Sanctity of Life (Abortion Megathread)

J C

Delirium wrote: »

How's it hypocritical to be pro-choice when I've said in principal my mother should have had the choice to abort?

Its hypocritical to hold two positions at odds with each other.
If you value your life, it is hypocritical to simultanelously believe that somebody else has the right to take away your life, in either the past, present or future.

Delirium wrote: »

No it doesn't as a pregnancy can't be transplanted to another womb.

The principle is still the same ... you shouldn't damage or kill your child when waiting for an adoption of a born child or the end of pregnancy for an unborn one.

Delirium wrote: »

there is no "anybody" in the early parts of the pregnancy. There are certain basics required for a person to exist.

There is much more than 'anybody' ... there is a human child involved ... whether they are two months in gestation or 20 years born.

Delirium wrote: »

You do realise that women can die as a result of pregnancy/childbirth? Somewhat patronising to refer to it as an "inconvenience".

Its an extreme rarety that pregnant women dies ... and the risk of death from abortion is always much greater for a healthy pregnant woman.

Delirium wrote: »

The problem here is that you're essentially saying that sex is purely for reproduction. Many people don't hold that view and take a lot of precaution to avoid becoming pregnant.

... and that is fine ... but they have to live with the consequences, if they don't take precautions or they do so in a grossly irresponsible manner, for example, while imaired due to drugs or drink.
Nobody would make excuses for a drink driver who kills ... and nobody should excuse the killing of an unborn child that is conceived whilst drunk.

Delirium wrote: »

But some still become pregnant even though they didn't want to. Why should they then be required to carry a foetus for nine months because of your particular view of sex?

It's not my view of sex ... its because of the Human rights to life (the right to life of both the mother and her child) that is involved.

Delirium wrote: »

Indeed, we only recently had a deceased womans body hooked up to a machine in an attempt to continue the pregnancy
. How is it moral to do that and not allow the family bury her?

I'm not sure that it is right.
It is certainly using extraordinary means to do so ... and I wonder if a viable child will be born at the end of the process.
If the child can be born successfully, then perhaps it is morally justifiable ... the mother loses nothing, as she is already clinically dead ... and her burial is merely being delayed ... which can occur for many reasons anyway ... and the child gains the chance to live - so where is the moral problem with this?

frag420

J C wrote: »

If my neighbour said that he was going to kill somebody I didn't know, would this affect me?
It probably wouldn't affect me personally, even if he went ahead and did it.
Would I have a moral responsibility to report my neighbour to the authorities none the less ... of course I would.
... and the ultimate reason is very simple ... if I allow injustice by others against others ... it may very well result in the same injustice being visited upon me (or somebody I deeply care about) ultimately ... and the principle of do unto others what you would have others do unto you applies to all forms of killing.

She is free to fly wherever she wishes ... and I have no right to hassle her in any way.
Of course, if she freely sought my advice and support to not go through with an abortion, I would freely give her both.

OK I knew this would happen so lets ry this again. I did not mention murder, I mentioned abortion. I know this confuses you but just try for a moment, ok are we good.....great!!

Now I was talking about my neighbour affecting you, not your neighbour affecting you. As in how would someone you don't know having an abortion affect you in any way and why do you feel the need to tell a stranger what they can and cannot do with their body!?

On your second point would you agree then that standing outside abortion clinics with pictures of aborted foetuses, screaming at women going into family planning clinics, intimidating them etc is justifiable because you did say yourself that you have no right to hassle her or anybody? So the next time their are anti choice people protesting on the streets with pictures of aborted foetuses you will be asking them to not be hassling people going for family planning clinics etc,,

J C

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Pro 'life' logic at its best! People should behave responsibly when it comes to sex. Safe sex should not be promoted in public places.

Really safe sex should be promoted ... so how does making condoms available to drunks make sex safer?

... it's as ridiculous as making car keys available to drunks ... and then wondering why they crash !!!

Kiwi in IE

J C wrote: »

If my neighbour said that he was going to kill somebody I didn't know, would this affect me?
It probably wouldn't affect me personally, even if he went ahead and did it.
Would I have a moral responsibility to report my neighbour to the authorities none the less ... of course I would.

And if you reported such information to the authorities, in the case of your neighbour planning to kill someone, the authorities would act.

If you reported the hypothetical woman planning travel for the specific purpose of aborting a foetus, they would not act.

Do you think that travelling for the purpose of aborting a foetus in another jurisdiction should be a criminal offence? Should murder charges be persued on return?

Overheal

J C wrote: »

Its hypocritical to hold two positions at odds with each other.
If you value your life, it is hypocritical to simultanelously believe that somebody else has the right to take away your life, in either the past, present or future.

well, no, because acknowledging someone could have chosen to abort your fetal state would simply cause you to appreciate your life proportionately more. I myself am rather thankful the sperm and egg that bore me happened. That doesn't itself mean I don't acknowledge that sometimes reality is not so rose petal and the choice must be there for those circumstances.

frag420

J C wrote: »

Really safe sex should be promoted ... so how does making condoms available to drunks make sex safer?

... it's as ridiculous as making car keys available to drunks ... and then wondering why they crash !!!

What positions would you suggest for really safe sex?

How would not providing condoms to drunks make sex safer?

Overheal

"Oh no I got drunk and had sex resulting in the death of me my girlfriend and another couple?"

Again you can't seem to talk about this topic without trying to conflate it with other things.

The Randy Riverbeast

J C wrote: »

Really safe sex should be promoted ... so how does making condoms available to drunks make sex safer?

... it's as ridiculous as making car keys available to drunks ... and then wondering why they crash !!!

Should we deny medical treatment to people who crash when driving? They knew there was a risk of getting in an accident. If you are going to drive you need to accept the consequences.

Kiwi in IE

J C wrote: »

Really safe sex should be promoted ... so how does making condoms available to drunks make sex safer?

... it's as ridiculous as making car keys available to drunks ... and then wondering why they crash !!!

You don't think it's safer that people (drunk or otherwise) who are going to have sex, have access to condoms and a visual reminder to use one? Better that they have no access to condoms and have unprotected sex?

Kiwi in IE

J C wrote: »

Its hypocritical to hold two positions at odds with each other.
If you value your life, it is hypocritical to simultanelously believe that somebody else has the right to take away your life, in either the past, present or future.

My mother had the option to abort when pregnant with me (and I'm in my late 30's). And I'm really glad that she had that option and lived in a country where her right to bodily autonomy was respected during her childbearing years.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

Its hypocritical to hold two positions at odds with each other.
If you value your life, it is hypocritical to simultanelously believe that somebody else has the right to take away your life, in either the past, present or future.

No, I'd be a hypocrite if I didn't think abortion should have been available to my mother while claiming to be pro-choice.

The principle is still the same ... you shouldn't damage or kill your child when waiting for an adoption of a born child or the end of pregnancy for an unborn one.

No, as a fertilised egg is not the same as the child left up adoption. The child has organs for a start.

There is much more than 'anybody' ... there is a human child involved ... whether they are two months in gestation or 20 years born.

One is a potential child, it has yet to develop into one.

Its an extreme rarety that pregnant women dies ... and the risk of death from abortion is always much greater for a healthy pregnant woman.

Actually abortion is safer for the woman than childbirth if done in the early stages of the pregnancy.

... and that is fine ... but they have to live with the consequences, if they don't take precautions or they do so in a grossly irresponsible manner, for example, while imaired due to drugs or drink.
Nobody would make excuses for a drink driver who kills ... and nobody should excuse the killing of an unborn child that is conceived whilst drunk.

And where did I mention anyone being drunk? Contraceptives fail, and an abortion is one way to take responsibility.

It's not my view of sex ... its because of the Human rights to life (the right to life of both the mother and her child) that is involved.

You're suggesting that people who have sex and use contraceptives are somewhat irresponsible should an abortion be availed of. That certainly suggests sex is all about the baby-making for you.

I'm not sure that it is right.
It is certainly using extraordinary means to do so ... and I wonder if a viable child will be born at the end of the process.
If the child can be born successfully, then perhaps it is morally justifiable ... the mother loses nothing, as she is already clinically dead ... and her burial is merely being delayed ... which can occur for many reasons anyway ... and the child gains the chance to live - so where is the moral problem with this?

Its a decomposing corpse for a start and the family objected to it. Hows it moral to take control of a corpse like that?

J C

aaakev wrote: »

Some "Pro lifers" imo are the most vile human beings the way they treat people who have made the very tough decision to have an abortion. Its not an easy choise to make but for that person at that particular time in their lives its the best decision for them and is no one elses business.

I have nothing but absolute compassion for any woman who has had an abortion.
However, a decision to kill is always other people's business ... and the reason why abortion isn't an easy decision is precisely because it kills much more than merely a 'cluster of cells' as aborion advocates sometimes term it.

aaakev wrote: »

If you think its morally wrong to have one thats perfectly fine, dont have one but dont try make a woman who already feels terrible feel worse.

I have no wish to make anybody feel any worse than they are already feeling ... far from it, I want to assure any woman who has had an abortion, that Jesus loves her and will forgive her, if she asks Him to do so.
I also have to ask myself why women who have abortions feel terrible about is, as you say ... and surely minimising the number of women who have had abortions will also minimise the number of women feeling terrible about having done so ... when they could have the life-affirming experience of bringing their child to term.

aaakev wrote: »

Its probably among the hardest decision they will make in their lives and it will affect most greatly for a long time but that does not take away from the fact that its their best choice at the time

I have no wish to make anybody feel worse than they already do ... but I do have to point out that a much easier decision would be to bring the baby to term ... and this will also not affect them afterwards, like abortion does, with many women, as you say.

aaakev wrote: »

Imo it should be available as it is in the uk for anyone who needs it

So you want something that hurts many women and kills their children ... I don't see any logic or compassion in such a position.

J C

frag420 wrote: »

What positions would you suggest for really safe sex?

How would not providing condoms to drunks make sex safer?

The same way as taking car keys off drunks, who approach cars to drive will make them and everybody else safer ... by stopping them driving. Of course, if they are really determined, they will drive even after you give them a lift home ... but the law cannot account for complete idocy !!!
Similarly, two drunk people may have sex anyway, even without a condom ... but Society shouldn't be saying that drink and condoms are a good mix by making both available in pubs !!!

Safe sex implies sex between trusting sober adults in a stable long-term relationship who aren't impaired by drink or drugs ... not jumping into bed with somebody they know nothing about, including their sexual history, after their inhibitions have been lowered by a few pints ... and readily available condoms in the pub jax.

Kiwi in IE

J C wrote: »

I have nothing but absolute compassion for any woman who has had an abortion.

Really? I thought you believed that abortion was murder? Do you have 'nothing but absolute sympathy and compassion' for all murderers, regardless of the circumstance? What if she doesn't regret the abortion or feel any remorse and maintains that she made the right decision?

Would you feel 'nothing but absolute sympathy and compassion' for someone who intentionally killed a 5 year old child in a playground, didn't regret it or feel any remorse, and maintains that they are glad that they killed the 5 child?

We're talking about the same thing here after all aren't we? The woman who has had the abortion is the same as the person who murders a 5 year old child?

Not really the same thing at all though is it JC?

J C

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

Should we deny medical treatment to people who crash when driving? They knew there was a risk of getting in an accident. If you are going to drive you need to accept the consequences.

Of course we should provide medical treatment to anybody who is ill or injured ... however, pregnancy is neither an illness nor an injury ... and abortion isn't any form of medical treatment for the child involved.

Overheal

J C wrote: »

The same way as taking car keys off drunks, who approach cars to drive will make them and everybody else safer ... by stopping them driving. Of course, if they are really determined, they will drive even after you give them a lift home ... but the law cannot account for complete idocy !!!
Similarly, two drunk people may have sex anyway, even without a condom ... but Society shouldn't be saying that drink and condoms are a good mix by making both available in pubs !!!

Safe sex implies sex between trusting sober adults in a stable long-term relationship who aren't impaired by drink or drugs ... not jumping into bed with somebody they know nothing about, including their sexual history, after their inhibitions have been lowered by a few pints ... and readily available condoms in the pub jax.

You're conflating 2 different things: one, is an additive example where the addition of a vehicle and drunk driving creates a situation which commonly involves multiple casualties.

the other is a subtractive example where the exclusion of a contraceptive results in an unplanned pregnancy.

The two are almost wholly unrelated, except that you wish to cling to 'alcohol' as the leading problem. Are we to ban alcohol?

J C

Overheal wrote: »

well, no, because acknowledging someone could have chosen to abort your fetal state would simply cause you to appreciate your life proportionately more. I myself am rather thankful the sperm and egg that bore me happened. That doesn't itself mean I don't acknowledge that sometimes reality is not so rose petal and the choice must be there for those circumstances.

Either you are happy that you should have been aborted or you're not.
You don't seem to be happy about being killed ... so why would you support any law that allowed you to be killed?

Kiwi in IE

J C wrote: »

Of course we should provide medical treatment to anybody who is ill or injured ... however, pregnancy is neither an illness nor an injury ... and abortion isn't any form of medical treatment for the child involved.

Well it is really, because if there is a child involved in any abortion scenario, she has clearly been the victim of sexual assault/abuse.

Kiwi in IE

J C wrote: »

Either you are happy that you should have been aborted or you're not.

I'm happy that I could have been aborted if my mother had chosen to do so. What is the point you are trying to make here?

J C

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Really? I thought you believed that abortion was murder? Do you have 'nothing but absolute sympathy and compassion' for all murderers, regardless of the circumstance? What if she doesn't regret the abortion or feel any remorse and maintains that she made the right decision?

I never said that women who have abortion are murderers ... they clearly aren't murderers as the law declares abortion as an exception to murder.
I have absolute sympathy and compassion for all sinners, including those who don't repent of their sin ... they have to live with the results of their sin.

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Would you feel 'nothing but absolute sympathy and compassion' for someone who intentionally killed a 5 year old child in a playground, didn't regret it or feel any remorse, and maintains that they are glad that they killed the 5 child?

I have absolute sympathy and compassion for all sinners ... of course, society needs to be protected from people who kill other people. People who do so coldly and without remorse are sometimes especially dangerous people. The appropriate punishment should therefore be applied by the courts for such offenses.

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

We're talking about the same thing here after all aren't we? The woman who has had the abortion is the same as the person who murders a 5 year old child?

Morally speaking, she is ... legally speaking, she isn't.
Would it make it any morally better if she killed a one year old?
... or a newborn?
... or a pre-born?
Of course, in mitigation, the actual killing in abortion is not done by the woman herself ... she merely consents to it by a third party ... and it is legally sanctioned in many juristictions.

J C

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I'm happy that I could have been aborted if my mother had chosen to do so. What is the point you are trying to make here?

You don't seem to be happy about being killed ... so why would you support any law that allowed you to be killed?
How can you logically say that you would have been happy for your mother to have you killed, if you don't want to be killed?

J C

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Well it is really, because if there is a child involved in any abortion scenario, she has clearly been the victim of sexual assault/abuse.

... and now your 'solution' is to further violate her with an abortion?

Kev W

J C wrote: »

... and now your 'solution' is to further violate her with an abortion?

How is it a violation if it's what she wants? Is it not a violation to force her to give birth?

Kiwi in IE

J C wrote: »

I never said that women who have abortion are murderers ... they clearly aren't murderers as the law declares abortion as an exception to murder.



Morally speaking, she is ... legally speaking, she isn't.
Would it make it any morally better if she killed a one year old?
... or a newborn?
... or a pre-born?
Of course, in mitigation, the actual killing in abortion is not done by the woman herself ... she merely consents to it by a third party ... and it is legally sanctioned in many juristictions.

How do you feel about the morning after pill JC?

Does the law in Ireland make an exception? Foetus has 'equal right to life' does it not? Equal right to life to all born people. Therefore killing a foetus should be considered the same as murder under Irish law should it not? Since you assert that life begins at conception, should the morning after pill should also be viewed in the same light?

Why do you think the law in most western countries allows for abortion but not the killing of newborns or one year olds?

Morally speaking according to who? You?

I think it's 'immoral' (although I prefer the term unethical) to force women to continue with a pregnancy when they don't want to be pregnant.

The Randy Riverbeast

J C wrote: »

Of course we should provide medical treatment to anybody who is ill or injured ... however, pregnancy is neither an illness nor an injury ... and abortion isn't any form of medical treatment for the child involved.

But pregnancy can lead to illness or injury. Abortion would prevent these.

For a group who claims to consider the woman and child equal there is a lot of glossing over the health of the mother.

Overheal

J C wrote: »

Either you are happy that you should have been aborted or you're not.
You don't seem to be happy about being killed ... so why would you support any law that allowed you to be killed?

Clearly you're both oversimplifying the issue and narrowly shutting out room for other ideologies than yours.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

... and now your 'solution' is to further violate her with an abortion?

And removing her choice to have (or not) an abortion wouldn't further compound any problems that have arisen due to not having control of her body?

Kiwi in IE

J C wrote: »

... and now your 'solution' is to further violate her with an abortion?

Perhaps she would feel more violated by spending nine months being forced to grow a foetus implanted in her body by her assailant, than she would by having an abortion. Hence why she should have a choice.

La Fenetre

Delirium wrote: »

Personally, viability is where I wouldn't be comfortable allow abortion at (or after). It's currently 26 weeks for a >90% viability rate.

How did you come up with only respecting a human life that has 90% viability ? What happens when you get sick and your life drops to 89% viability ? Should we bump you off to save some taxpayers money ?

How did you decide that a human life should only be respected at 26.0 weeks but not 25 weeks ?

This child below is shown at 25 weeks, and was given on a 30% chance of viability and yet lives her life today. Why should she have been aborted ?

Delirium wrote: »

Given that most countries with legal abortion have the majority of the abortions happen under 13 weeks, I'd allow for it without restriction.

On what grounds ? Again how did you decide a human life should only be respected at 13 weeks and not 12 weeks ?

Delirium wrote: »

How's it moral relativism? I don't have a time machine so I can't say I'm okay for someone to abort me

But why is ok to terminate another human life with abortion ?

Delirium wrote: »

I don't support infanticide as the child can be placed with a responsible adult for care if the parent(s) can no longer care for it.

So why do you advocate for someone's abortion instead of their adoption ?

Delirium wrote: »

A fertilised egg and 20 year old person with a mental/physical impairment are two very different entities.

Would you also advocate for their abortion ?

Delirium wrote: »

actually, forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term against her wishes would be considered immoral by a lot of people.

But taking another human life is better option ?

frag420 wrote: »

@ JC/Fenetre/Cattolico (when ever you come out of hiding)..a question for you all...

If my neighbour decides tomorrow morning that she wants and abortion......how will this affect you? Will it prevent you from working? Will it prevent you from caring for your family? Will it really affect you in any way? Now I have asked this before and did not get an answer so perhaps one of you would be decent enough as to answer this question!!

Lots of acts don't affect the people they are not carried out on.
Why should that be the basis for being ok to harm another human life ?

frag420 wrote: »

You do realise that women can die as a result of pregnancy/childbirth? Somewhat patronising to refer to it as an "inconvenience".

So is killing a child in the womb

frag420 wrote: »

Indeed, we only recently had a deceased womans body hooked up to a machine in an attempt to continue the pregnancy
. How is it moral to do that and not allow the family bury her?

Why is it moral to kill her child in the womb, so a dead person can be buried earlier ?

Delirium wrote: »

So you reject the concept of personhood?

No, define "personhood" for us, when it begins, and how you came up with when it does.

Kev W wrote: »

How is it a violation if it's what she wants?

What about the other human life, why is it ok to violate it ?

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

But pregnancy can lead to illness or injury. Abortion would prevent these.

For a group who claims to consider the woman and child equal there is a lot of glossing over the health of the mother.

Exactly what illness or injury is abortion the only cure for ? and why is it ok to take someone else's, life to cure someone else ?

eviltwin

J C wrote: »

... and ironically, the people who can least cope with children are the ones who have the most children ... and don't have abortions.
The eugenics movement of the 1930s had somewhat similar views to your posting ... they thought that the people who were having the most children were 'wrong' people to do so ... and they also bemoaned the fact that the self-termed 'top of society' weren't having enough children.
Their solution was to make contraception and abortion as widely available as possible to what they considered to be the 'lower classes' in society ... and to encourage the 'upper classes' to spread their genetics far and wide through Artificial Insemination and larger families.
Suffices to say it had no moral basis.

Dial down the crazy there JC, I am not advocating eugenics or supporting the idea of pushing abortion or adoption on anyone but good try