Pregnant girl looking for abortion money

[liaconn]

But where is the 'proof' that it is life? What is your definition of life?




As an aside to where life begins and whether or not abortion is morally wrong, people who believe it is wrong and want it outlawed force the consequences of their own moral code upon others. I believe in choice. This does not force any of my own beliefs on others, if someone wants to have an abortion I believe that whatever their choice is, is the morally correct decision. So if they do it or not they are not wrong in my eyes. Nor does my belief system force consequences upon people who have a different set of beliefs to me. Which is the more compassionate way to behave? Force your beliefs on others or allow people to make their own decisions without judgement?

But those of us who don't agree with abortion would say you are forcing your choice onto a very vulnerable little life. That is genuinely what we believe, its not about making high handed judgments, its about feeling very sad and concerned that a little baby is having its life deliberately ended.

 

[truthseeker]

But those of us who don't agree with abortion would say you are forcing your choice onto a very vulnerable little life. That is genuinely what we believe, its not about making high handed judgments, its about feeling very sad and concerned that a little baby is having its life deliberately ended.

I dont believe it is a life though - but lets say for a minute that I accepted that life begins at conception and that we are talking about a human life.

Is it any humans responsibility to use their own body to prolong the life of another?

If you needed a kidney to live and my kidney was a match would I be morally wrong if I didnt want to use my own body to give you my kidney? Should I be forced to give you my kidney? Of course I shouldnt be.

But if a woman doesnt want to use her own body to carry a pregnancy to term why should it be deemed morally wrong for her to make that decision?

To my mind forcing a woman to use her body to do something she doesnt want to do is no different than raping her. No human should be expected to use their own bodies in a manner in which they dont want, even if it does mean saving the life of another human. People have to be allowed to control what happens to their own bodies.

Regardless of when life begins, conception or later in pregnancy, I dont think that anyone should be expected to make use of their bodies to carry a pregnancy to term if they dont want to.

 

[Purple]

Regardless of when life begins, conception or later in pregnancy, I dont think that anyone should be expected to make use of their bodies to carry a pregnancy to term if they dont want to.

So if a woman is two days away from term she should be allowed to have an abortion? You have a very absolutist view on this matter.

 

[truthseeker]

So if a woman is two days away from term she should be allowed to have an abortion? You have a very absolutist view on this matter.

In reality that is an extremely unlikely situation to arise. 2 days short of term a baby would be likely to survive out of the womb without major medical intervention. So that doesnt really hold with the point I am making. A woman doesnt need to use her own body to ensure the survival of a baby 2 days short of term, if doctors remove the baby it will live anyway.

 

[Purple]

In reality that is an extremely unlikely situation to arise. 2 days short of term a baby would be likely to survive out of the womb without major medical intervention. So that doesnt really hold with the point I am making. A woman doesnt need to use her own body to ensure the survival of a baby 2 days short of term, if doctors remove the baby it will live anyway.

But if it's not a live 'till birth then she should be allowed to insist on an abortion at any time before that, even if the "baby" is capable of independent life. I am just pointing out the flaw in taking an absolutist position when two basic rights are in conflict.

 

[shanegl]

From a purely scientific/logical point of view I'd say life begins at conception as from that point on there is really no clear way of distinguishing life at different stages e.g. if you say life begins at 6 weeks what is the difference in the foetus at 5 weeks 6 days and one day later? With conception there is a clear difference between the individual gametes (sperm/egg) and a fertilised embyro.

The clear point for me is when the brain stem forms, which I think from memory is around 7 weeks. I don't think there can be any argument that a foetus without a brain is a life. After that it gets fuzzy.

 

[Purple]

The clear point for me is when the brain stem forms, which I think from memory is around 7 weeks. I don't think there can be any argument that a foetus without a brain is a life. After that it gets fuzzy.

Good post

 

[cole]

The clear point for me is when the brain stem forms, which I think from memory is around 7 weeks. I don't think there can be any argument that a foetus without a brain is a life. After that it gets fuzzy.

At 21-25 days the heart is beating. By 30 days it has a brain.

 

[shanegl]

At 21-25 days the heart is beating. By 30 days it has a brain.

Those numbers seem suspect, but I could be wrong. Does anyone have a definitive source? The point about heart beat seems spurious though, since there's no brain to tell it to beat!

 

[cole]

And your point is...?

Here is a source from the U.S. National Library of Medicine.

Week 3 of gestation

• The brain, spinal cord, and heart begin to develop
• The gastrointestinal tract begins to develop

 

[cole]

I take issue with the tone of your posts and under normal circumstances I wouldn't bother answering them. This is a different issue.

I won't bother trying to explain about a beating heart and brain being more than potential for life.

Regarding your query on contraception...

If I (as I do) believe that life begins at conception, then anything that destroys that destroys life.

I hope that is clear enough for you.

I don't intend taking any further part in this discussion.

 

[Purple]

Because it is too difficult? Probably why Flax left as well. You should have read his/hers posts if you didn't like my tone, although as you are in agreement, I guess that would be ok.

*Its not very clear, no. If you are saying that life begins at the first moment that the egg is fertilised, that leaves you on a very sticky wicket, as it would mean being against many common forms of contraception. As would the removal of an ectopic pregnancy. Fair enough if that is your opinion, but you may want to elucidate it a little better if it is.

If it's just a potential life right up to birth then you must have no problem with abortion right up to 9 months. Is this the case?

 

[Caveat]

Just out of interest, I would like to ask a question.

Do you think the legal position on abortion in Ireland is too restrictive, not restrictive enough or about right?

And if you think it is either too restrictive/not restrictive enough what changes would you like to see?

 

[Purple]

The difference between my pro-choice and your (if you are) pro-life stance, is that I don't believe I have the right to be ok with it or not, thats not the point. It's not my choice to make for others. It's not my opinion on that really matters. I believe that the only person who can make that decision is the woman involved.
If you are asking do I think it should be legal for abortion up to term, then I have to say (with difficulty) yes. It may go against my own feelings on the matter, but I don't think my feelings are what should dictate the choices of others. I don't honestly think it would be a choice that many would take, and I don't think that many a doctor would assist in such a choice, added to which I think it would be a rather unpopular law, so I think it a moot point.

I think that it is an issue for private morality, not public opinion and legislation. (Which also answers Caveats question on the legislation)

Personally, I think that a cutoff at the point where the life of the foetus is viable on its own is a fair stance, so about 22 weeks. I think that it should be much easier to access early abortion services, and the morning after pill, so that late term abortions are a rarity (which they are already, but more so). I think the law in the UK is pretty fair. But like I said, it's not my choice to make for others. I'm pro-choice, not pro-abortion, and I am not being argumentative when I say that I truly don't understand why people think it is up to them to make moral and ethical decisions of such a personal nature for others.

I appreciate your openness. For my part I feel strongly pro-life and strongly pro-choice cannot reconcile the two...
Since I think that a baby is a person with rights before it is born I see no difference between abortion two weeks before birth and two weeks after, therefore I do not consider it to be a case of personal choice. By 24 weeks there is little or no moral conflict left (in my mind).

 

[truthseeker]

The difference between my pro-choice and your (if you are) pro-life stance, is that I don't believe I have the right to be ok with it or not, thats not the point. It's not my choice to make for others. It's not my opinion on that really matters. I believe that the only person who can make that decision is the woman involved.
If you are asking do I think it should be legal for abortion up to term, then I have to say (with difficulty) yes. It may go against my own feelings on the matter, but I don't think my feelings are what should dictate the choices of others. I don't honestly think it would be a choice that many would take, and I don't think that many a doctor would assist in such a choice, added to which I think it would be a rather unpopular law, so I think it a moot point.

I think that it is an issue for private morality, not public opinion and legislation. (Which also answers Caveats question on the legislation)

Personally, I think that a cutoff at the point where the life of the foetus is viable on its own is a fair stance, so about 22 weeks. I think that it should be much easier to access early abortion services, and the morning after pill, so that late term abortions are a rarity (which they are already, but more so). I think the law in the UK is pretty fair. But like I said, it's not my choice to make for others. I'm pro-choice, not pro-abortion, and I am not being argumentative when I say that I truly don't understand why people think it is up to them to make moral and ethical decisions of such a personal nature for others.

More articulately said that I was able to but I feel pretty much the same way as this post.

Purple - you asked me specifically if I agreed with very late term abortions, just to answer you, very late term I believe there is a viable alternate option, that the baby could be removed from the womans body and survive in the outside world (to be adopted). In theory I still support the womans right to choose to have the baby taken from her body, but I do think that in practice, so late term any doctor would advise the alternate option over an abortion.

I dont think anyone here is arguing for legalisation of late term abortions. Simply to allow the person who is in the situation to make up their own minds whether or not they want to abort.

I dont think its an easy decision for anyone to have to make, and nor do I feel it is black and white, if there are other options it is important they are considered. In practice Id rather see people take up other options (like carrying the pregnancy to term and giving the baby up for adoption) but as this is not a viable option for everyone, I would not condemn someone for making a different decision - even if it is not a decision that I myself would make.

 

[michaelm]

Abortion is not killing a baby. It is terminating a foetus. A foetus is a potential life. You say that makes no difference if the foetus is inside the woman or outside. It makes a huge difference. One is not breathing. Breathing is pretty high on the list for things that are considered to be alive. Inside= not technically alive. Outside= alive. Different.

Again, foetus is the term for the unborn baby from eight week until birth. Would you agree with partial birth abortion so? Where a developing child (20 - 24 weeks) is extracted from the womb, feet first, to the neck, an implement is then inserted to suck out the contents of its skull before the skull is crushed and the body is removed intact.

The whole thing is a clump of cells that looks like a peanut.

Indeed. Because it's small or hard to differentiate it's not worthy. Good argument.

To my mind forcing a woman to use her body to do something she doesnt want to do is no different than raping her. . . People have to be allowed to control what happens to their own bodies.

Wow; restriction of abortion = rape . . in Ireland it's no more legal/ethical for a doctor to carry out an abortion than to assist a suicide, remove a limb on a whim or a kidney for auction. There are limits to what people can ask others to do to their bodies.

No matter what kind of 'linguistic semantics' you employ, termination of a pregnancy is termination of a pregnancy no matter what the reason.

Here's some 'linguistic semantics'; all pregnancies are ultimately terminated, most with a wondrous new baby. Sadly a significant minority end with the flash of cold steel and a tiny dismembered body; always the worst solution (IMHO).

 

[michaelm]

MichealM, instead of picking apart the posts of others, could you try giving more than the most basic opinion of your own? And read the rest of the posts that have already answered several of you points?

I'm not on trial here . .

Could you answer some of my questions please?
1) When does life begin?
2) What is your moral stance on forms of contraception that involve the prevention of implantation? And the removal of an ectopic pregnancy?
3) What specifically is it about the human aspect of life that makes it more unethical to abort a human foetus as opposed to euthanising an animal?
4) Is the foetus distinctly human from the start, or does it acquire it's entitlement to personhood and human rights at some stage during the pregnancy?
5) If the majority of people in the state want abortion to be made legal, do you think it should be?

. . but I'm happy to field your specific questions:
1. Fertilization
2. Opposed to IUD. My understanding is that although both the Contraceptive Pill and Morning After Pill can act as abortifacient they can act to prevent fertilization (on which basis they are licensed in Ireland). No issue with condoms. My views are not informed by religious beliefs. As I have stated previously in this thread every necessary medical treatment is afforded to pregnant women in Ireland, be that the removal of an ectopic pregnancy or the loss of the unborn due to a hysterectomy related to cervical cancer or whatever. Such procedures are not abortion. Irish hospitals do not carry out abortions (on the basis that they are neither legal nor ethical).
3. I believe in human rights and animal welfare(not rights). On that basis I view that an unborn child has a right to life but the welfare of a sick animal may be best served by putting it down. I think that ending the life of a 23 week unborn child (ironically while elsewhere a team of doctors care for a child born premature at 23 weeks) to be different from putting down a badly injured dog.
4. As in 1. above my view is life begins at fertilization; you draw that line wherever you feel most comfortable.
5. No.

I am genuinely in pro-life argument answers to these questions, and would appreciate answers from that viewpoint.

Interested in?

 

[MrMan]

MichealM, instead of picking apart the posts of others, could you try giving more than the most basic opinion of your own? And read the rest of the posts that have already answered several of you points?

Could you answer some of my questions please?
1) When does life begin?
2) What is your moral stance on forms of contraception that involve the prevention of implantation? And the removal of an ectopic pregnancy?
3) What specifically is it about the human aspect of life that makes it more unethical to abort a human foetus as opposed to euthanising an animal?
4) Is the foetus distinctly human from the start, or does it acquire it's entitlement to personhood and human rights at some stage during the pregnancy?
5) If the majority of people in the state want abortion to be made legal, do you think it should be?

I am genuinely in pro-life argument answers to these questions, and would appreciate answers from that viewpoint.

I know this was aimed at someone else but I would like to reply.

1. I am not a scientist, but I don't believe a date can be put in place to accurately pinpoint when life begins because there are abnormalities and we dont yet understand the mind, brain or body enough to determine how early there is a living thinking being in place.
2. I do believe that where the mother is in danger she should have the choice in deciding what to do with regard to an ectopic pregnancy. I have no issue with contraception.
3. I don't think it is appropriate to compare aborting a child with putting down an animal.
4. We are all used to seeing scans and making out the human form, but I think from a personal point of view if my partnet told me she was pregnant in the morning I would consider that there was a person in her womb and it was my baby, I wouldn't consider it a cluster of cells, a blob etc just my baby.
5. I don't but that is democracy, majority rules so there is nothing that I could do about it.

I do understand both sides and that pro choice seems more liberal than pro life but I think alot more people fall somewhere in between and are not comfortable with abortion being a convenience rather than a medical requirement.

 

[truthseeker]

2. Opposed to IUD. My understanding is that although both the Contraceptive Pill and Morning After Pill can act as abortifacient they can act to prevent fertilization (on which basis they are licensed in Ireland).

I believe the Morning After Pill prevents implantation of a fertilised egg (if taken after fertilisation has occured).

 

[michaelm]

And just specifically on question no 3, I was wondering what it is about human life as opposed to other forms of life that make it a higher morality, if you like. I'm not arguing that they are the same thing, and I don't personally believe that.

I can't give you a concise definitive answer to that question, which is probably why you pose it but I suspect that if the other animals knew what we do to some of our unborn they'd think we were crazy.