Abortion should be legalised in Ireland

Victor

Originally posted by mike65
the public could have voted not to allow pregnant women the right to travel outside the state in the last referendum.

But they didn't. Most proposals put to referendum are passed, thats why it was put to referendum.

Re-used numbers are marked in round brackets ()
3rd(1) [voting system - abolition of PRSTV voting] ammendment was rejected 21:20 at referendum
3rd(2) [constituency boundaries] ammendment was rejected 3:2 at referendum
4th(1) [voting system - abolition of PRSTV voting] ammendment was rejected 3:2 at referendum
10th(1) [dissolution of marriage] ammendment was rejected 2:1 at referendum
12th [abortion - Right to Life] ammendment was rejected 2:1 at referendum
25th(2) [abortion] ammendment is the current proposal

Separately:
3rd(3) [European Communities] passed
22nd [judges] ammendment was rejected in the Dail
25th(1) [miltary alliances] ammendment was rejected in the Dail

So of about 28 referendums, 23 have passed.

mike65

I take your point Victor, but the mere fact it had to be made part of the 1992 referendum proposal is what alarmed me. The vote
as I recall was For right to travel - Aprox 66%. Against right to travel 33%, thats still a lot of facists out there!

In a couple of constituencies like North Cork a majority voted to prevent travel, one can only imagine how a frightened pregnant girl/woman would feel knowing those round her would at least in theory try and stop her freedom of movement.

Mike.

amp

Voted Yes.

I'll be voting no at the forthcoming referendum. If only to contribute in some small way to pissing off those Youth Defense Nazi's.

Now, I don't actually agree with terminating a human life that has gained sentience. So for imo abortion is only ethical if the foetus is only a couple of weeks old.

Anybody who harps on about "killing a human life" must feel terrible everytime they jack off or have a period. After all these too are potential human lifeforms! And using contraception! Even worse! The artificial act of keeping a sperm and egg apart for the pursuit of pleasure! WHAT ABOUT THE LITTLE BABY THAT HAS BEEN POTENTIALLY KILLED!?? MY GOD! JP2 IS RIGHT! I AM BORN AGAIN!

And to Justhalf I'd like to ask him to maybe try this experiment:

1. Stick a balloon up your arse and beat yourself up very violently.
2. Over the space of 9 months inflate said balloon.
3. Every single hour of every single day remind your self that the balloon up your arse was put there during a very violent and psychologically scarring event.
4. Attempt suicuide on occasion if feel so inclined.
5. Go through the excruciating pain of giving birth to balloon.
6. Go through yet more psychological scarring as you have to deal with giving away balloon.
7. Deal with the possiblity that balloon may somehow find you later in life and want to know who it's father is, why you gave it away, where to buy a puncture repair kit, etc.

Victor

Amp, I would be grateful if you wouldn't troll a serious topic. I find your tone in the first half of your post quite objectionable. That said, the second half is a novel way at looking at things.

Anybody who harps on about "killing a human life" must feel terrible everytime they jack off or have a period.

There is a big difference between 'actual' pregnancy and 'vaguely potential' pregnancy (after all in most case perhaps 3-6 eggs out of 300-400 are fertilised - lets not get into the statistic for sperm). Also sperm and eggs do not individually fulfill the criteria for life.

amp

Originally posted by Victor
Amp, I would be grateful if you wouldn't troll a serious topic. I find your tone in the first half of your post quite objectionable.

Ah go stick a balloon up yer arse! I'm not trolling! (tm Bubbles 1995-2002)

There is a big difference between 'actual' pregnancy and 'vaguely potential' pregnancy (after all in most case perhaps 3-6 eggs out of 300-400 are fertilised - lets not get into the statistic for sperm). Also sperm and eggs do not individually fulfill the criteria for life.

That's not the point, just because an egg is fertilised with a sperm doesn't automatically make it worthy of human rights imo. For the first couple of weeks a foetus has the a brain the size of a chicken and therefore I personally can't see how it could be self-aware let alone sentient.

And even if people object to a semi-aware human being terminated think about all the semi-aware lifeforms we kill relatively painlessly for food? What makes a human foetus so special? If it has the brain capacity and therefore the intelligence of an animal then if we assign it human rights then we have to assign any lifeform with similar traits human rights.

So logically we should all become vegans.

Now of course come the people that shout "WAAAAA! But a foetus has the capacity to become a fully functional human being!" Which leads me back to the whole area of contraception. A sperm and an egg have the capacity to become a fully functional human being, therefore using a condom is technically the equivilant of murder, because you're killing a potential human being.

Ah but no, the pro-lifers will say, the magically mysterious fertilisation thing happens which makes the sperm and egg into a lifeform.

Except it's not magically mysterious, it's biology. So I don't see the difference between preventing a sperm from contacting an egg and the termination of the combination of a sperm and egg before it becomes sentient.

chernobyl

How can anyone vote no?
Why should ppl especially a young woman have here life ended by a mistake, i think its a little unfair to expect someone to give up their life, just as its beginning because of a single mistake.
I have seen too many ppl in that situation,i dont know if they would have taken the abortion route if it had been available, but "pro choice" here, the option should be available, why must ireland cling to yeaterday, just like divorce, the option should be there.

As for the argument that once concieved, this microscopic "thing" equals a child and therefore is protected by a "right to life" act, get real, up until a decided date, divorce should not be an issue as the child is far from being recognisable and has not developed senses such a taste and touch etc.

Biffa Bacon

And that is the farce of Irish solutions to Irish problems...

Why?

What makes a human foetus so special? If it has the brain capacity and therefore the intelligence of an animal then if we assign it human rights then we have to assign any lifeform with similar traits human rights.

Because it is human life. Its rights are derived from that fact and not from its brain capacity or awareness.

How can anyone vote no?

Because abortion is the intentional destruction of human life.

Why should ppl especially a young woman have here life ended by a mistake, i think its a little unfair to expect someone to give up their life, just as its beginning because of a single mistake.

It doesn't have to be like that, there are other options available.

As for the argument that once concieved, this microscopic "thing" equals a child and therefore is protected by a "right to life" act, get real, up until a decided date, divorce should not be an issue as the child is far from being recognisable and has not developed senses such a taste and touch etc.

Do you not find it ethically troubling that the baby can have a right to life after a certain point but not before it? Especially given that any date you set will be pretty arbitrary.

JustHalf

Originally posted by Sand
I think were going down the wrong road. Those who disagree with abortion have every right to disagree with it. They dont have a right in my opinion to force their view on someone else.

Abortion forces the opinion of the mother on the child/foetus, regardless.

JustHalf

Originally posted by amp
And to Justhalf I'd like to ask him to maybe try this experiment:

1. Stick a balloon up your arse and beat yourself up very violently.
2. Over the space of 9 months inflate said balloon.
3. Every single hour of every single day remind your self that the balloon up your arse was put there during a very violent and psychologically scarring event.
4. Attempt suicuide on occasion if feel so inclined.
5. Go through the excruciating pain of giving birth to balloon.
6. Go through yet more psychological scarring as you have to deal with giving away balloon.
7. Deal with the possiblity that balloon may somehow find you later in life and want to know who it's father is, why you gave it away, where to buy a puncture repair kit, etc.

Or, you could kill the baby, who hasn't done anything wrong.

The severity of the rape and lasting consequences in no way justifies killing someone who has done nothing wrong. And, because it's impossible to know when this child becomes a seperate and distinct human being, it's better to err on the side of caution. The fact that some people believe that abortion is the best solution to pregnancies arising from rape is troubling, because their risking a childs life -- as NO-ONE KNOW'S WHEN IT BECOMES ALIVE AS OPPOSED TO EXISTING. If anyone does know (as opposed to making a judgment it based on size, which is ridiculous) I'd be glad to hear their argument.

With regards to your list of things to do, remember I'd have done this myself; so it's NOTHING like rape.

I'll be voting No, as all people should be... if you're for or against the legalisation of abortion, this proposed change to the constitution forces you to undermine your position almost entirely.

And for your vegan argument? I'm a vegetarian. Go figure.

Boston

Originally posted by chernobyl
How can anyone vote no?
Why should ppl especially a young woman have here life ended by a mistake, i think its a little unfair to expect someone to give up their life, just as its beginning because of a single mistake.
I have seen too many ppl in that situation,i dont know if they

who said life was fair, its fairly stupid to try and fix on mistake with another mistake

Typedef

Originally posted by amp


And even if people object to a semi-aware human being terminated think about all the semi-aware lifeforms we kill relatively painlessly for food? What makes a human foetus so special? If it has the brain capacity and therefore the intelligence of an animal then if we assign it human rights then we have to assign any lifeform with similar traits human rights.


So logically we should all become vegans.

Your logic is flawed.

If the sentience or self awareness of a human dictates wether or not it is ok to end that person's life then by your criteria it should be legal to execute the mentally retarded, it is not (thankfully) legal to do that, ergo a human's right to be alive is not dependant on that persons intellectual prowess, it is dictated by that person's species. Right or wrong that is the law and the cultural maxim. If you kill a human who is extremely retarded say with an IQ of 20 you will in every instance be wrong in the eyes of the law, if you do the same thing to a very intellegent dog say with an IQ of 30 or 40 you may get a much less severe scentence. Therefore your argument about self awarness is incorrect using cultural maxim's as a template to extrapilate a philosophical pretext from existing legislation.

Lets be clear, abortion should be an option if having a child will seriously in a corporeal way endanger the life of the mother, no one is saying a woman should be compelled by law to have to gestate a child if the act of doing so will kill her (notice I did not say kill herself, I have some reservations about how easy or not it might be for people to abuse such a mechanism, but the principal I accept). Do I believe that allowing the option of aborting a foetus in Ireland should the act of gestation, medically endanger the life of the progenitor, will be a method of abuse for pro-choice doctors to slip in legalised abortion through the back door? No, for the same reasons you trust a doctor to operate on a medical aliment or a dentist or rhinologist or any other medical professional to do their jobs, you must also give them the means to treat when necessary. For me there is a difference between abortion on demand (which I oppose) and the use of abortion in instances where it may be necessary and the mother agress to save one of two lives, now that seems only logical if you don't mind my saying.

I will have to peruse the government's proposals before making any kind of concrete decision, but of course these days the government doesn't have to give both sides of the argument in a referendum.... all part of living in the free west, where everyone is equal and human rights aren't oppressed.

The Republic is dead.
Long live the Republic.

Osama

Originally posted by Oeneus
I think it's stupid. It's the reason why there are several teenaged girls pushing prams around Rathdrum!

And is an unborn child more important then the already living Mother?

Emm no, I think you'll find the reason theres several teenaged girls pushing prams around your area is because most of them are slappers who went out, got pi$$ed and $hagged the first bloke they met in the nightclub and were too drunk to think of protection. And if these girls are that stupid I don't see why the hell they should be entrusted to make such a serious decision as to wether or not to terminate the life of an unborn child.

An unborn child is JUST as important as the 'already living mother' and the fact that she screwed up and got pregnant doesn't give her the right to kill her own child. As with anything else in this life, if YOU fcuk up YOU pay the price, why should an unborn child pay for your stupid mistakes?

There are many different cases and I believe each one should be looked at individually rather than just allowing abortion for everyone with no questions asked. Even in the case of genuine accidents happening such as condoms or the pill failing to work, I feel the consequences should be accepted because at the end of the day both parties knew damn well that there was a risk involved. Like the Eircom shares, you take the risk, you pay the consequences if things go wrong, why should you be sorted out at the expense of someone else.

Only in the cases of high risk, serious illnesses or rape is involved should exceptions be made.

Victor

I know this is messed up and off topic, but my god-daughter, my niece (age 15 months) died yesterday morning. Cause unknown, she just didn't wake up in hte morning. For me it just reinforces that no child (whatever status) should pay for the mistakes of its elders.

Ri-ra

Originally posted by Victor
I know this is messed up and off topic, but my god-daughter, my niece (age 15 months) died yesterday morning. Cause unknown, she just didn't wake up in hte morning. For me it just reinforces that no child (whatever status) should pay for the mistakes of its elders.

:eek:

Victor-- sorry to hear that man.

amp

Originally posted by Typedef


Your logic is flawed.

If the sentience or self awareness of a human dictates wether or not it is ok to end that person's life then by your criteria it should be legal to execute the mentally retarded, it is not (thankfully) legal to do that, ergo a human's right to be alive is not dependant on that persons intellectual prowess, it is dictated by that person's species.

So you equate the self-awareness and sentience of a foetus to a mentally handicapped person and you question my logic?

Right or wrong that is the law and the cultural maxim. If you kill a human who is extremely retarded say with an IQ of 20 you will in every instance be wrong in the eyes of the law, if you do the same thing to a very intellegent dog say with an IQ of 30 or 40 you may get a much less severe scentence. Therefore your argument about self awarness is incorrect using cultural maxim's as a template to extrapilate a philosophical pretext from existing legislation.

A human with any IQ regardless of how low has still got the ability to be tested for an IQ. A foetus does not even have the ability in it's early stages of developement to do an IQ test (even if a method could be found to administer one. It has not developed the ability to deduce anything. Self awareness has virtually nothing to do with IQ. In fact your entire paragraph is merely a collection of long words you stole from the back of a packet of cornflakes isn't it?

Lets be clear, abortion should be an option if having a child will seriously in a corporeal way endanger the life of the mother, no one is saying a woman should be compelled by law to have to gestate a child if the act of doing so will kill her (notice I did not say kill herself, I have some reservations about how easy or not it might be for people to abuse such a mechanism, but the principal I accept).

Ah how nice of you.

Do I believe that allowing the option of aborting a foetus in Ireland should the act of gestation medicall endanger, will be a method of abuse for pro-choice doctors to slip in legalised abortion through the back door?

Please reconstruct this paragraph using words from the english language especially the part marked in red. GESTATION MEDICAL ENDANGER WILL ROBINSON! ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US!

No, for the same reasons you trust a doctor to operate on a medical aliment or a dentist or rhinologist or any other medical professional to do their jobs, you must also give them the means to treat when necessary. For me there is a difference between abortion on demand* (which I oppose) and the use of abortion in instances where it may be necessary and the mother agress to save one of two lives, now that seems only logical if you don't mind my saying.

I don't mind as I could understand this paragraphs grammatical structure and also agree with you entirely except for the bit with the * which I have covered previously.

I will have to peruse the government's proposals before making any kind of concrete decision, but of course these days the government doesn't have to give both sides of the argument in a referendum.... all part of living in the free west, where everyone is equal and human rights aren't oppressed.

SET MY PEOPLE FREE! BILL GATES MUST DIE! LONG LIVE THE REVOLUTION!

The Republic is dead.
Long live the Republic.

Ah gwan back to Russia.

Anyway, the key issue for me with abortion is clear cut. When does a bunch of cells gain human rights? When the combined egg first divides? When it splits into 4? 8? 16? When the brain stem develops?

Is the morning after pill abortion?

Let the foaming at the mouth continue:

Hobbes

Amp... troll? Never!

allow me

bonkey

Originally posted by amp
A human with any IQ regardless of how low has still got the ability to be tested for an IQ

Stephen Hawking, if and when his degenerative condition degenerates a bit more, will be perfectly capable of lucid, intelligent thought, and perfectly incapable of any voluntary muscle control, which would enable him to communicate with the outside world.

Would you care to explain how this example of "any human" can be tested for an IQ?

Quit trolling

We were asked to keep this thread muppetry-free, and I dont for oen second believe that you honestly think the ability to be IQ tested is what defines humanity.

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by chernobyl
How can anyone vote no?
Why should ppl especially a young woman have here life ended by a mistake, i think its a little unfair to expect someone to give up their life, just as its beginning because of a single mistake.

Chernobyl.....

imagine a completely different scenario. Drunk teenager decides to drive dads car home rather then queue for hours at taxi rank.

Ploughs car into someone, killing them.

Your logic above can be directly applied to say that said drunk teenager should be let off scott free because (and I quote) why should they "have here life ended by a mistake".

If you cannot agree with the drunk-driver "mistake" letting them off, then your argument holds no water. In so many aspects of life, you dont get a second chance. You could, but society chooses not to let you.

As for the argument that once concieved, this microscopic "thing" equals a child and therefore is protected by a "right to life" act, get real, up until a decided date, divorce should not be an issue as the child is far from being recognisable and has not developed senses such a taste and touch etc.

Look - unless you can draw a very clear line, and define the exact instant at which the foetus/zygote becomes a human life, then you cannot say "its not a life yet". Given your above dismissal of the early-stage lifeform, could you please tell us when the change does occur? Please - settle the issue, because you seem so definite, but the world at large cant deide. You clearly have an insight the rest of us are missing. Share it with us.

Otherwise, you are simply rationalising the situation to agree with your decision, rather than forming your decision based on an analysis of the situation.

On re-reading the quoted piece, I can see you coming back with a reference to "a decided date", presumably picking the date already used in law. If so, then you are arguing that "its OK up until this date, because other countries have passed laws saying so". Well, sorry bud, but the same logic can be used to say "Its never OK, because other countries have passed laws saying so". Still of no use in clarifying the situation.

jc

Hobbes

This might change the law...

http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,648024,00.html

amp

Originally posted by bonkey


Would you care to explain how this example of "any human" can be tested for an IQ?

Quit trolling

Ah I was a little unclear in this particular bit. The point I was trying to make is that it is my opinion that a foetus could not be tested for an IQ even it could be administered. In fact I said as much:

by amp
A foetus does not even have the ability in it's early stages of development to do an IQ test (even if a method could be found to administer one.)

I was in fact trying to demonstrate that IQ measurement is irrelevant. If a human has an IQ of say 20 obviously they have been measured for an IQ and they grasp some of the concepts required to take a test. The act of taking the test is the test, not the result.

Stephen Hawkings brain is capable of understanding the concept of IQ tests (and of course a shed-load more than most about quantum mechanics) regardless of his physical condition. But if his brain was a small as a 2/3 week old foetus then he would not be able to understand the concept of a test because he probably would not be sentient or self-aware.

We were asked to keep this thread muppetry-free, and I dont for oen second believe that you honestly think the ability to be IQ tested is what defines humanity.

As I have said many times in this thread, my definition of humanity is how self aware a being is. In fact humanity is too vague a term as a foetus is, by virtue of it's dna, human material. I'm talking about killing a sentient being. It being human or not is somewhat irrelevant. Killing anything that is sentient and self-aware is in my opinion wrong.

And just because I'm not being as anal and "holier than thou" as some posters are being in this thread does not equate to muppetry.

So maybe before you start banging your moderator stick may I humbly suggest that you read all the posts first?*





* Now this is a troll

smiles

It's an incredibly complicated issue, and there is no cut and dried answer for me, nor for most people it would see.

I think it's best to try and mantain an open mind, dont ondemn people for agreeing with it (chernobyl) -- wouldn't it be boring and horribly insular if we all agreed on something? :P

I havent voted in the poll because it leaves a very open intrepretation. (that and i'm not sure!)

I think that if it was legalised that there should be specific criteria that must be met and personal interviews/counscilling as a prerequist so that anyone going down that path would know fully the consequences of their actions, physically, mentally and so on and so forth.

Lots of people have mentioned the physical and mental anguish a rape victim must go through, but no one seems to have mentioned the problems associated with abortion, physical (and i'm not talking just the scary photos here, there are some hard facts) and the mental stuff (flashbacks, regret, etc.)

I don't know how I would react if I was in the situation myself, I dont think I could actually go through with having an abortion, whether i was raped or not. It's a personal thing, but that said, I'm not (thankfully) in that situation and I'm not condemning anyone who has made that choice.

Some contraceptives are techincally abortiofesicants (or some spelling), according to our latest discussions in religion, as in they do not prevent conception, but merely prevent the growth of a baby (ie. morning after pill).

<< Fio >>

[appoligies for the spellings, i'm rather tired]

bonkey

I think that there is a very simple way to approach a solution.

Make the "cut-off" point for abortion the same as the cut-off point for genetic testing.

At present (in the US or worldwide, I'm not sure) , genetic testing on an embryo must involve termination of the specimen after two weeks, because of the moral implications. Yet, in most nations who legalise abortion, abortion is available for a considerable period after this.

This dichotomy is what gets me. If the mother is carrying the child as a normal pregnancy, it can be aborted (where legal) up until a specfic point in time without any issues. Basically, it does not have a "right to life" up until beyond this point, which means it is not classified as human or it would have to have a right to life under the Declaration of Human Rights.

In the *same* countries, we have a second law which prohibits genetic testing beyond the second week, because after that the moral imperatives are too risky.

So, I say this. If you want to legalise abortion, the same timeframe should apply to genetic testing. Why? Because we're dealing with the same growth-pattern of the same basic material. Why is one "non-human" given more legal sanction than another?

In the US, at the moment, we now have a situation where a lab-specimen has greater protection under law then a naturall conceived specimen.

Am I the only one to find this a bit stupid?

So...now...would all those in favour of abortion favour this type of law? Would you allow unlimited genetic testing up until the point where abortion is normally carried out?

jc

meglome

This is a very difficult issue indeed but as someone who has a child and is very happy about it I would still have to say I'm Pro-Choice. I really can't say I'm Pro-Abortion but everyone's life and circumstances are different so I'm not going to judge anyone.

Without trying to be harsh here... the world is full of unwanted and uncared for children. I live and work in Dublin City Centre and no one can tell me that the majority of the poor wretches I see every day on the streets were loved and properly cared for. I wouldn't want to be the one who says they shouldn't have been born but they don't look like they're enjoying their (God given??!?!) life in any way. I’m not saying they shouldn’t have been born but I do wonder if it would have been for the best. (Sorry if that seems cruel)

I don't see how we can say that the moment of conception immediately creates a human being, it certainly creates a few living cells that may eventually develop into a human being. I would agree though that if abortion were to be allowed that it shouldn't be allowed too far along in the pregnancy.

I'm a bit surprised at some of the very rigid views I have seen expressed in this thread from people who I have seen speak openly on other issues. Although some of the stuff I have heard and seen coming from the anti-abortion camp recently is both sad and terrible, it's seems to be some of these people will stoop to any depth to make their point.

It almost amuses me listen to some of the comments here coming from a species that have proven to be brutally violent at every turn, that large chucks of take pleasure and sport in killing other species... I wonder how many people are murdered everyday in the world and yet we split hairs.

Personally I’ll be voting no for this latest referendum, maybe one day we’ll stop pretending it doesn’t happen and really address the problem.

(/me tired /me go)

====== Place Abuse here ======

bonkey

Originally posted by meglome
I’m not saying they shouldn’t have been born but I do wonder if it would have been for the best.

Sure, we wonder such things. Then again, can you predict a child's future based on their "conditions of origin"? For example, I know two brothers. They came out of one of the roughest parts of Limerick. One is the archetypal scumbag, the other an absolute genius who rose above his situation and made a good life for himself - the classic "bad kid come good".

How can a "for the best" argument hold here? We cannot know what the future lives of these people can be.

We can estimate probablity, but we're then heading into a scenario of "sorry ma'am, the odds are for this child being useful to society, so you cant abort" or "certainly ma'am. This will probably grow up to be a scumbag, so abort away".

I'm a bit surprised at some of the very rigid views I have seen expressed in this thread from people who I have seen speak openly on other issues. Although some of the stuff I have heard and seen coming from the anti-abortion camp recently is both sad and terrible, it's seems to be some of these people will stoop to any depth to make their point.

This is one of those issues where the discussion centres on the rightness or wrongness of a wholesale approach. It is difficult to be anything but extreme in your opinion. If you have "ifs and buts", then you must vote pro-choice, because you must allow for the ifs and buts.

Pro-choice has the "upper hand", because you can say "I wouldnt like to do it myself, but I think others should be allowed". You absolve yourself of all guilt by simply saying that the burden of the action rests solely on those choosing to perform the action, and not on those choosing to sanction it.

Thus, to a pro-choice, the pro-life camp is a group of extremists, who want to "oppress" others somehow. Pro-choice, on the other hand see the situation differently, and it almost always will boil down to their interpretation of the sanctity of life.

So, while pro-choice can use politically correct terms like "terminating an unwanted pregnancy" and not sound extremist, pro-life cannot. They can only say "murder" because the last time I checked, there is no politically correct term for it.

Which brings us to the "stoop to anything" point. IMHO, the discussion to date has mostly been one of the most intelligent I've heard, with both sides remaining respectful in their extremist views. So, I'm hoping that "sad an terrible" stooping to new lows that you have witnessed is not coming from this discussion. If it is, then I would suggest that perhaps you see it as sad and terrible simply because you reject their point of view, rather than because it is actually so base.

Pro-life is a very simple concept. The unborn, at least for part of its gestation, is human. We cannot clearly draw the line where this "transition" happens, and therefore , morally, cannot draw a line for fear of being wrong.

The pro-choice argument typically looks at every issue except this one. We hear about young girls' lives ruined, the exceptional cases (rape etc.), the freedom of women to deal with their bodies, etc. etc. etc. There's millions of arguments, but they all skirt the core issue. Pro-Choice do not accept the unborn as a human life before some arbitrary point, or they do not accept the sanctity of human life. Its a simple as that - there are only these two options. Trying to get a pro-choice person to qualify themselves into one group is hard enough, but its usually the former. Trying to get them to clearly rationalise their reasoning of when it changes from "growth" to "human life" yields either hand-waving, issue-dodging, or vastly differing answers from one pro-lifer to the next.

In short, the pro-life appear extremist and all that because they all sing the same song, with only slight variations. The pro-choice camp has thousands of different reasons, none of which address the core issue. When they do address the core issue, you get thousands of different answers.

To me, this very discrepancy argues that one side appears to have a more solid case - an argument which the other cannot refute, and therefore avoid.

If the pro-life are "stooping" to make a point, its because they have only ever had one point, and its the one poine which pro-choice refuse to tackle head on.

jc

Lemming

Originally posted by bonkey
It is difficult to be anything but extreme in your opinion. If you have "ifs and buts", then you must vote pro-choice, because you must allow for the ifs and buts.

Pro-choice has the "upper hand", because you can say "I wouldnt like to do it myself, but I think others should be allowed". You absolve yourself of all guilt by simply saying that the burden of the action rests solely on those choosing to perform the action, and not on those choosing to sanction it.

It's quite easy to not be extreme in your views. Simply respect that others do not agree with you. Unfortunately, many of the pro-life people appear to be rabid right-wing religious fascists, as amply demonstrated on a sat. on O'Connell St., who seem to be of the opinion "If you don't agree with me then you MUST be a murdering satanist" or some such.

Which brings us to the "stoop to anything" point. IMHO, the discussion to date has mostly been one of the most intelligent I've heard, with both sides remaining respectful in their extremist views. So, I'm hoping that "sad an terrible" stooping to new lows that you have witnessed is not coming from this discussion. If it is, then I would suggest that perhaps you see it as sad and terrible simply because you reject their point of view, rather than because it is actually so base.

"Stooping to anything" appears to be the mantra of many pro-life groups. I'm not referring here to anything that anyone has said on these boards(which has been intelligent and civil for the most part), but the examples abound elsewhere. The cynical use of displays outside young girls primary schools, the grotesque pictures in public view for ALL to see (including young children), the mailing of abortion videos to politicians homes - never mind that young children might accidentally play the video, etc, etc.

How about the greatest example of them all ... the "Nuremburg files" website.

Edit:
It just seems that many pro-life groups consider "winning at all costs" their best strategy.

m1ke

The core issue really is,

Who decides, the woman or the government?

I don't think anyone can prove whether the unborn child is sentient or not yet at a certain stage. And it seems to me the pro-life camp will not accept that naturally the mother of the child should have the right to terminate her pregnancy not the government.

Giving it to the government is just putting womens lives at risk. Cases like the X and C case arise, these have to be dealth with, issues like physcological and physical health have to be dealt with. No one wants to loosely legalise abortion, but to have it as an option to protect the lives of Irish women and to be there for them to have the choice to make one of the most difficult decisions of their life - I don't think i'm qualified to make this sort of decision for a woman. Break it down into a 1 sentence "is it human life or not" issue is siding with the fear that women can't be trusted an archaic view.

Praetorian

Abortion is murder.

I have seen abortions...they are the most utterly disgusting disgraceful acts humanity has ever devised IMO

*Do not read below if your screamish

Actually seeing the little unborn child trying to get away from the steel clamper that will enevitably grab its head and crunch it like a nut...

The ONLY time abortion should be allowed is if the mother is going to die if it doesnt happen.

I honestly cannot believe more people have voted yes. I can guarantee if you saw what I have seen you would change your mind.

A mothers emotional distress can be eventually cured...killing a baby, a human, a person... can never be un-done!

Lemming

Originally posted by Praetorian
A mothers emotional distress can be eventually cured...killing a baby, a human, a person... can never be un-done!

Nope ... emotional distress has no "cure". You can learn to live with it .. but its never really gone. Just held in check there somewhere in the depths of your mind. Needless to say ... many cannot handle their emotional distress and kill themselves. Can that be undone?? Does "possible life" outweigh existing life?

swiss

Abortion is perhaps on of the ugliest and most sordid procedures that can be carried out on a human. I remember seeing on of those so called 'abortion videos' in a religion class some years ago. I'm not going to go into the gory detail, but the sight of *ahem* flesh and bone that had previously been a foetus was disconcerting to say the least. If it had been animal remains, I would not have had such a reaction. Therefore, I have to ask myself why...

I may be clutching at straws here, but how one views abortion may be indicative of their view as to the human condition as a whole. In pure biological terms, a human is merely a collection of cells, their brain a collection of neurons, that all boil down to a complicated collection of amino acids. Obviously the human condition is more than mere existence. We have a self awareness that transcends gutteral instincts. Howsomever we may view the condition of animals, and whether or not they have a level of sentience, it is generally acknowledged that humanity have the most evolved sentience, perception and sensibilities, and hence have a right to that life which overrides the rights of 'lower' lifeforms.

The debate that has always raged is at what point a human foetus can be said to have acheived a sufficient level of sentience to 'officially' be deemed to have the same rights as another human being. Some determine that at the second of conception - a human life is potentially formed - and this means that all efforts must be taken to ensure that that potential is realised (i.e the child is born) - save when the mothers life is in danger as a result of the pregnancy, as the mother has as much of a right to life as the unborn child.

In responding to this position I must ask myself whether the mere presence of human genetic material is sufficient to term somebody a 'human being'. Notice the last word in that sentence. To me, a small cluster of cells does not represent a 'being' - a consciousness, a sentience or any entity capable of independant thought. Therefore, terminating a pregnancy immediately after conception does not - in my opinion - constitute 'murder' of a human being - although it may constitute abortion in a literal sense of the word.

With regards to the doctrine that the mere possibility of human life is reason enough to plough on with it's realisation - I would also reject this as a premise on which to terminate pregnancies immediately after conception. The possibility that human life will ensue whenever a man and a woman get together is not reason enough to ban contraceptives (although some feel differently - a majority feel that contraception is morally acceptable). If every possibility of life was realised, or even if all reasonable efforts were made to ensure that every possibility of life were realised, we would live on a planet teeming with several billion people. While I would agree that each and every person would have the same right to life as the next, the harsh reality is that the realisation of every attempt at life is simply not feasible.

This brings me to my next point, which has already been discussed in detail

Originally posted by m1ke
I don't think anyone can prove whether the unborn child is sentient or not yet at a certain stage

I would have to agree with this sentiment. I don't have an amazing insight into the psyche of the unborn to say at what stage in the pregnancy a foetus becomes 'sentient' and hence may be termed a human 'being'. This is another argument which the pro-life camp use to argue their point that at no stage in pregnancy can a foetus be aborted.

I believe that some of this contentious issue can be resolved by arbitrarily assigning a realitively early period in the pregnancy, a stage in which it is generally accepted a foetus is not a sentient human 'being' - say two or three weeks. After this date, abortion can be banned, not because the foetus has suddenly acheived the required sentience, but merely because there is no surefire way of finding out. This may be an acceptable compromise to which people can agree. However, it can never gain unilateral support for two reasons - and these are I believe the root cause of the fundamental contention that exists between the two lobbies.

Firstly, as Lemming pointed out there are those on the pro-life groups that will not accept any compromise, that any interference in the natural process of conception, pregnancy and birth is a gross aberration that is morally reprehensible. These 'extremists' are also present in the pro-choice. I say extremist insofar as the views expressed by the respective lobbyists are trenchent and allow no room for compromise, or even consideration of the position of the opposing side.

Secondly, and this relates to the very opening paragraph in this reply (yes there was a point to it) we as a species empathise with other humans. Despite man's inhumanity to man (as mentioned by meglome) we show solidarity amongst ourselves that is mirrored in almost all forms of 'higher' life. Therefore, it is shocking to see the human condition in such a pitiful state as when it lies when a foetus is aborted, and is perhaps the more fundamental reason why, IMO, abortion will always be a contentious issue.

meglome

Originally posted by Praetorian
Abortion is murder.

I have seen abortions...they are the most utterly disgusting disgraceful acts humanity has ever devised IMO

*Do not read below if your screamish

Actually seeing the little unborn child trying to get away from the steel clamper that will enevitably grab its head and crunch it like a nut...

The ONLY time abortion should be allowed is if the mother is going to die if it doesnt happen.

I honestly cannot believe more people have voted yes. I can guarantee if you saw what I have seen you would change your mind.

A mothers emotional distress can be eventually cured...killing a baby, a human, a person... can never be un-done!

Jesus Damien... nobody is suggesting that we rip the soon to be born baby from the mothers womb (well I'm not suggesting it anyway). Also no one is suggesting that this is ever a nice thing to go through but we do need to seriously consider the thousands of Irish people like ourselves who feel they have no choice but to go to England and have an abortion. It may be a case that abortions should only take place in the very early days of the pregnancy but we should be seriously looking at this instead of sticking our heads in the sand.