Abortion whats your stance?

kizzyr

CDfm wrote: »

So can we agree that the availability of the Morning after pill is not not adequete and this does in some way contribute to the demand for abortion?

If a handicapped child is born or a child is born with brain damage I believe they have much of a right to life as everyone else. I believe in Ireland that we have world class facilities despite what some would have us believe.

AT what point do you define personhood? Is it an emotional bond between the parents of the unborn child or is it something else? I know its crude but an early miscarriage doesnt say child or does it?

A miscarriage before 24 weeks is considered just that a miscarriage. If this happens on or after 24 weeks it is considered to be a still birth and a death certificate is issued.So science and our doctors and hospitals see the foetus before 24 weeks as just that a foetus but after that time a baby.

eveie

kizzyr im not sure how true that is to be honest, in our law the unborn child has a right to life, that includes a life thats only a week after conception.

yes the m.a.p should be more available but do you understand thats its availability is open to abuse? many women see at as the last method of contraception but it is a serious drug that can have serious complications.


carlybabe im not sure i can truely answer your question, if i was asked when did i first come into existance? i would say at conception, as for personhod that doesnt come with a mother child bond(many children never feel that bond they are still persons) its something we attribute to being human.

women will always find themselves in a position where they see abortion as the only way out, women will always have abortions, thousands of women will travel each year for abortions, and each year thousnads of lives will be destroyed. this is all true but i still cannot see the logic behind wanting to make something available and legal in this country just because thousands of women need it. holy crap thousand of people need a cystic fibrosis specialised unit but they still dont have the facilities they need. im much more concerned with saving someones live then destroying an unborn child and i would be devastated to see abortion made legal here when there arent even facilities for real lifethreating diseases. just because thousands of people inject herione up their arm doesnt mean it should be made legal

if you allow abortion for women who have been raped can you see our opening the flood gates for women to make false claims?

CDfm

Hiya eevie quotes from eevie hightlighted

yes the m.a.p should be more available but do you understand thats its availability is open to abuse? many women see at as the last method of contraception but it is a serious drug that can have serious complications.

Im a guy and know very little about this and would like to know more to follow the debate and take a view. In what way is m.a.p availability open to misuse? What are the complications ?

if you allow abortion for women who have been raped can you see our opening the flood gates for women to make false claims?[/quote]

I have to agree with you on false claims there many organisations such as Womens Aid follow a gender based objective and many of the statistics they quote have been questioned in academic studies worldwide.:eek: Others may not agree with me but this is a bear bug of mine.

CDfm

kizzyr wrote: »

A miscarriage before 24 weeks is considered just that a miscarriage. If this happens on or after 24 weeks it is considered to be a still birth and a death certificate is issued.So science and our doctors and hospitals see the foetus before 24 weeks as just that a foetus but after that time a baby.

kizzyr - are you sitting on the fence?

what would you think and why- is it possible to define a point where existance occurs or is it you just want abortion available for women no questions asked prior to birth?

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

Well the problem is that arguments such as saying that abortion is ok in the case of rape actually betrays the original assertion, that the foetus is a person with rights. If that is the case then what does being a product of rape have to do with those rights? You can't kill a 5 year old because it was the product of a rape, why can you kill a foetus that is supposed to have the same rights as that five year old?

I totally agree with this, although I know it isn't your opinion. I think the government should encourage adoption instead of abortions in the event of rape, with funding given for psychologists / counsellors to deal with mental trauma and funding given as an incentive to bring the child into the world alive and well.

CDfm

eveie wrote: »

kizzyr im not sure how true that is to be honest, in our law the unborn child has a right to life, that includes a life thats only a week after conception.

yes the m.a.p should be more available but do you understand thats its availability is open to abuse? many women see at as the last method of contraception but it is a serious drug that can have serious complications.


carlybabe im not sure i can truely answer your question, if i was asked when did i first come into existance? i would say at conception, as for personhod that doesnt come with a mother child bond(many children never feel that bond they are still persons) its something we attribute to being human.

women will always find themselves in a position where they see abortion as the only way out, women will always have abortions, thousands of women will travel each year for abortions, and each year thousnads of lives will be destroyed. this is all true but i still cannot see the logic behind wanting to make something available and legal in this country just because thousands of women need it. holy crap thousand of people need a cystic fibrosis specialised unit but they still dont have the facilities they need. im much more concerned with saving someones live then destroying an unborn child and i would be devastated to see abortion made legal here when there arent even facilities for real lifethreating diseases. just because thousands of people inject herione up their arm doesnt mean it should be made legal

if you allow abortion for women who have been raped can you see our opening the flood gates for women to make false claims?

Jakkass wrote: »

I totally agree with this, although I know it isn't your opinion. I think the government should encourage adoption instead of abortions in the event of rape, with funding given for psychologists / counsellors to deal with mental trauma and funding given as an incentive to bring the child into the world alive and well.

thats all fine and dandy -everyone thinks the government should do somethingand resourses of individuals and state are finite not infinite.



but the real issues are those other than rape victim. A financially stretched couple where the woman cant afford to quit work.Or a woman with kids who has physical needs.

I have heard all the arguments for years and disagree with abortion because experience in other countries has it used as a contraceptive.

Can anyone help out and explain simply baby development within the womb - ie 1- 4weeks clup or scells 12 -14 weeks brain development etc in a timeframe so I can understand if someone says 24 weeks I know exactly what they are proposing.

After years of hearing both sides - I am finally getting the opportunity to understand it.

tallaght01

CDfm, I ofen refer people to this site for a very very basic map of embry development.But remember that the fetus can develop at different rates. The timefrime is an approximation, but this site has it nailed down reasonably accurately:

http://www.pregnancy.org/pregnancy/fetaldevelopment1.php#week1

ChocolateSauce

The reason 24 weeks is generally chosen is that is the threshold when the majority of babies have a chance of surviving. Of course there are some cases where a baby is born and survives before this time, but it is generally not the case., just as some babies born after this time are too premature to survive. If born in week 23, it only has a 15% chance of survival, according to the website linked above. That's just survival, it doesn't mention possible defects caused by early birth.

I agree that a baby born retarded has a right to life, as much as anyone else, but I also think it is desirable for everyone that fetuses with serious defects are aborted before they are viable.

kizzyr

CDfm wrote: »

kizzyr - are you sitting on the fence?

what would you think and why- is it possible to define a point where existance occurs or is it you just want abortion available for women no questions asked prior to birth?

I'm not sitting on the fence. If there was a referendum held I would vote yes to allow abortion be more freely available to women in this Jurisdiction. My post re: the miscarriage / still birth was to show that science and medicine itself has a necessary cut off point in what it considers a foetus and a baby.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

The reason 24 weeks is generally chosen is that is the threshold when the majority of babies have a chance of surviving. Of course there are some cases where a baby is born and survives before this time, but it is generally not the case., just as some babies born after this time are too premature to survive. If born in week 23, it only has a 15% chance of survival, according to the website linked above. That's just survival, it doesn't mention possible defects caused by early birth.

I agree that a baby born retarded has a right to life, as much as anyone else, but I also think it is desirable for everyone that fetuses with serious defects are aborted before they are viable.

A delivery at 23 weeks has little to no chance of surviving and if it does the neo nate will be severely compromised in many ways.

eveie wrote: »

kizzyr im not sure how true that is to be honest, in our law the unborn child has a right to life, that includes a life thats only a week after conception.

I'm 100% right. If you are pregnant and miscarry your baby at week 23 it is termed exactly that; a miscarriage. If you lose your baby on or after week 24 you will be given a death certificate for your still born baby. This is common everyday practice in all of the hospitals in Ireland. By posting that earlier I was answering a question someone asked as to when a miscarriage was no longer viewed as a miscarriage.

CDfm

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

The reason 24 weeks is generally chosen is that is the threshold when the majority of babies have a chance of surviving. Of course there are some cases where a baby is born and survives before this time, but it is generally not the case., just as some babies born after this time are too premature to survive. If born in week 23, it only has a 15% chance of survival, according to the website linked above. That's just survival, it doesn't mention possible defects caused by early birth.

I agree that a baby born retarded has a right to life, as much as anyone else, but I also think it is desirable for everyone that fetuses with serious defects are aborted before they are viable.

So the reason that 24 weeks is chosen is for no reason other than hastening death by "natural causes" ie the baby wont survive outside the womb?

Brain development or CNS development is not considered and no-one knows for sure if any pain is felt? Is that a correct assumption?

Is there a reason why children with defects get aborted?

When you are identified as "church member" is that any way significant to this or irrelevant?

CDfm

tallaght01 wrote: »

CDfm, I ofen refer people to this site for a very very basic map of embry development.But remember that the fetus can develop at different rates. The timefrime is an approximation, but this site has it nailed down reasonably accurately:

http://www.pregnancy.org/pregnancy/fetaldevelopment1.php#week1

thats fairly babylike to me. Not a bit froglike especially the baby feet around week 11.

Any pro- choice people want to comment here? Anything wrong or innaccurate with the descriptions.

I would have serious issues with 24 or 22 weeks as they have in the UK. My issues would not be on religous grounds just that the foetus looks so well babylike.

I know this is emotive but there is a little bit of ooh aah and cooie in all of us when we see a baby.

Wicknight do you see any arbitrary point in general where personhood exists independently?

kizzyr

CDfm wrote: »

So the reason that 24 weeks is chosen is for no reason other than hastening death by "natural causes" ie the baby wont survive outside the womb?
Is there a reason why children with defects get aborted?

What other way would you pick a cut off point? A neo nate that was born at anything before 30 weeks has a slim to almost non existant chance of survival even with the best Neonatologists in the world caring for them. Their internal organs simply are not well enough developed, especially their lungs. Any baby born at 30 weeks has a much better chance at survival without complications than one born before that. However, even at 30 weeks there is still a chance of complications.
Re: a reason why a foetus with severe defects may be aborted; well if you consider a child that will never walk, will always need to be in a chair but never able to hold itself upright in the chair and so need to be strapped in, combined with an inability to talk or communicate and will need 24/7 care forever; can you really say that any woman who is aware of this and opts for a termination is wrong? What is the quality of life there for either the child or mother? Surely the mother still has some rights that need to be considered and if she had this child her life will forever more have to be dedicated to this child in a way that it wouldn't for a child that was fully functioning?

CDfm

kizzyr - I supposed you would pick a point where the baby/feotus would not feel pain. Do you think 30 weeks.

AS per ChocolateSauce f 15% of births at 24 weeks are capable of survival outside the womb but wont because they are not given nourishment or put in an incubator - are capable of feeling pain etc.

Then thats killing or negligent homocide at best.

Thats a very strong argument against 24 weeks for me and has got my no vote totally.:eek:

Are you limiting abortion to babies with defects only- is that correct?

ChocolateSauce

CDfm wrote: »

So the reason that 24 weeks is chosen is for no reason other than hastening death by "natural causes" ie the baby wont survive outside the womb?

Brain development or CNS development is not considered and no-one knows for sure if any pain is felt? Is that a correct assumption?

Is there a reason why children with defects get aborted?

I don't claim to know the details as to exactly why, I didn't make the 24 rule. As to why children with defects get aborted, I also don't claim to know what reasoning a parent may have when they do it. I know I'd do it for the sake of the child as well as my sake.

CDfm wrote: »

When you are identified as "church member" is that any way significant to this or irrelevant?

It's irrelevant to this thread, kind of an inside joke that a tiny minority of people might get. Rest assured, it is not a theistic church.

CDfm wrote: »

My issues would not be on religous grounds just that the foetus looks so well babylike.

It is baby like, but that is a very subjective view of it. As much as we may imprint a manner of humanity on it, the evidence says it is not viable, generally, and it is the evidence and not arbitrary feelings that the British use to decide when to draw the line.

CDfm wrote: »

Then thats killing or negligent homocide at best.

But it's ok to let a premature baby with serious, life-threatening, painful, debilitating and often fatal defects live, just because with life-support it can survive? It would be kinder to let it rest. Some humans fail, it's a sad fact of life.

CDfm wrote: »

Are you limiting abortion to babies with defects only- is that correct?

Not at all. It isn't my place to tell people when they can, can't, should or shouldn't abort. It is up to them and their conscience. I know what I'd do if I were in their position, and if someone asked me for a recommendation I'd tell them, but that's all.

CDfm

I'm 100% right. If you are pregnant and miscarry your baby at week 23 it is termed exactly that; a miscarriage. If you lose your baby on or after week 24 you will be given a death certificate for your still born baby. This is common everyday practice in all of the hospitals in Ireland. By posting that earlier I was answering a question someone asked as to when a miscarriage was no longer viewed as a miscarriage.[/quote]
Quote from Kizzyr

correct me if i am wrong if you miscarry at week 23 it is a spontaneous abortion due to either external factors - an accident or trauma or defect in the fetus causing the miscarriage or mothers inability to carry the child full term.

Can a baby at 23 weeks ever survive.

IS week 24 a legal concept in which case it may be based on a law thats a century or more old. By the way it would be interesting if you can cite the legislation.

kizzyr

CDfm wrote: »

kizzyr - I supposed you would pick a point where the baby/feotus would not feel pain. Do you think 30 weeks.

AS per ChocolateSauce f 15% of births at 24 weeks are capable of survival outside the womb but wont because they are not given nourishment or put in an incubator - are capable of feeling pain etc.

Then thats killing or negligent homocide at best.

Thats a very strong argument against 24 weeks for me and has got my no vote totally.:eek:

Are you limiting abortion to babies with defects only- is that correct?

No that is incorrect. There are many people who are wonderful parents to children with a whole range of mental and physical problems. They love and adore their child and are admirable people. However, there are some people who can't do that. They may (contrary to what other people think) believe that by terminating their pregnancy they are actually doing the would be child a favour by not bringing into a life of pain and endurance. A couple in France, where abortion is perfectly legal and available, upon discovering that their baby was going to have a lot of problems physically, be confined to a wheelchair etc, decided to continue with the pregnancy. Their son at age 15 discovered that they knew what his life would be like before he was born and was so angry at the life he was forced to live by their decision not to terminate, that he brought a wrongful life case against them and won.

Any Neonatologist who had access to an incubator and treatment for a prem baby and opted NOT to treat without consent from the parents would be guilty of mal practice. Survival outside the womb is one thing, a full healty life is another. The baby will not have developed fully as I said before, it will have a whole host of health problems if it survives past the first few days anyway.
This is an excellent and well respected site as is the Nuffield Council on Bioethics.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10577.html

CDfm

kizzyr wrote: »

No that is incorrect. There are many people who are wonderful parents to children with a whole range of mental and physical problems. They love and adore their child and are admirable people. However, there are some people who can't do that. They may (contrary to what other people think) believe that by terminating their pregnancy they are actually doing the would be child a favour by not bringing into a life of pain and endurance. A couple in France, where abortion is perfectly legal and available, upon discovering that their baby was going to have a lot of problems physically, be confined to a wheelchair etc, decided to continue with the pregnancy. Their son at age 15 discovered that they knew what his life would be like before he was born and was so angry at the life he was forced to live by their decision not to terminate, that he brought a wrongful life case against them and won.

Any Neonatologist who had access to an incubator and treatment for a prem baby and opted NOT to treat without consent from the parents would be guilty of mal practice. Survival outside the womb is one thing, a full healty life is another. The baby will not have developed fully as I said before, it will have a whole host of health problems if it survives past the first few days anyway.
This is an excellent and well respected site as is the Nuffield Council on Bioethics.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10577.html

wow thats heavy ethical stuff - I have difficulty in taking it in.

kizzyr

CDfm wrote: »

wow thats heavy ethical stuff - I have difficulty in taking it in.

It is heavy. I've just completed a 2 year MSc in Health Care Ethics and Law in the RCSI and the ethics of abortion was an issue that came up pretty often. But that site is really good and all discussions are calm and rational and worthy of consideration.

carlybabe1

kizzyr wrote: »

What other way would you pick a cut off point? A neo nate that was born at anything before 30 weeks has a slim to almost non existant chance of survival even with the best Neonatologists in the world caring for them. Their internal organs simply are not well enough developed, especially their lungs. Any baby born at 30 weeks has a much better chance at survival without complications than one born before that. However, even at 30 weeks there is still a chance of complications.
Re: a reason why a foetus with severe defects may be aborted; well if you consider a child that will never walk, will always need to be in a chair but never able to hold itself upright in the chair and so need to be strapped in, combined with an inability to talk or communicate and will need 24/7 care forever; can you really say that any woman who is aware of this and opts for a termination is wrong? What is the quality of life there for either the child or mother? Surely the mother still has some rights that need to be considered and if she had this child her life will forever more have to be dedicated to this child in a way that it wouldn't for a child that was fully functioning?

I absolutely couldnt agree more with you kizzyr, on all point you made. If a woman doesnt get to decide what she wants going on with her body then she has very little rights at all. Ido think that the cut off should be 16 wks and only twenty in severe circumstances.. And Id also like to point out that those images on the above link are from a site specifically designed for women who are expecting a wanted baby, and while they may not be entirely inaccurate, i know for a fact that real scans dont show images nearly as clear as them.

philologos

carlybabe1 wrote: »

If a woman doesnt get to decide what she wants going on with her body then she has very little rights at all.

Surely the child has no rights at all whatsoever in the case of abortion, even though they should be afforded the right to life.

Abortion should never be used as a means of contraception, but only in the most extreme of circumstances. It is genuinely killing another human being, and that only becomes more real after 24 weeks when they are attaining form as we would know children as.

carlybabe1

Jakkass wrote: »

Surely the child has no rights at all whatsoever in the case of abortion, even though they should be afforded the right to life.

Why should a non fully formed clump of cells have more rights than the fully formed adult whose body has to change to accomodate it? Unless she's thought of as nothing more than a walking incubator. The fact is that in order for a feotus to grow, it has to be in a womb, and if a woman decides that she doesn't want it there then thats her prerogative.

Abortion should never be used as a means of contraception, but only in the most extreme of circumstances. It is genuinely killing another human being, and that only becomes more real after 24 weeks when they are attaining form as we would know children as

This has been done to death on this thread. Realistically, its not used as a method of contraception, but when contraception fails. Do you see the difference? Saying that its a means of contraception (imo) suggests a scenario as follows man: "**** we've no condoms, and I really wanna do ye, what'll we do?" woman: "sure f**k it, we'll be grand, worst case scenario, I'll hit the ferry te england" Contraception failings will happen to all of us at some stage in our lives ( if it hasn't already) so if it happened you on a (drunken, optional) one night stand and the next thing you know your bein asked to bring relative stranger to the coombe for 4 wkly visits/urine tests/scans/blood tests etc etc, how would you see it then? These things happen all too easily.

CDfm

kizzyr wrote: »

No that is incorrect. There are many people who are wonderful parents to children with a whole range of mental and physical problems. They love and adore their child and are admirable people. However, there are some people who can't do that. They may (contrary to what other people think) believe that by terminating their pregnancy they are actually doing the would be child a favour by not bringing into a life of pain and endurance. A couple in France, where abortion is perfectly legal and available, upon discovering that their baby was going to have a lot of problems physically, be confined to a wheelchair etc, decided to continue with the pregnancy. Their son at age 15 discovered that they knew what his life would be like before he was born and was so angry at the life he was forced to live by their decision not to terminate, that he brought a wrongful life case against them and won.

Any Neonatologist who had access to an incubator and treatment for a prem baby and opted NOT to treat without consent from the parents would be guilty of mal practice. Survival outside the womb is one thing, a full healty life is another. The baby will not have developed fully as I said before, it will have a whole host of health problems if it survives past the first few days anyway.
This is an excellent and well respected site as is the Nuffield Council on Bioethics.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10577.html

whats a neonatoligist?

great article thanks for posting the link.

I wouldnt hold the french up as great role models - recently a woman in her late 20s sued her parents for maintainance and won. Ya cant trust any country who surrendered twice in WWII and lost both times.:pac:

CDfm

carlybabe1 wrote: »

Why should a non fully formed clump of cells have more rights than the fully formed adult whose body has to change to accomodate it? Unless she's thought of as nothing more than a walking incubator. The fact is that in order for a feotus to grow, it has to be in a womb, and if a woman decides that she doesn't want it there then thats her prerogative.






This has been done to death on this thread. Realistically, its not used as a method of contraception, but when contraception fails. Do you see the difference? Saying that its a means of contraception (imo) suggests a scenario as follows man: "**** we've no condoms, and I really wanna do ye, what'll we do?" woman: "sure f**k it, we'll be grand, worst case scenario, I'll hit the ferry te england" Contraception failings will happen to all of us at some stage in our lives ( if it hasn't already) so if it happened you on a (drunken, optional) one night stand and the next thing you know your bein asked to bring relative stranger to the coombe for 4 wkly visits/urine tests/scans/blood tests etc etc, how would you see it then? These things happen all too easily.

lively post from carlybabe1 - I could picture it on Fair City but theyd flog it to death.

You invest a lot of emotional energy into children and even expected children. It seems the easy option and very practical. But for me it would be an awful dilemma from a moral and ethical point of view.

carlybabe1

You invest a lot of emotional energy into children and even expected children. It seems the easy option and very practical. But for me it would be an awful dilemma from a moral and ethical point of view.

[/QUOTE]

I dont doubt that at all, but I dont doubt that anyone contemplating it as an option would make the decision lightly, I reckon it would be an awful dilemma for them too.

kizzyr

CDfm wrote: »

whats a neonatoligist?

great article thanks for posting the link.

I wouldnt hold the french up as great role models - recently a woman in her late 20s sued her parents for maintainance and won. Ya cant trust any country who surrendered twice in WWII and lost both times.:pac:

A Neonatologist is a doctor who specialises in the care of new borns, primarily newborns that are premature, have birth defects and/or other health issues.

matc66

Here's my thought.
Just like on for the death sentence I think if there is a remote possibility of innocence/survival then the answer should be no.
From my knowledge which is medical but not sub-specialist babies can survive from 23/24 weeks.
I could not in conscience abort a baby at this stage (for non-fatal anomalies) and know that there are people walking the earth who successfully survived at this gestation.
If there's a chance there's a chance.

matc66

As an afterthought,
I think just because a baby can't survive outside the womb should not necessarily be used as an abortion yardstick.
There are plenty of people in hospital who can't survive without serious medical intervention yet if they deteriorate then everyone goes to the nth degree to save them. Yet a foetus moves, hears, responds to touch and voice amongst other things, it just has one organ that is quite ready for the outside world, the lungs. We don't really know how much it feels, thinks etc., just I suppose like we don't know about newborns.

Agent Smith

i'm pro-life. I believe that life begins at conception. I would only support an abortion if the life of the mother was in serious danger. I agree with the idea of being pro-info

philologos

carlybabe1 wrote: »

Why should a non fully formed clump of cells have more rights than the fully formed adult whose body has to change to accomodate it? Unless she's thought of as nothing more than a walking incubator. The fact is that in order for a feotus to grow, it has to be in a womb, and if a woman decides that she doesn't want it there then thats her prerogative.

We've been through this time and time again. Just because it is a less developed human being than you doesn't mean it gives people the right to kill it. It's a life, it's a developing life and should be protected under the same legislation as any other human being. Thank God it is in Ireland.

carlybabe1 wrote: »

This has been done to death on this thread. Realistically, its not used as a method of contraception, but when contraception fails. Do you see the difference? Saying that its a means of contraception (imo) suggests a scenario as follows man: "**** we've no condoms, and I really wanna do ye, what'll we do?" woman: "sure f**k it, we'll be grand, worst case scenario, I'll hit the ferry te england" Contraception failings will happen to all of us at some stage in our lives ( if it hasn't already) so if it happened you on a (drunken, optional) one night stand and the next thing you know your bein asked to bring relative stranger to the coombe for 4 wkly visits/urine tests/scans/blood tests etc etc, how would you see it then? These things happen all too easily.

I agree with you contraception fails, but I don't think abortion is a reasonable stance. When you have sex at any stage, you should be ready to face the consequences of having a child. If you aren't, I'd argue for abstinence until in a stable marriage.

Again, I find drunken one night stands to be absolutely deplorable and unacceptable. It's just my view, but these excuses just aren't good enough to kill someone. Actually any excuse apart from it being fatal to the mother doesn't register as being good enough to me. It's about respecting and honouring the value of life.

CDfm

I am inclined towards pro-life too guys but I am not entirely comfortable that it supports other options to bring down the number of abortions.

Could it possibly be that the arguments get polarised along religous(catholic & christian)/ non-religous lines( & womens rights groups).

so the same people arguing against abortion may also not approve of sex outside marriage, and a whole host of issues from a moral perspective such as m.a.p. availability , proper sex education etc. The extreme women groups will have an opposite approach and see abortion as a fundamental right and may be secular and anti- religion for political reasons.

When I see many pro- life and pro-choice posters stating this is my view & while both sides are adamant the fall the fall in numbers of people seeking abortions is positivewhat I dont see are posts proposing alternatives .

tallaght01

kizzyr wrote: »

A neo nate that was born at anything before 30 weeks has a slim to almost non existant chance of survival even with the best Neonatologists in the world caring for them.

You need to look at the figures, mate. That statement is utterly untrue.

Hagar

I think there is an ultimate irony in women claiming the "right to choose" on behalf of their gender then proceeding to deny a female foetus all the rights that they want for themselves. One of which is surely the simple right to be born, live and die as nature intended.

philologos

CDfm wrote: »

When I see many pro- life and pro-choice posters stating this is my view & while both sides are adamant the fall the fall in numbers of people seeking abortions is positivewhat I dont see are posts proposing alternatives .

I personally think we have it right in Irish law the way it is. I do think that perhaps more support should be given to rape victims to ensure that they don't abort and give their babies up for adoption or keep them if they want. There are many parents out there, who cannot have children, and I think it would be great if we could make it so that they could have a child through adoption instead of aborting them.

Zulu

I believe that as a member of a society, we have a responsibility to protect others in that society - particularly those that can't protect themselves.
That is how I'd like to be treated - so that's how I treat others.

I believe a pregnant woman is carrying a child in her womb.
I believe that child is a child, and I believe children should be protected by adults, as they can't protect themselves.
I believe it's my responsibility as a citizen of this society to protect that child.

Therefore, I am against killing that child.

I am anti-abortion.

Nevyn

Hagar wrote: »

I think there is an ultimate irony in women claiming the "right to choose" on behalf of their gender then proceeding to deny a female foetus all the rights that they want for themselves. One of which is surely the simple right to be born, live and die as nature intended.

By that rational contraception and vaccines are against nature.

Jakkass wrote: »

I personally think we have it right in Irish law the way it is. I do think that perhaps more support should be given to rape victims to ensure that they don't abort and give their babies up for adoption or keep them if they want. There are many parents out there, who cannot have children, and I think it would be great if we could make it so that they could have a child through adoption instead of aborting them.

When a rape kit is done by a dr the victim is offered emergency contraception. The problem being that rape is hugely under reported and so women don't get rape kits done.

CDfm

Jakkass wrote: »

I personally think we have it right in Irish law the way it is. I do think that perhaps more support should be given to rape victims to ensure that they don't abort and give their babies up for adoption or keep them if they want. There are many parents out there, who cannot have children, and I think it would be great if we could make it so that they could have a child through adoption instead of aborting them.

Yup I agree - but I have a teenage daughter - so the other issues are also important to me. So I might be inclined towards the view but what would I really do if my back was too the wall. Last time I looked I am not female, I love my daughter and I may not look on such a pregnancy as being a gift from God.

Hagar

Zulu wrote: »

I believe that as a member of a society, we have a responsibility to protect others in that society - particularly those that can't protect themselves.
That is how I'd like to be treated - so that's how I treat others.

I believe a pregnant woman is carrying a child in her womb.
I believe that child is a child, and I believe children should be protected by adults, as they can't protect themselves.
I believe it's my responsibility as a citizen of this society to protect that child.

Therefore, I am against killing that child.

I am anti-abortion.

That's about as plain and simple as it gets. Well said.

Zulu

carlybabe1 wrote: »

If a woman doesnt get to decide what she wants going on with her body then she has very little rights at all.

I'd have taught that decision was made just before the penis was inserted?

That whole "it's my body" argument holds no water for illegal drugs, so why should it hold weight for abortion?

Simple question: Do you believe people should be allowed to take illegal drugs on the basis that it's their body? (to do with as they please)

CDfm

Hagar wrote: »

That's about as plain and simple as it gets. Well said.

Admirable yes but you guys dont say how you are going to achieve an abortion free society.

I live in North Dublin and the numbers of unmarried young single mothers just shows how utterly silly the current situation is?Is this what you want?

And Im on your side

Hagar

Thaedydal wrote: »

By that rational contraception and vaccines are against nature.

I don't have a problem with the prevention of conception.
Vaccines are only sciences way of augmenting the bodies natural mechanisms in fighting against diesease. I imagne using our intelligence to come up with vaccines is perfectly natural in it's own way.

CDfm wrote:

I live in North Dublin and the numbers of unmarried young single mothers just shows how utterly silly the current situation is?Is this what you want?

A lot of that would stop if the Social Welfare payments and other benefits to the spongers were cut off. Let's be honest it's a cottage industry. If this were done it free up the coffers to help those genuine un-married mothers who need the support of society.

CDfm

Hagar wrote: »

I don't have a problem with the prevention of conception.
Vaccines are only sciences way of augmenting the bodies natural mechanisms in fighting against diesease. I imagne using our intelligence to come up with vaccines is perfectly natural in it's own way.

But this is reality - we are discussing the here and now business of unwanted pregnancies and abortions. Not some airy fairy point in the future?

Nevyn

CDfm wrote: »

Admirable yes but you guys dont say how you are going to achieve an abortion free society.

I live in North Dublin and the numbers of unmarried young single mothers just shows how utterly silly the current situation is?Is this what you want?

And Im on your side

Free contraception and contraceptive visits to the dr for everyone between the ages of 15 and 25.

Complete and comprehensive sex and sexual health education in all schools.

That would be a hell of a lot cheaper then the status quo.

CDfm

Thaedydal wrote: »

Free contraception and contraceptive visits to the dr for everyone between the ages of 15 and 25.

Complete and comprehensive sex and sexual health education in all schools.

That would be a hell of a lot cheaper then the status quo.

You talk my language - straight talk. :pac:

carlybabe1

Jakkass wrote: »

We've been through this time and time again. Just because it is a less developed human being than you doesn't mean it gives people the right to kill it. It's a life, it's a developing life and should be protected under the same legislation as any other human being. Thank God it is in Ireland

.


But its not any other human being, it relies on another in order to survive, and I think that if that other fully grown human being doesn't want to be its host the she shouldn't have to be. I dont believe anybody should have the right to tell someone else what they should/ should not do with thier own body. There are laws against puppy farming, whats the difference in forcing a woman to carry to term something which she doesn't want?? To tell a women she absolutely must alter her life/habits/ put up with morning sickness (sometimes all day nausea)/ heartburn/swollen hands,feet ankles,legs,face and just general michelin manness, and thats BEFORE we mention the hormones (you try going from out of control horny to suicidal depression 90 times a day) is nothing short of a violation of her basic human rights. Until such time that some wonderful visionist can invent something akin to a womb, where a women can remove the unwanted feotus and doctors can place it in virual utero, I think the woman has the choice.

I agree with you contraception fails, but I don't think abortion is a reasonable stance. When you have sex at any stage, you should be ready to face the consequences of having a child. If you aren't, I'd argue for abstinence until in a stable marriage.

So are you saying that if your 15 yr old daughter got pregnant from messing around that you would force her to keep it as a "you should have known better" lesson?? cause it sure sounds like it. And I think that its a very short sighted view. As for abstinance, the numbers show thats just not gonna happen. Dont get me wrong I have the romantic idea of my daughter telling me she'll wait till marriage, but Im a realist. the chances of that happening are slim to say the least, so I'll do me best to prevent with education, the pill, condoms (cause the pill doesnt protect against stds) and knowledge about the map

Jakkass wrote: »

I personally think we have it right in Irish law the way it is. I do think that perhaps more support should be given to rape victims to ensure that they don't abort and give their babies up for adoption or keep them if they want.

I think making a girl/woman carry a rape baby to full term if its against her wishes is nothing short of barbaric, an emotional violation to follow the physical one, yet again being forced to do something she absolutely does NOT want, and done nothing to deserve. And then theres the guilt she would feel not only after the rape itself but at giving up the baby, guilt for never wanting it, and wondering how its life has turned out.

There are many parents out there, who cannot have children, and I think it would be great if we could make it so that they could have a child through adoption instead of aborting them.

There are many parents out there who are not fit to raise a dog, never mind a child. Thats not a good reason to force a pregnancy on a women, because without the availabilty of abortion, that is in fact what we would be doing.

CDfm

Thaedydal wrote: »

Free contraception and contraceptive visits to the dr for everyone between the ages of 15 and 25.

Complete and comprehensive sex and sexual health education in all schools.

That would be a hell of a lot cheaper then the status quo.

Hagar wrote: »

I don't have a problem with the prevention of conception.
Vaccines are only sciences way of augmenting the bodies natural mechanisms in fighting against diesease. I imagne using our intelligence to come up with vaccines is perfectly natural in it's own way.

A lot of that would stop if the Social Welfare payments and other benefits to the spongers were cut off. Let's be honest it's a cottage industry. If this were done it free up the coffers to help those genuine un-married mothers who need the support of society.

But it wont be while the current situation exists - give loads of contraception alternatives and proper sex education and an exam at the end.

Have the mother provide names for DNA testing before processing her unmarried mothers allowance. That would cut the welfare bill. PDQ.

If funding to both "pro" factions were cut they would very quickly seek concensus.

Zulu

CDfm wrote: »

Admirable yes but you guys dont say how you are going to achieve an abortion free society.

Well, we'll never have an abortion free society. Like rape and murder, it'll happen.
However, just because it happens doesn't mean we should let it happen.
Keeping it illegal is good enough for me.

Coupled with what I said in the other thread (what thaedydal said, sex ed and free contraception)

Hagar

CDfm wrote: »

But it wont be while the current situation exists - give loads of contraception alternatives and proper sex education and an exam at the end.

Have the mother provide names for DNA testing before processing her unmarried mothers allowance. That would cut the welfare bill. PDQ.

You're missing the point they don't want contraception or education, they want the baby and the cheque and the free house. Why work?

I believe that they are currently obliged to provide the father's name now but there is no real way around "I was drunk out of my head and I've no recollection of the event". Anecdotally the fathers are usually unemployed and not in any position to support the child anyway so the burden just falls back into the lap of the tax-payer.

philologos

carlybabe1 wrote: »

But its not any other human being, it relies on another in order to survive, and I think that if that other fully grown human being doesn't want to be its host the she shouldn't have to be. I dont believe anybody should have the right to tell someone else what they should/ should not do with thier own body. There are laws against puppy farming, whats the difference in forcing a woman to carry to term something which she doesn't want?? To tell a women she absolutely must alter her life/habits/ put up with morning sickness (sometimes all day nausea)/ heartburn/swollen hands,feet ankles,legs,face and just general michelin manness, and thats BEFORE we mention the hormones (you try going from out of control horny to suicidal depression 90 times a day) is nothing short of a violation of her basic human rights. Until such time that some wonderful visionist can invent something akin to a womb, where a women can remove the unwanted feotus and doctors can place it in virual utero, I think the woman has the choice.

A foetus is just a developing human being. It's different in that it's less developed but none the less it's still a human being. For me that's the undeniable truth. The baby has the right to life, and it shouldn't be denied unless in exceptional circumstances such as fatality to the mother.

carlybabe1 wrote: »

So are you saying that if your 15 yr old daughter got pregnant from messing around that you would force her to keep it as a "you should have known better" lesson?? cause it sure sounds like it. And I think that its a very short sighted view. As for abstinance, the numbers show thats just not gonna happen. Dont get me wrong I have the romantic idea of my daughter telling me she'll wait till marriage, but Im a realist. the chances of that happening are slim to say the least, so I'll do me best to prevent with education, the pill, condoms (cause the pill doesnt protect against stds) and knowledge about the map

Well she should have known better shouldn't she? Nobody forced her to get pregnant at all. I don't think killing a child is a rational solution to dealing with teenage pregancy, just as much as I don't support murder.

carlybabe1 wrote: »

I think making a girl/woman carry a rape baby to full term if its against her wishes is nothing short of barbaric, an emotional violation to follow the physical one, yet again being forced to do something she absolutely does NOT want, and done nothing to deserve. And then theres the guilt she would feel not only after the rape itself but at giving up the baby, guilt for never wanting it, and wondering how its life has turned out.

They shouldn't have any guilt for doing the right thing.

carlybabe1 wrote: »

There are many parents out there who are not fit to raise a dog, never mind a child. Thats not a good reason to force a pregnancy on a women, because without the availabilty of abortion, that is in fact what we would be doing.

I believe sex is what caused the pregnancy not the lack of abortions. People should be prepared for those consequences every time they have sex. That is why I think it should be reserved for a loving married couple as opposed to teenagers. Also I'm sure there has to be a standard reached for adoption.

carlybabe1

Hagar wrote: »

I believe that they are currently obliged to provide the father's name now but there is no real way around "I was drunk out of my head and I've no recollection of the event". Anecdotally the fathers are usually unemployed and not in any position to support the child anyway so the burden just falls back into the lap of the tax-payer.

Is it just me or are is there a wee bit of stereotyping going on here??? What about the married couples who have only just had a baby and suddenly find thier expecting again. It happens more often than you'd like to think. If you think about the statements that have been posted re:social welfare, em they have babies, or they wouldnt be on the social, ergo they DIDNT have abortions......

Zulu

carlybabe1 wrote: »

But its not any other human being

A human none the less.

I dont believe anybody should have the right to tell someone else what they should/ should not do with thier own body.

Do you believe that people should be allowed to take currently illegal drugs, such as herion and cocaine? (on the basis that it's there body)

There are laws against puppy farming, whats the difference in forcing a woman to carry to term something which she doesn't want??

Thats a bit of a strawman! Pregnant women aren't puppy farms.

To tell a women she absolutely must alter her life/habits/ put up with morning sickness (sometimes all day nausea)/ heartburn/swollen hands,feet ankles,legs,face and just general michelin manness, and thats BEFORE we mention the hormones (you try going from out of control horny to suicidal depression 90 times a day) is nothing short of a violation of her basic human rights.

I'd explain the risks of sex to her before she had sex.
I wouldn't allower her to kill another person because she was worried about weight gain.

So are you saying that if your 15 yr old daughter got pregnant from messing around that you would force her to keep it as a "you should have known better" lesson??

Yes, yes I would. I wouldn't allow her to kill another person and compound her mistake.

I think making a girl/woman carry a rape baby to full term if its against her wishes is nothing short of barbaric,

This is such a rarity, I question the validity of it's merit in tis discussion, suffice to say you don't make rules for the majority on this outside chance.

guilt for never wanting it, and wondering how its life has turned out.

this would apply for an abortion. How does this help your argument? At least with adoption there wouldn't exist the guilt of killing a child.