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

pow wow

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm merely suggesting that the relativist position of saying, if you find abortion right, good for you, and if you find abortion wrong, good for you.

Let's just legalise it and you guys can just shut up is essentially the argument, which is about as much dictating as anything else.

Thanks....I don't know what I'd have done had you not mentioned it. Legalising it gives those who have that choice to make the freedom to do it. I can understand how it is abhorrent to those in the pro-life camp but it's not something I subscribe to.

Mark200

It's disappointing that (according to this poll) 75% are pro-choice yet if there WAS a referendum, the religious nutcases would scare a huge amount of voters into voting no.

Mint Sauce

pro choice, although i would prefer a re run of the election, they did one for lisburn

Truley

IT-Guy wrote: »

The moral righteousness of my stance wasn't long being dissolved by the realities of modern life.

My experience was very similar. It is easy to make moral stances like that when you're a well educated, middle class person with a solid family and peer network to support you. Some people can't get their head around the reasons people choose to terminate, throwing out silly arguments like you can always use adoption etc. There is no consideration for the realities of the situation. When a woman has an unwanted pregnancy, the only person who has any vested interest in the baby is the mother and sometimes the father. Nobody else knows or cares about the child. Nobody else will miss the fetous when it's gone. Therefore if the only person who knows the baby decides she doesn't want it, why would she make the huge sacrifice of carrying it to term, going into labour, giving it away?

Of course you may think she should make this sacrifice, but the simple fact is she doesn't. And so by denying her the right to terminate you are essentially coercing her to do something against her will. It's an incessant battle that you will never win.

So many people here have tossed out the old argument of 'well if you don't want to be pregnant you shouldn't be having sex.' Unwanted pregnancies were just as common, if not more so, back when Ireland held conservative and repressive views on sex. And believe me, before travelling to the UK was a viable option we had a pretty sophisticated (and well used) underground abortion service here.

The simple fact is women always have and alway will use abortion because despite the alternative 'options,' they are options most women do not want to take. At the end of the day that's what it all boils down to.

Mint Sauce

whilst i dont agree with abortion its self, people should have the right to be able to make their own mind, especially in exteme circumstances in the case of rape or if thier is a risk to the life of the mother

starbelgrade

IT-Guy wrote: »

The moral righteousness of my stance wasn't long being dissolved by the realities of modern life. It also made me reassess whether I'd have gone out with her if I'd known this about her. The more mature me now would say yes, the me back then probably no.

IMO, making abortion legal in this country doesn't mean every woman will want one come an unplanned pregnancy. It means that there is a choice there if she wants it, that choice isn't an easy one to make despite pro-choicers being portrayed as cold hearted baby killers.

A very honest post & one which I think a lot of people could empathise with.

mise_me_fein1

If a woman really really wants an abortion, she can easily just go over to Britain.

Anyway, a lot of these votes on boards.ie seem to show how liberal we are......I'm pretty liberal and I suppose on some issues like this conservative, however I respect democracy above everything.

The conservative people in Ireland generally don't use boards.ie so I would say the vote for abortion would not be as it is here.

starbelgrade

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm merely suggesting that the relativist position of saying, if you find abortion right, good for you, and if you find abortion wrong, good for you.

Let's just legalise it and you guys can just shut up is essentially the argument, which is about as much dictating as anything else.

I think you have missed the point completely - by allowing women the right to choose if they want to have an abortion or not has nothing to do with dictating, quite the opposite in fact, unless you are suggesting that we force women to have abortions.

The anti-choice brigade, from which you come, has much more of a dictatorship set-up to it that those who would like to see abortion rights legalised.

And as the poll shows, you are thankfully in the minority.

starbelgrade

mise_me_fein1 wrote: »

If a woman really really wants an abortion, she can easily just go over to Britain.

Anyway, a lot of these votes on boards.ie seem to show how liberal we are......I'm pretty liberal and I suppose on some issues like this conservative, however I respect democracy above everything.

The conservative people in Ireland generally don't use boards.ie so I would say the vote for abortion would not be as it is here.

I agree with your last point - the poll would not be an accurate reflection on how a referendum would go - though it was never intended to be one, merely a testing of general opinion of peers in After Hours.

As for the argument that the Irish can travel to England - don't you think that it's a little hypocritical - the idea that you can have an abortion, but not on your own doorstep, so to speak?

Especially when you take into account the court case which tried to prevent a teenage rape victim from leaving the state to terminate a pregnancy.

Kev_ps3

Love how the liberals call murder 'pro choice'.

starbelgrade

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

Love how the liberals call murder 'pro choice'.

Not as much as I love how the conservatives classify the termination of a pregnancy as murder.

starbelgrade

Poll options have been changed to remove the controversial use of 'pro-choice' / 'anti-choice'.

Many Thanks to Segaboy for making the suggestion & to Biko for taking the time to change the options.

rovert

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

Love how the liberals call murder 'pro choice'.

I dont think that was the start of Bill Hick's routine on abortion :pac:

Up de Barrs

I would support a referendum to legalise abortion but we also needs a change of attitude and policy on the issue. Sweden has a low and falling rate of abortion because as a society it takes a much more mature attitude to sexual health. Comprehensive education and family planning facilities would do far more to reduce our rate of abortion than the constitutional ban has ever done.

Prof.Badass

starbelgrade wrote: »

Not as much as I love how the conservatives classify the termination of a pregnancy as murder.

Well see, that's the thing. When does terminating life become wrong? What factor can be used to draw a clear line?

Is it about pain, conciousness or the experience of death?
Hardly, as you could kill someone painlessly in their sleep and they'd never know it.

Simmilarly, It can't be about memories/identity either as then it would be ok to kill newborn babies (who possess neither).

Birth is hardly a clear enough line either, especially with today's medical technology. There isn't really any satisfactory difference between an almost fully developed fetus and a newborn baby (ever wonder why so many pro-choicers are against late term abortions?).

As for arbitrarily picking a point during pregnancy based on one of the factors above (such as ability to feel pain), that won't cut it. You're just trying to come up with an answer to justify your beliefs, avoiding the key issue deliberately.


The clearest point to draw the line imo is whether or not you are directly taking away future concious life. Which, I'm afraid to say, puts abortion at the wrong side of the moral line. By aborting a fetus you are directly taking future consious life away from it, if you were to not interfere with the system and leave things as they are the fetus would become a baby.

However, the use of human embryos does not cross this moral line. An embryo in the lab has no future life. It would require (quite significant) human interferance to ever become a fetus. And with all the millions of embryos out there in the world this would be an impossible task.
Left to it's own devices an embryo in a lab will never become concious. However, by using it for stem cell treatments we could do a huge amount of good and drastically improve the quality of life for millions worldwide.

It might seem a little offputting or whatever, but when blood transfusions first came in they disgusted most people, now they are seen as normal.


Actually, I remember reading this troll back a while ago; Infanticide-what's the big deal? . Surprisingly thought-provoking.

starbelgrade

vinylmesh wrote: »

Well see, that's the thing. When does terminating life become wrong? What factor can be used to draw a clear line?

Is it about pain, conciousness or the experience of death?
Hardly, as you could kill someone painlessly in their sleep and they'd never know it.

Simmilarly, It can't be about memories/identity either as then it would be ok to kill newborn babies (who possess neither).

Birth is hardly a clear enough line either, especially with today's medical technology. There isn't really any satisfactory difference between an almost fully developed fetus and a newborn baby (ever wonder why so many pro-choicers are against late term abortions?).

As for arbitrarily picking a point during pregnancy based on one of the factors above (such as ability to feel pain), that won't cut it. You're just trying to come up with an answer to justify your beliefs, avoiding the key issue deliberately.


The clearest point to draw the line imo is whether or not you are directly taking away future concious life. Which, I'm afraid to say, puts abortion at the wrong side of the moral line. By aborting a fetus you are directly taking future consious life away from it, if you were to not interfere with the system and leave things as they are the fetus would become a baby.

The use of embryos in stem ceel research is a seperate issue, so I will ignore that, for no other reason than it is off topic.

The question you seem to be asking is that - is a fetus is a human being? This status is not an objective scientific fact.

Biology, medicine, law, philosophy, and theology have no consensus on the issue, and neither does society as a whole. There will never be a consensus because of the subjective and unscientific nature of the claim.

In that sense, I think it comes down to personal choice.

I am not avoiding any key issues as you have suggested. I've made many posts, points & opinions on this thread & stated my beliefs clearly.

One of the key points is however, that abortions will & have been performed throughout history, regardless of the law. Irish people travel abroad every year to terminate pregancies. All I see there is a great hypocrisy on our behalf.

Prof.Badass

starbelgrade wrote: »

The use of embryos in stem ceel research is a seperate issue, so I will ignore that, for no other reason than it is off topic.

In discussing at what point it becomes wrong to terminate life, the issue of embryonic research is crucial to the discussion. And without asking this question you can't have a proper abortion debate. Abortion is just a small part of a bigger philosophical debate. It would be hard to come to any decent conclusions without looking at the bigger picture first.

The question you seem to be asking is that - is a fetus is a human being? This status is not an objective scientific fact.

No, the questions I was asking were "When does terminating life become wrong?" and "What factor can be used to draw a clear line?"

I don't care what anyone thinks of when "you become a human being" (which could mean anything to anyone). It's irrelevant to the debate, really.

Biology, medicine, law, philosophy, and theology have no consensus on the issue, and neither does society as a whole. There will never be a consensus because of the subjective and unscientific nature of the claim.

In that sense, I think it comes down to personal choice.

What comes down to personal choice? When you should be able to terminate the life of your offspring? If i put forward an argument that you "don't become a person" untill 6 months of age, should those who wish to have the right to get their newborns euthanised?

I am not avoiding any key issues as you have suggested. I've made many posts, points & opinions on this thread & stated my beliefs clearly.

I wasn't accusing you of avoiding the key issues on this thread. I was saying that anyone who thinks there's a very clear difference between aborting a fetus before and after a chosen period (based on for example the fetus' ability to feel pain- and I already showed in my previous post how the ability to feel pain can not be the determining factor in whether or not it is wrong to terminate life). From a philosophical point of view, the logic behind the moral stances of both the pro-life and pro-choice camps are flawed. As far as I can see, the logic behind my stance is sound.

philologos

starbelgrade wrote: »

I think you have missed the point completely - by allowing women the right to choose if they want to have an abortion or not has nothing to do with dictating, quite the opposite in fact, unless you are suggesting that we force women to have abortions.

It is suggesting that those with moral objections should just keep quiet about it or that their concerns shouldn't be heeded, which to me is about as "dictatorial" as anything else.

There is nothing relative about it surely? Either abortion is right, or it isn't.

Overheal

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

Love how the liberals call murder 'pro choice'.

I love how someone who has a Famas Rifle as their user signature (and claims to be a Pro with it) sticks their nose up at a Woman's Choice and calls it murder.

philologos

starbelgrade wrote: »

The anti-choice brigade, from which you come, has much more of a dictatorship set-up to it that those who would like to see abortion rights legalised.

I'm pro-life, which goes much further than the abortion debate, into end-of-life issues, bioethics and so on.

Min

Everyone should have a choice and there should be no laws stopping things like murder, rape, abortion, theft, paedophilia, the use of harmful dangerous drugs, legalise the trafficking of sex workers, bring back slavery, lets be pro-choice and let the people decide what to do.

I would vote no though......

pow wow

Jakkass wrote: »

There is nothing relative about it surely? Either abortion is right, or it isn't.

Abortion is the right option for some. And they should have their freedom to choose just as you have the choice to abstain from it.

philologos

pow wow wrote: »

Abortion is the right option for some. And they should have their freedom to choose just as you have the choice to abstain from it.

It is moral to choose to put another life to end in your view. That's where people are clearly going to differ.

The comment about abstention is irrelevant in this argument really, as it is a question of human rights. Deny the right to life, you deny them all. It isn't that I am arguing that only I should not encourage an abortion if that is what I want, rather what I am arguing for is that all life be respected, and that people get the opportunity to live rather than being condemned to death before they are born.

I don't think that is an unreasonable desire. Its unjust to deny life, as denying life is the same thing as denying everything else.

I personally can't see how this is relative by any means.

artanevilla

squod wrote: »

With a pencil.

I prefer a coathanger myself.

Cheap Thrills!

If the morning after pill was available over the counter maybe there would be no need for abortion.

Well, maybe.

I know it hasn't worked like that elsewhere but maybe thats because both were always available all along.

But here there is no abortion. Surely a widely available MAP dispensed by a qualified pharmacist can take care of 99% of cases.

Odysseus

I would be voting for it, I believe it a fundamental right. I'm aware of the issues that women can have even years after having one, [I work in the therapy field]. However, that would suggest to me the better quality counselling should be available both pre and post abortion. I don't ask the question directly, but a lot of the women who have issues post abortion have stated they still think that it was the right choice at that particular time.

Whilst it is illegal here, some women are still forced or put under severe pressure to under the proceedure, this is wrong. I would like to hope that if it was available here that would be picked up on more and addressed.

I have no kids, two of my former girlfriends had miscarriages, both times we discussed the opition but decided that we would not be going down that road, however, fate then intervened.

Prof.Badass

Min wrote: »

Everyone should have a choice and there should be no laws stopping things like murder, rape, abortion, theft, paedophilia, the use of harmful dangerous drugs, legalise the trafficking of sex workers, bring back slavery, lets be pro-choice and let the people decide what to do.

I would vote no though......

This one stands out from the others in that it doesn't involve causing direct harm to other people.
Pity you had to mention it, as otherwise you would have been making a very good point. Instead you've just backed up the pro-choicers assumption that pro-lifers are authoritarians and that the enlightened liberal choice is obviously to allow abortion.

Abortion is a completely seperate issue from personal liberty (which only covers actions where you don't harm other people). It really hinders rational debate when people pretend the abortion debate is a debate about personal liberty. It's not. It's a debate about the rights of the unborn. If it was a debate about personal liberty Libertarians for life wouldn't exist.

StormWarrior

Anyone interested, sign this petition:
http://www.makenoiseforfreechoice.eu/

StormWarrior

vinylmesh wrote: »

This one stands out from the others in that it doesn't involve causing direct harm to other people.

It can, if the drug taker needs medical treatment which will be paid for out of taxes and makes others wait longer for treatment, or if the drugs make them violent and they cause harm to others, or they begin stealing to fund their habit.

bnt

Dave! wrote: »

I'm pro-Abortion

Well, you're either having a laugh, or you're in a very small minority. I find it hard to imagine that anyone is genuinely pro-abortion. No, not even the woman on the table, or the doctor holding the speculum and getting paid to do the job - do you think any of the people involved are enjoying it? It would be better for everyone if abortion could be avoided, and these days it usually can be (contraception works), yet there is still a need for it.

The bit that gets my goat is how some people think they have moral authority over other people. You don't. Stay out of it. Keep the law out of it too. The days of "abortion as contraception" are long gone, so that "loose women" moralistic idea is no longer a factor. If a woman is considering an abortion, her situation is already screwed up, and she doesn't need your moralizing to make the choice even harder. That's all that the "pro-choice" position means: It's not "pro-abortion" or "anti-life", it's in favour of choice, whichever way the decision goes.