a lot of pro choice people making the issue a doorstep one for the next election rounds.Honestly as awful as it sounds if the travel to Britain was restricted because of some war or plague things would probably accelerate a whole lot faster (shuddup physicists!). We have the Irish solution to the Irish problem at the moment and there's not really any strong political will to push beyond that.
It is restricted for many women, I reckon we will see the issue of the abortion pill hit the headlines as well. Either women coming out and stating they have used it or if someone ends up needing medical care and gets reported by a non sympathetic medical personnel.0 -
Also call me pessimistic. Unless the foetal abnormality issues keeps getting pushed I think everything is going to stay static for the next decade. I would love to think that someday Ireland will change drastically but I just don't see it.
Honestly as awful as it sounds if the travel to Britain was restricted because of some war or plague things would probably accelerate a whole lot faster (shuddup physicists!). We have the Irish solution to the Irish problem at the moment and there's not really any strong political will to push beyond that.
No protest means no movement, little protest means little movement, big protest means big movement. Time to get marching, folks0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Alderwould wrote: »No, you're mixing that up with straightening bananas
Intentionally killing unborn babies is still a heinous crime in this country, punishable by a maximum 14yr sentence. Thankfully.
So, you are comfortable with the fact that the law as it now stands means that if a woman finds herself pregnant as a result of rape and terminates that pregnancy because she cannot live with an ongoing reminder of her assault, she would get a longer sentence than the man who raped her?Alderwould wrote: »If you can't do the time (14 years), don't do the crime.
Are you in favour of incarcerating women and forcing them to give birth to children they do not want?Alderwould wrote: »By choice you mean the 'choice' to kill one's unborn baby?
Then I'm anti-choice and proud.0 -
gaynorvader wrote: »There should be an entry question before entry to this thread:
"When do you believe a foetus becomes a human baby?"
It's always the bone of contention and it rarely gets explored sufficiently.
It really doesn't get explored, does it? To my mind, that's because the anti crowd are right, it is always human, and the pros are right in that it is not a full baby till perhaps viability (which seems to be the thing that most people agree on, except me...sigh).
My two or ten cents is that embryo and foetus is human, and killing one will and should raise questions for people. When I go to kill a hen, it's not like I'm going to enjoy doing it. I have to reason with myself and rationalise, in order to justify what I'm doing. Here's my list of answers to the question of "What right do I have to take a life?" :
1 The hen is sick (clear case of kindness to hen to kill her quickly)
2 It is yet another cockerel who will have a crappy life getting pecked to bits by numero uno cock - let them all live and I could no longer afford to keep hens that keep me and family in eggs and chicken meat.
3 It has had the nearest thing to a natural life (although much better fed) thus far, includinggetting caught and killed by a predator (me)
4 It would be hypocritical of me to think that killing an animal by my own hand is wrong (it feels wrong), if I want to eat meat. I do not need to eat meat, I want to. Therefore I have to admit that I am selfish enough to take a life because I want to.
5 My moral dilemma here is essentially a first world problem. The odd bit of protein that a family in a severely unproductive country would be a blessing. If I found myself at the sharp end of the wedge, I could probably feed my family better than most.
6 Being human means that we are the only predators (to my knowledge) who think this through. Therefore we have to acknowledge that we give ourselves the right to take lives every time we eat meat.
If I was considering an abortion of a human life (and I do call it a human life), the only things I would add to that list are:
1 I have a great need to take this life - much, much greater than my need to kill animals for food, and I do that by hand or by proxy every time I eat meat.
2 I would prefer to take this life at a very early stage, because taking a human life means much more to me. The older/bigger this life is, the more I acknowledge it's humanity (attributing it with emotions and feelings like my own).
I'm sure there's more, but that's the short list 0 -
I'm not sure if that is the question either though. The foetus is a member of the homo sapien species regardless and it has to be admitted that the foetus is alive in its own limited capacity i.e. living cells. I think it is more about asking how we evaluate and judge life and not to take life as one static position i.e. an embryo is not the same as a five year old. The whole concept of life is a little distorted as someone who is living with an increasingly vicious and incapacitating disease may not view their life the same as a healthy twenty year old.It really doesn't get explored, does it? To my mind, that's because the anti crowd are right, it is always human, and the pros are right in that it is not a full baby till perhaps viability (which seems to be the thing that most people agree on, except me...sigh).
My two or ten cents is that embryo and foetus is human, and killing one will and should raise questions for people. When I go to kill a hen, it's not like I'm going to enjoy doing it. I have to reason with myself and rationalise, in order to justify what I'm doing. Here's my list of answers to the question of "What right do I have to take a life?" :
1 The hen is sick (clear case of kindness to hen to kill her quickly)
2 It is yet another cockerel who will have a crappy life getting pecked to bits by numero uno cock - let them all live and I could no longer afford to keep hens that keep me and family in eggs and chicken meat.
3 It has had the nearest thing to a natural life (although much better fed) thus far, includinggetting caught and killed by a predator (me)
4 It would be hypocritical of me to think that killing an animal by my own hand is wrong (it feels wrong), if I want to eat meat. I do not need to eat meat, I want to. Therefore I have to admit that I am selfish enough to take a life because I want to.
5 My moral dilemma here is essentially a first world problem. The odd bit of protein that a family in a severely unproductive country would be a blessing. If I found myself at the sharp end of the wedge, I could probably feed my family better than most.
6 Being human means that we are the only predators (to my knowledge) who think this through. Therefore we have to acknowledge that we give ourselves the right to take lives every time we eat meat.
If I was considering an abortion of a human life (and I do call it a human life), the only things I would add to that list are:
1 I have a great need to take this life - much, much greater than my need to kill animals for food, and I do that by hand or by proxy every time I eat meat.
2 I would prefer to take this life at a very early stage, because taking a human life means much more to me. The older/bigger this life is, the more I acknowledge it's humanity (attributing it with emotions and feelings like my own).
I'm sure there's more, but that's the short list
I would not consider an early term foetus any more human than a tumour. It's a bundle of cells until brain activity. Potential, for me, is a meaningless argument. We have the potential to become serial killers, doesn't mean we should pre-emptively lock everyone up.
Killing animals is a whole different subject for me. Though I would justify it by pointing out that most of the animals we eat as meat live pretty good lives where they don't need to worry about finding food or the threat of predators. I'm not sure how long they'd survive in the wild (probably not that long on average, even if we hadn't domesticated them).0 -
-
-
gaynorvader wrote: »It seems to be built into us to anthropomorphise animals, particularly the ones we spend time caring for. It's an odd part of the human condition. I understand where you're coming from, I'd have a hard time killing a pet of mine for food, though it's also probable that that's because I didn't have that in my mind as an outcome from the start of the relationship. I have spent some time helping my grandmother rear chickens and never had a problem killing one for dinner, but it wasn't a daily thing so perhaps it's different?
That's not really what I'm saying though. I don't base the value of an animal life on whether it has recognisable emotions that I can relate to, as a human. More that the animal has it's own justifiable experiences, links and family ties in it's own kind. The animal values it's own life (or else, why would they run away when we're trying to kill them?!), and to me, that life is just as valuable (if not more) as a non-sentient human embryo. And I can still kill it. Go figure
Missed that bit about you helping your gran! It's not a daily thing here either but I struggle with it, I have to admit. Of course, it makes me feel better about myself that I am not just buying plastic wrapped meat and never considering how it got there. Interestingly, when the Savita case broke and I was putting up posters for the vigil in my local town, my butcher had the most pragmatic and thoughtfully considered pro-choice stance of all the shops....0 -
That's not really what I'm saying though. I don't base the value of an animal life on whether it has recognisable emotions that I can relate to, as a human. More that the animal has it's own justifiable experiences, links and family ties in it's own kind. The animal values it's own life (or else, why would they run away when we're trying to kill them?!), and to me, that life is just as valuable (if not more) as a non-sentient human embryo. And I can still kill it. Go figure
Missed that bit about you helping your gran! It's not a daily thing here either but I struggle with it, I have to admit. Of course, it makes me feel better about myself that I am not just buying plastic wrapped meat and never considering how it got there. Interestingly, when the Savita case broke and I was putting up posters for the vigil in my local town, my butcher had the most pragmatic and thoughtfully considered pro-choice stance of all the shops....
Ah, I see what you were saying now. Yes, I would consider an animal's life more important than a foetus with no brain activity. However, after brain activity I just don't know what the embryo is thinking. Possibly it does have self-awareness, survival instincts and just lacks the ability to defend itself or even to run away? Until we know more, that's where I draw the line. I think it's quite early on, but at that point an abortion shouldn't be allowed in my view. However, it's not all right to force the woman to carry it to term, so perhaps she should pay (or her medical insurance) to have it brought to term outside of the womb somehow? It's a complicated issue (and I'm not including abnormal cases where it's a "rape-child" or threatens the mother's life).
It makes sense that the butcher would have more thoughts on issues of life and death as s/he deals with it on a daily basis. On a complete aside, is it just me or are almost all butchers men? Weird, but I actually can't remember having ever seen a female butcher.0 -
Advertisement
-
It's all so subjective, isn't it? To me, with my wanted pregnancies, I really started to attribute feelings and emotions to them way earlier than they actually had any! I was anthropomorphising the foetus, if you like. Of course we naturally do that with humans, as we can expect and predict what would make another person happy or sad, comfortable or uncomfortable, but is that to say that when a foetus can respond to certain stimuli, that's enough to value that life as much as the full-grown woman carrying it, with all her experiences and learning?gaynorvader wrote: »Ah, I see what you were saying now. Yes, I would consider an animal's life more important than a foetus with no brain activity. However, after brain activity I just don't know what the embryo is thinking. Possibly it does have self-awareness, survival instincts and just lacks the ability to defend itself or even to run away? Until we know more, that's where I draw the line. I think it's quite early on, but at that point an abortion shouldn't be allowed in my view. However, it's not all right to force the woman to carry it to term, so perhaps she should pay (or her medical insurance) to have it brought to term outside of the womb somehow? It's a complicated issue (and I'm not including abnormal cases where it's a "rape-child" or threatens the mother's life).
I think our subjective feelings about potential are very important here - one person's foetus responds to stimuli and begins experiencing, therefore immediately is granted a right to it's potential, against another person's woman with unwanted pregnancy has a right to her potential, that she herself imagined. Not an easy one.It makes sense that the butcher would have more thoughts on issues of life and death as s/he deals with it on a daily basis. On a complete aside, is it just me or are almost all butchers men? Weird, but I actually can't remember having ever seen a female butcher.
Neither have I seen a female butcher
Perhaps, and it's just a perhaps, women are frequently more squeamish about killing than men? I'm assuming you're male, but you clearly don't have to justify killing chickens to yourself as thoroughly as I do! My fella won't do it though, unless it's absolutely necessary (animal in extreme pain, for instance) and he's usually much more pragmatic than me. I don't know. I have to go out now, but ta for the interesting conversation! More later. 0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement