Sanctity of Life (Abortion Megathread)

ABC101

Any body find it ironic that at the top of the page is a advert, CASA..court appointed social services.

Lift up her voice, her life...give abused and neglected children a voice...yours.

robdonn

ABC101 wrote: »

Sorry to hear about your friends and the raw chicken.

I will pass on your sympathies. :P

ABC101 wrote: »

However it's not just about experiences...these abortion experiences have very serious real life consequences.

Yes they do, very serious real life consequences for the woman. Which is why some doctors try to help alleviate some of the pain felt by the woman by saying that the foetus inside her is just a "ball of cells".

ABC101 wrote: »

Abortion is a deathly experience for a unborn baby human.

The point at which the vast majority of abortions are carried out means that the unborn baby human has had no experience whatsoever, neither good nor bad. Most abortions take place within the first 13 weeks, during this time there is no scientific evidence that the foetus feels pain or even has any recognisable level of conciousness.

robdonn

ABC101 wrote: »

Any body find it ironic that at the top of the page is a advert, CASA..court appointed social services.

Lift up her voice, her life...give abused and neglected children a voice...yours.

I wouldn't know, I use ad blockers. :P

MrPudding

robdonn wrote: »

But that's all that they are, experiences. Of course people can become upset at the sight of an aborted foetus, people get upset at the site of dead bodies in general. I have friends who gag when they touch raw chicken.

A guy knocked our door the other night cradling a cat that had been run over and mortally injured, that upset me, a lot more than I would have expected. I would not be queuing up to see aborted foetuses or balls of cells.

I have quite a simple view on this. First of all, I am pro-choice, but I am not pro-abortion. I look forward to the day where medical science has advanced to the point where contraception is 100% effective, kind of like fertility being turned on or off as required, and this is available to all. At the same time, I would like to see medical science to advance to the point where an unwanted foetus could be safely removed from the womb and allowed to develop artificially. I would also hope that by that time too society will have advanced to the level that would allow these parentless children to be raised in a loving and caring environment.

So, my view. I support a woman's right to have an abortion, for any reason, up to 14 weeks. Don't care what the reason is. She doesn't want to look fat on the beach in Marbs in the summer, fine.

Between 14 weeks and 21 weeks I would support a more restrictive regime. Reason like risk to life or health of the mother, FFA, rape etc. I would not be support of the so-called "life style" abortions.

As I type this I am thinking should it be 14 weeks plus rather than 14 to 21... I believe that abortions should be available at any time for risk to the life or health of the other as well as FFA. But at the same time, it is feasible that a woman who had been the victim of rape or incest might not have had a chance to get to a doctor before 14 weeks, she should still be allowed an abortion, is she so chooses.

Clearly, if the foetus is viable the preference should be for an early delivery, so long as that is not detrimental to the rights of the woman. Whilst I would prefer there were no abortions I believe a woman should have the right to have one if she thinks it is the right thing for her, in the early stages and under more restrictive conditions later in the pregnancy.

With respect to the rights of the unborn, I deal with this quite simply. I don't actually care if it is a ball of cells, an innocent baby, a foetus, a human or a human being. For me that is irrelevant. I only care about the woman and her right to do with her body what she wants. The rights of the born trump the rights of the unborn. Yes, that does make me a little uncomfortable at times, I genuinely don't like abortion, but sometime principles do make one a little uncomfortable.

MrP

ABC101

robdonn wrote: »

The point at which the vast majority of abortions are carried out means that the unborn baby human has had no experience whatsoever, neither good nor bad. Most abortions take place within the first 13 weeks, during this time there is no scientific evidence that the foetus feels pain or even has any recognisable level of conciousness.

Imagine I put you to death..... in a painless manner.

Would it be justified?

Of course not.

Just because a fetus is aborted early..... and perhaps feels no pain (not proven).....does not justify it.

Even if you were to be scientifically / medically correct.... the fetus does not feel pain in a early stage abortion.

The principle still stands..... you are snuffing out a human life. You are denying the possibility of that baby being born... and developing into a adult.


You don't seem to be willing to consider the perspective of the unborn? If I may..... I would ask you to consider this perspective.

Kev W

ABC101 wrote: »

Imagine I put you to death..... in a painless manner.

Would it be justified?

Of course not.

Just because a fetus is aborted early..... and perhaps feels no pain (not proven).....does not justify it.

Even if you were to be scientifically / medically correct.... the fetus does not feel pain in a early stage abortion.

The principle still stands..... you are snuffing out a human life. You are denying the possibility of that baby being born... and developing into a adult.


You don't seem to be willing to consider the perspective of the unborn? If I may..... I would ask you to consider this perspective.

The unborn, by definition, have no perspective.

ABC101

Kev W wrote: »

The unborn, by definition, have no perspective.

You seem to be ignoring the facts of the situation.

A full term baby is about 38 weeks of gestational age.

With proper medical care... a baby human is viable from 24 weeks.... and perhaps in some cases (rare) 21 weeks, but it is a bit of a grey area and does vary.

So you would consider a viable human fetus as having no perspective at all.... even if they are viable to live after 24 - 25 weeks....

Would you say what you have written to a parents whose child was born prematurely..... and is lying in a incubator struggling to survive in the Rotunda hospital?

Word of advice.... I would not recommend it.

Delirium

ABC101 wrote: »

You seem to be ignoring the facts of the situation.

A full term baby is about 38 weeks of gestational age.

With proper medical care... a baby human is viable from 24 weeks.... and perhaps in some cases (rare) 21 weeks, but it is a bit of a grey area and does vary.

So you would consider a viable human fetus as having no perspective at all.... even if they are viable to live after 24 - 25 weeks....

Would you say what you have written to a parents whose child was born prematurely..... and is lying in a incubator struggling to survive in the Rotunda hospital?

Word of advice.... I would not recommend it.

How does a 1 week old foetus have a perspective?

ABC101

Delirium wrote: »

How does a 1 week old foetus have a perspective?

How can the unborn Not have a perspective...?

If abortion advocates / pro choice campaigners are going to advance their argument / get the law changed.... then is it not incumbent upon them to offer evidence / reasoning for the law to be changed / altered?

We seem to be on a long list of words here...

Aborting a fetus is justified because..

Its not human,
Its just a ball of cells,
It does not feel pain,
It does not have a perspective..
It does not think..

it does not have Z
it does not have Z1

and so on ad infinitum....

But the principle still stands..... abortion prevents a viable genetically 100% human developing into an adult who will hopefully reach old age.

Kev W

ABC101 wrote: »

You seem to be ignoring the facts of the situation.

A full term baby is about 38 weeks of gestational age.

With proper medical care... a baby human is viable from 24 weeks.... and perhaps in some cases (rare) 21 weeks, but it is a bit of a grey area and does vary.

So you would consider a viable human fetus as having no perspective at all.... even if they are viable to live after 24 - 25 weeks....

Would you say what you have written to a parents whose child was born prematurely..... and is lying in a incubator struggling to survive in the Rotunda hospital?

Word of advice.... I would not recommend it.

My mistake, what I meant was that a fetus with an undeveloped brain has no perspective. It is not yet sapient. Apologies for the confusion, which is entirely my fault.

robdonn

ABC101 wrote: »

How can the unborn Not have a perspective...?

If abortion advocates / pro choice campaigners are going to advance their argument / get the law changed.... then is it not incumbent upon them to offer evidence / reasoning for the law to be changed / altered?

Since we are trying to repeal a law, would it not stand that anyone in support the law should justify it's existence?

ABC101 wrote: »

We seem to be on a long list of words here...

Aborting a fetus is justified because..

Its not human,
Its just a ball of cells,
It does not feel pain,
It does not have a perspective..
It does not think..

it does not have Z
it does not have Z1

and so on ad infinitum....

It is a human.
Up to a certain stage, it is a ball of cells.
There is no evidence that it feels pain.
There is no evidence that it has conciousness, therefore no perspective.
There is no evidence that it can think.

ABC101 wrote: »

But the principle still stands..... abortion prevents a viable genetically 100% human developing into an adult who will hopefully reach old age.

Except for a foetus with FFA which stands almost no chance of surviving the first few minutes outside of the womb, if even that.

Delirium

ABC101 wrote: »

How can the unborn Not have a perspective...?

If abortion advocates / pro choice campaigners are going to advance their argument / get the law changed.... then is it not incumbent upon them to offer evidence / reasoning for the law to be changed / altered?

We seem to be on a long list of words here...

Aborting a fetus is justified because..

Its not human,
Its just a ball of cells,
It does not feel pain,
It does not have a perspective..
It does not think..

it does not have Z
it does not have Z1

and so on ad infinitum....

But the principle still stands..... abortion prevents a viable genetically 100% human developing into an adult who will hopefully reach old age.

When someone says to consider X from anothers perspective, it's usually to get someone to think if they were in that position.

A 1 one week old foetus has not developed any organs, nervous system or brain. It has no way of experiencing reality. It may never develop into a human being depending on how the pregnancy goes. Yet you say that a woman shouldn't be allowed abort that foetus.

Making abortions illegal doesn't stop abortions, it just means that women will either avail of illegal abortion services or try to force an abortion/miscarriage. The result of which is both woman and foetus die in many cases.

Now short of strapping pregnant women to beds for 9 months, how do you propose to resolve that problem?

ABC101

Delirium wrote: »

When someone says to consider X from anothers perspective, it's usually to get someone to think if they were in that position.

A 1 one week old foetus has not developed any organs, nervous system or brain. It has no way of experiencing reality. It may never develop into a human being depending on how the pregnancy goes. Yet you say that a woman shouldn't be allowed abort that foetus.

Making abortions illegal doesn't stop abortions, it just means that women will either avail of illegal abortion services or try to force an abortion/miscarriage. The result of which is both woman and foetus die in many cases.

Now short of strapping pregnant women to beds for 9 months, how do you propose to resolve that problem?

Yes, and we have all being in that position. Each one of us has developed from a fertilised egg. At some stage, we had no brain, but we had the genetic code to create one, and we all grew one fairly quickly.

I understand your point about perspectives and others shoes...but we have all been there and done that. We were all unborn at the earliest stage of our development.

At our earliest stage of development, we have been in the position that a unborn child is today.

Your point about not having brains or organs etc....but if nature is allowed to take its course, very soon the unborn will have all those things. Within 24 weeks it is viable for life outside the womb ( with medical assistance of course).

I agree with your point about making abortions illegal not stopping all abortions. People will just get on a plane instead.

But it's the same for many things, laws about drug abuse, robbery, exceeding the speed limit, drunken behaviour in public etc etc don't stop these things happening. You can ban prostitution, but people can get on a plane to Amsterdam instead.

But if we repealed these laws....what would happen? Well in all probability...we would have a lot more of these behaviours.

We have laws for a reason, invariably it is to protect members of the public, but it is also to provide guidance, and promote standards.

How would I deal with the problem.....good question!

I believe.....most women require emotional support when they get pregnant. Unfortunately we live in a very judgemental corrosive caustic world. And as such a woman may feel she is unable to go through with a pregnancy due to lack of support from a spouse or family member.

I know of one brave girl whose mother threw her out of the family home, against the fathers wishes too. The daughter was given a choice, either get an abortion or get out. The mother was not kidding either because that is what happened. Fortunately the father and parents of the father were supportive and helped her through it.

On this very site on Sunday...I think... I happened to chance upon the anonymous thread. A woman had posted in annomously requesting advice. She had booked an abortion this week and was travelling abroad, she could be there right now!

But she wrote openly and honestly about her situation, separated from the husband, running two houses, two children already, career starting to get going, a busy year ahead with various commitments etc etc. Apparently she is still sort of with the ex husband and they had a fling one night. There could even be hope of the marriage getting back together in the future.

But she said she just could not face going through it again without the emotional support. It's not a case she could not do it, or can't do it....she just required support emotionally, somebody to tell her she is doing a great job.

I'm not sure if the thread is still there...but if it is I'd recommend going to have a read of it, it's only a few pages long, perhaps two or three.

My attitude is to offer more support for women, teach more kindness and understanding in school so that we have a more respectful future society. Improve family supports. This can be done in many ways, but I dare say it there is an enormous pressure on families / couples today.

Adoption....pregnancy is only for 38 weeks, for the first 12 weeks a woman may not even look pregnant, she can still do many things perfectly normally.

It's only in the later stages that the pregnancy becomes physically hard. But once the child is born it could be offered for adoption.

There are hundreds of infertile couples in Ireland who are on adoption lists. They have been vetted and vetted and vetted by Tusala. They are more than willing to take a baby and treat it as their own flesh and blood.

The great thing about adoption....is that it can be as short as 20 years, as tracing birth parents / birth siblings is much more common and acceptable today, in fact it's perfectly normal. With computer records it's so much easier too.

There is probably a lot more we could do....but that is just the start from my perspective.

ABC101

robdonn wrote: »

Since we are trying to repeal a law, would it not stand that anyone in support the law should justify it's existence?



It is a human.
Up to a certain stage, it is a ball of cells.
There is no evidence that it feels pain.
There is no evidence that it has conciousness, therefore no perspective.
There is no evidence that it can think.



Except for a foetus with FFA which stands almost no chance of surviving the first few minutes outside of the womb, if even that.

FFA is extremely rare. Yes it can and does occur, but you are talking about very low numbers.

Of those parents who are informed that their baby has a life limiting condition, very few chose to have an abortion. So you are talking about a very small % of an already small %.

I prefer the answers given here...

http://www.prolifeinfo.ie/women/medical-matters/a-fatal-abnormality/

If my baby was diagnosed with FFA, I would still treat it as my own, cherish it for those few hours or days or weeks.

The point made about hospice / palliative car is well made in the above article too.

Delirium

ABC101 wrote: »

Yes, and we have all being in that position. Each one of us has developed from a fertilised egg. At some stage, we had no brain, but we had the genetic code to create one, and we all grew one fairly quickly.

We developed from a foetus. But there was no 'we/I/you' at 1 week, there was a precursor to what would become a human being.

I understand your point about perspectives and others shoes...but we have all been there and done that. We were all unborn at the earliest stage of our development.

You didn't understand the point if you thought the message was 'actually we were never a foetus'. The point was that the thing that makes you 'you' or me 'me' didn't exist at 1 week.

At our earliest stage of development, we have been in the position that a unborn child is today.

Your point about not having brains or organs etc....but if nature is allowed to take its course, very soon the unborn will have all those things. Within 24 weeks it is viable for life outside the womb ( with medical assistance of course).

Again, not disputing the biology of human reproduction/development. Merely challenging the assertion that a 1 week foetus is a human being.

I agree with your point about making abortions illegal not stopping all abortions. People will just get on a plane instead.

But it's the same for many things, laws about drug abuse, robbery, exceeding the speed limit, drunken behaviour in public etc etc don't stop these things happening. You can ban prostitution, but people can get on a plane to Amsterdam instead.

But if it's 'killing a human being' then surely pregnant women shouldn't be allowed leave the country to safeguard the unborn?

But if we repealed these laws....what would happen? Well in all probability...we would have a lot more of these behaviours.

We know that something like 5,000 women have abortions annually. All the law does is stop poorer women from having abortions and to make it more of an ordeal for those that can afford to travel.

We have laws for a reason, invariably it is to protect members of the public, but it is also to provide guidance, and promote standards.

and yet this law doesn't protect women. It actually requires them to be in a position where there life is at risk before an abortion can be provided.

How would I deal with the problem.....good question!

I believe.....most women require emotional support when they get pregnant. Unfortunately we live in a very judgemental corrosive caustic world. And as such a woman may feel she is unable to go through with a pregnancy due to lack of support from a spouse or family member.

And we equally have some people who would throw around terms like genocide with regard to women having abortions. The problem is that support only seems to be offered by some parties as long as it's a choice they agree with, e.g. not having an abortion.

I know of one brave girl whose mother threw her out of the family home, against the fathers wishes too. The daughter was given a choice, either get an abortion or get out. The mother was not kidding either because that is what happened. Fortunately the father and parents of the father were supportive and helped her through it.

The mother wasn't supporting the daughter, she was issuing an ultimatum. The girl should have had the freedom to choose not to have an abortion. If the girl wanted an abortion and the mother was stopping her, would you still be as supportive to the girl?

On this very site on Sunday...I think... I happened to chance upon the anonymous thread. A woman had posted in annomously requesting advice. She had booked an abortion this week and was travelling abroad, she could be there right now!

But she wrote openly and honestly about her situation, separated from the husband, running two houses, two children already, career starting to get going, a busy year ahead with various commitments etc etc. Apparently she is still sort of with the ex husband and they had a fling one night. There could even be hope of the marriage getting back together in the future.

But she said she just could not face going through it again without the emotional support. It's not a case she could not do it, or can't do it....she just required support emotionally, somebody to tell her she is doing a great job.

I'm not sure if the thread is still there...but if it is I'd recommend going to have a read of it, it's only a few pages long, perhaps two or three.

And that's a valid reason as any to have an abortion. It's up to the woman to decide if she wants to go through with it.

Is it better to deny her abortion even when she's stated she wouldn't be able to do it if the father of the child isn't going to be involved/supportive?

My attitude is to offer more support for women, teach more kindness and understanding in school so that we have a more respectful future society. Improve family supports. This can be done in many ways, but I dare say it there is an enormous pressure on families / couples today.

And how does that resolve the problem of an unwanted pregnancy? A woman is pregnant and doesn't want to have a child, how does post-birth support give her what she wants?

You're working through this idea that women don't actually want to terminate the pregnancy and it's just a question of support structures. This is viewing all women who want to have an abortion as being in the same mould. That rarely is the case.

Contraceptives might have failed and the woman has a good support structure but just doesn't want kids. She just wants an abortion.

Adoption....pregnancy is only for 38 weeks, for the first 12 weeks a woman may not even look pregnant, she can still do many things perfectly normally.

It's only in the later stages that the pregnancy becomes physically hard. But once the child is born it could be offered for adoption.

There are hundreds of infertile couples in Ireland who are on adoption lists. They have been vetted and vetted and vetted by Tusala. They are more than willing to take a baby and treat it as their own flesh and blood.

The great thing about adoption....is that it can be as short as 20 years, as tracing birth parents / birth siblings is much more common and acceptable today, in fact it's perfectly normal. With computer records it's so much easier too.

There is probably a lot more we could do....but that is just the start from my perspective.

Adoption doesn't solve the problem of an unwanted pregnancy, adoption is a result of an unwanted baby. If women just didn't want the babies then abortions would be almost nil. But they don't want to be pregnant/ carry it to term.

ABC101

Delirium wrote: »

We developed from a foetus. But there was no 'we/I/you' at 1 week, there was a precursor to what would become a human being.

You didn't understand the point if you thought the message was 'actually we were never a foetus'. The point was that the thing that makes you 'you' or me 'me' didn't exist at 1 week.

Again, not disputing the biology of human reproduction/development. Merely challenging the assertion that a 1 week foetus is a human being.

But if it's 'killing a human being' then surely pregnant women shouldn't be allowed leave the country to safeguard the unborn?

We know that something like 5,000 women have abortions annually. All the law does is stop poorer women from having abortions and to make it more of an ordeal for those that can afford to travel.

and yet this law doesn't protect women. It actually requires them to be in a position where there life is at risk before an abortion can be provided.

And we equally have some people who would throw around terms like genocide with regard to women having abortions. The problem is that support only seems to be offered by some parties as long as it's a choice they agree with, e.g. not having an abortion.

The mother wasn't supporting the daughter, she was issuing an ultimatum. The girl should have had the freedom to choose not to have an abortion. If the girl wanted an abortion and the mother was stopping her, would you still be as supportive to the girl?

And that's a valid reason as any to have an abortion. It's up to the woman to decide if she wants to go through with it.

Is it better to deny her abortion even when she's stated she wouldn't be able to do it if the father of the child isn't going to be involved/supportive?

And how does that resolve the problem of an unwanted pregnancy? A woman is pregnant and doesn't want to have a child, how does post-birth support give her what she wants?

You're working through this idea that women don't actually want to terminate the pregnancy and it's just a question of support structures. This is viewing all women who want to have an abortion as being in the same mould. That rarely is the case.

Contraceptives might have failed and the woman has a good support structure but just doesn't want kids. She just wants an abortion.


Adoption doesn't solve the problem of an unwanted pregnancy, adoption is a result of an unwanted baby. If women just didn't want the babies then abortions would be almost nil. But they don't want to be pregnant/ carry it to term.

I've written my perspective on abortion, and where the concept of a person actually existing at fertilisation is not accepted, abortion can be implemented at any stage.

It's just moveable goal posts.... its not a baby human until its first cry was the mantra in the former Yugoslavia, to its not human because it can't think or hold a perspective or what ever.

Not human because it is not wanted, which is the main reason... as abortion is seen as the ultimate contraceptive.

Rather than raking over the coals again and again... I'll leave you have the last word.

robdonn

ABC101 wrote: »

... as abortion is seen as the ultimate contraceptive.

Not to sound too repetitive here but nobody believes that abortion is any form of contraception. It is the course of action taken, in some cases, when contraception fails.

========================

I'll probably be off the boards for a few days (family obligations, apparently having my head buried in a laptop screen is not socialising!) so I'll talk to you all later.

Merry Christmas everyone!

cattolico

So FG/LB want to hold a 3rd Referendum. If you are pro-life who can we vote for? What is FF position on abortion?

The Randy Riverbeast

cattolico wrote: »

So FG/LB want to hold a 3rd Referendum. If you are pro-life who can we vote for? What is FF position on abortion?

They have nothing to fear, an appeal would never pass, right?

I dont see what the problem is, it will fail and the pro life people can show they want Ireland to continue with its current abortion laws. If it doesn't fail then it is what the majority wants. Welcome to democracy!

robdonn

cattolico wrote: »

So FG/LB want to hold a 3rd Referendum. If you are pro-life who can we vote for? What is FF position on abortion?

Why would it matter if there was a referendum?

Absolam

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

They have nothing to fear, an appeal would never pass, right?

I dont see what the problem is, it will fail and the pro life people can show they want Ireland to continue with its current abortion laws. If it doesn't fail then it is what the majority wants. Welcome to democracy!

Though of course if the Amendment is retained there will be some railing at the tyranny of the majority

Absolam

robdonn wrote: »

Why would it matter if there was a referendum?

Tactically if you're pro Amendment it makes sense to avoid a referendum; if FF don't want to hold a 3rd referendum then it would make sense to vote for them rather than FG/LB. No?

MrPudding

Absolam wrote: »

Tactically if you're pro Amendment it makes sense to avoid a referendum; if FF don't want to hold a 3rd referendum then it would make sense to vote for them rather than FG/LB. No?

I think the comment was probably aimed more at the attitude that "Ireland will never agree to remove the amendment" that we see quite a lot. So whilst you are quite correct, the right move, tactically, is to try to avoid a referendum, if people continually claim that there will never be a successful vote to remove it, then they leave themselves open to suggestions to put their money where their mouth is.

MrP

PopePalpatine

Looks like Fianna Failure have to go to Tom Monaghan with the begging bowl. :pac:

robdonn

MrPudding wrote: »

I think the comment was probably aimed more at the attitude that "Ireland will never agree to remove the amendment" that we see quite a lot. So whilst you are quite correct, the right move, tactically, is to try to avoid a referendum, if people continually claim that there will never be a successful vote to remove it, then they leave themselves open to suggestions to put their money where their mouth is.

MrP

Yeah, what he said.

Absolam

MrPudding wrote: »

I think the comment was probably aimed more at the attitude that "Ireland will never agree to remove the amendment" that we see quite a lot. So whilst you are quite correct, the right move, tactically, is to try to avoid a referendum, if people continually claim that there will never be a successful vote to remove it, then they leave themselves open to suggestions to put their money where their mouth is.
MrP

Sure... but the obvious answer is why would you even bother testing whether you're right when you already have what you want. Unless you want to prove you're right more than you want to restrict access to abortion, and whilst there are probably a few people like that out there, I doubt there are many.

applehunter

eviltwin wrote: »

http://worldabortionlaws.com/

The abortion map shows in red the countries with the most restrictive abortion laws, orange is abortion is certain circumstances and green is on demand....we have some interesting company on team red and we stick out like a sore thumb compared to the rest of Europe

Others would say we are a beacon.

robdonn

applehunter wrote: »

Others would say we are a beacon.

A beacon calling out "We disregard the human rights of women!"

Absolam

robdonn wrote: »

A beacon calling out "We disregard the human rights of women!"

Or a beacon saying "Whilst we have regard for the human rights of women, we also acknowledge the human rights of the unborn." A matter of perspective I suppose

robdonn

Absolam wrote: »

Or a beacon saying "Whilst we have regard for the human rights of women, we also acknowledge the human rights of the unborn." A matter of perspective I suppose

True, perspective. How about "We hold the single right that we recognise for the unborn above all of the rights recognised for the born."