To be frustrated that it's impossible to have a discussion on abortion ethics....

[coconuttella]

On one side there's those who believe an embryo has fully human rights from conception, and on the other those who believe the foetus has no rights at all until birth.

Both sides seem to put forward their position forcefully and dogmatically as though they're stating the obvious, and anyone who thinks the ethics surrounding it may be a more complex is shouted down, especially by some on the pro-chioice side who seem to view anyone who doesn't agree with their stance as a misogynistic slave of the patriarchy.

Personally, I'm not in either camp and find the ethical questions complex, with this being brought home the other evening when I was reading that Incas didn't regard babies and toddler as having human status until the age of 3-4 (where they had a ceremony to mark this rite of passage) and no longer totally dependent on their mothers and past the most perilous time wrt child mortality. It made me question again my thoughts on when we should a human should acquire rights, and frustrated me that any discussion on this immediately degenerates into a slanging match.

In Ireland the equal status of the fetus is enshrined in our constitution. And all that does is impact on the pregnant person, like where someone is miscarrying they can't receive any help until their is no longer a heartbeat, look up Savita Halappanavar. The only pain medication someone miscarrying can be given is paracetamol because of the fetus.

A pregnant persons right to refuse consent is removed - for an example of this look up Hamilton vs HSE, horrifying.

No man who kills his pregnant partner gets charged with double homicaide though, nobody is campaigning for child benefit to be paid from conception, and if you miscarry at 23 weeks you aren't even entitled to maternity leave (maternity leave is only 26 weeks here BTW, even if your baby is premature, not a shit is given about born children)

Assigning equal rights to a fetus is a shit show, it doesn't work. Ask an Irish person, we're currently celebrating our 34th year of this shite (and I'm only 33)

You belive the foetus has rights, rights equivalent to those of a 3 year old child?

You haven't understood the point of this thread....

Some people such as yourself have a strong opinion on abortion rights and use various arguments to support your opinion. The quality of the argument is secondary, and you assume anyone who disagrees with your argument disagrees with your conclusion....

On the other hand, I don't have a firm view on abortion rights and started this thread to try and discuss the matter and try to develop my position. The quality of the argument is everything therefore... The argument is not simply a means to an end to try and justify a position that is already so entrenched it is immune to the strength of any argument.

By the way, I could equally written the above regarding "pro-life" postings.... However, those with JRMogg type views have been absent from this debate.

I don't know what the right answer is but I am sure abortion is not a choice I'm sure any of us would make willingly.

There's always a lot of discussion around it being an emotionally hard decision to have an abortion - for some (a lot?) of people it isn't - it's just a quick medical procedure; take a couple of pills & have a heavy period.

So if someone's life is entirely dependent on you, you have the right to cut that dependency and end their life?

How about Siamese twins. One parasites off the other, stronger one. Should the stronger one have the right to remove the parasite, causing their death, or the parasitic one the right to life.

I very much hate the idea of actually terminating if it causes any pain or distress to the foetus

The most common method, chemical abortion (ie pills and pessary) the fist drug 'kills' so the abortion itself is passing dead tissue.

But why does a baby get full human rights after birth, but none beforehand. This isn't self-evident and hasn't been held by most societies throughout history.... yet it continues to be parroted as though it was obvious as saying "the sky is blue"!

Because of what happens when you bestow rights on a foetus. Have a look at Ireland.

You might be half way through chemo when you fall pregnant, your doctors then have to stop the chemo because it will harm the foetus meaning your cancer isn't treated.

The case of the brain dead woman who's husband wanted to turn of her life support, she was basically rotting away but because she was pregnant her life support could not be turned off and he had to go to court.

Savita Halappanavar.

In Mexico a woman who has a miscarriage has to prove it wasn't a termination, if she can't then she risks live in prison.

To put it simply if you give rights to an unborn child you take them away from the person carrying the child.

Siamese twins share a body. That is how they were born. It is not at all the case of an adult suddenly waking up one day to find an unwanted being living inside her body.

Besides, life and death decisions are taken about Siamese twins all the time, operations done with a low chance of survival for the weaker twin that is less "whole". See below:

A British court has ruled doctors may operate to separate conjoined twin girls — killing one to spare the life of the other.

Three judges of the Court of Appeal ruled unanimously in favor of the separation despite the Roman Catholic parents’ determination to leave the infants’ fate to “God’s will.”

The surgery means death for baby Mary, who cannot survive without her sister Jodie.

“Though Mary has a right to life, she has little right to be alive. She is alive because and only because — to put it bluntly but nonetheless accurately — she sucks the lifeblood of Jodie and her parasitic living will soon be the cause of Jodie ceasing to live,” said Justice Alan Ward summarizing the judgment.

The quality of the argument is everything therefore... The argument is not simply a means to an end to try and justify a position that is already so entrenched it is immune to the strength of any argument

So wrong. The position is for many of us so startling obvious that it is actually really rather offensive that you think we need a quality argument to convince you of it.
I don't need any fancy rhetoric to convince you or anyone else that the only person who has rights to my body is me.
Up next, please post quality arguments as to why no-one should mug old ladies or drown kittens.....

No I completely understand that you are examining your own feelings regarding abortion and that's fine i have no problem with that.

However by setting arbitrary time limits on abortions and denying women access to safe abortions on demand we are denying women full autominal rights over their own bodies.

I don't belive a foetus or baby has rights as an individual until it is born others disagree that's fine. Women should make choices for themselves.

What I object to and fight against are other people trying to stop a pregnant woman making decisions for her own body which should be a decision for her with the help and support of her medical team.

I think we should trust women.

Well quite lairy

Op you see some of us have made our minds up and if that's being entrenched then we are entrenched.

Firmly entrenched supporting the
rights of women to access free safe abortions on demand

And it was you op who asked what's the difference between killing a 3 year old and killing a foetus.

If you are still mulling over the difference then really there's no point in continuing this discussion

@FaithHopeCharityDesperation, I'm sure for some women it isn't hard, either physically or emotionally. But I have read a lot of women's stories where this wasn't the case. They have said that at first it was a relief so yes they would have said it wasn't difficult. But it hit them when they got to the 'due date'. They probably wouldn't tell someone who is very strongly pro-choice, because it doesn't fit the accepted position.

It's possibly the case that having the baby would have been worse in a lot of cases, maybe the majority, obviously I'm not in a position to comment on that. But it doesn't mean the consequences are not difficult emotionally. There's grief for what might have been; that doesn't necessarily mean they think it was the wrong decision of course.

mittens

I don't think anyone sensible would disagree that some women are devestated after a termination, some are relived, some indifferent and some absolutlry happy and her on with their lives.

That's always going to be the case but doesn't undermine the fact that free easy abortion on demand is every woman's right.

You can't make policy on some people's emotional experiences

"But I have read a lot of women's stories where this wasn't the case. They have said that at first it was a relief so yes they would have said it wasn't difficult. But it hit them when they got to the 'due date'. They probably wouldn't tell someone who is very strongly pro-choice, because it doesn't fit the accepted position. "

Doesn't it? In what way?

They have said that at first it was a relief so yes they would have said it wasn't difficult. But it hit them when they got to the 'due date'. They probably wouldn't tell someone who is very strongly pro-choice, because it doesn't fit the accepted position.

I felt grief after my abortion, relief and grief. As I wanted to be a parent someday, I just wasn't ready then. I am so very strongly pro-choice - free safe legal, no limitations pro choice. And the majority of people I know who are strongly pro-choice, fighting tooth and nail for choice here in Ireland would be 100% supportive of someone who felt regret, and I've seen them offer that support with my own eyes, I've done it myself. So it is extremely unfair of you to make that comment.

In fact if I regretted an abortion the LAST people I would look to for support would be anti-choicers, because rather than offer support they'd make you feel worse and then use you for their cause. I've seen that with my owns eyes - look at the Women Hurt organisation and look at the presentation they gave at the citizens assembly on the 8th amendment here in Ireland.

But I have read a lot of women's stories where this wasn't the case. They have said that at first it was a relief so yes they would have said it wasn't difficult. But it hit them when they got to the 'due date'. They probably wouldn't tell someone who is very strongly pro-choice, because it doesn't fit the accepted position

As a pro-abortionist I am equally as capable as a pro-lifer of feeling compassion toward someone who has had a termination & has been deeply affected by it.

That wasn't my point though - my point was that I think far too much weight given to the gravitas of the decision & emotional angst of women considering abortions which I feel muddies the waters somewhat.

Many women feel indifferent wrt the medical terminations which the majority of terminations are.
There is no 'baby', you're just overdue a period - you take a couple of pills & have a heavy, late period.

All abortion debates get very emotive very quickly because people immediately leap to 'baby' & imagine a fully formed baby who's just incubating inside the mother.
Most abortions occur well before this point in a pregnancy.

Many women feel indifferent wrt the medical terminations which the majority of terminations are.

Actually, 'indifferent' was perhaps not the right description - I should have said relief, followed by just moving on quite quickly & not giving it much thought after the event.

It is amazing how many people here, who hold perfectly reasonable beliefs try to present them as facts and then with a bag of facts present a logical conclusion without showing all the required necessary and sufficient conditions hold.

It doesn’t matter what the current law is - that can always be changed. It doesn’t matter what human rights are, it’s just a label - if we want to invest the concept of pre-human rights we can. The only thing about the law that needs to be recognised is that it is the current definition of what society has chosen to be acceptable.

There is absolutely no fact* that a woman has autonomy of her body. Currently in law it is not the case in other situations - think forced feeding, and remember previously suicide was illegal.

There is absolutely no fact* that you cannot be compelled to put you life in danger to save others - many in the UK and other countries have been conscripted against their will into the armed forces to precisely do this.

There is absolutely no fact* that you are not responsible for other organisms. If you have a child or even an animal, you have responsibilities that you must discharge - and there can be legal consequences if you choose not to do so.

There is absolutely no fact* that if you take part in an event that you do not have long-lasting obligations, even if they are negative for you as time moves on. If you choose to let out a house, you have no control over the house for a period of time - but do have responsibilities that are enforceable against you.

This is an unresolvable debate - competing ethical arguments will always have a range of views - and it will be what the majority want that will likely be chosen by society - and yes, that does mean, as in all of these choices that it will be imposed on those who do not agree.

Stating your preference is good, but not very useful either to convince others that would be required to change the balance of thought. Unless you also provide the argument of why you came to this conclusion and how you weighed up the alternatives nothing will change.

This is an interesting debate and has definitely helped me solidify my own views on this.

I believe that a woman should be able to choose what happens to her own body. At any point in a pregnancy, she should be able to decide that she no longer wants to be pregnant.

However, I don't believe that a woman has the right to decide whether or not a healthy foetus should live. Clearly if the pregnancy is terminated at the stage most abortions are carried out, the foetus can't survive - but this is an inevitable side-effect of the discontinuance of the pregnancy.

Where the foetus could live if delivered, I believe a woman should have the right to request that the foetus is removed from her body, but the removal process should - as far as possible - try to ensure that a live baby is removed. So the woman still has the choice not to continue with the pregnancy, but the viable foetus also has, in my view, a right to life - this might be a way of balancing the two rights.

I am honestly not saying the law should be changed, the consequences wouldn't bear thinking about. I agree with one PP who said it would lead to a huge increase in children who end up in the care system because their parents can't cope and resent their children. Because mothers are judged for giving their babies up now.

And most adoptive parents are not looking for troubled older children so they will end up in the care system.

Of course it matters what the current law is, since that is what decides what we can actually do.

It's not an unresolved debate for the majority of us, there is no debate. There is no need for debate. It just is.

Blink er thanks for that but we do know the facts

The factremains that laws can be altered and in my view we need to make dam sure the law stays in place to protect women's rights to abort.

We still need to try and pressure other governments around the world to accord women equal rights to abortions.

Now that is a fact

I also don't belive for a second that women wouldn't share their termination story with s pro choicer,what ever she feels, as let's face it pro choicest are a lot more empathetic and warm than forced Birthers.

@Lovingmybear2, as I said, I don't think the law should be changed. But I was taking issue with it being a 'simple', just like a heavy period. Physically it might be true, but emotionally could be another story.

Good therapy is the answer imo. As I also said, it doesn't mean the woman regrets the decision, just that it's hard to cope with.