If There Was A Referendum on Abortion Tomorrow, How Would You Vote?

Dave!

grindelwald wrote: »

Very true......

Jade Goody begged doctors and her mom to end her life.

I begged them too...

ash23

Hazlittle wrote: »

I dont really think murder, rape or child molestation being illegal lowers the amount of these crimes. Most decent people dont do things that are illegal cause it is either wrong to do or their is punishment along with. However truely evil people will continue to cause death and destruction regardless of the law.

You totally missed my point. Which was that a lot of people here are harping on about how "cruel" the abortion process is, the "slicing and dicing", the fact that a foetus has a heartbeat, ears, arms etc.....

MY point was that I found out I was pregnant at 7 weeks. I had an early scan. There was an embryonic sac at that stage. No heartbeat, no arms, no legs...nothing that resembled anything. It was literally a bunch of cells. Had I wanted an abortion and were it legal in Ireland I could have gone that day/week and had one. It would have been a matter of taking a tablet which meand the embryonic sac detatched from the lining of my uterus and resulted in a forced miscarriage.

But its not legal. So I would (by the rules of the clinic in the UK) have had to wait until (Not 100% certain but I think) 12 weeks, let the foetus grow and develop even furthur and then have a more invasive and harrowing procedure.
Even if I were able to give a UK address and lie about where I lived (on a side note, this is why the Irish abortion numbers are skewed as most don't give an Irish address for this reason), I would have had to come up with the cost of travel on top of the cost of the procedure (the longer you wait the more expensive it is) and it would have resulted in a later term abortion.

So by keeping it illegal we are the ones responsible for more foetuses being "sliced and diced", more backstreet abortions, more women drinking bottles of gin and sitting in scalding baths, more women buying dodgy drugs off the internet and putting their lives at risk. And for what? So we can pat ourselves on the back that we are so moral as a country that we deny women the right to choose? It doesn't decrease the number of abortions. We simply expel the problem abroad. We put women who are upset and emotional on a plane or boat and pretend they don't exist. We force them to lie and to be ashamed. Well done Ireland!!!!

A few decades ago contraception was illegal. We thought we were saving the unborn back then too.
I can only hope that by the time my daughter is an adult she can look back incredulously as to how backwards this country was, as I now look back incredulously at that time when contraception was illegal.
It's backwards imo, to keep abortion illegal.

positron

ash23 wrote: »

MY point was that I found out I was pregnant at 7 weeks. I had an early scan. There was an embryonic sac at that stage. No heartbeat, no arms, no legs...nothing that resembled anything. It was literally a bunch of cells.

At 7 weeks, there's heart beat, and you can even see it on ultrasound scans.

I voted pro-choice by the way.

newtoboards

Pro choice. I've once had to make the journey to the uk with a friend of mine who was getting an abortion and it was just a terrible experience for both of us. If the right to abortion was here that trip would have been spared us. One strange thing she said when over there was that she had to go through with it because of "all the trouble she'd gone to" to get there. I begged her if she had doubts don't do it, talk to the staff, anything but she went ahead with it in the end. Perhaps if that difficult journey had been spared us she may not have done it. Also by the time she had the abortion she was further along than she would have liked with getting the money together meaning an invasive procedure.

ash23

positron wrote: »

At 7 weeks, there's heart beat, and you can even see it on ultrasound scans.

I voted pro-choice by the way.

Eh, I had one. There wasn't a heartbeat. I didn't make that up for the craic like.
I had another 10 days later and there was a heartbeat. I have the scan pics. Maybe not in every case but in mine the day after I found out, there was no heartbeat, no limbs. Nothing but a black hole.
At 8 weeks there were the formation of limbs and the beginnings of an embryo and a flickering heartbeat.
At 12 weeks there were arms and legs, a proper head, nose, strong heartbeat, spine, fingers etc.

Point still stands. An earlier abortion is an easier process. The earlier it is done, the better imo.
Current legislation actually encourages later abortions.

Hannibal Smith

ash23 wrote: »

You totally missed my point. Which was that a lot of people here are harping on about how "cruel" the abortion process is, the "slicing and dicing", the fact that a foetus has a heartbeat, ears, arms etc.....

MY point was that I found out I was pregnant at 7 weeks. I had an early scan. There was an embryonic sac at that stage. No heartbeat, no arms, no legs...nothing that resembled anything. It was literally a bunch of cells. Had I wanted an abortion and were it legal in Ireland I could have gone that day/week and had one. It would have been a matter of taking a tablet which meand the embryonic sac detatched from the lining of my uterus and resulted in a forced miscarriage.

But its not legal. So I would (by the rules of the clinic in the UK) have had to wait until (Not 100% certain but I think) 12 weeks, let the foetus grow and develop even furthur and then have a more invasive and harrowing procedure.
Even if I were able to give a UK address and lie about where I lived (on a side note, this is why the Irish abortion numbers are skewed as most don't give an Irish address for this reason), I would have had to come up with the cost of travel on top of the cost of the procedure (the longer you wait the more expensive it is) and it would have resulted in a later term abortion.

So by keeping it illegal we are the ones responsible for more foetuses being "sliced and diced", more backstreet abortions, more women drinking bottles of gin and sitting in scalding baths, more women buying dodgy drugs off the internet and putting their lives at risk. And for what? So we can pat ourselves on the back that we are so moral as a country that we deny women the right to choose? It doesn't decrease the number of abortions. We simply expel the problem abroad. We put women who are upset and emotional on a plane or boat and pretend they don't exist. We force them to lie and to be ashamed. Well done Ireland!!!!

A few decades ago contraception was illegal. We thought we were saving the unborn back then too.
I can only hope that by the time my daughter is an adult she can look back incredulously as to how backwards this country was, as I now look back incredulously at that time when contraception was illegal.
It's backwards imo, to keep abortion illegal.

Excellent post...100% agree with what you've said and sorry to read about your own experience.

ash23

Hannibal Smith wrote: »

Excellent post...100% agree with what you've said and sorry to read about your own experience.

Thanks.

On a side note, I didn't actually have an abortion. I chose to go ahead with the pregnancy and my daughter is now 7. But I know how I felt at the time, how afraid I was and how upset I was and the thoughts of some poor girl making a different decision to me and having to travel in that state and deal with it in a place where she knows nobody, where she has to worry about the cost, the time off work, the lies she will have to tell....it makes me feel sick.

I made the right decision for myself and I feel every woman should have the same right.

Hannibal Smith

ash23 wrote: »

Thanks.

On a side note, I didn't actually have an abortion. I chose to go ahead with the pregnancy and my daughter is now 7. But I know how I felt at the time, how afraid I was and how upset I was and the thoughts of some poor girl making a different decision to me and having to travel in that state and deal with it in a place where she knows nobody, where she has to worry about the cost, the time off work, the lies she will have to tell....it makes me feel sick.

I made the right decision for myself and I feel every woman should have the same right.

That's exactly it. Nobody stops to think about what the girl or woman might be going through. Thankfully I've never been faced with such a decision, but if I had the thoughts of flying to another country by myself to get this awful thing done and lets face it, they're not exactly skipping with delight to get on that plane. As some one else said, maybe some of them would have second thoughts if they hadn't had such a journey to get there.

I just find it shocking that in 2010 there is so little understanding about the whole thing.

Kiith

ash23 wrote: »

I made the right decision for myself and I feel every woman should have the same right.

That should be the end of the argument. Well put.

philologos

Kiith wrote: »

That should be the end of the argument. Well put.

The end of the argument being, ah sure, just ignore one side of the debate entirely, and lets just ignore the rights of the unborn to life? :pac: - The arguments still about as open as it ever was, with the same ethical issues being involved!

It's a hugely difficult argument, but there isn't likely to be an "end" to it in sight for a long time yet. It's a big deal for a mother to fall pregnant, but it is a big thing to end a life also.

The real question we should be asking is, is there any real way we can limit the perceived need for abortions to begin with? Most of us agree that it isn't a good position to be in to even consider having an abortion. So how can we stop people getting into that situation to begin with?

Kiith

I just meant that, imo, it should be up to the mother/parents of the unborn child. Not a judgement passed down owing to religios beliefs, which is where a lot of the against arguments seem to come from.

philologos

Kiith wrote: »

I just meant that, imo, it should be up to the mother/parents of the unborn child. Not a judgement passed down owing to religios beliefs, which is where a lot of the against arguments seem to come from.

One can be pro-life and be an atheist or agnostic, and indeed of numerous other belief systems.

If you read back through the arguments made on this, and the abortion ad thread, most haven't been based on any given religious viewpoint.

Dave!

Jakkass wrote: »

The end of the argument being, ah sure, just ignore one side of the debate entirely, and lets just ignore the rights of the unborn to life? :pac: - The arguments still about as open as it ever was, with the same ethical issues being involved!

It's a hugely difficult argument, but there isn't likely to be an "end" to it in sight for a long time yet. It's a big deal for a mother to fall pregnant, but it is a big thing to end a life also.

The real question we should be asking is, is there any real way we can limit the perceived need for abortions to begin with? Most of us agree that it isn't a good position to be in to even consider having an abortion. So how can we stop people getting into that situation to begin with?

Get outa here with that concilliatory nonsense! This is supposed to be a polarising debate :pac:

Smart Bug

Jakkass wrote: »

The end of the argument being, ah sure, just ignore one side of the debate entirely, and lets just ignore the rights of the unborn to life? :pac: - The arguments still about as open as it ever was, with the same ethical issues being involved!

It's a hugely difficult argument, but there isn't likely to be an "end" to it in sight for a long time yet. It's a big deal for a mother to fall pregnant, but it is a big thing to end a life also.

The real question we should be asking is, is there any real way we can limit the perceived need for abortions to begin with? Most of us agree that it isn't a good position to be in to even consider having an abortion. So how can we stop people getting into that situation to begin with?

Advocate abstinence and adopt promise rings in secondary school/college. That works.

Hannibal Smith

Jakkass wrote: »

The end of the argument being, ah sure, just ignore one side of the debate entirely, and lets just ignore the rights of the unborn to life? :pac: - The arguments still about as open as it ever was, with the same ethical issues being involved!

It's a hugely difficult argument, but there isn't likely to be an "end" to it in sight for a long time yet. It's a big deal for a mother to fall pregnant, but it is a big thing to end a life also.

The real question we should be asking is, is there any real way we can limit the perceived need for abortions to begin with? Most of us agree that it isn't a good position to be in to even consider having an abortion. So how can we stop people getting into that situation to begin with?

I thought it was an excellent way to end the discussion. Give the woman the right to decide. You're going around in circles trying to reignite the discussion.

There's only one way to absolutely stop people facing this position and that is to abstain from sex and not even the priests can manage that

seamus

Smart Bug wrote: »

Advocate abstinence and adopt promise rings in secondary school/college. That works.

Seriously though, the key is to forget all the modesty and religious notions and educate, educate, educate.

Sex education should be provided as a full class for all children between 10 and 14 years of age.

Tell them how a child is made, warts and all, bring them through the entire process from menstruation to birth. Tell them how not to get pregnant, tell them that all the myths about standing up, first periods, baths etc are complete and utter nonsese, and provide condoms, contraceptive pills, IUDs, smear tests and STD tests for free, for life.

Sex education cannot begin at home because many parents are completely and utterly uneducated about the whole thing themselves.

It's not "bad luck" that the children of teenage mothers become teenage mothers themselves. People are incapable of providing an adequate sexual education to their children. It's not a private matter, it's a societal matter and society should take responsibility for it.

If that happened, then the need for abortions would plummet. And I think everyone can stand behind that.

Hannibal Smith

seamus wrote: »

Seriously though, the key is to forget all the modesty and religious notions and educate, educate, educate.

Sex education should be provided as a full class for all children between 10 and 14 years of age.

Tell them how a child is made, warts and all, bring them through the entire process from menstruation to birth. Tell them how not to get pregnant, tell them that all the myths about standing up, first periods, baths etc are complete and utter nonsese, and provide condoms, contraceptive pills, IUDs, smear tests and STD tests for free, for life.

Sex education cannot begin at home because many parents are completely and utterly uneducated about the whole thing themselves.

It's not "bad luck" that the children of teenage mothers become teenage mothers themselves. People are incapable of providing an adequate sexual education to their children. It's not a private matter, it's a societal matter and society should take responsibility for it.

If that happened, then the need for abortions would plummet. And I think everyone can stand behind that.

jees don't tell them about the warts :eek:

philologos

Hannibal Smith wrote: »

I thought it was an excellent way to end the discussion. Give the woman the right to decide. You're going around in circles trying to reignite the discussion.

It's a terrible way to end a discussion. Ah, yeah guys, I think we should end and just re-assert that we are right. That's not how it works when people debate with one another.

seamus: I think you are making a valid point, but one has to ask why haven't sex-ed programs decreased the rates of abortions in other countries such as the UK?
(N.B - This is not an argument against sex-ed, but rather an argument that it should be taught better, with teaching on how abortions are generally carried out if it arises that it becomes legal that is)

Hannibal Smith

Jakkass wrote: »

It's a terrible way to end a discussion. Ah, yeah guys, I think we should end and just re-assert that we are right. That's not how it works when people debate with one another.

Re-read the line that was quoted...it was a meeting of the waters...women should have the right to choose. If you want to carry on the semantics of it all feel free but for most of us it was a nice way to finish the discussion.

Sulmac

seamus wrote: »

If that happened, then the need for abortions would plummet. And I think everyone can stand behind that.

+1

Here's an interesting article on sex education in the Netherlands, which, despite having some of the most liberal abortion laws (and, indeed, attitudes to sex) in the world, has one of the lowest abortion rates in Europe and one of the lowest teenage pregnancy rates in the world.

Hazlittle

ash23 wrote: »

You totally missed my point. Which was that a lot of people here are harping on about how "cruel" the abortion process is, the "slicing and dicing", the fact that a foetus has a heartbeat, ears, arms etc.....

Still killing a human life regardless if it had a heart beat or not.

ash23 wrote: »

A few decades ago contraception was illegal. We thought we were saving the unborn back then too.

Incorrect. The Catholic Churches objection to condoms is due to its objection to sex for pleasure. Nothing to do with the unborn. I am not a Catholic, but I dont wear a condom for other reasons, in fact most of friends dont. I wont get into why because it has nothing to do with the debate.

newtoboards wrote: »

Pro choice. I've once had to make the journey to the uk with a friend of mine who was getting an abortion and it was just a terrible experience for both of us. If the right to abortion was here that trip would have been spared us. One strange thing she said when over there was that she had to go through with it because of "all the trouble she'd gone to" to get there. I begged her if she had doubts don't do it, talk to the staff, anything but she went ahead with it in the end. Perhaps if that difficult journey had been spared us she may not have done it. Also by the time she had the abortion she was further along than she would have liked with getting the money together meaning an invasive procedure.

You were committing a crime. I do not care if it was unpleasant for you. Thats like rapists asking the council to remove protective lighting around parks.

coffee_cake

Hazlittle wrote: »

Still killing a human life regardless if it had a heart beat or not.

Does that mean killing my skin cells is bad too?

You were committing a crime.

The right to travel abroad for an abortion is given in the constitution. As the abortion was legal in the UK, it was in no way a crime.

Hazlittle

bluewolf wrote: »

Does that mean killing my skin cells is bad too?

They are not a human life. The embryonic sac she mentions is a distinct individual human life. The skins cells you shed daily are already dead are not a distinct human life form.

bluewolf wrote: »

The right to travel abroad for an abortion is given in the constitution. As the abortion was legal in the UK, it was in no way a crime.

I dont think I need to write descriptive details into what I am talking about. She was doing something which would have been illegal in Ireland. She's complaining she wants it to made easier for her and let her do it here. Which we oppose as we want it as difficult as possible to have an abortion. If it came to a referendum, I would vote to change so all women who have had an abortion would not be allowed to return to Ireland.

People of grave dishonour should not be allowed on my island.

coffee_cake

Hazlittle wrote: »

I dont think I need to write descriptive details into what I am talking about. She was doing something which would have been illegal in Ireland.

But she wasn't in Ireland, which makes this irrelevant. She wasn't committing a crime, plain and simple.

She's complaining she wants it to made easier for her and let her do it here. Which we oppose as we want it as difficult as possible to have an abortion. If it came to a referendum, I would vote to change so all women who have had an abortion would not be allowed to return to Ireland.

That's all very nice, but she wasn't committing a crime.

Hazlittle

bluewolf wrote: »

But she wasn't in Ireland, which makes this irrelevant. She wasn't committing a crime, plain and simple.


That's all very nice, but she wasn't committing a crime.

She wanted to commit a crime but instead she went to England were they dont persecute for that crime.

crime (krm)n.1. An act committed or omitted in violation of a law forbidding or commanding it and for which punishment is imposed upon conviction.
2. Unlawful activity: .
3. A serious offense, especially one in violation of morality.
4. An unjust, senseless, or disgraceful act or condition

cynder

seamus wrote: »

Seriously though, the key is to forget all the modesty and religious notions and educate, educate, educate.

Sex education should be provided as a full class for all children between 10 and 14 years of age.

Tell them how a child is made, warts and all, bring them through the entire process from menstruation to birth. Tell them how not to get pregnant, tell them that all the myths about standing up, first periods, baths etc are complete and utter nonsese, and provide condoms, contraceptive pills, IUDs, smear tests and STD tests for free, for life.

Sex education cannot begin at home because many parents are completely and utterly uneducated about the whole thing themselves.

It's not "bad luck" that the children of teenage mothers become teenage mothers themselves. People are incapable of providing an adequate sexual education to their children. It's not a private matter, it's a societal matter and society should take responsibility for it.

If that happened, then the need for abortions would plummet. And I think everyone can stand behind that.

My 10 year old came to me the other day after watching a t v programme and asked me what would happen if she ever got pregnant as a teenager? i told her if she wanted i would look after it but also told her that there are things out there to stop people getting pregnant, she already knows about condoms. I also told her she is way too young to be thinking of that and that sex is illegal until the age of 16. I am quite open with her and she also knows she can approach me and ask me questions without me jumping down her throat.


Take it back to 1969 my mom was 19 and pregnant she was forced to have an abortion by her mother and 2 older sisters, they told her dad that she miscarried as he would have killed them.

philologos

Hannibal Smith wrote: »

Re-read the line that was quoted...it was a meeting of the waters...women should have the right to choose. If you want to carry on the semantics of it all feel free but for most of us it was a nice way to finish the discussion.

There's nothing semantics about it. You claim that ah lets stop the discussion, you're wrong etc etc. We've nowhere near reached any form of agreement as to the choice or lack thereof of anyone.

Rather it'd be best to say that here we are, without agreement and we'll probably never agree.

cynder

seamus wrote: »

Seriously though, the key is to forget all the modesty and religious notions and educate, educate, educate.

Sex education should be provided as a full class for all children between 10 and 14 years of age.

Tell them how a child is made, warts and all, bring them through the entire process from menstruation to birth. Tell them how not to get pregnant, tell them that all the myths about standing up, first periods, baths etc are complete and utter nonsese, and provide condoms, contraceptive pills, IUDs, smear tests and STD tests for free, for life.

Sex education cannot begin at home because many parents are completely and utterly uneducated about the whole thing themselves.

It's not "bad luck" that the children of teenage mothers become teenage mothers themselves. People are incapable of providing an adequate sexual education to their children. It's not a private matter, it's a societal matter and society should take responsibility for it.

If that happened, then the need for abortions would plummet. And I think everyone can stand behind that.

Sometimes it clued in lazy women/teenagers that want to get pregnant to live off the state.

Also what about the ones who have 3 abortions a year or 15 abortions in 16 years or 8 abortions in 3 years?

They have to know about contraceptives they just don't give a ****

cynder

Jakkass wrote: »

Rather it'd be best to say that here we are, without agreement and we'll probably never agree.

I agree to that;)

Orange69

Where is Matt Damon when you need him, he would solve this...