# 3661

Posted: 17/11/2009 11:41

Nawny so sorry to hear of your terrible ordeal, you must be devastated. This is the point I have raised before that a lot of people who are pro-choice (what a strange term though as it is really only pro choice for the mother, and actually involves removing choice from the baby) tend to use such terminology as termination, foetus, clump of cells, pre-human, pre-person etc etc (all of which you would be perfectly within your rights to be furious over given what you have been through) but they seem to do this in an effort to cover up the fact that it is human life (at its most vulnerable) that they are deliberately targeting and killing. As long as they can detach themselves from the reality then they can hold onto their ideals, but I would challenge anyone to remain unmoved on their stance re convenience abortions having seen a premature baby before their eyes.

# 3660

Posted: 17/11/2009 00:40

Abortion should not be legalised in Ireland. I am a mum to a beautiful 3 yr old girl and should have a 3 month little boy but unfortunately it wasn't to be and I had a miscarriage at 14 weeks. I had to go into labour & deliver my baby. 

At 14 weeks he was about the length of my hand, all his features were present, eyes, nose, ears, legs, arms & the most fascinating thing i couldn't get over was his fingers & toes were so prominent. He had his organs & they were beginning to develop properly. We didn't know the sex but after tests it was confirmed it was a boy.This was a human being & unfortunately he didn't get to survive not by his or our choice. 

Why would someone make a conscience decision to end this life was what i was thinking during my ordeal and believe me it was an ordeal that i wouldn't wish on my worst enemy! To think that qualified doctors & nurses end lives like this is really in humane. You wouldn't seriously go and murder a 1yr old so why do it to a 10,12 or 14 week old baby even though it hasn't yet breathed the same air as us!

Believe me i don't condone rape, and i do feel very angry when i hear of someone being raped and i wish every evil on the assailant, but if out of this unbearable act a life is born why and who are we to end it. 

# 3659

Posted: 16/11/2009 17:44

OMG Razor I hought you had lost the plot! I could feel myself tensing reading your post, thinking "why is he spweing such drivel"?! Ha ha thankfully I read to he end of your post before I reacted.

# 3658

Posted: 16/11/2009 16:43

 “Abortion is not the natural end to life, but rather the deliberate killing of the foetus”.

What are you talking about JamesH?

Abortion is the medically mandated right not to gestate and inextricably attached foetus to the point of viability by a non consenting already existing person blah blah blah etc etc repeat pepeat!

Sorry James couldn’t resist it. I can’t take this discussion serious while Chris continues to regurgitate embarrassing unsubstantiated drivel smothered in a devious cocktail disingenuous spin void of any sensible argument or resemblance to fact.

Two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the universe- Albert Einstein!

# 3657

Posted: 16/11/2009 13:50

Anon message 3652 (13/11/09 15.31)

Just so you know we will all die of something at the end of our life. Technology shifts may save our lives today but eventually we will all die. That is the natural end to life. Our life expectancy today is much more than it was historically due to technology shifts.

Abortion is a very different concept. Abortion is not the natural end to life, but rather the deliberate killing of the foetus.

So rights are not movable. We all have the right to not be killed. That is immovable regardless of technology. Euthanasia is another debate entirely. However the terminally-ill person may have expressed their desire to not suffer either through a living-will or through the way that they conducted their lives. Abortion does not give the foetus this opportunity to express a choice. Abortion just kills, very different to dying of cancer.

# 3656

Posted: 16/11/2009 12:29

Chris,

I am not sure why you keep saying the same thing again and again. I totally understand your stance. You find abortion acceptable on the basis that only the pregnant woman can keep the foetus alive and therefore that is why it is ok to kill it. I understand it.

# 3655

Posted: 16/11/2009 10:50

Hi Chris whereas I agree on some level with the point you put to James it should be pointed out that someone dying from cancer because there is no available treatment for them is not quite the same as actively targetting and killing an unborn child because "they would not have survived anyway had they been born prematurely".

# 3654

Posted: 13/11/2009 15:33

I don't imagine anyone thinks abortion cures rape. But it can resolve a pregnancy resulting from rape as in the case of the two ladies who came on to post here. The victim will remain raped certianly but she will no longer be forced to gestatre the resultant foeuts and bear the rapists child. Should the victim of one barbaric and violent crime against humanity be subjected to enforced continuation of pregnancy and childbirth justr as she was subject to enforced intercourse and enforced impregnantion? If a woman becomes pregnant,  she will either miscarry, abort or give birth. The mornign after pill is NOT foolproof nor does it take into account a woman or girl who is too terified and truamatised to seek help or too young to know. As for having "themselves medically cleaned"?? What on EARTH are you talking about? If this is a reference to your post as "The 'Doc" is is absoluteLY NOT standard medical procedure in Ireland (or anywhjere else in the modern world at the present time) and should NOT be inflicted on already traumatised rape victim - so pregnancy resulting from rape DOES occur, sadly.

Signed Chris

# 3653

Posted: 13/11/2009 15:32

Razor, you cannot make decisions for now based on what might be in the future anymore than you can do so based on what was in the past - which is the reason why I would not agree with abortion regulations which were set in the past with later restrictions on gestational period. All implanted fertilised ova do not all attain viability - some miscarry.However, to attempt to reduce a woman to a mere "place of residence" fdr a feotus says yet more about your attitude the women in this context.Tho of course your comment "Nothing is added to or taken from the embryo except food and waste products" which reduces women not only to mere walking wombs but a cross between a food sopurce (like cattle) and a waste desposal system! Lovely. It tells me pretty much all I need to know about your opinions. What the embryo undergoes after implantation  - which is the medically confimed start of pregnancy is DEVELOPMENT to a state of viability in the body of a CONSENTING already existing person. Without said development, no baby can come to exist. I see you are again stooping to insult - this time at Thrashattack. Just shows yet again that you do this when you know you have no argument left.You think at 6.6. billion people the world is not overpopulated? Ah here - you've delved so deeply into that place where logic and reason cannot follow it's almost laughable.If a foetus at 8 weeks were the same as you it would be possivle for a woman to give birth at 8 weeks pregnant - it isn't and it;s nonsense to suggest it is. Your intellectual inability to understand this scientifically proven fact is irrelevant.

Where you force a rape victime to gestate a foetus which is the result of rape, and bear it against her will, you ARE putting a foetus before her.

Signed Chris

# 3652

Posted: 13/11/2009 15:31

Buzz, the news about artifical wombs is simply fantastic. It would be wonderful both for women who cannot carry a pregnancy and those who miscarry or cannot sustain a pregnancy. I'm not sure tho that it is designed in such a way that an embryo or foetus could be transferred, as soon as it's discovered from a woman to the artifical womb, in cases of crissi pregnancy but that were the case it opens up a fantatic vista not only incas like tat but alos in so cases where illnesses are exacerbated by prenancy and women's health or life is threatened.Science has always shifted however -  the same cuold be applied to the fact that 70 years ago, patients with certain types of cancer were considered terminal and died as a result wheras now the same illness can be successfully bne treated with medicaytionb, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, surgery etc. So James, such rights are completely movable. 70 years ago the cancer sufferer would have be left to die, today s/he is treated and has a good chance of recovery. Similarly, 150 years ago without modern medicine, a cancer patient may have died horribly, Today palliative care is given altho it may hasten death or some patients opt for euthanasia which again shift the time of death - not exactly a natural cause. On the scale of morality argument, I woud say that's it's wrong to rob a bank (tho they seem to be robbing us lately us that's whole other story), it's to steal 20 euor from your neighbour but conversely if you have to steal food from your neighbours garden to feed your family then ethically this is permissable (tho in an enlightened society, your neighbour should know your plight and offer to share the food).

# 3651

Posted: 13/11/2009 15:29

James re: your post 3621 and since, it's seems you continue not to get it - 1 day old babies, your granny, 40 year old women, retirees etc do NOT need anyone to gestate them. Up to the point of viability  this can only be done by one person - the pregnant woman. This is where your attempt at logic falls down.If I became ill and could not care for my newborn, you could perhaps make a very caring, loving, helpful substitute. If I became ill such that the pregnancy was threatening my life or health, you could not continmue to gestate the pregnancy to viability for me. I see you finally finally understand my point that 22 weeks is the earliest recorded survival and hence the earliest possible point of viability. This is the entire premise on which the argumjent surrounding viability for birth is based. The 1 day old and your granny havinmg already been born and no longer being inextricably attachmed to anyone. These are facts and as facts are not and cannot be deomstratred as illogical. And thenk you but I am not the last uncomfortable with facts. It is not I or Thrashattack at all who have come up with the 22 week limit based on their notion of viability. The earliest point of viabiity being at 22 weeks is based on medical evidence, as you admitted above - not anyones notions. The lungs of a feotus are not breathing - their is no oxygen in the womb. The intake of amniotic fluid is not the same as breatrhign, In fact if a woman went into labour at 8 weeks, the foetus could not breathe and hence miscarriage would occur. If a foetus at 8 weeks had the same standing as a woman (the pregnant women ONLY person ever risking being put inot the position of competing for her life against a feotus at 8 weeks) doctoes would not be medically mandated for prefer the life of the women in emergency situaitiosn and they are.

Signed Chris

# 3650

Posted: 13/11/2009 13:37

Hi Razor I do see your point and I will be honest and admit that you are completely correct and your logic is unflawed therefore I cannot dispute it. I am simply saying that on a personal level, I would be less disgusted by someone having a termination if they had been impregnated against their will, than I would be by someone who is just too careless to use protection and who wishes to make the unborn pay.

Of course a foetus conceived through rape has the same rights as the foets conceived through the consensual sex between two people who love each other, so I realise that my stance is flawed...but it remains...and I guess thats why my opinion begins and ends here.

I do (always) aprpeciate your posts though.

Cheers

# 3649

Posted: 13/11/2009 09:26

Buzz you claim “I certainly would be in favour of legalising it for rape victims, but that is not the same as legalising it for people who are too careless to use birth control”. Please consider the following and don’t take offence?

So is the child conceived through rape any less of a human being than one conceived through his mother’s careless birth control method? I’m not in any way trying to distract from the abomination of rape, I’m just pointing out an illogical anomaly within your argument.

Supporters of abortion claim that by denying a pregnant woman access to abortion pro lifers/ anti-abortionists are forcing that woman to continue pregnancy against her will. This is a  bare faced LIE!

By denying a woman infanticide are you forcing her to continue motherhood against her will? By denying a husband honour killings are you forcing him to continue marriage against his will? Of course not! No decent sane person would ever willingly force any woman through a pregnancy against their will and such repugnant accusations to the contrary have no basis in truth, logic or basic human decency!

# 3648

Posted: 12/11/2009 22:12

buzz: how would you legalise it for rape victims? What is to prevent any woman wanting an abortion to claim she has been rape? Nothing. In which case, how do we ensure a woman stating she's been raped is genuine? What criteria do we enforce? Must the rape have been reported to the police within a certain amount of time? (tricky as not all victims want to go to the police, or may be in denial and so not go to the police, etc) But surely that could possibly lead to an increase in false reports? For instance, a woman has unprotected sex, and cries rape just in case (not impossible). Should we then have stronger criteria? Maybe demand a conviction? Difficult given only 5% of reported rapes result in conviction and the case would likely be brought after the woman had already given birth. So how do you get round this dilemma? I don't see that you can, in all honesty. Either it remains illegal, or else is legalised, because legalising it only for rape and only in given circumstances could prove impossible and pointless.

# 3647

Posted: 12/11/2009 12:32

Barbie this question has already been extensively covered. I thought you wanted to get away from debating the 0.1% of reasons sighted for abortions but never mind.

Firstly it is not a question of putting a victim of rape before the foetus. The foetus is not the perpetrator, the rapist is!

Rape is a vile and repugnant act of violence against another innocent human being. So is abortion. One does not condone or justify the other.

Secondly, abortion does not cure rape. The victim will remain raped whether or not she aborts the child. Should the victim of one barbaric and violent crime against humanity be subjected to the further violation of abortion and become the perpetrator of another equally violent and barbaric crime?

If a woman becomes pregnant, for whatever reason, then she will have a baby. The only question is will that baby come out alive and kicking through birth or mutilated and dead through abortion? But have a baby she will!

Thirdly, in the only study ever conducted with pregnant rape victims, over 80+% of them rejected abortion. Those who considered abortion claimed that pressure from family, boyfriends etc had influenced their decisions. This fact dispels the myth that rape victims themselves actually want abortion.

Fourthly, there is absolutely no reason why any rape victim should become pregnant. Victims can have themselves medically cleaned or take the morning after pill etc, etc.

Finally, the unborn child, a complete human being (not potential, humanoid or any other crass nonsense) is innocent, and has committed no crime. Why should any child have to pay for the sins of the father with their life? Although you speak of an 8 weeks old foetus, remember a foetus is the term used to describe an unborn child up until birth. Immediately after birth the new born is referred to as a neonate. Biologically a neonate is identical to the foetus he/she was 10 minutes before in the birth canal. Should a woman be permitted to kill her one hour/day old child or her two of four year old child because he/she was conceived through rape? You cannot alleviate the pain and suffering of one human being by butchering another.

# 3646

Posted: 12/11/2009 11:31

Trash attach, if you truly have any idea, of what you’re talking about why don’t you use the laws of physics, to challenge or contradict the explanation of entropy I gave, rather than silly blanket innuendoes claiming to understand “how these things work”? This time I am the one who won’t be holding my breath?

My apologies if I understood what you were referring to when you implied “The Sun drives every bit of life on this earth”.

I assumed you were implying that the sun alone (or its energy, sunlight) was the source of life on earth, because its not! The Sun is the primary force of Earth's climate system. Sunlight warms our world. Sunlight drives atmospheric and oceanic circulation patterns. The energy from this sunlight helps support almost (but not All as I explained) all life on Earth via photosynthesis, and drives the Earth's climate and weather(not the man made global warming myth).

However an accurate scientific understanding of the sun is still being developed and there are a number of present-day anomalies in the sun's behavior that remain unexplained. So your blanket statement is factually incorrect.

Please feel free to throw as as many insults as you wish my direction but do please try and be mature and responsible enough to stand accountable for your own insults and not try to lay the blame on others.

I must say I find your bizzare and unfounded accusations of James bullying Chris amusing. I fail to see how James’ dismantling of Chris’s illogical, opinion laden, factually void, pro abortion rhetoric as any thing remotely to do with bullying. However I do understand how being confronted with the truth can make some very uncomfortable!

# 3645

Posted: 12/11/2009 10:54

Barbie,

Clearly I 100% condemn rape as a violation of any woman. My understanding of the process of rape counselling is that the morning-after pill is offered and accepted as the norm. While no contraceptive is 100% reliable, this would certainly prevent pregnancies in the vast/vast majority of cases. There will obviously be a small minority of cases where the rape victim ends up pregnant.

While I obviously would feel great sorry for these individual women, that to me does not justify the killing of another human being. Hardcases make bad law is no truer than in this situation.

In the past Barbie, I have said that in principle I could live with abortion in extreme cases. However, when I further analyse my thoughts on this issue, logically there is no point in the 9 months gestation that can really be considered the cut-off. Chris and Thrashattack 22 weeks does not ring true. There is no logic to saying that you can abort up til 21 weeks, 6 days, 23 hours, 59 mins and then say one minute later at one minute past midnight you cannot due to viability. In real practical terms, for each individual foetus, with the turning of midnight the foetus is no more viable than they were a minute previous. By extension, it can then be argued that abortion is justifiable for the entire 9 months. If we accept it for 22 weeks and 1 day, we must accept it for 22 weeks and 2 days and so on. Also by this I mean that whatever reason we deem justifies abortion is valid for the entire 9 months. For example if you believe that rape is justification for abortion, she is a rape victim for the entire 9 months. She is no less a rape victim at 22 weeks than she is at 21 weeks.

# 3644

Posted: 12/11/2009 10:07

barbie if you read back through the discussion you will find most of us do. I certainly would be in favour of legalising it for rape victims, but that is not the same as legalising it for people who are too careless to use birth control. Please dont try to cloud the very distinct difference between the two

# 3643

Posted: 12/11/2009 00:11

Couple of questions:

Would those against abortion agree with legalising it in cases of rape?

If so (and I REALLY hope people will place a victim of rape before an 8 week old foetus), how would you set about implementing this?

# 3642

Posted: 11/11/2009 22:23

Thrashattack,

There is a vast difference between bullying and stating facts.

In summary, I have highlighted that we would all agree that there are many stages of human life which are not viable without the help of others and I give the example of the one-day old baby and my granny. Since this is such a self-evident fact that cannot be disputed, I think it is fair to say that we are all in agreement there. Stating a self-evident fact cannot be called bullying.

Likewise, Chris herself has stated many times that she does not agree with abortion for the entire 9 months, but like yourself only agrees with abortion up to your definition of viability. Therefore, again it is a self-evident fact that gestation is not a criteria for Chris to accept abortion. Again, stating a fact cannot be deemed bullying. I have invited both you and Chris a number times now to point out any flaws in my logic so far. Perhaps instead of calling me a bully, if you dealt with the facts we might have a more interesting debate.

Finally, what makes the under 22 month foetus unique is that only the mother can keep the under 22 week foetus alive. This is Chris’ own logic not mine. Therefore it cannot be deemed bullying to restate her own logic to you and Chris.

All of the above are simple statements of fact that cannot be controversial or called bullying. Yet by following the logic of these facts, the logical conclusion is that the under 22 month foetus is uniquely dependent on the mother to live and that makes it ok to kill it in Chris’ books and in your books. Just because you find this an uncomfortable fact to face does not make it bullying. Again I courteously invite you or Chris to point out which step of the above logic is flawed. I have made this basic argument several times now with the only response from you that I am a bully and the only response from Chris that I do not understand her. Yet neither of you have been willing or able to engage on the actual individual steps of logic that leads to this inescapable conclusion.

# 3641

Posted: 11/11/2009 15:41

Well said on 3635 James. Of course people try to cloud their arguments but cannot cope when someone actually breaks them down and says "Is THIS what you actually mean?".

I too, find fault with the "clump of cells" scenario. Technically we are ALL clumps (and of course given that "clump" is a very unscientific word, I think I can safely say that it can contain an indiscrete number of cells) of. Or perhaps we have missed the point and the right to life is now determined by how MANY cells are in said clump. For example  a foetus may only have 1 million. A neonate may have 4 million. This gives the neonate a right to life, but not the foetus. Does that mean a bigger person has more right to life than a shorter person? I think we will see (again) this tendancy to apply criteria to abortion issues but ignore their implications in all other walks of life.

# 3640

Posted: 11/11/2009 14:47

Chris,

Apologies my message 3634 should of course have been addressed to Thrashattack.

# 3639

Posted: 10/11/2009 19:27

The argument on whether it’s okay at 22 weeks that I make is a logical argument.  It is not an emotion driven argument.  It is not a morality argument.  Its truth driven based on all the facts available.  If people want abortions people will get abortions.  Let people decide for themselves and then give them the support that they need RATHER than forcing them to go abroad and having little support because people will do it anyway.  But you'd rather condemn these people it seems?

Re the Personal insults... I was told earlier by Razor in the discussion that my idea of the sun driving all the life on the planet was going back to what the pagans believed.  Its not at all... its science.  I was retorting to this in the same way as he did. And on top of that, what he said was completely wrong and his follow up explanation was completely wrong.  If he was an engineer and knew about the laws of physics, not only would he know these things but also he'd understand how they work. 

My reference to JamesH and Bully was to do with the fact that he keeps saying to Chris his opinion and saying that "We are in agreement on this" to which Chris has to keep replying that they are not in agreement at which point he comes back and said again, "We are in agreement on this".  That’s bullying ones point across isn’t it and twisting what people are saying to suit ones argument?

"Why don’t you put some road kill in direct sun light and watch the sun drive life back into it? Just don’t hold your breath while your waiting!"

Razor you know perfectly that’s not what I’m referring to.  I never mentioned direct sun light.  I said the Sun drives all life on this planet.

# 3638

Posted: 10/11/2009 16:50

Barbie 86, 100% of pro abortionist’s arguments centre on > 1-2% of abortions (i.e. rape, treat to mothers life). According to abortion providers own statistics 96% + of abortions are conducted for social or economic reasons. I agree viability is not a logical criterion for abortion. It is however another pro abortion tactic and as such must be addressed.

All newly created unborn babies irrespective of whether they are two weeks or twenty weeks old will attain viability naturally, in time, if not deliberately targeted and killed first.

Your insinuation that a foetus is a grouping of cells is grossly ignorant fallacy and contradicts ALL medical and scientific knowledge. A foetus at 8-10 weeks is medically and biologically every bit as much a human being as you or I. Ones intellectual inability to understand this scientifically proven fact is irrelevant.

Prohibiting women from committing vile crimes against humanity through the abomination of abortion is not treating women as second class citizens no more that prohibiting men from committing crimes against humanity through rape is treating men as second class citizens!   

Treating women as mere animals through the violation of abortion and their unborn children as cluster of cells IS treating women as second class citizens and their unborn child as garbage!

Without the fundamental right to life ALL other rights are meaning less!

Abortion is nothing more than the dismemberment, mutilation and death of a defenseless innocent human being because their existence is inconvenient to another. Nothing else!

# 3637

Posted: 10/11/2009 15:55

Barbie you may believe that not having free and easy access to abortion treats women as second class citizens, but some believe that free and easy access to abortions treats the unborn baby as something you might scrape off the bottom of your shoe.

# 3636

Posted: 10/11/2009 15:53

Barbie maybe you should read post 3631 and I really dont think there is any other reply to your "clump of cells" logic,aside form the obvious which is everyone is a clump of cells we are ALL made up of cells, millions and millions of them. You cant use the fact that someone is composed of cells as justification for ending their life, because technically one could do the same to you.

# 3635

Posted: 10/11/2009 15:53

Barbie,

I would agree that it isn’t useful to talk about a tiny % of abortions that are done after 20 weeks. The only reason that 22 weeks comes up at all is that if it is argued that abortion is not acceptable for the entire 9 months, then somewhere in the 9 months a line must be drawn. Chris & Thrashattack have themselves come up with the 22 week limit based on their notion of viability.

You say that the argument of viability only applies to 0.1% of cases. I have argued many times that I would go much further than that and say that viability is not an issue at all in the debate in favour of abortion. This is simply on the basis that there are countless people at vulnerable stages of their lives who are not viable without the help of somebody else. For example one-day old babies, one year old babies and my granny. What is different about the under 22 week foetus (or the13 week foetus) is that the only person that can keep them alive is their mother, (whereas as Chris points out, anyone theoretically can keep the one day old or my granny alive). Therefore the justification for abortion is that only the mother can keep the foetus alive, therefore it is ok to kill it.

By the way just so you know the 8 week foetus is in fact alive, has all its organs in place, has a heart beat, reacts to sound and light and its lungs are breathing. Nobody is suggesting that the 8 week foetus have a higher ranking than the mother. As is law in Ireland, it is correct that the 8 week foetus has an equal standing. I would hope that you would also hold that the one-day old baby has an equal standing to everyone else, despite the fact that they cannot do anything except sleep, eat, cry and poop and have very little in the line of personality. I fear for the one-day old baby, as basically they are not much more than a bigger group of cells and you have made clear your thoughts on a group of cells.

# 3634

Posted: 10/11/2009 10:02

Chris,

When you refer to me “twisting what people say, saying it back to them and telling them that they are in agreement with you when they clearly are not”, I assume that you are referring to my message 3616 (2/11/09)  to Chris.

You will note that I concluded each of the main paragraphs of that message, with the opportunity for Chris to debate my reasoning by the question “Is there anything wrong with the logic in this paragraph, if so please point it out”. This surely is a courteous way of debating and leaving myself open to correction. I note that neither Chris nor yourself have pointed out anything illogical in the two main paragraphs of debate in that message.

My approach has been to take the stance of people like Chris, break it down into its constituent parts and present it to show the full logical conclusion of this stance. That is not “twisting” what somebody says; rather it is presenting it in a way that they highlights an aspect that they may not have fully realised was inherent in their stance. If that makes you or Chris uncomfortable, that of itself does not make me a bully either. It is merely confronting you with a truth that is uncomfortable, and it is up to you to understand why that truth or fact is uncomfortable.

# 3633

Posted: 10/11/2009 09:57

I dont know if anyone saw that program last night re premature babies that Kim Ryder did? Fair play to her after losing her own little boy when he was born premature, to find the strength to interview women whose babies have survived.

I know some people will say "oh it's unrelated" or "you're trying to cloud the issue" but I find it very hard to differentiate between the two (well obviously they are different, on one side are mothers who desperately want their child to live, and on the other are women who want their child to die) but to see a beautiful, perfectly formed little baby battling to survive when born at 26 weeks and then to see them grow up to be healthy little toddlers...well it's hard not to think that some people would condone aborting that same baby.

I think for me, and again I am sorry for being emotional about this, but when I see a premature baby that is the same age and size as a baby that will be aborted, it really hits home and makes the issue much more real and vulgar.

# 3632

Posted: 10/11/2009 09:08

Why does the abortion debate always centre on the tiny proportion carried out later in pregnancy, for serious medical reasons? In 2008 in England, 90% were carried out at under 13 weeks gestation, with 73% carried out at under 10 weeks. Just 0.1% are carried out at over 24 weeks gestation. Meaning, 9.9% are carried out between 13 and 24 weeks, but this will be on a sliding scale, with the % higher the earlier it is in pregnancy.

It is not therefore useful to discuss abortion in terms of a tiny minority carried out later in pregnancy, particularly as most abortions carried out after 20 weeks are for very serious medical reasons.

The argument of viability only then applies to 0.1% of cases, given the chances of survival between 22-24 weeks are slim to none, and the chances of survival before this non-existent. You cannot possibly suggest a foetus is viable at 8-10 weeks and that what is at this stage a grouping of cells, should be placed before the life of a living, breathing, sentient human being. I find the argument that it should bizarre.

It is a great shame that abortion is still illegal in some countries and shows that women are still treated as second class citizens. I would place a large sum of money on the law being totally different in these countries if it were men who were effectively forced to carry a pregnancy to term and then go through the physical and mental trauma of childbirth (women do still die in pregnancy and childbirth you know)...

# 3631

Posted: 09/11/2009 16:27

Hi guys,

Just dropping in to give my opinion on the topic title but wont join the discussion, i am hopping over from the IVF board (buzz feel free to eavesdrop anytime its nice to make people aware of what ivf intails physically and emotionally!).

For obvious reasons i am against abortion but do respect others opinions on the matter though personally dont agree with it unless in extreme circumstances i.e rape, health issues.  I have gone thro. 6 attempts of ivf including 2 recent miscarrriages and the last 7 yrs of infertility has really opened my eyes to what a fetus really is.  Our last scan to confirm our baby died measured it at 9 wks and 1 day and it was perfectly formed with head, legs, arms, tummy etc. and usually at this stage the baby should be kicking moving etc.  I am just wondering for those who consider/get an abortion do they really understand exactly what is happening, do they get a scan (usually transvaginal at this stage) and see exactly what they are aborting, i wonder if they saw the fully formed baby ( no matter how tiny) moving, breathing, beating heart would they reconsider their decision.   Many people are of the opinion that at such an early stage of development it isnt a "real" baby, if you saw my scan you would think otherwise, yes it depends on it mother to survive it doesnt have a choice.  I hope their gps make them fully aware of what they are doing as i can only imagine the pain they would go thro. in years to come if they regret their decision, i dont know anybody who has gone thro. an abortion so i dont know how well informed they really are.

Buzz i wonder will they invent this artifical womb soon?? I could do with one!!

Its only my opinion and i do see where all of ye are coming from with yours.

gi xx

# 3630

Posted: 09/11/2009 15:18

The Sun drives every bit of life on this earth.  Tell me how you could exist without the sun.  Tell me how anyone or anything connected with life could.  Please tell me…

Wow Trash attack! Ok since you asked: caves play home to a host of creatures, including fish, bats, salamanders, insects, spiders, shrimp, crickets and a variety of fungi and bacteria. None of which require the sun to live! Caves are in constant darkness with high humidity. Nutrients are hard to come by, and many caves contain mixtures of gases (sulfur, methane) that are considered lethal. Yet despite this many organisms have adapted to live in this dank, dark environment WITHOUT sunlight?

Why don’t you put some road kill in direct sun light and watch the sun drive life back into it? Just don’t hold your breath while your waiting!

“My completely logical suggestion about viability and changing technology is that we move the line”

So are you suggesting that whether a life form is considered human or not is dependant on technology? So a 22 week old delivered in a first world country is a human being and a 22 week old delivered in a third world country isn’t because one has the technology to help the child survive and the other hasn’t.

And you consider that logical? Mmmmmmmm

A fertilized human embryo has its own unique genetic human signature that is different than that of either of its parents. As well as being separate and unique, a fertilized embryo is ontologically no different than a human toddler, adolescent, or adult. Nothing is added to or taken from the embryo except food and waste products (which is no different than for any human being). At no point does the embryo undergo any fundamental, ontological change after conception; it simply grows and develops just like a toddler grows and develops, or a thirteen year old girl. Sorry Trash attack but attempting to draw parallels between a woman’s periods and a human being is retarded at best!

The myth of overpopulation has been exploded so many times it is absolutely astonishing if not some what disturbing that some people still blabber on about it. With more than 97% of the land surface on Earth is empty, If anyone is still truly concerned about overpopulation then by all means lead the way and spare the rest of us having to listen to such ignominious tripe!

# 3629

Posted: 09/11/2009 14:01

Thrashattack just as a side note, your justification for taking away the rights of the unborn child are based on the fact that they are on a certain notch along the developmental chain ie; they come before neonate, toddler, child, adolescent, adult and geriatric but AFTER egg, sperm, blastocyst, embryo... If that is really your justification then can we not also say "well lets take the right to life of a toddler away.After all if we afford THEM rights then we will have to afford the same rights to babies, foetuses, blastocysts, eggs etc" - do you see my point? Whatever about arguing based on the issues of gestation, viability, mothers welfare, etc you can't say "well you dont support eggs rights so why support foetus rights" because they are simpy two notches at different timelines on the same chain, and as such your theory could be applied to ANY notch on that chain.

Its like telling someone that its ok to rob €20 from your neighbour, but not ok to hold up a bank. Just because one is a lesser amount does not take away from the fact that morally it is wrong to do both.

# 3628

Posted: 09/11/2009 13:50

Thrasattack resorting to insults is kind of scraping the barrell, regardless of what your opinion is...dont you think? And calling someone a pagan engineer - come on now!

Re your point about gestation, saying something is "like" something else is not quite the same as saying something IS something else. The unborn baby is not a fundamental and constant part of a womans body. Its position there is transitory therefore we cannot say it is defintiively part of the body like, say, a nose or a foot.

# 3627

Posted: 09/11/2009 12:08

Thrashattack,

I agree with you 100% that “discussions are talking about a subject and saying why you think someone is right or wrong and giving your own opinion on the Subject”. I hope that is what I have always done. I certainly have always tried to stick to facts and logic and have tried not to stray into personal comments. However, just because I say that somebody is being illogical, and can demonstrate this with a logical line of argument does not make me a bully or does not make my comment personal. Sometimes facts are uncomfortable and sometimes we do not want to face facts, but they are never-the-less facts.

Thank you for conceding that the unborn foetus is not part of the mother’s body.

With regard to the shifting sands of viability. The essence of your argument is the same as Chris’s. In your eyes abortion is justifiable purely on the basis that the under 22 week foetus is uniquely dependent on the mother in order to remain alive. As I have pointed out many times that is quite different to abortion being justifiable on the basis of viability, since the one day old baby and my granny are equally not viable without the consenting help of somebody, and thankfully you are not proposing it is ok to kill them. 

All humans live with the basic fundamental human right that society will endeavour to protect them from being killed. All, that is, except the under 22 week foetus. And what is more that basic fundamental human right will change in the future depending on the change in technology. It may be ok to kill the 21 week old foetus today, but not perhaps in 5 years time. There is no other time in our lives when this basic fundamental human right is so discretionary or as you call it “moving the line”. It is a basic human right, in which case it is an absolute human right and not subject to such moving of goalposts. This is not like moving from dial-up internet to broadband internet access, it is about the basic rights of a living human being.

# 3626

Posted: 06/11/2009 20:57

Yes Buzz, your last paragraph in message 3624 sums up the moral dilemma very well. The same foetus (say 27 or 32 weeks) that was ok to kill in the 70s would not now be acceptable to kill. At no other stage in our lives is this fundamental human right so movable. Either we have the right to expect to not be killed or we don’t. People like Chris want to be able to move the goalposts at will, depending on technology. Yet from the day a baby is born, there is no such restrictions on this basic human right. i.e. from the day we are born we can expect society to want to protect us from being killed and  this expectation is valid regardless of technology, until the day we die of natural causes. 

What adds insult to injury, is the fact Chris’ argument is that the justification for allowing the killing of the under-22 week foetus, is the fact that at this vulnerable stage in life, the only person who can keep the foetus alive is the mother and therefore that makes it ok to kill it.

# 3625

Posted: 06/11/2009 18:10

"The sun does NOT drive life on this planet as ancient pagans believed. "

RAZOR wow!  The Sun drives every bit of life on this earth.  Tell me how you could exist without the sun.  Tell me how anyone or anything connected with life could.  Please tell me… And um….were you lying about being an engineer?  Retired and from the time of the ancient pagans maybe?

On the other point I admit you're correct....Technically the unborn child isnt part of a womans body.  But its resident in the body and the mother carries it around for the time of gestation and it is, therefore, like part of the womans body….

My completely logical suggestion about viability and changing technology is that we move the line...Its always been the way with everything... as we progress, our methods of dealing with issues progress.  You see it everyday in business, science, engineering... we change our methods to fit our situations, knowledge and capabilities.  If a child survives earlier, then move the line which you cant abort the pregnancy. 

Thats interesting what you were saying about the artificial wombs and all.  If that were possible then there would be little need, if any, for Abortion (though the contraception issue needs to be sorted out because I still think world overpopulation is going to be a huge issue...And please dont quote me the rubbish about "We could all have 100 sq meters to exist in" or whatever cos we know that is just insane.)

Believe it or not though, pro Abortion people are not pro abortion because they think its great to kill unborn children.  I think most agree with it because its the only solution for an issue .... the issue I see is regarding the rights of women and how, if they get pregnant they shouldnt have to continue it if they dont want to.  Thats what It comes down to for me. 

The rights of an unborn child? Well what about the unused fertilised eggs used in IVF.  If they're fertilised then are they a baby and so are they being killed?  They are potential human beings.  And so is every sperm you have and every egg you have.  I mean this is the extreme you can go to.  You could turn around and say that every period a woman has is wrong because it could have been a child or every drop of sperm thats wasted is wrong because it could have been a child. 

Just on a side note, JamesH .... just to help you out here because you seem a little unclear on something.......discussions are talking about a subject and saying why you think someone is right or wrong and giving your own opinion on the Subject.... a discussion is not twisting what people say, saying it back to them and telling them that they are in agreement with you when they clearly are not.  That isnt logic...thats bullying.

# 3624

Posted: 06/11/2009 14:12

Hi James its interesting you should bring that up because I am fairly sure I saw something about a uterine transplant there a while back... how long until we are able to gestate babies in artifical wombs? (And wouldnt that be simply marvelous for those who do want babies and have difficulties conceiving - I occasionally look through the IVF thread as I find the whole process fascinating - sorry for eavesdropping girls! - and to think maybe in a few years we might actually be able to fertilise the eggs and gestate the embryos outside the body). I think that too would raise more questions in the abortion debate because of course, there would no longer be the argument of "my body, my choice" - there would only be "my BABY, my choice" and that obviously doesnt hold up in the same way. Whatever about being able to determine whether your baby lives or dies because it is YOUR body that it grows in, one would not be able to determine if it lives or dies just BECAUSE it is, biologically, yours..because in that case we could do that at any stage in the childs development (and adolescence may be  a time when some parents would consider it! :)

Anyway, point being is that Yes James is right as science evolves and we ahve greater technology at our fingertips, the boundaries are ever shifting.

One also has to wonder why, say in the 70's...a baby born premature would not have survived at 22 weeks, they would have survived closer to say 32 weeks. So in those days, abortion advocators would have been ok with a baby of 31 weeks being aborted because it was "before the point of viability"....now its 22 weeks. The science has changed...but why have the ethics? How doe sone explain the ten week difference?

# 3623

Posted: 06/11/2009 12:24

Yes Chris, We are actually in agreement in understanding your stance and you do not seem to realise it. Yes my granny doesn’t require a consenting pregnant mother to remain alive. Therefore the reason an under-22 week old foetus can be killed in your books is that they are reliant solely on their mother to remain alive, and this is justification to kill them (in your books).

# 3622

Posted: 06/11/2009 09:07

Buzz, I think it was Chris and James who were debating that point. Actually I believe James was pointing out the illogical reasoning behind using viability as a justification for abortion.

I believe viability is an arbitrary term. Fifty years ago, any infant born prior to 30 weeks gestation was not likely to survive. Today, infants as young as 20 weeks gestation have survived outside of the womb. With medical advances who knows what the future might hold?

However, consider this anomaly, in the light of using viability as a benchmark for abortion. Even today, while unborn children are currently viable around 20 weeks gestation in developed countries (and are thus considered to be human beings), across the ocean, in some undeveloped countries a fetus of the exact same age is not viable, and is therefore, according pro abortion rhetoric non human???

Viability is not a logical criterion for abortion. It’s just another pro abortion smoke screen, to deliberately muddy the waters. All newly created unborn babies will attain viability naturally, in time, if not deliberately targeted and killed first.

The overriding fact in all of this, persistently ignored by abortion advocators, is an unborn baby is still an individual and a human being, regardless of its viability, place of residence or its particular stage of development.

If anything, non-viability should be a compelling reason against abortion, because a baby so young does not yet possess even a fighting chance to survive outside of its natural habitat, the womb. Protection should always be given to those who need it most wouldn’t you agree?