Here’s a link to a video I’ve been sent by a reader of my blogsite. Depending on your views on abortion, you’ll either be appalled by it or you’ll be bored by it. If you are opposed to abortion because you believe there’s a small human being in there, you’ll be appalled; if you believe that there isn’t a small human being in there, you’ll be unmoved – in fact you might be pleased, in that the procedures spoken of will perhaps help other human beings. Or maybe you’ll belong to a third group – one which I confess has always baffled me – which doesn’t believe what’s in there is a small human being but feels very upset at the thought of what happens to the non-human being in the course of an abortion.
Which group do I belong to? The first – those who think there’s a small human being in there. We’ve discussed this before and I think I’ve indicated that’s my position, mainly because I can’t understand how a foetus in its early weeks is not a human being – up to 20 weeks actually – but after that becomes one. And since I believe it’s a human being, the idea of taking it apart and doling out its bits is more than appalling – it’s barbarous.
The one point that makes me uneasy is that I appear to have Jeb Bush as an ally in this matter. Now that is worrying.
Anyway, I don’t expect everyone to agree with my view, but since abortion is one of those trigger words where some people tend to go a bit crazy, could we be sure that any views we offer are calm and logical rather than abusive and twisted?
Thanks loads.
A simple rule of thumb for anyone (religious or not) is:would I like this to be done to me? This golden rule goes beyond any one culture/religion and seems to be the best rule of thumb for judging right or wrong. Has anyone ever met someone who said they would like to have been ‘aborted’ (I hate the term! It makes it seem like pregnancy is some sort of mission). If we legally have a time that a foetus becomes a human being should we also have a term for pregnancy in the first 20 weeks? The preparation stage for pregnancy.
cant see the big deal if some bird wants an abortion its her business,these holy joes would have us living in budgie cages if they could,we are part of the uk they scream but not on a sunday,this kip is still living in the 1920s,
I agree with your last clause, billy – although I think the 1920s is a bit conservative – I’d have said the 1890s – but I disagree with your earlier clauses. If some bird wanted to beat up a child would that be her business?
Jude
What is your view on the very early stages?
Is it a little human being from the moment of conception, meaning even the morning after pill would be a problem for you?
To try and answer your bafflement about the third grouping of people you mention, I think they get upset because it is simply human nature. We might rationally believe there is no self aware conscious being present, but emotionally we are aware of the potential outcome of doing nothing ie. a new life will develop. We cannot normally divorce feeling and rational thought about such issues, nor should we.
Some `bird`? Is that you Austin Powers?
Does the male have a say or is it just the ‘bird’s’ decision? It is also his child. The only part of the pro-abortion argument that has any logic is the part that claims that the child is part of the woman’s body so she has the right to kill it.
I’m not sure why religion has to be part of the debate. You don’t have to be religious to respect life.
I have to admit I couldn’t watch the video, I feel a bit disturbed from the first part of it and I could tell how bad it was going to get when she started talking about forceps.
Billy would it have been a big deal if your mother had aborted you? I don’t believe you if you say yes.
Has anyone ever used the argument ‘I was going to have an abortion but it took me a few years to get around to it/or was saving up for it’. This seems like a logical extension of the pro-abortion argument.
Commercially sensitive end games
Well done for shining a light on the growing demand for human tissue through what appears to be evidence of illegal and unethical methods. There is a lucrative industry in the demand for different types of cells, tissue and organs that may be used to expedite pharmaceutical research. Therein lies the problem, there is a growing demand but supply is limited. Valid, reliable, ethical scientific and medical research designed to promote, sustain and nurture life is one thing, the contents of the video certainly does not meet any such criteria.
The video also raises complex questions on the central issue of abortion. Dogmatism from pro or anti lobbies will create lots of heat but little light on the subject. We know, there are many shades of grey in this debate as many women and girls continue to leave this country for abortions in England given the lack of therapeutic services.
Do we cherish all the children of the nation equally?
Spare a thought for the destruction of cells, tissue and organs as bombs continue to rain down on the ethical minefield that is the Middle East.
“…I can’t understand how a foetus in its early weeks is not a human being – up to 20 weeks actually – but after that becomes one.”
Fair dues to you for getting to the nub of the matter. I gather that according to conventional definitions an embryo becomes a foetus about 9 weeks after fertilization. I’m not familiar with your views, but I guess you’d have the same difficulty with a 9-week milestone as you do with 20 weeks.
At some point in the reproductive process the law says: “well done little one, you’re now officially a human being and from now on, anyone who kills you will be subject to punishment.” Sadly whatever point we choose it will be somewhat arbitrary.
It’s a bit like setting the voting age, except that the right at stake is more fundamental. Some people are probably quite capable of voting responsibly at 16, some remain clueless all their lives. Lawmakers know that but nonetheless they pick one age for all. It’s much the same with the (much more important) right to life. No sane fireman would risk his life to save a fertilized egg in a test-tube, so I cannot take seriously those who claim the right to life begins at fertilization. Nor can I accept that a woman is within her rights to destroy her unborn baby at will, even in the final weeks of pregnancy.
There’s no easy answer. We can however focus on the question that matters and avoid getting into a tizzy about whether a medic guzzles her wine and salad with a gusto which offends the sensitive.
It is an undoubted fact that life begins at fertilization as any standard text book which deals with biology will tell you. Even at this very early stage of development, the nascent human life already contains the human genome and 23 pairs of chromosomes equally contributed to by each parent. So realistically we are talking about a human with potential and not a potential human being. The most fundamental universal right that one can think of is the right to life and there are no medical or moral grounds for introducing a pro-abortion act in any country which calls itself civilized. There are very rare cases where doctors have to intervene to try to save the life of the mother and child, such as in the case of an Ectopic pregnancy when the fertilized egg is trapped in the mother’s Fallopian tubes,and unfortunately at times the little human dies as a result. This can happen as a side-effect of the treatment to save the mother when her life is very seriously threatened. The difference between this scenario and abortion is that the former does not involve the direct targeting of the life in the womb while the latter does. The medical profession should never compromise it’s core principles by accepting the evil of abortion as a “remedy” to difficult pregnancies.
Hi Jude,
After watching the Video I’m disgusted.
We hear the Planned Parenthood senior director of medical research talk about getting babies hearts, babies lungs, babies livers, babies lower extremities (legs & feet). I’m disgusted because I have a heart, I have lungs, I have a liver, I have legs & feet, I was once an embryo, a fetus, a baby, a toddler, a child, a teenager, a young man, I am now a grown man!! I went through all those stages every human being goes through – the point I suppose I’m trying to make is that these are human body parts this “doctor” is “removing”, it isn’t just a clump of cells! So it logically follows that if they are human body parts then they must have been “removed” from a human! But that would entail murder in this instance – well that’s how I see it.
The other disturbing thing about the video was the way Dr. Deborah Nucatola spoke, and for anyone who hasn’t yet watched the video I quote: –
“We’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I’m not gonna crush that part, I’m gonna basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact.”
Let’s be honest, we just aren’t accustomed to hearing human beings being described in such a way, almost like meat cut to order.
For me the use of the term “crush” to describe what is done is highly evocative and unusual in the context for anyone who advocates abortion – Most of the time people are at pains to avoid language that might accurately describe the procedures taking place. But most of the shock, I think, lies it the cavalier reminder that at 10 weeks human foetuses do have functioning vital organs.
The new thing we’ve found out from this video – “…is the commodification of the little corpses, the “why let something useful go to waste?”” Waste not, want not eh? Pay or get paid!
Abortion is the scandal of our age. When a society murders it’s most defenseless and the majority of this same society turn their heads in apathy, then you can say with confidence we live in a monstrous age! In my opinion this is what happens when God is purged from society. I’m not advocating any kind of theocracy before the haters come onboard, but I believe by removing God removes the objectivity of moral values and allows subjective interpretation to prevail. It’s all very subtle and incremental but bit by bit the west is crumbling.
Sad
A great contribution to the debate, BaldyBapTheBarber, and no-one could have put the pro-life viewpoint better. In fact, there are some other terrific commentaries in this thread.
were born without permission anyway,
No body needs to permission to live, thankfully.
Abortion is a disgusting sin and a crime against the innocent unborn child. People who moan about having to get the boat to England should just give over. They should have to go to China and then they might think twice about their actions.
The argument that says because England has abortion on demand, we should, has always troubled me.
I mean, are we to make all our laws based on what is in place in England or just select laws ?
I think I have made my views clear on this in a previous post Jude. Abortion is the deliberate killing of another human being,.beginning from the moment of conception. The pro-choice, pro-abortion lobby would have us believe that we are only dealing with a collection of cells that can be disposed of at will. I am happy to go along with the view which says that if the mother’s life is in danger as a result of the pregnancy then of course the pregnancy should be terminated, I would refuse to use the term abortion in that case as the termination would be unavoidable in order to save the mother’s life.
The pro-choice, pro-abortion lobby would also like to believe that someone like myself is somehow ultra-conservative, right wing, (my politics have been left-leaning since I was able to vote), living in the past, not progressive and somehow not in touch with the modern world. They would be totally wrong on every count.
The pro-abortionists are the ones who are trying to drag us back to the dark ages. As the great Irish political philosopher Edmund Burke said: ”All it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing”. So be forward-looking and progressive, oppose the evil that is abortion at every opportunity.
Strange how a lot of people who support abortion are anti capital punishment and vice versa. Personally I am opposed to both. As I suspect Professor Collins is as well. It shows we have compassion and mercy.
Grma, AJ – but I am not now nor have I ever been a …professor.
You will always be a Professor to your loyal contributors Jude…..*
* Have you read some of the stuff we post here?
As a compassionate man, what shall we do with the pregnant women who for one reason or another do not want to have the child?
Padded cell for 9 months? Manacles? Sedation?
Which would be the most compassionate way to make someone go through with a pregnancy?
Sadly in life very little is black and white perhaps we should be thankful if we never have to make a fateful decision like this.
most of the pro lifers would walk on by the local wineo sitting begging hes somebodys child once upon a time,do they help him out,do they adopt kids,people saying its a sin must think we all believe in some sort of god,
Billy, Of course you should not give money to ‘a local wineo’ he/she will spend it on drink and you would be facilitating the abuse they are carrying out on themselves. I haven’t heard anyone here saying ‘its a sin’. Whether you believe in God or not you can still see it is wrong. God doesn’t come into the argument. If you don’t believe in God you can still think killing is wrong (you can believe in God and think killing is right).
Billy you claim ‘if some bird wants an abortion’ it is no big deal, I have asked you this before but you didn’t answer:
Billy would it have been a big deal if your mother had aborted you? I don’t believe you if you say yes. You can keep God out of this argument and just deal in humanism and the conclusion is logically the same. You seem to have a hatred of religious people, don’t let that form the basis of how you decide on your own morals or ethics.
I’m sure one day Jude will say something I don’t agree with. But it hasn’t happened yet!
Diarmad – your unerring good taste leaves me speechless…
All these women who slink across the water to that bastion of liberalism to procure a “termination”, how many are going for ‘health’ reasons? We are led to believe that thousands take the ‘termination’ boat every week. Would some of these women – if you can call them that – not be going for cosmetic reasons? My friend wants me to be her bridesmaid so I can’t be pregnant. My boyfriend would leave me. I can’t stick the morning sickness. So lets get rid of the troublesome lillle ‘cluster of goo’ – to quote a certain bearded commentstor. I’m all for women owning their bodies. I’m all for choice.but the time for choice is when the mutton dagger appears, if you pardon the expression.
Any move from SF in bringing in abortion north or south will result in a loss of my vote. Permanently.
Cal
Interesting that you’re the first poster on this topic to raise Sinn Fein’s position on abortion.Almost the “elephant in the room”!
Argenta
I agree. I think it is a very tricky issue for SF. They are caught between the desire to be (or to be seen as) a modern progressive left of centre party, and the need to bring their more traditional support along with them.
Best not to mention it!
100% agree Cal, mine too. I get the feeling Sinn Fein underestimate their electorates stance on abortion, it could be very, very damaging to Sinn Fein if they ever backed abortion, just at a time when they need every vote they can get when it most matters, especially in the South.
I see your point Cal but as someone once said, I take my religion from Rome and my politics from home.
Another Jude, I like many people, I suspect, base my opinion of abortion on what my conscience tells me as opposed to what my Church tells me.
I’m not a regular Mass goer and do not fit the stereotype of the rosary bead holding pro-lifer you obviously subscribe to.
Fiosrach, can I commend you for your use of the English language. The last sentence in your post sums things up very well, I could not have put it better myself.
!!! $£&7&))**!!
I often call abortion “the killing/murdering of the next generation”. And so it is, its literally the killing of children, those who support abortion can dress it up in whatever way they choose, that’s what abortion is: the killing of unborn children.
I read somewhere that since abortion was made legal in the UK there has been over 14 million abortions. I cant back up those figures but that’s what I read but if I had to guess before reading those figures what the number of abortions were in the UK since it was made legal then I would speculate in the region of around 10 million.
Do we want such a practice like abortion in Ireland? Well I certainly don’t and I know the vast majority of the Irish people don’t. The reason why I oppose abortion is due to my Catholic faith but its also due to other factors too. I believe that Ireland, and Europe as a whole, is in desperate need of a demographic boost and I don’t agree that mass immigration is a wise way of going about doing that. Take Germany, for example. If demographic trends amongst the German people continue as they have been for the past 30 years by 2050 almost half of the German people will be pensioners. Yep, old people. Why? because German families produce less than 2 children per family. In Demographic studies that leads to an inevitable decline in population and potentially dying out of a nation. Its not speculation or myth, it can happen. Japan is in a similar situation to Germany and Japan is actively considering making abortion illegal again in order to boost the population.
I’m not saying that abortion is the only factor in Germany’s and Japan’s demographic problem, I know lifestyle, contraception, women now opting for a career over a family, etc are a factor but abortion still plays a big part and the Japanese Government also think so too since their considering making it illegal before half the countries money by 2050 is used for looking after old people.
Ireland, out of all the EU’s countries, has the highest birth rate. Would abortion change this if it was made legal here? I’m of the opinion it definitely would.
Here in the western world if your against abortion your sometimes labelled by Pro-abortion campaigners as “backward”. Its not “backward” to oppose the killing of children. I would rather be viewed as “backward” and still stand up for what’s right. Of course I also take into consideration a womans view on this and agree that being pregnant, especially when its not planned, is a very difficult situation and the mother should be given all the support she needs but killing the child is not the answer and the child’s rights need protecting just as much as the mothers.
There are many fine contributions to the debate here , Jude, but sadly, every one of them is from a male…not necessarily from a totally male perspective but there you are.
Ultimately the responsibility for any of this will rest with a female whose life, future and mind will bear the effect of whatever decision she chooses to make.
There is much talk of the sanctity of life ,of course and that is stout and good, but the sanctity of life has a very obvious cut-off point when we have no problem training soldiers to kill other soldiers.We have no problem abusing the elderly nor dropping bombs and firing rockets at our perceived enemies . In fact we ceremoniously burn effigies of our fellow human beings annually on bonfires for the want of having their actual bodies to do the same with. We abuse our own citizens in care homes and hospitals and right across the world i can see little respect for sacred life.Life is only a sacred ideal when it suits an agenda.
We are complex little animals al right , but whether or not we are sacred creatures is a moot point. No matter the rights and wrongs of extinguishing a life , it is still wrapped up in all our singular personal stories and the rites and religious , moral or immoral values we’ve supped since our own births. We are also an animal with a complex hypocrisy built into our DNA.That is why an otherwise “moral” woman can take herself off , alone on an aeroplane to seek an abortion. Her fear is that she has lost control of her own destiny and that is the driver that makes the decision for her.A man might have a share in that ongoing pregnancy but if it was he who was responsible for the life-change that befell him ; If he was sitting in a room on his own with life growing in his belly , would he be as puffed-up with the moral superiority to do otherwise ….. as these women who choose to stop the pregnancy , do .
The same man might have no problem whatsoever , putting on a uniform and going out with a rifle in his hand to shoot his sacred “enemy”.
I don’t think you are making valid comparisons Paddykool. You are making too many generalisations for example ‘we burn effigies’, we applaud war etc. I think most people who are against abortion are against all killing. ‘pro-lifers’ are more likely to support war even though I would not make that generalisation. One thing I do think though is that we should not attack women who have had abortions, let’s try and save the children from being killed but after the event I think most women would suffer from some sort of trauma, especially if someone makes them realise what they have done. Educate them before the event, but after the event some sort of counselling may be needed. Society presents abortions as socially acceptable. Let’s not be under any illusion, most abortions that happen are because of lifestyle choices.
You say, Emmett …”… You are making too many generalisations”….closely followed by …..”I think most people who are against abortion are against all killing.” Well as you can see by that … we all generalise , I suppose , especially when we are thinking and writing on the hoof, as it were.
Now we can all pull lone phrases and sentences out of each other’s stories and posts. We all do that all the time to suit our own arguments, agendas and thought processes… and forget about all the other points we are all also trying to make ..I would call that phrase I just pulled out of yours a generalisation too.I wonder how it would stand up to close study though .Do you imagine that every soldier that there ever was ,is against all killing and do you suppose that all those men in the armed services are all anti – abortionists? I don’t know but it takes a curious turn of mind to be against killing and yet learn how to do it as efficiently as is humanly possible.The only difference is the circumstance and the method.
I don’t think I generalise about humankind, Emmett.The human being is a top predator , bar none. There’s a ruthlessness there built -in , just held in check by the laws of the land and whatever moral code has been learned from family and local society.It can break down very easily and does on a very regular basis as we can all see on out televisions every day.
It may be because his social and mechanical skills have enabled this, but he is a creature that enjoys controlling the landscape, including his own personal environment .Much of what we talk about as “sacred life” is a morality we have been taught from birth through schooling and possible religious instruction.Depending on upbringing , the idea of abortion may not cause a particular man or woman a second thought.It might appal another .Just as the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and later Nagasaki really never gave the pilot of the Enola Gay much to ruminate about. He thought of it as a day’s work , well done and was cheered at the completion of his mission.
Like I say, human beings are strange little creatures able to juggle alsorts of moral hypocrisies in that one fertile brain.
Good post Ryan, I agree one hundred per cent. I don`t care if my religious beliefs are ridiculed, won`t be the first time and it won`t be the last, abortion is a disgusting crime against humanity.
AJ
And the punishment for these crimes should be…..?
Paddykooll, you do generalise to try and make a point and I don’t agree with your assertions. I don’t think you can say the anti-abortionists are wrong because they support war (because they are part of humanity). What you say by definition is a generalisation of the highest magnitude.
I don’t really generalise as I say ‘most people’. This is easily quantifiable and leaves open the existence of caveats. The fact that I say ‘I think’ also qualifies the statement pointing out I have no evidence but their is a logical reasoning for my prediction- which can be easily checked.
I stand by what I have said. You also have a very pessimistic view of humanity, you must be surrounded by very ‘brutal’ people. Most people I know certainly do not have ‘ruthlessness built in’ , if they did I don’t think I would want to know them!
On the point about soldiers and humanity in general. Most people would not like killing people (not a generalisation- a provable fact). The only way humans are able to kill is when they see their enemy/victim as a non-human (same goes for abortion). Soldiers don’t talk about killing people, they say they saved lives, they did their duty, they neutralised the enemy, they followed orders. We also say the pregnancy was aborted not that the foetus was destroyed/killed. Just look at the rates of PTSD of returning soldiers, that shows that their humanity is at odds with hat they are told to do by people in offices who don’t have to pick up the bodies. If there is something wrong with humanity it is our ability to create institutions bigger than the individual, to which we give blind loyalty, which can routinely and systematically dehumanise others.
Well, Emmett, I think you missed what I said and possibly missed the point of what I was saying too .
I never said “I don’t think you can say the anti-abortionists are wrong because they support war (because they are part of humanity).” I never offered an opinion as to their rightness or wrong-headedness at all. What I would say is that they are capable of both those actions and sometimes at the same time.An anti -abortionist can still shoot a man dead and take a life away.
You also make some very inaccurate assumptions based on very little personal evidence…
“I stand by what I have said. You also have a very pessimistic view of humanity, you must be surrounded by very ‘brutal’ people. Most people I know certainly do not have ‘ruthlessness built in’ , if they did I don’t think I would want to know them!”…..
… which couldn’t be farther from the truth. I actually do not live in some brutalised milieu in my personal dealings.Far from it , in point of fact. None of that cosy familial love and social friendship has any bearing on my personal feelings and thoughts about the entire species , “Sapiens”, as a whole.
Compared to any other animal on the planet they are performing very successfully, but what I’m saying is that I have few illusions as to how they got to this pole position. No species gets to the top of the food-chain without cooperation and a ruthlessness beyond all the skills of the competition. That’s not to say that within our own family groupings and friends we can’t have altruistic relationships . We obviously do , but by the same token we are very able to turn on a coin and kill when required .
I believe that was what I was saying .All of which brings us back to a point where some humans have no problem whatsoever in killing either unborn or unformed human babies in much the,same way they have no problem killing fully grown specimens of the same.
I could pull any number of examples of that to illustrate this ….such as the many wars but maybe something more recent , like the drug cartels wars in Mexico would give pause for thought… Estimates set the death toll above 120,000 killed by 2013, not including 27,000 missing. See what I mean?
Yes I see what you mean. I don’t have much experience coming into contact with people who can kill others, so maybe that taints my view of humanity. I like my world view which may seem naive to you; that is that most humans aren’t capable of killing other humans and some pretty special circumstances need to arise for a human to want to kill someone else. Also in my defence finding personal evidence to judge humanity is a big ask for anyone (I’d say impossible).
That’s it exactly, Emmett.A special circumstance might be, for example, some woman finding herself pregnant at a particular time and place in her life.At any other time and in any other circumstances she might feel and think completely differently. She might feel alone and out of control. She might be frightened and feeling unable to cope.She might not be some heartless harlot….just some frightened girl.That might be the driver that makes her choice.
When we get down to brass tacks I never get an answer to questions about how the beliefs of many including Jude, expressed here, would be acted out in practice. For example:
How would pregnant women, or girls,be made to carry through to term?
Prison, sedation, mental ward maybe?
If all abortion is criminal what would be the penalty? As it would be murder presumably, are we talking about 20 years for the woman and maybe any medical staff or other accomplices too? What about all those who have already taken innocent life? Amnesty?
If abortion is murder that is surely a compelling reason not to support a party which favours any access at all, ie.. Sinn Fein. The death of many innocents must surely matter more than the question of the constitutional issue which has been parked for now in any case?
Indeed logically the SDLP would be a better home for those with such views.
Gio, the fact that you don’t get answers to your questions doesn’t mean there aren’t answers – maybe people are busy, or bored, or reading a good book. The universe, alas, does not revolve around you.
However, if it’ll cheer you up any, I’ll try to give one or two responses.
1. I don’t recall saying I’d be in favour of forcing women to carry a child to full term.
2. I don’t remember saying I’d be in favour of criminalising abortion. We don’t have laws to cover all sorts of things we’d rather people didn’t do.
3. A political party – yes, even SF, gio – puts forward a platform, not a plank, when it approaches the electorate. So whether people vote for a party or not may be due to the fact that most of the platform is something they can agree with, even if there are some parts they disagree with. I’m subject to correction but I thought SF were supportive of an abortion decision only in cases of rape, incest and life-threatening danger to the mother’s health. I imagine a lot of people who vote for SF would go along with that, as well as the many other issues that constitute its electoral agenda. I imagine there may also be people – like myself – who think that the last of these three makes sense while the first two are open to debate. But as I say, I reckon most people vote for a party on the broad span of its policies, not on a single issue.
There now – feel less neglected? I hope so…
Jude
1. You didn’t say you are in favour of forcing women to go give birth,but you haven’t said you are against it. Surely the alternative is the killing of an innocent?
2. We have laws to cover the taking of life. Why would abortion be different in your view?
Perhaps it is not really the killing of an innocent at all?
3. People do vote for a variety of reasons. I would have thought the killing of innocents would override other concerns. Why does it not?