MPs unite to fight law that will make abortions available in Northern Ireland

[pintsofguinness]

puck

The point is not to terminate "kids" but to have the option of termination of an unwanted pregnancy. You are perfectly right of course that the contraception argument is very thin, but to coin a phrase - if you cant distinguish the difference between early mitotic cell division, and a fetus that can survive on its own - then its no wonder you are anti abortion

You tried to suggest that if abortion was available there would be less child abuse, neglect etc but we all know that that's  not the case.
You can talk about cells all you want in an attempt to jusfity abortion but cells that have a beating heart and human features is a life.

You also avoided my question:
To quote myself (again)

Now puck, maguire, luder, stephenite - let me ask you a question (a point I've raised before on other threads on this subject but which went unanswered) - if I get a woman pregnant and turn around and tell her I want nothing to do with the baby, he or she will never know who I am and will never get a penny what would you think of me? That I was well within my rights because it's my choice not to be a parent?

There is more to adoption than simply having the child and giving it away. We make it sound so easy. Carrying a child to term is NOT just a walk in the park. Nor can I imagine it would be easy to give that child up. Women who consider abortions are not evil, they are not incapable of loving a child (except perhaps in extenuous circumstances). Perhaps at most you can label them selfish. However, if they make a value judgement and differentiation on the age of the cells vs the first sign of a viable fetus (which I will concede is then human life) , from first impregnation to 2 cells, 4 cells, 8 cells, 16 cells and so on - why shouldnt they be? Provided abortion IMHO is carried out before 12 weeks, it is perfectly acceptable.

We make adoption sound easy? At least you're giving the child a chance.  And yes you're right, abortion is based on downright selfishness and all these arguments about a collection of cells, not really a baby is people trying to convince themselves that there is nothing wrong with abortion.  I don't believe anyone can consider something with (at the very lease) a heartbeat as not being life.

Provided abortion IMHO is carried out before 12 weeks, it is perfectly acceptable.

Because it doesn't look like a baby?
vital oragans are in place
arms and legs are taking shape
baby is responding to pressure and noise
brain and nervous system is functioning
the heart is beating (long before 12 weeks) and blood is being pumped around the body
eyes and ears are formed

But this is just a collection of cells?


maguire

Apologies - i missed your reply, i didn't ignore it.
Surely the difference is that at the stage where men are chased, there is a baby to look after. If the mother gave birth and then dumped the child, she would be chased to provide for it too.

But surely a man has a right not to be a parent - a woman apparently has a right not to be a parent.
I'd imagine most of us here to consider any man who runs away from his parental responsibilites as being a loser yet some of you think it's perfectly ok for a woman to avoid hers and deny a life. 

'Life' and 'Human Life' are not necessarily the same. The images you showed, yes very emotive, but for most arguments, probably accepted as being after the stage where there is a human life rather than a clump of cells, albeit one that could not survive on its own. (Although i accept that for your argument, those images are still within the abortion limits.)

If it's not a human life what sort of life is it?  That beating heart belongs to a human being. 
I love this survive on it's own argument as well - of course we all know a new born baby wouldn't last too long if it was left on it's own but sure you mean survive outside the womb - in the same way that puck decides abortion shouldnt take place after the baby looks like a baby people come up with their own definition of life in order to justify their pro abortion stance.
I can understand someone arguing that it's not a life until the heart starts beating (which is after about two weeks) but how the f**k can someone argue a beating heart is not a life!

So your beliefs or morals are more important than those of a woman who wishes to have an abortion?

An unborn, defenceless baby is more important.

[Puckoon]

No - I never tried to suggest that if abortion was legal - there would be less childabuse/neglect. I asked where are all the pro life posters on the plight of the poor, and the abused. There is a fundamental difference. If you would like to discuss the point - its better to refrain from inferring meanings of posts which simply arent there.

You've posted strong opinions on the value of life here before - we have all read the "no tears from me" posts. Seems like when someone behaves in a manner unbecoming of the society you want to live in - there is no real issue with the "real" murder of "real" people. We've also debated at length about the requirements to call yourself an (irish) republican.... Remember the post? At all costs, or something such?


Either way - its a tad ballsy to try and defend the sanctity of human life (that cannot exist on its own) and not have any respect for the murder of real people.


However, you have a very good and interesting (and frankly only a point you could come up with!) point concerning the chasing of the father of children for child support, regardless of wether they want anything to do with the child. Maguire is also wrong, if a mother decides to give up her child after birth (abandonment not adoption) she isnt required to do anything more (provided she doesnt leave it in a moses basket on the street - in which case she could face cruelty and neglect charges). I dont have an answer for why that is - it appears to me that the courts of law and society have decided that is how it is.



The reason I argue so heavily on the side of pro choice isnt because Im gung ho for abprtion - there are just alot of people out there willing to put a big X against abortion without really understanding anything about it.

This is the 4th such thread we've had on this topic - the point of this one being should it be legal - to answer that question, I see no reason why not. I do not believe laceers claim that many of his friends would be childless if abortion was available on this island. Easy jet and the norse sea ferries may well see a drop in sales however. For me that is the only difference.


Just on a technical note - the term survive on its own isnt quite as simple as you want to make it seem. A fetus (at a certain age - not 100% sure when) could in a poor case scenario be saved if the mother was dying. Lets say 27 weeks, just for sake of argument. Prior to that time, if the mother was to fall ill and die, even with prior arrangement and the best medical care, the fetus would not survive. No matter how much care there was or if mother mary was there to care for it herself. After a time point however (27 weeks) with fantasic medical care, and substitute parenting - the fetus could survive. Now I hope you understand the point of surviving on its own a little better and can no longer use it as a stick to beat the pro choice group.

[Maguire01]

maguire

Apologies - i missed your reply, i didn't ignore it.
Surely the difference is that at the stage where men are chased, there is a baby to look after. If the mother gave birth and then dumped the child, she would be chased to provide for it too.

But surely a man has a right not to be a parent - a woman apparently has a right not to be a parent.
I'd imagine most of us here to consider any man who runs away from his parental responsibilites as being a loser yet some of you think it's perfectly ok for a woman to avoid hers and deny a life. 

Again, let me repeat, that if a woman gave birth and dumped the baby, see too would be a 'loser' as you put it (although i acknowledge that it's not always black and white, for a man or a woman).
The difference between the man and woman argument, is that, through a twist of nature, the woman carries and gives birth - the man doesn't.

So your beliefs or morals are more important than those of a woman who wishes to have an abortion?

An unborn, defenceless baby is more important.

Yes, says you. But it won't affect your life if the baby is born, so that's easy to say.


As for the arguments about when a life is a human life and whether a heartbeat constitutes human life - well i'm not a biologist or a medical expert, so i'm not going to bring an argument further down a road i am not sufficiently qualified in. Someone who is in a vegetative stage can have a heartbeat, but whether it is a human life is debatable. That's veering off into the euthanasia debate, which isn't for this thread necessarily, but the comparison is valid in a way - maybe that's one for another poll/thread!
Regardless of whether it is a life or cells, i retain my position of leaving the choice in the hands of the woman in that situation.

[Maguire01]

However, you have a very good and interesting (and frankly only a point you could come up with!) point concerning the chasing of the father of children for child support, regardless of wether they want anything to do with the child. Maguire is also wrong, if a mother decides to give up her child after birth (abandonment not adoption) she isnt required to do anything more (provided she doesnt leave it in a moses basket on the street - in which case she could face cruelty and neglect charges). I dont have an answer for why that is - it appears to me that the courts of law and society have decided that is how it is.

Fair enough - i'm no expert on the legalities of the situation and that is an obvious loophole.
But in responding to PoG, it would be my view that at this stage (i.e. when the baby is born), the mother should be as accountable as a father would be expected to be. That this isn't the case is clearly an anomaly.

[pintsofguinness]

Puck

You've posted strong opinions on the value of life here before - we have all read the "no tears from me" posts. Seems like when someone behaves in a manner unbecoming of the society you want to live in - there is no real issue with the "real" murder of "real" people. We've also debated at length about the requirements to call yourself an (irish) republican.... Remember the post? At all costs, or something such?

That's right, when someone behaves in a manner unbecoming to society they'll get no tears from me when they meet a bad faith because society would be a lot better without them.  The same hardly goes for an unborn child. 
As for the irish Republican thread - I cleared up waht I meant when I said "at all costs" and did say that I didn't think you had to believe in armed conflict or killing people in order to be an irish republican.  That was made perfectly clear at the time.

Either way - its a tad ballsy to try and defend the sanctity of human life (that cannot exist on its own) and not have any respect for the murder of real people.

an unborn child isn't "real people"?

The reason I argue so heavily on the side of pro choice isnt because Im gung ho for abprtion - there are just alot of people out there willing to put a big X against abortion without really understanding anything about it.

What's to understand? 

This is the 4th such thread we've had on this topic - the point of this one being should it be legal - to answer that question, I see no reason why not. I do not believe laceers claim that many of his friends would be childless if abortion was available on this island. Easy jet and the norse sea ferries may well see a drop in sales however. For me that is the only difference.

Do you really think that many irish women go to England for abortion - I don't - however if having abortion illegal in Ireland means one life is saved then that's good enough for me.

Just on a technical note - the term survive on its own isnt quite as simple as you want to make it seem. A fetus (at a certain age - not 100% sure when) could in a poor case scenario be saved if the mother was dying. Lets say 27 weeks, just for sake of argument. Prior to that time, if the mother was to fall ill and die, even with prior arrangement and the best medical care, the fetus would not survive. No matter how much care there was or if mother mary was there to care for it herself. After a time point however (27 weeks) with fantasic medical care, and substitute parenting - the fetus could survive. Now I hope you understand the point of surviving on its own a little better and can no longer use it as a stick to beat the pro choice group.

So what? If a child can't survive outside the womb it's ok to kill it?
Why isn't it legal to kill a baby that can't survive without the aid of an adult?
Why isn't it legal to kill a baby/child that can't walk?
Who said it is perfectly acceptable to end a life if it can't survive outside the womb and what right had they to determine that?

Maguire

Again, let me repeat, that if a woman gave birth and dumped the baby, see too would be a 'loser' as you put it (although i acknowledge that it's not always black and white, for a man or a woman).
The difference between the man and woman argument, is that, through a twist of nature, the woman carries and gives birth - the man doesn't.

Well I wouldn't call a woman who dumped a baby a loser - I'd say in most  of those cases she would be in need of medical care. 
The difference between the man and woman argument is that a woman would only need to carry the child for 9 months - yet some of you don't expect her to do this, you think it's perfectly fine for her to opt out by ending the life.
A man, at the very least, is expected to financially support that child for 18+ years - 18+ years compared to 9 months! (and yes I'm sure pregnancy is no walk in the park) or he's considered to be among the lowest in society?  Hypocrisy at it's finest!

Yes, says you. But it won't affect your life if the baby is born, so that's easy to say.

If it did affect my life I'd have the same opinion.

As for the arguments about when a life is a human life and whether a heartbeat constitutes human life - well i'm not a biologist or a medical expert, so i'm not going to bring an argument further down a road i am not sufficiently qualified in. Someone who is in a vegetative stage can have a heartbeat, but whether it is a human life is debatable.

If someone in a vegetative state is smothered with a pillow the person responsable would be up for murder.  More hypocrisy.
The sad thing is that an aborted unborn baby probably had more signs of life than the person in the vegetative state. 

[Maguire01]

Maguire

Again, let me repeat, that if a woman gave birth and dumped the baby, see too would be a 'loser' as you put it (although i acknowledge that it's not always black and white, for a man or a woman).
The difference between the man and woman argument, is that, through a twist of nature, the woman carries and gives birth - the man doesn't.

Well I wouldn't call a woman who dumped a baby a loser - I'd say in most  of those cases she would be in need of medical care. 
The difference between the man and woman argument is that a woman would only need to carry the child for 9 months - yet some of you don't expect her to do this, you think it's perfectly fine for her to opt out by ending the life.
A man, at the very least, is expected to financially support that child for 18+ years - 18+ years compared to 9 months! (and yes I'm sure pregnancy is no walk in the park) or he's considered to be among the lowest in society?  Hypocrisy at it's finest!

I've addressed this in my response to puckoon's post. You possibly hadn't read mine at your time of writing.

Yes, says you. But it won't affect your life if the baby is born, so that's easy to say.

If it did affect my life I'd have the same opinion.

Yes, and my point is that if it did affect you, you would be entitled to input. My point is that when it doesn't affect you - when it's another woman's situation, it's not your place to make choices on her behalf.

As for the arguments about when a life is a human life and whether a heartbeat constitutes human life - well i'm not a biologist or a medical expert, so i'm not going to bring an argument further down a road i am not sufficiently qualified in. Someone who is in a vegetative stage can have a heartbeat, but whether it is a human life is debatable.

If someone in a vegetative state is smothered with a pillow the person responsable would be up for murder.  More hypocrisy.
The sad thing is that an aborted unborn baby probably had more signs of life than the person in the vegetative state. 

They would. But they shouldn't. Regardless, that wasn't my point - my point was that a 'heartbeat' isn't sufficient, in my opinion, to be regarded as 'human life'.


I'm not sure hypocricy is the correct term to use against me here - in a number of replies to my posts. I am trying to be consistent and will attempt to explain any inconsistencies that may arise.

[Puckoon]

You are very impressive with the quotations. I bet your essays looked good in school. Even if they were as full of shite, smokescreens and mirrors as the rest of this.


1. You cannot appropriate value to life just when it suits you. Well, you obviously can, but it discredits your opinion in mine.
2. No, an unborn child is a real person. You should stick to one discriptive term and use it consistently. A child, IMHO (which at the end of the day is the basis for my beliefs) is not legally allowed to be terminated. Neither is a baby (another emotive term you like). A FETUS however IMHO (really hate to have to keep clarifying this) is not a real person. Im not telling you how it is, im telling you what I believe.
3. Everything.
4. Yes. I do believe that. You would be naive not to. I dont know the exact percentage, but I know for a certain number of people in my family and friend circle who have gone. Multiply that by the population and its a fair percentage.
5a. So you should use the term correctly. Its a term you seemed to not know the understanding or meaning off. You are difficult enough to engage with without running rampant with your own ideas on what we mean. Thats so what.
5b. If a child cannot survive outside the womb its ok to kill it? You mean just every day? Should we have a police force checking for women that are in that stage of pregnancy? Is that what you are asking? Because one is as ridiculous as the other. Unless you are asking if that makes it ok to abort that fetus? Is that what you are asking? Because its hard to figure out the real question from the dramatic. If abortion is to be allowed - then this would be a certain cut off point for termination of a viable fetus.
5c. Another ludicris question. What do you really mean? Are you just asking terribly dramatic un related questions? Nolo Contende.
5d. As above.
5e. Ive never heard this being said before. I certainly never said it. I just wanted to make sure you understood the context of the "child that cannot survive by its self". This means unborn child that still needs its mother. Not artificial life or medicine. Think of the term you wrote there - perfectly acceptable. acceptable isnt ever perfect. There is nothing perfect about this.


Lets see what twisting you will do with this.

[pintsofguinness]

Maguire

Yes, and my point is that if it did affect you, you would be entitled to input. My point is that when it doesn't affect you - when it's another woman's situation, it's not your place to make choices on her behalf.

It's my business as a human being.  You could say it's none of my business (or society's) if that woman gives birth, brings the baby home and decides she'll smoother it with a pillow becuase she doesn't want to be a mother anymore. individuals in society have an obligation to look out/defend the weaker in society - whether they be unborn babies or somenoe in a vegetative state. 

Regardless, that wasn't my point - my point was that a 'heartbeat' isn't sufficient, in my opinion, to be regarded as 'human life'.

What constitutes a human life then?  I assume, in your opinion, someone in a vegetative state isn't a human life either?

[pintsofguinness]

Puck, who decided that it was acceptable to abort a baby if it couldn't survive outside the womb and what right had they to do this?

btw, I've no interest or intention of softening my language in an attempt to make you feel less guilty about your views.

[Puckoon]

Pints,
What are you asking? Clarify and I will try and answer.

[pintsofguinness]

Puck, who decided that it was acceptable to abort a baby if it couldn't survive outside the womb and what right had they to do this?

I can't make it any simpler.

While you're at it, you can tell me what right have you to decide that a baby can be aborted as long as it doesnt look like a baby.

[Puckoon]

I can answer the second one right away. I dont decide such things. Sorry. Im neither an abortion Dr, nor a woman.

On the first one, a baby is not aborted if it cannot survive outside the womb. That is not the criteria. However, where I live - the US supreme court ruled in 1973 in Roe Vs Wade (Im sure youve heard of this) that americas abortion laws were unconstitutional.

The central holding of Roe v. Wade was that abortions are permissible for any reason a woman chooses, up until the "point at which the fetus becomes 'viable,' that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid. Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."[1] The Court also held that abortion after viability must be available when needed to protect a woman's health, which the Court defined broadly in the companion case of Doe v. Bolton. These court rulings affected laws in 46 states.[3]


I guess you'd need to take it up with these guys. I dont make the rules. I simply have an opinion on them.

[pintsofguinness]

On the first one, a baby is not aborted if it cannot survive outside the womb. That is not the criteria. However, where I live - the US supreme court ruled in 1973 in Roe Vs Wade (Im sure youve heard of this) that americas abortion laws were unconstitutional.

The central holding of Roe v. Wade was that abortions are permissible for any reason a woman chooses, up until the "point at which the fetus becomes 'viable,' that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid. Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."[1] The Court also held that abortion after viability must be available when needed to protect a woman's health, which the Court defined broadly in the companion case of Doe v. Bolton. These court rulings affected laws in 46 states.[3]

So you did know what I was asking?

These people have no right to make decisions like the above and people like you and maguire and whoever else will cite them as some natural fact.  Btw if you smoothered someone in vegetative state (and who showed less signs of life than an unborn baby) you'd be tried for murder by the same courts?  Yeah, these are the people you should be looking to for guidance on how society should be 

[Solomon Kane]

A tough one for some of NI's political parties. Outside the DUP it's hard to believe that they are all singing from the one hymn-sheet.


http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/mar/06030108.html

I don't know if this is valid, but if it is it may put a bit of a cat among the pigeons.

[Puckoon]

On the first one, a baby is not aborted if it cannot survive outside the womb. That is not the criteria. However, where I live - the US supreme court ruled in 1973 in Roe Vs Wade (Im sure youve heard of this) that americas abortion laws were unconstitutional.

The central holding of Roe v. Wade was that abortions are permissible for any reason a woman chooses, up until the "point at which the fetus becomes 'viable,' that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid. Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."[1] The Court also held that abortion after viability must be available when needed to protect a woman's health, which the Court defined broadly in the companion case of Doe v. Bolton. These court rulings affected laws in 46 states.[3]

So you did know what I was asking?

These people have no right to make decisions like the above and people like you and maguire and whoever else will cite them as some natural fact.  Btw if you smoothered someone in vegetative state (and who showed less signs of life than an unborn baby) you'd be tried for murder by the same courts?  Yeah, these are the people you should be looking to for guidance on how society should be 

I know one other person as contrary as you. I took a stab at what you were asking. You arent happy if the question isnt answered - so much that you will repeat it until it is. But when it is - how dare we know/guess what you were asking!  

Secondly - why would I smother someone in a vegetative state? If you really wanted to top someone, there are better ways than that. If I tried to perform a home abortion Id probably be jailed as well. What is your point? If a Dr performed an abortion on my wife, or we went to oregan and euthanized my father in law - both are legal.