Bishops, Abortion, Pregnant Children That Have Been Raped and Sedition

tonys wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

tonys wrote:

imokyrok wrote:

I commented on two other potential cut off points in a post at the top of the page Tonys.

My cut off point is a moral one. I believe abortion to be either right up to nine months or wrong at any stage, (developmental growth seems to me to be no more important in the first nine months inside the womb than the second nine months outside the womb) and as I believe it to be wrong at any stage, I have no retreat position.

And wrong for any reason ?

Excepting life saving treatments for the mother that unintentionally cause the death of the baby then yes, I would say wrong for any reason.

That's more or less my own position. What's your opinion on cases where people are pressured into it by society and by their families (either they feel their career might be affected or they are too young, too poor or sexual abuse is involved etc. ) - do you have an opinion on the right to travel ?

imokyrok wrote:

Terrific post CF. I've engaged in this debate on p.ie and I'm always struck by the fact that those who take the absolutist view that abortion is immoral and wrong at all times and that a clump of cells equates with a human being are almost always men. It's a cliche but probably also a truism to say that if men could become pregnant abortion would be a sacrement. I also know several women who have had abortions and it was a difficult choice for them to make made all the more difficult by the attitudes that prevail in this country. No woman I've discussed this issue with believes that women should not be permitted to make their own moral judgements on the issue. Even those who believe abortion is wrong recognise that their personal value judgement should not be imposed on others - that women have a right to choose. My 65 year old mother would fall into this category. Women tend to be quite pragmatic about the issue since they are almost always the ones left to pick up the pieces in the event of an unwanted pregnancy.

I was waiting. In every abortion argument (one of the reasons I rarely join in them any more - nobody ever changes their mind as a result) there is always the end of argument 'you would say that, wouldn't you, you're a man' point - it's where I know the argument has gone as far as possible. For the record, I know more women than men who are completely opposed to abortion.

As to the 'imposed on others' argument - it's not the same as say divorce or contraception, opinions which indeed should never be imposed. If you believe that abortion is wrong then you are morally obliged to speak out against it, the same as you would for a society where killing adults for sport was allowed and where it was seen as a matter of personal opinion. Slavery was treated as a 'personal choice' and the argument was made then that it was wrong to impose those views against it upon those who owned slaves. If you believe it involves killing another human life then to adopt the position that it is everyone else's private choice is mealy-mouthed cowardice, in my view. There is an obligation to speak out against it.

CF I tried to post a link to an interesting book by David Boonin on the subject but it would seem that all formating activities are unavailable to me and not just smilies. I've noticed that even attempts to have paragraph breaks are automatically removed once I press send. I've checked my profile and everything relevant is turned on so I don't know why this continues to be a problem for me and nobody else. Strange one. Anyway I'll paste the link in full in case you are interested.


http://books.google.com/books?id=YhcosxnhtJ8C&pg=PA104&lpg=PA104&dq=abortion+brainstem&source=bl&ots=Ebh8OCrb5A&sig=JKdhFhGB-jqOx9DqJAOcm0oFO84&hl=en&ei=FLexSbfeFdSujAf_meHTBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result

toxic avenger wrote:

imokyrok wrote:

Terrific post CF. I've engaged in this debate on p.ie and I'm always struck by the fact that those who take the absolutist view that abortion is immoral and wrong at all times and that a clump of cells equates with a human being are almost always men. It's a cliche but probably also a truism to say that if men could become pregnant abortion would be a sacrement. I also know several women who have had abortions and it was a difficult choice for them to make made all the more difficult by the attitudes that prevail in this country. No woman I've discussed this issue with believes that women should not be permitted to make their own moral judgements on the issue. Even those who believe abortion is wrong recognise that their personal value judgement should not be imposed on others - that women have a right to choose. My 65 year old mother would fall into this category. Women tend to be quite pragmatic about the issue since they are almost always the ones left to pick up the pieces in the event of an unwanted pregnancy.

I was waiting. In every abortion argument (one of the reasons I rarely join in them any more - nobody ever changes their mind as a result) there is always the end of argument 'you would say that, wouldn't you, you're a man' point - it's where I know the argument has gone as far as possible. For the record, I know more women than men who are completely opposed to abortion.

As to the 'imposed on others' argument - it's not the same as say divorce or contraception, opinions which indeed should never be imposed. If you believe that abortion is wrong then you are morally obliged to speak out against it, the same as you would for a society where killing adults for sport was allowed and where it was seen as a matter of personal opinion. Slavery was treated as a 'personal choice' and the argument was made then that it was wrong to impose those views against it upon those who owned slaves. If you believe it involves killing another human life then to adopt the position that it is everyone else's private choice is mealy-mouthed cowardice, in my view. There is an obligation to speak out against it.

We reguraly discuss many topics which involve having the same arguments trotted out again and again. That doesn't make the argument or observation any less relevant. I don't have a problem with people who believe abortion to be morally wrong speaking out against it. Freedom of speech and all that. My difficulty is with people determining for others what is morally wrong when that judgement is clearly an arbitrary one. Currently the margin of people who believe as you do is a little higher in Ireland than those who don't. I suspect that will change and that the majority of Irish people like the majority of people in most western democracies will come to see that women have a right to determine this issue for themselves. 

imokyrok wrote:

toxic avenger wrote:

imokyrok wrote:

Terrific post CF. I've engaged in this debate on p.ie and I'm always struck by the fact that those who take the absolutist view that abortion is immoral and wrong at all times and that a clump of cells equates with a human being are almost always men. It's a cliche but probably also a truism to say that if men could become pregnant abortion would be a sacrement. I also know several women who have had abortions and it was a difficult choice for them to make made all the more difficult by the attitudes that prevail in this country. No woman I've discussed this issue with believes that women should not be permitted to make their own moral judgements on the issue. Even those who believe abortion is wrong recognise that their personal value judgement should not be imposed on others - that women have a right to choose. My 65 year old mother would fall into this category. Women tend to be quite pragmatic about the issue since they are almost always the ones left to pick up the pieces in the event of an unwanted pregnancy.

I was waiting. In every abortion argument (one of the reasons I rarely join in them any more - nobody ever changes their mind as a result) there is always the end of argument 'you would say that, wouldn't you, you're a man' point - it's where I know the argument has gone as far as possible. For the record, I know more women than men who are completely opposed to abortion.

As to the 'imposed on others' argument - it's not the same as say divorce or contraception, opinions which indeed should never be imposed. If you believe that abortion is wrong then you are morally obliged to speak out against it, the same as you would for a society where killing adults for sport was allowed and where it was seen as a matter of personal opinion. Slavery was treated as a 'personal choice' and the argument was made then that it was wrong to impose those views against it upon those who owned slaves. If you believe it involves killing another human life then to adopt the position that it is everyone else's private choice is mealy-mouthed cowardice, in my view. There is an obligation to speak out against it.

We reguraly discuss many topics which involve having the same arguments trotted out again and again. That doesn't make the argument or observation any less relevant. I don't have a problem with people who believe abortion to be morally wrong speaking out against it. Freedom of speech and all that. My difficulty is with people determining for others what is morally wrong when that judgement is clearly an arbitrary one. Currently the margin of people who believe as you do is a little higher in Ireland than those who don't. I suspect that will change and that the majority of Irish people like the majority of people in most western democracies will come to see that women have a right to determine this issue for themselves.

I think (hope?) that the opposite might be the case. I can see a day in the future where people look back at abortion on demand and shake their heads wondering why such barbarism was ever allowed....

toxic avenger wrote:

imokyrok wrote:

toxic avenger wrote:

imokyrok wrote:

Terrific post CF. I've engaged in this debate on p.ie and I'm always struck by the fact that those who take the absolutist view that abortion is immoral and wrong at all times and that a clump of cells equates with a human being are almost always men. It's a cliche but probably also a truism to say that if men could become pregnant abortion would be a sacrement. I also know several women who have had abortions and it was a difficult choice for them to make made all the more difficult by the attitudes that prevail in this country. No woman I've discussed this issue with believes that women should not be permitted to make their own moral judgements on the issue. Even those who believe abortion is wrong recognise that their personal value judgement should not be imposed on others - that women have a right to choose. My 65 year old mother would fall into this category. Women tend to be quite pragmatic about the issue since they are almost always the ones left to pick up the pieces in the event of an unwanted pregnancy.

I was waiting. In every abortion argument (one of the reasons I rarely join in them any more - nobody ever changes their mind as a result) there is always the end of argument 'you would say that, wouldn't you, you're a man' point - it's where I know the argument has gone as far as possible. For the record, I know more women than men who are completely opposed to abortion.

As to the 'imposed on others' argument - it's not the same as say divorce or contraception, opinions which indeed should never be imposed. If you believe that abortion is wrong then you are morally obliged to speak out against it, the same as you would for a society where killing adults for sport was allowed and where it was seen as a matter of personal opinion. Slavery was treated as a 'personal choice' and the argument was made then that it was wrong to impose those views against it upon those who owned slaves. If you believe it involves killing another human life then to adopt the position that it is everyone else's private choice is mealy-mouthed cowardice, in my view. There is an obligation to speak out against it.

We reguraly discuss many topics which involve having the same arguments trotted out again and again. That doesn't make the argument or observation any less relevant. I don't have a problem with people who believe abortion to be morally wrong speaking out against it. Freedom of speech and all that. My difficulty is with people determining for others what is morally wrong when that judgement is clearly an arbitrary one. Currently the margin of people who believe as you do is a little higher in Ireland than those who don't. I suspect that will change and that the majority of Irish people like the majority of people in most western democracies will come to see that women have a right to determine this issue for themselves.

I think (hope?) that the opposite might be the case. I can see a day in the future where people look back at abortion on demand and shake their heads wondering why such barbarism was ever allowed....

Now that is a good post.

Are you a vegetarian TA

imokyrok wrote:

Are you a vegetarian TA

No, and not equivalent.

toxic avenger wrote:

imokyrok wrote:

Are you a vegetarian TA

No, and not equivalent.

Why isn't it?

imokyrok wrote:

toxic avenger wrote:

imokyrok wrote:

Are you a vegetarian TA

No, and not equivalent.

Why isn't it?

Because it doesn't involve vacuuming or scraping your own baby out of your womb.

toxic avenger wrote:

imokyrok wrote:

toxic avenger wrote:

imokyrok wrote:

Are you a vegetarian TA

No, and not equivalent.

Why isn't it?

Because it doesn't involve vacuuming or scraping your own baby out of your womb.

Ok emotive language aside I'm assuming you are saying that there is something that distinguishes human life from other forms of life and I'm hoping you might have given some consideration to exactly what that is. That may in turn form the basis for a discussion on the issue as opposed to simplistic pronouncements.

toxic avenger wrote:

imokyrok wrote:

toxic avenger wrote:

imokyrok wrote:

Are you a vegetarian TA

No, and not equivalent.

Why isn't it?

Because it doesn't involve vacuuming or scraping your own baby out of your womb.

Not a problem you will ever face, Toxic Avenger. And it is actually an untruth to suggest a baby can be vacuumed anywhere. You are talking about an embryo.

I'm always interested in the fact that men are completely left out of the 'woman's right to choose.' Fathers have no rights in decisons to have an abortion as far as I can see and they should have.

Kate P wrote:

I'm always interested in the fact that men are completely left out of the 'woman's right to choose.' Fathers have no rights in decisons to have an abortion as far as I can see and they should have.

Wasn't there a case on this Kate P ?

cactus flower wrote:

toxic avenger wrote:

imokyrok wrote:

toxic avenger wrote:

imokyrok wrote:

Are you a vegetarian TA

No, and not equivalent.

Why isn't it?

Because it doesn't involve vacuuming or scraping your own baby out of your womb.

Not a problem you will ever face, Toxic Avenger. And it is actually an untruth to suggest a baby can be vacuumed anywhere. You are talking about an embryo.

I could google some stuff on that just to check cactus, I believe there is an amount of breaking and cutting that goes on first so the tissue (limbs?) can be vacuumed out.

I'll be back with a link and some pics.

cactus flower wrote:

Kate P wrote:

I'm always interested in the fact that men are completely left out of the 'woman's right to choose.' Fathers have no rights in decisons to have an abortion as far as I can see and they should have.

Wasn't there a case on this Kate P ?

I remember that one. The man failed as is right. I sympathise with the viewpoint and in an ideal and futuristic world if a woman doesn't want to continue a pregnancy a man perhaps should have the legal right to have that embyro implanted in him or to engage in whatever technology may be the available to bring the embyro to term. Perhaps some day that will be possible. In the meantime no man has the right to make a slave of a woman in order to force her to continue a pregnancy.

Forget the pics

Partial Birth Abortion
http://www.conservapedia.com/Abortion_procedures

Thankyou Auditor #9, but I'm posting in the context of my earlier posts on early rather than late terminations, and I have posted a link that shows to scale what is the difference between an 8 or 12 week pregnancy and a 27 week baby. Anyone describing an embryo as a baby is imo using emotive and inaccurate language to try to make an point.

This is a pro life website with the integrity to show embryos (up to 8 weeks) and foetuses (after 8 weeks) to scale.

http://bluewavecanada.blogspot.com/2009/02/fetus-picturesto-scale.html

The logic of tonys argument here is that fetacide (i.e. killing of viable babies who could survive outside the womb), to which I am fundamentally opposed, is OK under certain circumstances - the same view came from our judiciary.

There have been no replies apart from imokyrok's to my earlier post, and I've pretty well said everything I have to say on this unless there is any reply.

cactus flower wrote:

Kate P wrote:

I'm always interested in the fact that men are completely left out of the 'woman's right to choose.' Fathers have no rights in decisons to have an abortion as far as I can see and they should have.

Wasn't there a case on this Kate P ?

The case you may be thinking of surrounded a father's rights in respect of the use of frozen embryos. The court deferred to the Oireachtas in that instance on the basis that frozen embryos did not fall under the meaning of "unborn" under the Constitution - it was a judgment in the past number of months. I can't think of any case dealing with the father's rights in respect of the substantive issue of abortion. It is unlikely that there is much case law on the issue because the Constitutional position as annuciated by the courts would quite clearly be in the instance of marital conception, the court will not intervene in the decision making process owing to the Constitutional respect for the family and in the instance of non marital conception the Irish courts are clear that the father enjoys no special Constitutional rights, only those provided for in legislation. That is the Constitutional position for unmarried fathers in postnatal situations as well.

Auditor - I would be pretty much in agreement with cactus on this one. I have attempted to have a discussion about the point where an embryo becomes equivalent to a "person" but nobody seems to want to engage on the scientific and moral issues involved.

Thanks for the bluewave link cactus. I gather they have listed their pictures according to gestational age. people might want to bear in mind that the age used commonly by obstetricans and therefore by the public is LMD (last menstrual ) which adds two weeks onto each example.

imokyrok wrote:

Thanks for the bluewave link cactus. I gather they have listed their pictures according to gestational age. people might want to bear in mind that the age used commonly by obstetricans and therefore by the public is LMD (last menstrual ) which adds two weeks onto each example.

So the 8 week embryo is what we would call 10 weeks pregnant ? Or 6 weeks ?

imokyrok wrote:

Auditor - I would be pretty much in agreement with cactus on this one. I have attempted to have a discussion about the point where an embryo becomes equivalent to a "person" but nobody seems to want to engage on the scientific and moral issues involved.

You are a blastocyst and you are a person

I think that's a philosophical odyssey big enough for half a dozen forums and five hundred years. It gets down to metaphysics and convincing someone what life is in the first place and the difference between it and "intelligent" life ....

If you want to try, the music will go on and on and on and you'll have to be prepared to read up on and study biology, religion, physics, metaphysics, AI, mysticim etc. etc.

Plenty of time though during the recession.

imokyrok wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Kate P wrote:

I'm always interested in the fact that men are completely left out of the 'woman's right to choose.' Fathers have no rights in decisons to have an abortion as far as I can see and they should have.

Wasn't there a case on this Kate P ?

I remember that one. The man failed as is right. I sympathise with the viewpoint and in an ideal and futuristic world if a woman doesn't want to continue a pregnancy a man perhaps should have the legal right to have that embyro implanted in him or to engage in whatever technology may be the available to bring the embyro to term. Perhaps some day that will be possible. In the meantime no man has the right to make a slave of a woman in order to force her to continue a pregnancy.

Can you develop what you mean by that please in the context of the point I've made? I'm not sure that the case is relevant but if it is, could you explain what you mean? Gracias.