Your right to an Abortion

metrovelvet

krudler wrote: »

Thats ridiculous logic

Its in the if my aunt had balls she'd be m uncle territory.

metrovelvet

WesternNight wrote: »

To be honest, there should be no reason to wait until 24, 15, or even 12 weeks to have an abortion. Women should be taking responsibility for their fertility and keeping track of cycles and being in control of their own birth control. If they have unprotected sex and they don't want to have a baby then they should take immediate action. No way in a million years would I wait around for months wondering where my period went.

What about amnio results? You wont get those until 20 weeks.

well, by the time you find out your pregnant, and then organising it, 12 weeks is not much time to make a decision.

Morag

WesternNight wrote: »

To be honest, there should be no reason to wait until 24, 15, or even 12 weeks to have an abortion. Women should be taking responsibility for their fertility and keeping track of cycles and being in control of their own birth control. If they have unprotected sex and they don't want to have a baby then they should take immediate action. No way in a million years would I wait around for months wondering where my period went.

Given the cost of travelling for an abortion ranging from 500+ and the time it can take to take time off work and sort child care and get a plausible excuse worked out, 12 weeks is not that long.

I really do think that medical abortion should be available here and that the abortion pill should be a legal and safe option.

Maple

Bob Cratchet, your post has been deleted and rightly so.

Folks, let's also keep the thread to the topic at hand and no more personal digs please.

Maple

Bob Cratchet

Maple wrote: »

Bob Cratchet, your post has been deleted and rightly so.

Can I ask why ?

Maple

Bob Cratchet wrote: »

Can I ask why ?

Sensationalist bullsh1t used by the prolife brigade, you're adding nothing to the thread.

M

Rothmans

First of all, I'll just say that I haven't read the entire thread. I read the first 6 pages and it seems to be going to and fro between the pro-choicers and pro-lifers. I do not have enough time to read the entire thread, so I apologise if this point has already been dealt with. First of all there seems to be a bit of debate over where life begins. It begins at implantation -

The relationship is viewed through the prism of the right to life. It applies to a relationship where one life may be balanced against another. This relationship only exists, this balance only applies, where there is a physical connection between the mother and the unborn. This occurs only subsequent to implantation of the embryo. Thus the balancing of the right to life described in Article 40.3.3° may only take place after implantation. Therefore an unborn under Article 40.3.3° is established after an embryo is implanted. . . . . .

This connection, relationship, between the embryos and the mother does not arise until after implantation has occurred. After the implantation of an embryo the relationship between the embryo and the mother changes. The mother has carriage of the embryos, becomes pregnant, and the embryo enters a state of "unborn". At that time an attachment begins between the two lives. It is that attachment which gives rise to the relationship addressed in Article 40.3.3°.

64. The words of Article 40.3.3° refers to a situation where the rights of the mother and the unborn are engaged. This occurs after implantation. Thus Article 40.3.3° does not apply to pre-implantation embryos.

I think that the Supreme Court's logic is spot on tbh. Furthermore, I do believe that the Government ought to legislate for the X case. Its been 20 years and they still haven't adhered to the Supreme Court ruling.
However, I don't think that a situation where just anyone can get an abortion in the name of bodily integrity is ideal either, as the constitutional right to bodily integrity is subserviant to that of life, as is the current case in law.

EDIT : This also explains why the pill and the MAP are legal as they prevent implantation => they prevent the creation of life.

Bob Cratchet

Maple wrote: »

Sensationalist bullsh1t used by the prolife brigade, you're adding nothing to the thread.

M

What exactly is sensationalist about a factual and natural photo of a living foetus in a womb ?
I like to see the facts of what people are discussing, particularly with regard to the no. of weeks.
It's a central point.
Any chance of a bit of impartiality ?

rainbow kirby

Bob Cratchet wrote: »

What is sensationalist about a factual photo of a living foetus in a womb ?
I like to see what people are discussing.

If you wish to argue moderation actions, please take it to PMs.

beeftotheheels

Rothmans wrote: »

However, I don't think that a situation where just anyone can get an abortion in the name of bodily integrity is ideal either, as the constitutional right to bodily integrity is subserviant to that of life, as is the current case in law.

I think you'll find that many of us on this thread take issue with the current law.

philologos

Rothmans wrote: »

First of all, I'll just say that I haven't read the entire thread. I read the first 6 pages and it seems to be going to and fro between the pro-choicers and pro-lifers. I do not have enough time to read the entire thread, so I apologise if this point has already been dealt with. First of all there seems to be a bit of debate over where life begins. It begins at implantation.

Legally yes. In reality I don't see the logic between differentiating the state of pre-implantation and post-implantation embryos. What's the tangible difference?

Kimia

Rothmans wrote: »

First of all, I'll just say that I haven't read the entire thread. I read the first 6 pages and it seems to be going to and fro between the pro-choicers and pro-lifers. I do not have enough time to read the entire thread, so I apologise if this point has already been dealt with. ......

Whenever I see someone say this I just scroll past their post..

WesternNight

Bob Cratchet wrote: »

What is sensationalist about a factual photo of a living foetus in a womb ?
I like to see what people are discussing.

Did you think that we've not seen similar pictures before? That we're not well aware of what foetuses look like?

Tugging-at-heartstrings/guilt-tripping/shaming, that's all it was tbh.

Xiney

What about my life?

If I am forced into carrying a child to term I have to give up my life, and what I might add to society in the meantime before I decide to have children on my own terms at a time when I don't need to rely on others for aid.


I am not willing to be anything but the best I can be. I would make a terrible mother if I was forced into it. I would resent the **** out of an unwanted child because I am just too honest with myself not to.

southsiderosie

metrovelvet wrote: »

Not anymore. Plenty of babies are being saved at 21 weeks. I took an infant health and safety class with a couple whose baby was saved at 21 weeks.

There are only two known cases of a fetus surviving at 21 weeks, so I think this couple was either mistaken, or one of the two. Even at 23 weeks, the survival rate is only 15% and a third of those children will have severe disabilities. The 'miracle baby' articles that appear about a fetus surviving birth at 22 weeks and developing normally are just that - miracles.

Doctors have pretty much acknowledged that medical science has reached the limits of viability and that is at 24 weeks, hence the UK cutoff point for abortion.

Rothmans

beeftotheheels wrote: »

I think you'll find that many of us on this thread take issue with the current law.

Yes,but the point that I'm trying to make is that the rationale used here is the most logical with regard to 'drawing the line' as pre-implantation the zygote cannot survive on its own => it cannot be regarded as a human life. However, if implantation is to occur it forms a life as it becomes a featus and will ( with the exception of miscarriage) will become autonomous in itself in 9 months.

philologos wrote: »

Legally yes. In reality I don't see the logic between differentiating the state of pre-implantation and post-implantation embryos. What's the tangible difference?

Explained in the above reply.

Kimia wrote: »

Whenever I see someone say this I just scroll past their post..

And that is your choice to disregard my contribution, however frivolous your reasons may be.

Bob Cratchet

WesternNight wrote: »

Did you think that we've not seen similar pictures before? That we're not well aware of what foetuses look like?

Tugging-at-heartstrings/guilt-tripping/shaming, that's all it was tbh.

???
I have no idea what people have, or have not seen before, or debated before.
What 8,12,15 weeks looks like in real life, how developed is the foetus, etc. its an important factual point, why try to sweep it under the carpet ?
I could accuse you of dishonest censorship.

Rothmans

Xiney wrote: »

What about my life?

Irish law takes the view that the right to life is more important than 9 months of varying discomfort (and possibly pain).

WesternNight

Rothmans wrote: »

Irish law takes the view that the right to life is more important than 9 months of varying discomfort (and possibly pain).

Then Irish law needs to catch up with the reality of peoples' lives.

Rothmans

WesternNight wrote: »

Then Irish law needs to catch up with the reality of peoples' lives

That's the point here. When dealing with abortion, you are dealing with peoples' lives, not just that of the mother.

philologos

Rothmans wrote: »

Yes,but the point that I'm trying to make is that the rationale used here is the most logical with regard to 'drawing the line' as pre-implantation the zygote cannot survive on its own => it cannot be regarded as a human life. However, if implantation is to occur it forms a life as it becomes a featus and will ( with the exception of miscarriage) will become autonomous in itself in 9 months.

Yeah, but the foetus can't survive ex-utero either. So that argument is still weak. Implantation seems to be a stage rather than "the beginning" of life. Independence isn't a criterion for life. Indeed one could argue that a child would be dependent on its mother for quite a while even ex-utero.

beeftotheheels

Rothmans wrote: »

Yes,but the point that I'm trying to make is that the rationale used here is the most logical with regard to 'drawing the line' as pre-implantation the zygote cannot survive on its own => it cannot be regarded as a human like. However, if implantation is to occur it forms a life as it becomes defeat and will ( with the exception of miscarriage) will become autonomous in itself in 9 months.

That may well be the rationale but personally I don't find it particularly rational.

Post implantation the zygote has no chance of surviving on its own, it can only survive in utero and as such I disagree with affording the mother and zygote equal status before the law.

I would not necessarily push the line out the time when the fetus can survive on its own, but I don't think drawing the line at implantation is any less arbitrary than drawing the line at 12 weeks to be honest, and those 12 weeks afford the mother the opportunity to determine what to do with her body without being saddled with rights being afforded to a bunch of cells inside her body which cannot survive outside her body.

krudler

Rothmans wrote: »

Irish law takes the view that the right to life is more important than 9 months of varying discomfort (and possibly pain).

"possibly" pain? naturally pushing something about 5 times bigger than the orifice it has to pass through or being cut open to deliver a child via caesarean are "definite" pain. Having a child isnt 9 months of cravings, a few hours in delivery and then back to normal, it takes massive toll on a womans body.

Kimia

Rothmans wrote: »

And that is your choice to disregard my contribution, however frivolous your reasons may be.

It's not frivolous in the slightest. I consider someone who disregards all other points and adds their own point without even reading the conversation rude. I also assume that they have nothing of worth to add as they haven't read any of the history of the thread.

philologos

beeftotheheels, funny how we made the exact same counter argument with completely different logical implications

Morag

Rothmans wrote: »

Irish law takes the view that the right to life is more important than 9 months of varying discomfort (and possibly pain).

It's more then discomfort, in some cases it can cost a woman her life.
Pre-eclampsia can and does cos women their lives.

Fluorescence

Xiney wrote: »

What about my life?

If I am forced into carrying a child to term I have to give up my life, and what I might add to society in the meantime before I decide to have children on my own terms at a time when I don't need to rely on others for aid.


I am not willing to be anything but the best I can be. I would make a terrible mother if I was forced into it. I would resent the **** out of an unwanted child because I am just too honest with myself not to.

While I would be the same, I wouldn't abort a child just because I didn't want to raise it (because I know I'd be a crap mom anyway :pac:). If that was the only issue at play, I'd simply put the child up for adoption. No, I'd abort because the idea of having a living thing grow inside me repulses me so very much. What really irritates me is that this Youth Defense group claim to be saving the lives of children (which pre-foetal embryos are not) and the mental health of mothers. My mental health would probably be utterly destroyed by pregnancy. Do they care to hear about that? No.

Carrying a child to term could very likely lead to the end of my life, and while my case is somewhat unusual it's not unique. Yet I would be labeled "murderer" for choosing to save myself over a parasite with as yet no self-awareness or functionality (this would be under 12 weeks, obviously). These self titled pro-life people would consider my actions as repellent as if I knifed a dozen new born children. It's not the same.

Rothmans

philologos wrote: »

Yeah, but the foetus can't survive ex-utero either. So that argument is still weak. Implantation seems to be a stage rather than "the beginning" of life. Independence isn't a criterion for life. Indeed one could argue that a child would be dependent on its mother for quite a while even ex-utero.

beeftotheheels wrote: »

That may well be the rationale but personally I don't find it particularly rational.

Post implantation the zygote has no chance of surviving on its own, it can only survive in utero and as such I disagree with affording the mother and zygote equal status before the law.

I would not necessarily push the line out the time when the fetus can survive on its own, but I don't think drawing the line at implantation is any less arbitrary than drawing the line at 12 weeks to be honest, and those 12 weeks afford the mother the opportunity to determine what to do with her body without being saddled with rights being afforded to a bunch of cells inside her body which cannot survive outside her body.

They're both very good points. I think any point where life begins is ultimately going to be an arbitrary one, but this is, to my mind, the most sensible one, and the one that is easiest to back up with medical concensus.

It is true, that even after implantation, the child wouldn't be able to survive ex-utero until about 30 odd weeks. However, such is the design of the human body, that it must be in-utero to survive. But the salient argument to be made, in this regard, is that the child will ultimately survive (in-utero) if uninhibited by external actions ( ie termination)

WesternNight

Rothmans wrote: »

That's the point here. When dealing with abortion, you are dealing with peoples' lives, not just that of the mother.

And yet I get the impression that the life of the mother doesn't really matter. As if a full-term pregnancy, birth, and then a baby at the end of it is nothing more than a mere short-term discomfort.

What then? What happens after the pregnancy gets to full term and a baby is born? Just get on with raising it, whether you want to or not? Whether you're able to provide for it or not? Hand it over to other people who may or may not be equipped to raise it and hope for the best? Is it really just a case of 9 months of discomfort and that's that done and dusted?

beeftotheheels

philologos wrote: »

beeftotheheels, funny how we made the exact same counter argument with completely different logical implications

I guess it just goes to show that none of this is anything if not difficult and open to personal interpretation.