Abortion (may contain details that some might find upsetting)

thebman

Pygmalion wrote: »

Never thought of it that way.
But tbh I'd say those in favour of abortion are generally not big into Jesus/Christianity.

And no, I'm not saying that's a bad thing, I don't believe in a god myself.

lol understatement. I'm more into Monty Python myself :P

Every sperm is sacred,
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.

Boston

The thing people don't understand about the abortion debate is that it isn't a debate between right and wrong, but rather a debate between two wrongs and which side you come down on depends on which wrong you can empathise with more.

SarahBeep!

*elbows IO outta the way*

So lads, the majority of you were born after the X Case happened. My mom was pregnant with me when this was making it's way through the courts, I was 21 in April, which just goes to show how long this has been in limbo in Irish law.

Things are starting to progress and hopefully, abortion will someday be available in the Republic of Ireland.

What are your opinions?

Jamie Starr

Insect Overlord wrote: »

Anyone brave enough to make a vaguely serious post? :pac:

willy

My thoughts on abortion without being prolix:

I certainly agree that it should be legalised - it is a medical facility in high demand which the government is not presently providing for, and a lack of regard for the medical needs of people is always an indictment of a government.

However, I believe there needs to be a lot more respect on both sides of the argument. From my perspective, many pro-abortion campaigners' views are just as blinkered and incendiary as those who are in the "pro life" camp - abortion simply cannot be boiled down to a cut and dried, one-way solution. As I have said, I think that it should be available as a medical procedure and and medical choice. However, I similarly recognise that a foetus represents the very blue-print of all our lives.

It is absolutely astonishing to think that our entire development - from bone growth and structure to all the perceptions and sensations allowed by our nervous system - the structure for an entire life lays embedded in a minuscule zygote. I refuse to believe that anyone can truly resolve the conflict between medical necessity and human possibility - you can merely resign yourself to one choice or another. I do think that, whatever choice you make, the dignity of those choices should always be observed.

*drops mic attached to umbilical cord*

Lawliet

Agnostic Mantis wrote: »

However, I similarly recognise that a foetus represents the very blue-print of all our lives.

I think all people recognize that every person's life starts as a fetus, the disagreement starts with to what extent your willing to control someone else's body to protect that life.

The way I see it is, you can't force someone to give blood or donate organs to save another person's life. You could be responsible for why the person needs a blood transfusion and you could have the only suitable blood type available, and it would still be completely illegal and unethical for your blood to be taken without your consent.
Even when a person is dead its illegal to take their organs without their permission (in the form of a donor card) or their family's permission. It doesn't matter how many people could be saved, you can't trump bodily autonomy. Unless you're a pregnant woman in this country.

ETA:
When it comes to abortion in Ireland I can't say I'm optimistic about it becoming easily available any time soon, given how right now we have people dragging their heels about life saving medical treatment because it involved aborting a fetus.

Jamie Starr

Oh, I very much agree. As I said, it's a medical need in huge demand, it should be provided for on that basis regardless of the moral concerns - but I also recognise and accept the reluctance of those opposed to abortion (those who refrain from spouting fear-mongering rubbish at least) to legalise it.

Your blood transfusion/transplant metaphor seems slightly flawed, though. The reason it is unethical for your blood/organs to be taken for the benefit of someone else is because your body and theirs are not one in the same. I know that in England, a country which has legalised abortion, you can still be sectioned under the Mental Health Act for refusing to eat - even though it is your body - it can still be lawfully (and most would say ethically) controlled, regardless of your sex, by force-feeding. Euthanasia represents a similar case. Autonomy and medical procedure rarely intersect.

JamJamJamJam

I'm pro-choice, and I know I am because whenever anyone has this debate, I always agree with the pro-choice arguments. However, I usually forget why, which makes me sound a bit thick...

I just get confused because, like, you can't kill a person! I might be getting this wrong, but I think the explanation I tend to settle on is something to do with an embryo or foetus not really being much of a person (strictly before it's developed... I'm talking about the early pregnancy little fart of a thing, now). It's not a conscious, sentient thing capable of suffering. Without dragging this back to the vegetarianism debate, it's a carrot. Or a head of cabbage. Or a nice aubergine. It's not a cat or a dog. I mean, yeah, it's a potential person, but that's not really a thing, that's just an idea if you get me. I'm a potential bank robber, but they can't throw me in jail for it! :P So like.. (As I can see it, and I'm open to correction), we're only fooling ourselves if we're going to say that killing the foetus is totally wrong. Then the mother should be entitled to full control of what goes on. When you consider specific examples, such as pregnancy due to rape, there's no longer even a question of it!

Once the foetus becomes aware and starts kicking and doing its thing, it's a different story, I think. Because abortion then (late in the pregancy) is causing real suffering and that's just not cool But nearly everyone seems to agree with that.


Other stuff:
- I despise the use of the word babies when talking about foetuses. If you say that you are wrong. And you're being misleading. And you're a fuck.
- It also annoys me when people try to say that abortions traumatize women and it affects their mental health. Perhaps it does, but giving birth is traumatic, too, physically and emotionally, and raising a kid that you didn't plan for is tough, and post-natal depression is a thing!
- I don't understand why 'rape or incest' are always included. Okay, I get the rape thing... But incest? Like, if it was consensual incest. Never understood that....

Insect Overlord

JamJamJamJam wrote: »

But incest? Like, if it was consensual incest. Never understood that....

I'd say that'd be too rare to legislate for.

Lawliet

Agnostic Mantis wrote: »

Your blood transfusion/transplant metaphor seems slightly flawed, though. The reason it is unethical for your blood/organs to be taken for the benefit of someone else is because your body and theirs are not one in the same.

A mother and fetus's body aren't one the same either?

I know that in England, a country which has legalised abortion, you can still be sectioned under the Mental Health Act for refusing to eat - even though it is your body - it can still be lawfully (and most would say ethically) controlled, regardless of your sex, by force-feeding. Euthanasia represents a similar case. Autonomy and medical procedure rarely intersect.

In those cases the violation of bodily autonomy is to save that particular person, not someone else. I should have been more clear I didn't mean that a person's bodily autonomy can never be over ruled, just that it can't be over ruled to save someone else.

iamanengine

I actually answered on the X case in my Constitutional Law exam there in April and, now, I could in no way make any argument about it whatsoever.

wnolan1992

It's odd, abortion is probably the issue I'm both most conservative and most conflicted on.

Let me start by saying I'm 100% in favour of legislating for abortion where the mother's life is at risk. Ditto fatal fetal abnormalities, because I believe it's cruel to force someone to carry a child who is ultimately destined to die to term if they do not wish to.

Where it gets trickier for me morally is the case of rape. I hear a lot of the pro-choice crowd saying that it is wrong to bring the "rapist's child" into the world. But, at least in my opinion, that child has done nothing wrong, why punish it for the actions of its father? (Obviously this comes down to whether you believe life begins at conception or birth)

I'm slightly in favour of abortion in cases of suicidal ideation, but that said, I'd prefer to see more evidence to support the assertion that abortion is a solution to this problem before legislating for it...


As for abortion on demand... I grow more and more opposed to this as technology gets better. As the details available to expectant parents become more in depth, as the quality of genetic screenings get better, I genuinely fear that we could get to a situation where fetuses which show mild or potentially debilitating disabilities will be aborted.
For example, what if Stephen Hawking's parents had carried out a scan that had told them he would develop ALS? Would they have chosen to continue with the pregnancy if they knew that he would be wheelchair bound and dependent on a computer to speak in later life? (Granted ALS isn't directly hereditary, but I think this serves as an idea of my concerns)

Now, of course, you could make the argument of whether it's fair to force parents to have a child with a disability if they feel they wouldn't be up to the task, and that's a question I can't answer.



So basically, I'm conflicted as f*ck on the entire subject. :P

Jamie Starr

Lawliet wrote: »

A mother and fetus's body aren't one the same either?

I think you would have to say that they are, considering that the foetus is connected to and sustained by the mother (even for a short time after birth). Whether their lives are one in the same is the issue which makes the morality of abortion so inextricable.

In those cases the violation of bodily autonomy is to save that particular person, not someone else. I should have been more clear I didn't mean that a person's bodily autonomy can never be over ruled, just that it can't be over ruled to save someone else.

As such, since the foetus is part of the mother's body, you are not over-ruling bodily autonomy to save someone else. You are forbidding them to do what they want with their own body. Again, I am remotely arguing for the continuance of this practice, merely pointing out that abortion is not a unique case. Hopefully many of the barriers and stigmas surrounding bodily autonomy will be removed in our lifetime. This new bill is a highly limited, but forward step.

ps. i luv u lawliet lets hab bebe

Corvo Attano

The way I see it at the moment is that it is ridiculous that a woman cant get an abortion if she will die as a result. I see that as a doctor handing a death sentence. If the baby will not live outside the womb I think it is worthlessly traumatic for a woman to carry that child for 9 months just to have it either be deliver dead or worse still try live for a few minutes but ultimately failing.

Coming into other cases I think abortion is morally justifiable up to the case that the foetus could survive outside the womb with sufficient nourishment. After the necessary systems for brain functions most specifically conscious thought are developed it is then a baby. It has independent life.

In the case of rape I think it is ok. By the time the abortion occurs its most likely not even a foetus. Its not fair on the woman.

In the case of disability I think its up to the parents to decide. They created this and it is their choice to end it if they want. It shouldnt be encouraged like Ive heard some basket cases say it will and if it is a non major disability it shouldnt be an option to terminate.

As for abortion as some form of contraception I think that is reckless and wrong. You reap what you sow. It is by your action this perfectly viable baby is here.

Things that grind my gears:
-Pro-Lifers portraying abortion as some handy way of doing something. Like you just drop in to the local clinic and waltz out in half an hour. Its not a nice procedure. Its rough stuff.

-This ridiculous assertion by some pro lifers that this legislation allows for abortion at any stage in a pregnancy. Like we'll have doctors murdering babies at 8 and nine months. Just plain ridiculous assertions.

LoonyLovegood

iamanengine wrote: »

I actually answered on the X case in my Constitutional Law exam there in April and, now, I could in no way make any argument about it whatsoever.

I wish I was the same, I've been following this too much.

I'm completely pro-choice - up to a limit. I can't support abortion after sixteen weeks, unless it's FFA. With medical science being able to save a baby 21 weeks and five days into gestation, it's getting to the stage where anything after sixteen/eighteen weeks is too close for them to live. Ten, fifteen years ago (when many of us were children), it'd be rare to hear of a child surviving before 24/26 weeks, now it's almost common.

My baby cousin had hydrocephalus, and died in a hospital in England because her mother was induced. They'd to leave Aisling behind in the hospital, and wait for her ashes to be sent over, because they would have been arrested had they brought them with them. That's just wrong.

SarahBeep!

wnolan1992 wrote: »

Where it gets trickier for me morally is the case of rape. I hear a lot of the pro-choice crowd saying that it is wrong to bring the "rapist's child" into the world. But, at least in my opinion, that child has done nothing wrong, why punish it for the actions of its father? (Obviously this comes down to whether you believe life begins at conception or birth)

For me it's neither. Life begins at foetal viability. Technically a foetus can't be a person if it can't survive without being attached to me.

I think another thing that p*sses me off is that the majority of policy makers are male. A man can never ever know what it feels like to be pregnant. As hard as you try, you never will have the hormones of a pregnant woman, the fears of a pregnant woman, the pains of a pregnant woman.

Men can (and do) play roles in an unwanted pregnancy but a woman can't walk away at the sight of a positive pregnancy test or pretend that it's someone else's. Like it or not, if you can't afford an abortion you're stuck with it for at least 9 months. And there's major stigma about giving up a child in Ireland. (It's so hard to ACTUALLY adopt an Irish child they just get bandied about between foster families until they turn 18 but that's another rant for another day...)

And using abortion as contraceptive?? Pretty expensive, painful and traumatic form of contraception!!

Lawliet

Agnostic Mantis wrote: »

I think you would have to say that they are, considering that the foetus is connected to and sustained by the mother (even for a short time after birth).

Not to jump to the 'fetuses are parasites' argument but its valid here I think. We share our bodies with billions of living organisms that couldn't survive without us, some can even integration into our DNA, but few would argue that a bacterium and its human host are one and the same. They're separate organisms, one organism just lives inside the other.

ps. i luv u lawliet lets hab bebe

xxx

Jhcx

SarahBeep! wrote: »

Men can (and do) play roles in an unwanted pregnancy but a woman can't walk away at the sight of a positive pregnancy test or pretend that it's someone else's. Like it or not, if you can't afford an abortion you're stuck with it for at least 9 months. And there's major stigma about giving up a child in Ireland. (It's so hard to ACTUALLY adopt an Irish child they just get bandied about between foster families until they turn 18 but that's another rant for another day...)

And using abortion as contraceptive?? Pretty expensive, painful and traumatic form of contraception!!

I was having this discussion with a friend if it should ever happen to us. At are age, as expensive as it is. we both agree for the sake of our lives and trying to care for ourselves rather than another human being! we would both opt for abortion simply because its not fair on us the child or anyone. nothing good comes out of teen pregnancies(Besides the obvious fact you have created life)
Many of my friends i have spoken to all agree on abortion at our age. give it 10 yrs time we'll most likely all think different like you cant really say no to creating another human being after yourself probably one of the best events in your life beside the next 18 years of hell :pac:

But my conclusion is im in favour in it. Not as a quick fix out but in certain circumstances such as my age at present, and any future event where i know im my body physically, mentally and lots of discussions with my partner that its the last resort.

More so instead of talking about Abortion in a Sex thread should be talking about safe sex and how to prevent any sort of discussion like this from arising in the future for our young boardies.

Lawliet

Jhcx wrote: »

More so instead of talking about Abortion in a Sex thread should be talking about safe sex and how to prevent any sort of discussion like this from arising in the future for our young boardies.

Good point. I moved all the abortion related posts here