Re: Abortion debate

Dalelad Fri Jul 12, 2013 12:32 pm

I would imagine many pro-lifers would say that it's not the foetus/baby's fault that its creation is the result of such circumstances, and they would ask why it should receive the death penalty for the actions of others? Once you accept as a 'fact' that life begins at conception, and a zygote is the same thing as a fully developed human being, then it all becomes black and white I guess.

Myself I think that, like most things, it isn't black and white. I can't see a small group of cells as human, any more than I can see an acorn as an oak tree. The potential is there, but that's all.

Hinch Fri Jul 12, 2013 12:48 pm

I agree DL. It's very far from being B&W. Sometimes termination is the lesser of two evils.

The act itself may be distressing and highly controversial but forcing a rape or incest victim to carry her foetus to term is, to me, far more repugnant.

johnb Fri Jul 12, 2013 4:52 pm

So long as it is recognised as an evil, though the lesser of many, I have no real issue.

It is when it is a lifestyle choice I become annoyed.

Hinch Fri Jul 12, 2013 5:06 pm

And yet conversely, those with such a morally dismissive attitude to abortion would perhaps be the least desirable people to bring a child into the world.

This genie is definitely not going back into the bottle. Ireland is perhaps right to proceed with caution but their refusal to allow terminations in the cases of rape and incest victims is cruel and unjust and does nothing to convince anyone that it has any moral authority.

Guest Fri Jul 12, 2013 10:43 pm

[quote="Dalelad"]I would imagine many pro-lifers would say that it's not the foetus/baby's fault that its creation is the result of such circumstances, and they would ask why it should receive the death penalty for the actions of others? Once you accept as a 'fact' that life begins at conception, and a zygote is the same thing as a fully developed human being, then it all becomes black and white I guess. [/quote]
Not exactly, Dalelad, life begins at conception, yes, but I am sad you feel it necessary to try and suggest that those of us who believe this are trying to compare the very start of life with one many months on, I doubt anyone suggests that and it is rather disingenuous of you say they do.

I am of course well known as pro-life and it is to me barbaric that a child is killed because of the sins of others. To walk in my shoes imagine we are talking about a child that has traveled down the birth canal, that magical moment when it can no longer be killed without very serious consequences, and you will understand my horror. Conversely, whilst I cannot agree with such a position, I understand your lack of horror if you sincerely believe life doesn't start until the baby's umbilical cord has been cut.

As for the new Irish law, here is the line for me because if the mother's life is in danger then you are risking her life to give birth and in those circumstances only she can make that decision. My personal view is one I have thought long and hard about before coming to the conclusion, horrified though I am at the thought of someone having to make such a choice, that I would take the risk just as I would now for any of my three boys, but I would understand should someone else choose the other option - I also understand easy for me to say as I can never be in the situation.

Dalelad Sat Jul 13, 2013 8:42 pm

I'm surprised you leap to accusations of disingenuousness, J. I was coming from a position I used to hold, actually and you didn't come into my mind. If life begins at conception then either it's wrong to destroy it then just as much as it is later. Or do you not agree with that?

Also I never said that I consider life to begin at the moment of birth. Far from it. I think that abortion appears far too easy some times, and some appear to use it as a form of birth control. but then also others agonise over the decision. As I said, it's not black and white. At some point consciousness and pain must develop in some way in the womb, but not when it's a group of a few cells. Sometimes it's better to ruin one potential life that ruin two actual ones.

Hinch Sun Jul 14, 2013 10:17 am

Nobody here is asking for abortion on demand. I see this as a complex issue. Historically of course, as with contraception, the rules, customs and legislation have been overwhelmingly been laid down by men and in the case of the RC Church, single men.

The reality of course is that there is no point in having legislation that is unenforceable. It is becoming increasingly unrealistic to imagine that you can tell women what to do with their own bodies and people will seek terminations abroad or go where they can obtain them illegally with all the horrors that this would entail, as we know from history.

Every child, a wanted child would be the ideal. Our attitudes to sexual morals have changed massively since the 60's. Almost half of all UK births now take place outside marriage. This coupled with changes to the benefits system are likely to see more demand for TOPs.

Guest Sun Jul 14, 2013 7:24 pm

[quote="Dalelad"]If life begins at conception then either it's wrong to destroy it then just as much as it is later. Or do you not agree with that? [/quote]I completely agree, Dalelad.

Guest Sun Jul 14, 2013 7:26 pm

[quote="Hinch"]Nobody here is asking for abortion on demand...[/quote]There is no need to ask, we already have abortion on demand. 180,000 legal abortions a year, many of them repeat patients speaks volumes. It is now simply a (barbaric) form of contraception.

Hinch Sun Jul 14, 2013 8:00 pm

Not a fan of Stevie Nicks then I take it?

Are you also against the 'morning after pill'? That is described as an abortificant by many but I have no problem whatsoever with it.

Sadly, there are those who seem to use abortion as an alternative to contraception but these are not the sort of people you could ever force to go full term and would be the back street abortionists' bestest friend.

Although I cannot deny the emotional and moral strength of many of the pro-life arguments, I see it in medico-legal terms. Full of fudge I know but the image of RC priests haranging their bigoted congregations outside clinics which do TOPs is, to me, a less palatable alternative.

I do find the images and anecdotes re late abortions distressing and feel that they should be performed as early as possible. As a former theatre nurse I never participated in any nor would I have.

Guest Sun Jul 14, 2013 10:34 pm

[quote="Hinch"]Are you also against the 'morning after pill'? That is described as an abortificant by many...[/quote]
It may be described by "many" as such but form what I read it isn't. The NHS website (http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/contraception-guide/Pages/emergency-contraception.aspx) specifically states:

There are two kinds of emergency contraceptive pill. Levonelle has to be taken within 72 hours (three days) of sex, and ellaOne has to be taken within 120 hours (five days) of sex. Both pills work by preventing or delaying ovulation (release of an egg).

Emergency contraception does not cause an abortion.

Hinch Mon Jul 15, 2013 10:18 am

You are right J. A priest once tried to describe it to me as an abortificant but then he also tried to describe using a condom during sex as being an affront to God by preventing the creation of souls.

I am far from being 100% clear in my mind re abortion issues but I do know that if my daughter was raped or if her health or life was threatened by a pregnancy or if we knew that a foetus she was carrying would be severely mentally or physically disabled, I would support whatever decision she made whether it be pro-life or pro-choice.

I am as opposed to the views who see abortion as a convenient alternative to contraception as I am to those who force women to carry to term even when their life is in known danger. For me, the alternatives between pro-life and pro-choice are far too black and white for Hinch's muddled logic though I am more drawn to some of the various arguments by those advocating some choice options.

Hinch is a failed abortion. When my Ma discovered that she was pregnant whilst still unmarried, she took Penny Royal, gin and hot baths in an attempt to 'flush me out'. She failed miserably to the joy or regret of many! (She bought the Penny Royal from the herbalist on the old Rochdale indoor market.)

Once, on a philosophy summer school I did in Bath years ago, we were discussing the issue around the notion that if we had the power, would we have aborted the foetal Hitler.

Atlas Tue Jul 16, 2013 1:10 am

Once, on a philosophy summer school I did in Bath years ago, we were discussing the issue around the notion that if we had the power, would we have aborted the foetal Hitler

Herr Hitler was a product of his upbringing and of the times in which he lived. Had it not been Adolf it would almost certainly have been another of a similar ilk. No 'blame' can be attached to a foetus whatever 'name' it might ultimately be given. Wink

Hinch Tue Jul 16, 2013 6:37 am

If he was just a product of his times, how come everyone didn't share his views? Nurture AND nature have a big part to play here.

Atlas Wed Jul 17, 2013 12:27 am

Many did Hinch. Not all. But then not all ever do. His popularity by 1938 put three quarters of the German people behind him. That they were conned is beyond doubt. But then aren't most electorates at one time or another. Nature and nurture did indeed play a big part in his thinking. The times in which he lived made most take on extreme views of one ilk or another. I repeat however that the foetus can never be blamed - only after man has interfered with it in its most formative years can we say the result produced should surprise no-one. Smile

Guest Fri Jul 26, 2013 6:00 pm

Shocking photo: late-term aborted baby lies in open casket

[url=http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/photo-late-term-aborted-baby-lies-in-open-casket-at-city-hall-funeral/]http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/photo-late-term-aborted-baby-lies-in-open-casket-at-city-hall-funeral/[/url]

Sponsored content