Abortion should be legalised in Ireland

bonkey

Originally posted by Hussy
it is important for the father to be involved but not if you know that he won't stick around once the child is born...A child needs a stable upbringing and if he/she can't be given that ,well then the only option for me personally would be abortion!

So, you are basically asserting that it is impossible for a single parent to offer a stable upbringing? Or just that it would be impossible for you to be a single parent?

Note - I used "impossible" deliberately, because otherwise you are not talking about "the only option", but rather "an easier option".

I think you would also find a lot of single parents would be highly insulted by your allegation that they are incapable of giving their child a stable upbringing.

jc

Beruthiel

Is this non-emotive enough for you? Would you care to show me the flaws in my logic, and why my argument is not valid? I'm willing to listen


bonkey if you had read my post thoroughly, you would have noticed I stated I was speaking for myself and no one else -

I have no intention of going into the medical problems I went through with complete strangers - take it from me, you wouldn't wish it on anyone - the flaw in your logic is this - I've been where you can never be - I speak from personnal experience, you do not - until you have walked in my shoes please do not suppose you know what is right for me.

Typedef

Originally posted by Hussy
adoption is an option for some women but you would spend every day wondering where your child was adn what they were doing,I couldn't cope with that!!

So because you couldn't cope with being a single parent, you should kill that little child? Excuse me but I do not conquer. I myself come from a qualititavely single parent family, and I have to say I am glad I was not killed for the crime of being concieved.

I have no intention of going into the medical problems I went through with complete strangers - take it from me, you wouldn't wish it on anyone - the flaw in your logic is this - I've been where you can never be - I speak from personnal experience, you do not - until you have walked in my shoes please do not suppose you know what is right for me.

Don't suppose that your view of the world is so righteous and so well versed that it placates the views of others. Maybe if people could more readily place themselves into the shoes of others they would be able to comprehend how essentially evil it is to abrogate the right of another human being to life let alone the right of one's own progeny to the same.

Hussy

Originally posted by bonkey


So, you are basically asserting that it is impossible for a single parent to offer a stable upbringing? Or just that it would be impossible for you to be a single parent?

Note - I used "impossible" deliberately, because otherwise you are not talking about "the only option", but rather "an easier option".

I think you would also find a lot of single parents would be highly insulted by your allegation that they are incapable of giving their child a stable upbringing.

jc

i'm not saying that at all,I was raised by a Single Parent,so I know how hard it is & I wouldn't want that for MY child!!

bonkey

Originally posted by Beruthiel
Is this non-emotive enough for you? Would you care to show me the flaws in my logic, and why my argument is not valid? I'm willing to listen

bonkey if you had read my post thoroughly, you would have noticed I stated I was speaking for myself and no one else -

And if you had read mine, you would have seen that the first half was directed in response to your post, and the second half in response to someone elses. So the bit you're quoting wasnt even directed at you.

Go back and read the bit I said about your condition.

Not once have I denied you the right not to go through another episode of your previous trauma. In fact, I have given you several currently legal options on how to avoid going through it again.

If you choose to ignore these options, it is a bit hypocritical to then say "I have a right...". You have that right today. If you choose not to exercise it, why is society at large obliged to grant you another way out?

I appreciate that you have suffered, and I regret that any woman goes through such suffering, but this does not change the facts as I presented them.

I would also point out that the "havent been in my shoes" is one of the poorest arguments out there. I could equally say that you are too emotionally attached to the issue to be capable of making a responsible decision. Therefore, you have no right to have a say in these decisions.

I, however, would not stoop to trying to discount someone's arguments on this basis. You have a valid point, but I have already answered that. The fact you do not like the answer is not my concern, but it does not invalidate the reasoning that I have put forward any more than pointless claims of "dont know what youre talking about".

By your logic, only criminals who have been executed have the right to comment on the rightness or wrongness of the death-sentence, as no-one else really knows what they go through. This is a bit stupid, wouldnt you agree.

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by Hussy
i'm not saying that at all,I was raised by a Single Parent,so I know how hard it is & I wouldn't want that for MY child!!

I dont understand.

You are a single-parent child. You are arguing that it would be right to have denied you the right to live, simply to spare you the life you now lead???

jc

Beruthiel

Don't suppose that your view of the world is so righteous and so well versed that it placates the views of others. Maybe if people could more readily place themselves into the shoes of others they would be able to comprehend how essentially evil it is to abrogate the right of another human being to life let alone the right of one's own progeny to the same.

one more time, the view I am giving is on myself

as for stepping into other womens shoes on this matter, I would never consider myself so self righteous as to think that I have the right tell them what to do - nor do I have the right to think that my opinion is the correct one for them.. it's correct for me which is all I was saying in the first place. ... didn't you get that at all??

JustHalf

Originally posted by Hussy
adoption is an option for some women but you would spend every day wondering where your child was adn what they were doing,I couldn't cope with that!!

As opposed to the nice, comforting feeling you get knowing your baby is floating around as gases after being aborted and incinerated.

Boston

sorry, maybe ive read this wrong ,but its is my understanding that this is not about weather or not to legalise abortion but weather or not to restrict access to abortion even more, to refuse abortion in case of rape for example, well thats how i read the porposal, maybe someone can inform me in more detail if im wrong

Hussy

Originally posted by JustHalf
As opposed to the nice, comforting feeling you get knowing your baby is floating around as gases after being aborted and incinerated.

if the baby is aborted then you never know what it looks like or feels like or smells like,with adoption you have memories!!!Which would you find harder,never having to see what your giving up or giving something up when you have spent time with it.....

JustHalf

Originally posted by Hussy
if the baby is aborted then you never know what it looks like or feels like or smells like,with adoption you have memories!!!Which would you find harder,never having to see what your giving up or giving something up when you have spent time with it.....

But you see, the baby is not a "thing". And frankly, I rank the life of the child above the mother's emotional state.

Your argument is only considering the emotional state of the mother, not the life of the child... and to truly be able to allow abortion with a fair conscience, we need to know (not just have a guess that conveniently supports our opinions) that we are not killing a human being.

There is reasonable doubt to the conviction that the foetus has no right to life (which a few of us, particularly Bonkey, have presented; but has not really been addressed). Therefore, we cannot in good conscience allow abortions to go ahead.

I'm also quite annoyed at the opinion that men aren't able (or entitled) to make such a decision. If it was just a woman's body, then we shouldn't have a right to decide... but you still need to show that it is just an issue of what a woman can do with her body, as opposed to something more important than that.

And boston, we're not just discussing the proposal... read the thread title. And you know how discussions on boards can get.

Typedef

Hussy don't you think it is selfish not to mention shortsighted to abort a foetus because you can't go through the trauma of giving the child up for adoption? Also if this is the kind of reason people (women) wish to abort their children then there is 'no-way' anyone can simply 'trust women' to do the right thing because it is a totally illogical and extremely self-interested argument.

Do you think the baby could really care if it's mother found it hard putting it up for adoption? How many adopted people do you think would simply accept the argument that had their mother found the giving of them up for adoption harder that they might not be alive because said female progenitor would have aborted them?

clivegood

Abortion is a very effective method of birth control and should be freely available to all. If you don't believe in abortion then no one will force you to have one !!

Blade

Originally posted by Hussy


it is important for the father to be involved but not if you know that he won't stick around once the child is born...A child needs a stable upbringing and if he/she can't be given that ,well then the only option for me personally would be abortion!

Then maybe you should be a bit more careful who you sleep with you Hussy

JustHalf

Originally posted by clivegood
Abortion is a very effective method of birth control and should be freely available to all. If you don't believe in abortion then no one will force you to have one !!

Killing the entire human race is a very effective method of birth control and should be freely available to all. If you don't believe in killing the entire human race, then no-one will force you to!

Your argument is invalid (as shown above). And, for birth control, why not consider the wide range of other, safer and less likely to involve killing a baby?

http://www.e-gynecologic.com/birthcon.html

These are widely available, and solve such problems as mentioned here (from the 1920's)

http://www.bartleby.com/1013/10.html

bonkey

I'm locking the thread for 24 hours.

I will unlock it again tomorrow afternoon. If people wish to continue the discussion, fine, but I think a "cool-off" period is in order. Here's my reasoning.....

We are rapidly entering the state where the discussion is degenerating into the same points already discussed. Ultimately, this will frustrate someone (the "how many times do I have to say this" syndrome") which will in turn lead to a flamefest.

I've refrained from editing any posts, because I cant quite honestly say that some of mine have been any less antagonistic, but I do not want it to degenerate further.

However, after the thread is unlocked, I want to keep this at the highest level of civility possible. Everyone has their opinion. Everyone is entitled to this. Ultimately, you can explain why somone's reasoning is flawed, but it is still *their* reasoning, and they have every right to it. After all, thats the basis of democracy - we allow people to vote as they see fit. We should also accord everyone the courtesy of being able to voice that opinion sans ridicule.

If anyone has a problem with this, PM me or Gandalf.

jc

bonkey

Thread re-opened.

This was basically a trial to see if cool-off periods can help the discussion, rather than kill it. Thanks to those who offered me their thoughts in PMs - critical or otherwise. I felt we were heading towards a flamefest which I didnt want. Maybe I was wrong, and if so, my apologies to all.

So, on with the show....

jc

Boston

No body has answered my question, how many of you even know what your arguing about here, cant be many it you cant answer a simple question of the referendum

Typedef

Actually what Boston has raised has illucidated an issue for me. Where is all of the information from the government on what is legally permissable under the current state of the constitution and what ammendments the governmnet propose the pepole ratify via referendum?

Why has there not been an information campaign like there was during the Nice referendum. Furthermore now that the government has repealed legislation that required the state to fund both sides of a referendum campaign will the government now exclusively simply attempt to force whatever it's current view on subject x is down the throats of the voters of this country?

I suspect it is probably illegal for the government to use state monies to proport it's own view on a referendum, but does the culling of the two-side funding mean that the public will be denied the kind of basic information that is required to make an informed decision on this?

Remember not everyone has access to the internet or to other methods of finding out about what the law is and how the government propose the constitution be amended.

It begs the question, what have the government got to hide? If this is a real Republican-democracy a state of pluralist political philosophy and diversity then why must the government seek hide the truth of what the election is about? Maybe you could miss my point here, after the defeat of the Nice referendum the government change legislation that required the state to fund the campaigns of both sides of a referendum, so now, coming up to a referendum why is it that the government have done so little to inform the public and why in fact have the government attempted to cull the debate on this and future referenda with the retrograde referenda funding legislation?

Will this campaign be fought with no information really diseminated but instead the propaganda of what either side can mount against the other? Or to put it another way will the only information people end up having be posters that say "Trust women" or "Protect the unborn", or will there be some kind of impartial disemination of information? It would seem the government has taken steps to abrogate any views that do not conform to it's own, it begs the question if this is democracy then what isn't?

Osama

Moderator edit
Osama - I asked that we keep it civil.

Sarcasm is ok in fine doses, but we dont need an entire post dripping the stuff. You can phrase your point more intelligently I'm sure.

jc

smiles

Information that I think Boston was looking for:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=41453

<< Fio >>

Dustaz

To be honest i thought long and hard about posting on this, because after reading some of the posts I honestly dont think some of the more vocal posters are fully equipped to discuss the issues.

Where to start. Well, First - according to the topic this thread is about whether abortion should be legal, not about the upcoming referendum.

Secondly, noone seems to take into account that for most women who have abortions it is one of the hardest things they will ever have to go through. Since 90% of the posters are men they will never fully understand that (myself included) just as typedef and justhalf have shown in the sickeningly offhand way of describing how easy it is to carry a baby to term and give it up for adoption.

Lastly, one thing keeps coming up and to be honest the first time i saw it ignored the thread for a while

If people aren't ready for kids prehaps they should actually behave themselves a bit more

I cant believe someone actually posted this.

Personally, im pro-choice. I didnt vote in the poll.

Typedef

You may find my opinions sickening, that is your right I wouldn't dream of attempting to encroach on your life by attempting to tell you what to think, if my view offends you let me offer my apologies, I'm not saying you have to agree, it's not intended to offend people be they male of female, merley put forward some of the thinking that brought me from a Pro-Choice stance as I had been raised to support by both of my parents to my current Pro-Life stance. Similarly I too am entitled to this opinion as I am entitled to exercise my constitutionally endowed right to vote on this issue.

If you really have an issue with me then please pm me, feel free.

Where I take issue is that in this election the issue itself does not seem to be what is at stake, from my persective (for whatever that is worth) I think the government is using this debate as a political football, in an attempt to associate themselves with the most popular side of an extremely divisive argument and thus distance themselves from the defeat of the Nice referendum and impress, associate call it what you will, in effect identify themselves with what is percived to be a 'winning side'. The fact that the government is no longer obliged to fund both sides of a referendum is telling of what I would proport is an ulterior motive in the lack of disemination of information, if I may.

Typedef

Also I would have to take issue with you on where exactly I said it would be easy for a woman to give up a child for adoption? Let me clarify any potential ambiguity that may exist for you, I would not accept that the difficutly of giving a child up for adoption is grounds to kill that child, no matter how small and indsigificant that child may seem to you the state or the law of this land.

If you are going to criticise me personally, or philosophically at least have the decency and manners to be accurate if not intellegent in your critique.

I find what you have just said a slur and I would expect better from a moderator. Perhaps you would like to incite some kind of further derision where none exists? Perhaps you are attempting to deflect the argument, but please refrain in the future from deflecting the argument to me personally especially when you have either misinterpreted the substance of what I have said, in which case I urge you to read it again, or you have simply assumed you know the nuiance of what I have said without really allowing time for it to be assimilated into your conciousness, thanks.

JustHalf

Originally posted by Dustaz
Secondly, noone seems to take into account that for most women who have abortions it is one of the hardest things they will ever have to go through. Since 90% of the posters are men they will never fully understand that (myself included) just as typedef and justhalf have shown in the sickeningly offhand way of describing how easy it is to carry a baby to term and give it up for adoption.

Dustaz, I've never said it was easy to carry a baby to term and give it up for adoption. I have said it makes sense. No matter how hard abortion or adoption is for the women involved, such argument does not make either the better option. An argument must be put forth that proves beyond reasonable doubt that the foetus has no right to life to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it's interests should not be considered when deciding if abortion is right. If it's interests should be considered, to decide that abortion is right it must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that these interests are over-ruled by the mother. No-one has done either.

I would appreciate if you either gave some argument showing that I described "in [a] sickeningly offhand way... how easy it is to carry a baby to term and give it up for adoption", or apologise.

Dustaz

Its funny this. I trolled deliberatly by using the words i used to get the desired effect (thanks for being so pavlovian by the way lads). What i wanted to illustrate was that the use of language implied something - That i thought you two were being particularly insensitive. And looking back i still think you are. Your use of language also implies things:


Typedef:

Oh and excuse me, some person doesn't want to be inconvienced for nine months, well excuse me for political incorrectness

That attidude , especially when applied to possible scenarios, is not just pollitically incorrect but is sickening

JustHalf:

I've never heard a single argument with any substance to it that shows that abortion is ever the best option.

OK, let those women die.
Im pretty sure youll retract that statement, so i wont comment on it further.

As far as I'm concerned, it's killing a person.

Yes, as far as YOUR concerned. Neither side can prove thier case for sure. Im sorry, but bonkeys description didnt change my opionon (I still dont know, although i refuse to accept a 5 min old fertilised egg as a human life)

If I am wrong, then these efforts merely inconvenience people for nine-months.

Again, the use of that word. its sickening.

Dustaz

Im not prepared to back this up in any way as it just struck me reading this thread.
One recurring theme in this thread is the burden of proof that abortion is murder. Why is it up to the pro-choice movement to supply this burden of proof? Surely if the pro-life camp are accusing people of muder, they must proove beyond a reasonable doubt that the aborted foetus is a human life and that it is murder. Otherwise is it not a case of guilty untill proven innocent? (as alluded to by bonkey earlier).

Hmm, probably havent thought that through, so i reserve the right to edit.

Typedef

Actually Dustaz you may try to detract from my arguments by slurring what I say as 'sickening' but that does not make you right. I can prove that genetically a fertilised egg is human, so once some one is genetically human that pretty much cuts it for me, I don't subscribe to the notion that there are circumstances where the ascription of human status (which a fertilised egg is by genetic standards) is any less for someone who can be defined (genetically) as human.

Your arguments seek to lessen the right to life of an organism that displays a human genome due to some kind of arbitrarily enunciated mechanism. I would profess that a fertilised egg has as much right to be alive as citizen bloggs X, disabled citizen bloggs X, mentally retarded citizen bloggs X, neonate citizen X and pre-nate (non-citizen) X.

I hold a value if you will that is not derived from religion as I am an athiest that says once an egg is fertilised, it is in effect a very small and very defenceless human life.

The Pro-Choice campaign seeks to place a kind of arbitrary constraint on when 'life begins' when clearly a fertilised egg is a human life, it has all the necessary genetic material to become such and has the potential if left to gestate to become a fully grown human being, be that human being Pol-Pot, Adolf Hitler or Ghandi. Tell me at what point do you define life ? Based on what criteria therefore do you believe human life becomes human life from a conglomeration of human_gene endowed cells?

If there is a time in the life of a baby/human/zygote or whatever you choose to call it, that it would be 'ok' to implant say pig genes into a human embryo and allow the genetically altered organism to gestate to maturity, would it then be moral by your ambigious criteria of human life to experiment and even kill such a xenomorphic lifeform? Please do illucidate.

Xterminator

This is what we call "a retarded argument". (Referreing to the fact that abortion is legal elsewhere, and this being brough up in the context of an abortion debate)
posted by Just Half (and paraphrased by JC earlier to)

What an intelligent argument.

Let me ask

Just because other countries have Human Rights why should we?

Just because other countries have assumtion of innocence for defendants why should we?

Just beacause other countries have democracies why should we?

Other similar questions your arguement begs answers to.

Hmm let me think.

1. Because it might be the right thing to do.

2. Because if it causes the moral fabric of society to fall apart, we might just see this in other countries, and decide whether we need it.

3. Because there is a demand for it here.

Do you not realise we picked up most of our laws and practises from other countries. Do we not send our policticians and civil servants to other countries to see how they do it, and maybe bring back some goo ideas?

Well I belive there is a retarded arguement here, and it's yours

X

Xterminator

Futhermore on thing that really Irks me, is that if people dont want to have abortions that can choose not to, even if abortion is made legal under certain circumstances here.

But they wish to enforce this on thousands of others who have found themselves in the unenvyable position of feeing this extreme measure is the best, if not only solution for there particular problem.

Most of you will never be in the extreme situations refered to in this bill.where abortion would be an option, so how do you know what will be best for those that are?

Cause thats what your being asked to choose. I say pass the law, and let them choose.

If your pro life .. good for you. Tackle the causes of abortion. Make other avenues available/palatable.

But dont impose your will on others in situations you can hardl imagine.

X