Your right to an Abortion

drkpower

philologos wrote: »

drkpower: Patience is indeed a virtue

I am not on the edge of my seat.

I just find it incredulous that you claim that the conceptus has the same rights as a born human, yet you havent even bothered to do a spot of googling to find out/confirm that milllions are being killed yearly.

I think you know full well that you do not value the conceptus as you do a baby, but cant bring yourself to admit it.

Courage and honesty are virtues too.

Fluorescence

teaandtoast wrote: »

Well yea its an unborn child but asking a woman who is traumatised by rape to bare the consequences of rape and bring a child in to the world is not right. The women should be have the right to have an abortion if she decides to do so.

Yet there are cases of rape victims keeping their children and being happy, as well as cases of women pregnant by more conventional means who suffer enormous amounts of distress and trauma from pregnancy and childbirth. So where do you draw the line? Why relief for one and not the other?

southsiderosie

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

This issue is like national question threads over in politics, trenches are dug, people get angry, gets personalized, bit of half hearted moderation to try and stem the tide, followed by a lull in which only a handful remain, followed by a lock.

As is often the case in threads like this people can be intimidated and not post their views, they sit back and read, or simply ignore the thread, or maybe PM the people arguing against the tide to say they support them and agree, but wont say so themselves.

I used to take threads on boards much more seriously, but its pointless doing that.

I don't think you helped matters given that your first contribution to the tread included this gem:

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

More people wanting to legalize the murder of babies out of "choice", wheres their choice eh?

Its disgusting that some try and portray abortion as somehow being forward, progressive etc, while in actual fact it is barbaric in the extreme and is quite simply, the taking of a persons life.

(of course there is an exception imo where the mother has a very high chance of dying if the pregnancy is carried to term)

And the party continues

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Thats a dangerous standard imo, especially the rape bit. How can it 100% be proved she was raped? Or whats to stop evil women from claiming that they where raped when they discover they are pregnant?

It can't be proved, but if abortion is only available in the case of rape, then it would not surprise me at all that women would say they were raped in order to get an abortion. This doesn't mean they will necessarily finger someone as the suspect, but it if came down to claiming rape or having to fly out of the country, I wouldn't be surprised if people chose the former if they didn't think they would get anyone else in trouble.

coffee_cake

teaandtoast wrote: »

Well yea its an unborn child but asking a woman who is traumatised by rape to bare the consequences of rape and bring a child in to the world is not right. The women should be have the right to have an abortion if she decides to do so.

What happens to the child then? Doesn't matter as long as she didn't have sex willingly? And if the child doesn't matter then why does it matter in any other case of abortion?
What if she's traumatised by an unwanted pregnancy in general?

Wolfe Tone

drkpower wrote: »

Are you really saying that a woman who procures an abortion at, lets say, 6 weeks is evil then?

That is some position to take when, in the space fo a few hours yesterday, you were questioning and then changing your own position on the abortion question.

I don't recall changing my position at all, I was questioning whether or not I should change it, and was exploring the ramifications for things sch as IVF, if I did.

As I said the one I have is one which I have come to after a long period of internal debate, reading etc, mainly of case law in this area, is one which is a compromise.

krudler

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

There will always be people to adopt children, there is a shortage of kids atm.

In addition you may very well have gay couples adopting.

"a shortage"? kids arent a commodity its not supply and demand.

Ickle Magoo

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

There will always be people to adopt children, there is a shortage of kids atm.

In addition you may very well have gay couples adopting.

That still doesn't get over the rather sizeable obstacle of expecting someone to give over their body, possibly their health or even their life just because there happens to be couples who cannot conceive themselves, when there is a perfectly viable alternative.

Stheno

teaandtoast wrote: »

Well i think i am the only pro life person here. Most people in Ireland are pro life. Yea my life would be different if i didn't go ahead with it but it better and would be happier.

You are not, and just reading this thread will tell you that.

krudler wrote: »

I wonder how many adamant pro-lifers would adopt a child not belonging to them, not many, if any at all I'd wager. Seems they're only concerned with the unborn, once they're born then its societies problem to deal with.

Actually and this is just personal experience, but my parents are extremely orthodox Catholics, I'm the oldest of ten, the youngest is adopted and has some difficulties which they have spent considerable time and effort on.

Additionally they regularly volunteer (or did in the past, they are getting older now) to take children on the "share a break" scheme which gives parents of a handicapped child an opportunity to have a break while their child is cared for in another families home.

Stheno

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Why in the case of rape and incest?

Thats a dangerous standard imo, especially the rape bit. How can it 100% be proved she was raped? Or whats to stop evil women from claiming that they where raped when they discover they are pregnant?

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

No, I'm not joking.

Wolfe Tone, dial back on the "evil women" rhetoric, it's entirely inappropriate for a thread such as this.

southsiderosie

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

There will always be people to adopt children, there is a shortage of kids atm.

In addition you may very well have gay couples adopting.

The issue isn't willingness to adopt - the waiting list for adoption in most countries are quite long. It is that most adult women are not willing to go through nine months of a visible pregnancy to then give up their child for adoption - the social norms against giving up your child are too strong.

In the case of a 15 year old girl, giving up the child for adoption would be seen as a noble sacrifice. In the case of a 25 year old woman, it would be seen as monstrous. And the harshest judges would be other women.

Abortion affords women who do not want to raise a child a degree of privacy that adoption does not, which is why for many women the former seems like a much better option than the latter.

drkpower

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

I don't recall changing my position at all, I was questioning whether or not I should change it, and was exploring the ramifications for things sch as IVF, if I did.

As I said the one I have is one which I have come to after a long period of internal debate, reading etc, mainly of case law in this area, is one which is a compromise.

You first stated that it was a 'simple' issue; you quickly accepted it was far from a simple issue.

You first stated that a mother and foetus had equal rights; you quickly accepted that you favoured the mother's rights over the foetus'.

But dont get me wrong, questioning and vhainging your position on this topis is a good thhing; it shows you are thinking. I just find it disturbing that you would declare a woman who has a different view to you 'evil' (or any other perjorative term) when your view is in a degree of flux.

Wolfe Tone

southsiderosie wrote: »

I don't think you helped matters given that your first contribution to the tread included this gem:

I like to arrive with a bang, and I was angered when I wrote it, on reflection, maybe not my best contribution.

It can't be proved, but if abortion is only available in the case of rape, then it would not surprise me at all that women would say they were raped in order to get an abortion. This doesn't mean they will necessarily finger someone as the suspect, but it if came down to claiming rape or having to fly out of the country, I wouldn't be surprised if people chose the former if they didn't think they would get anyone else in trouble.

I would think that women falsely claiming to be raped would be highly undesirable for everyone, wasting police time, money, legit cases not being believed, etc etc.

Wolfe Tone

drkpower wrote: »

You first stated that it was a 'simple' issue; you quickly accepted it was far from a simple issue.

You first stated that a mother and foetus had equal rights; you quickly accepted that you favoured the mother's rights over the foetus'.

But dont get me wrong, questioning and vhainging your position on this topis is a good thhing; it shows you are thinking. I just find it disturbing that you would declare a woman who has a different view to you 'evil' (or any other perjorative term) when your view is in a degree of flux.

You must has missed where I clarified that I feel that accusing a man, falsely, of rape, is evil.

Ickle Magoo

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

I would think that women falsely claiming to be raped would be highly undesirable for everyone, wasting police time, money, legit cases not being believed, etc etc.

Surely a system that clearly exports the issue if you have sufficient monetary clout or HAVE to claim rape is highly undesirable? Which is why the march happened and this thread exists...

drkpower

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

You must has missed where I clarified that I feel that accusing a man, falsely, of rape, is evil.

I did miss that, apologies. Would you use any perjorative term for a woman who procures an abortion at, lets say, 6 weeks?

beer enigma

Sorry if I've missed the point - but don't women have rights these days ?

Isn't it a women's right to choose

I'm a guy & whilst I dont advocate a free for all, surely there are times when a woman has a genuine right

I've never posted on this subject before - I'm a dad of three, but we are not in the dark ages

iguana

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

There will always be people to adopt children, there is a shortage of kids atm.

In addition you may very well have gay couples adopting.

Wth are you talking about? There are tens of millions of orphaned children on this planet whose lives would be infinitely improved if they were adopted by any one. Most people can have biological children and there are very few people who can have children biologically who will (try to) adopt. Most orphans will never, ever, ever be raised by a family and an awful lot of them will die because of their situations.

Actual, currently alive children, who there can be no debate about their living status, who's existence doesn't impair anybody else's as they are already independent lifeforms. An awful lot more of those children will die from lack of care this year than will be aborted all over the world. And you, someone who cares so much about the right to life of the unborn have just denied the existence of all of the orphans currently alive who desperately need care.

You have just justified the accusations many on this thread have made against pro-lifers. That the unborn is only important to them, and their business until it's safely born, then they couldn't give a toss. That the real issue is stopping selfish women from aborting men's precious babies. Even the whole nonsense about really just caring for the mental state of the women who abort when they march around city streets holding up placards of miscarried foetuses, not giving a crap about the mental state of those women or that of those who have lost babies naturally.

metrovelvet

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Surely a system that clearly exports the issue if you have sufficient monetary clout or HAVE to claim rape is highly undesirable? Which is why the march happened and this thread exists...

It's a very small country. Abortion clinics are icky. No one wants the medical waste in their back yards.

Thats what I think Irish policy is about.

The right to travel kind of tells me they dont think its that bad, or it would be a criminal offense. In other words, if they did think it was murder, then to murder in England would still not be ok, if you get me. They would still charge someone for it upon return.

You dont have the right to travel to kill someone, so deep down the legislators musnt think it's murder. If that make sense?

Wolfe Tone

drkpower wrote: »

I did miss that, apologies. Would you use any perjorative term for a woman who procures an abortion at, lets say, 6 weeks?

No worries

How does it matter? What is the point of that question? Its clear that I think it is wrong, and the people who do it are wrong.

I feel very sorry for women who have made the choice to have an abortion, can't have been easy. But I feel more sorry for the life that was ended, unjustly.

drkpower

metrovelvet wrote: »

The right to travel kind of tells me they dont think its that bad, or it would be a criminal offense. In other words, if they did think it was murder, then to murder in England would still not be ok, if you get me. They would still charge someone for it upon return.

+1
The concern of most people in this country is not for the unborn. Most people in this country do not believe mother and foetus are equal. If they did, we would not facilitate their killing by providing the right to travel and information.

People like to shield their eyes from unpleasant thoughts. So they want it to be illegal here, but legal there. It is a horrible hypocrisy. Rather than making our own choices, and imposing our own safeguards, we look away and leave vulnerable women in an even worse situation.

Not to save the unborn; just to save our stomachs.

Stheno

metrovelvet wrote: »

You dont have the right to travel to kill someone, so deep down the legislators musnt think it's murder. If that make sense?

Do you mean you have the right to travel to have an abortion and kill that potential life?

If you do that makes sense to me, i.e the legislature recognises that there is a need but refuses to legislate for it in it's own country?

beeftotheheels

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

No worries

How does it matter? What is the point of that question? Its clear that I think it is wrong, and the people who do it are wrong.

Here's the bit I find interesting young Mr Tone, you view abortion as morally wrong. But you think it okay for the majority to impose their morals on the minority on this.

Yet if the majority viewed homosexuality as being morally wrong, you would object to the majority imposing their morals on the minority.

So, either you think this is about something other than morals (which I will disagree with you on), or you think these morals more important than say a Christian who views homosexuality as an abomination.

What gives?

Fluorescence

metrovelvet wrote: »

It's a very small country. Abortion clinics are icky. No one wants the medical waste in their back yards.

Thats what I think Irish policy is about.

The right to travel kind of tells me they dont think its that bad, or it would be a criminal offense. In other words, if they did think it was murder, then to murder in England would still not be ok, if you get me. They would still charge someone for it upon return.

You dont have the right to travel to kill someone, so deep down the legislators musnt think it's murder. If that make sense?

It's a bit like the way euthanasia is handled in the UK. "Don't do it on our doorstep, but if you go to a facility in Switzerland we'll probably turn a blind eye to it."

I reckon the main reason no recent governments have legalised it is because they don't want to jeopardise their political status. They know abortion will happen no matter what, and that women either take expensive trips to the Uk or buy (extremely dangerous) DIY kits on the internet, but so long as it doesn't happen in broad daylight under their noses they won't do anything about it. It rather suits them not to.

drkpower

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

How does it matter? What is the point of that question? Its clear that I think it is wrong, and the people who do it are wrong.

The point is that you are clearly still developing your thoughts on the entire question. For you to look down on/disparage a woman who believes it is moral to have an abortion at 8 weeks, when you are still trying to rationalise your own views, would be incredibly unjust.

That was the point of the question.

JamJamJamJam

[FINALLY reached the end of the thread I've listened to four whole albums since I started! I know this is The Ladies' Lounge, and I'm a guy but I'm going to post here anyway cos I'm a rebel ]


I think this thread has converted me to pro-choice. To a degree at least. I wasn't aggressively "pro-life" previously or anything, but I'm a lot more informed of the argument for choice now.


Obviously, it's a very complex issue - largely because there are tonnes of potential situations where what seems right will seem wrong in another situation. A complete 'no abortion at all' rule is wrong, as I see it. There are plenty of pregnancies which, if carried out, would result in nothing but pain (not just physical) for all involved. Similarly, I am uncomfortable with the fact that, in a certain few cases, an entirely open choice to abort would be abused for reasons I can't really justify. I have heard of cases where women (and their partners, if applicable) decide not to follow through with the pregnancy because, basically, it's an inconvenient time.


However, in the overall majority of cases, abortion would probably occur because of the 'right' reasons. And when I say the 'right' reasons, I mean that the advantages of not following through will outweigh the disadvantages. I think it's very important that this occurs early in the pregnancy. I don't know how early it should take place, but I do insist that such a point in the feotus' development exists where abortion can be fair. Ideally, I guess, before the foetus becomes a conscious being or before it becomes well developed??? (After this point - whenever it may be - the "my body, my choice" argument becomes less sturdy in my opinion).


I'm just throwing this out there, but perhaps we need to alter our attitudes to sex if we want to avoid a lot of the situations. Of course, the fundamental purpose of sex is reproduction. I know it seems unfair to place the blame on a couple for becoming pregnant, but if an unplanned pregnancy occurs, the reality of it is that they know that they can become pregant. If a child is not wanted, maybe people should not have sex. There's always scrabble!


Lastly, if abortion became legal, I'd like that the father had some input. I know if my girlfriend got pregnant and had the abortion carried out without at least discussing it with me I'd go ape! Not because I want to have all the control in the relationship (something like that was suggested a few pages back and it annoyed the hell out of me!). I'd just hate the idea that our (potential) child was taken away, and I had no input. Yes, it's the woman's body and, sure, I'm just a man and I couldn't possibly even fathom what the fear of pregnancy must be like, but doing that is mean. And to be mean is to be immoral. And morality is the entire basis of this discussion. (Unfortunately, there'd always be, say, some man who wants the child and a woman who doesn't, which would be a difficult situation. I'm not sure right now how this would be resolved, but I don't think it means that a man shouldn't have some say.)

Ickle Magoo

metrovelvet wrote: »

It's a very small country. Abortion clinics are icky. No one wants the medical waste in their back yards.

Thats what I think Irish policy is about.

The right to travel kind of tells me they dont think its that bad, or it would be a criminal offense. In other words, if they did think it was murder, then to murder in England would still not be ok, if you get me. They would still charge someone for it upon return.

You dont have the right to travel to kill someone, so deep down the legislators musnt think it's murder. If that make sense?

I think it's more to do with typical irish political cowardice and the last vestiges of out-dated religious cow-towing than public ickyness. It's clear that women who want an abortion will get one; whether by lying, begging, borrowing or paying their way over to the UK. They seem to think it politically astute to pretend to have the moral high-ground while legislating for exporting the issue, turning a blind eye to the numbers doing so and determinedly ignoring both public opinion and international condemnation on the matter.

iguana

metrovelvet wrote: »

The right to travel kind of tells me they dont think its that bad, or it would be a criminal offense. In other words, if they did think it was murder, then to murder in England would still not be ok, if you get me. They would still charge someone for it upon return.

I'm not sure if you know the history of this as you would not have been living here at the time, but the right to travel was extremely hard fought. Up until the 90s women had no right to travel for an abortion and could have been stopped if their intention was declared. This happened to a 14 year old rape victim, who was raped by her friend's father. She was prevented from leaving the country when she tried to go and the uproar that followed, huge protests, major media storm, priests yelling from their pulpits, etc, was what led to 3 referendums on abortion.

One was for the right to travel, the second was for the right to have information about abortions that were available in the UK. And the third was to legislate that being suicidal about the pregnancy did not count as the mother's life being at risk. The first two passed, the third didn't. But there has still never been legislation put in place to ensure these constitutional rights. It's why less than 2 years ago 3 women had to take their cases to the EU to force the government here to legislate. The EU then ruled that they should legislate what the people have voted as their constitutional rights. And that still has not happened yet.

Rothmans

I think that this thread is getting extremely bitter, not that I've made any significant contribution to it myself btw. But, its the same thing being thrown back and forth time and time again. I've not even stated my opinion on the matter ( although I did illustrate the current position of the law) as I'm afraid I'll recieve a load of aggressive replies from either the Pro-life or pro-choice sides, depending what opinion I put forward. I really can't see anything good coming of this thread. It has progressively gotten more militant. It is clear that opinions won't be changed at all,
So can't we all just agree to disagree?

Ickle Magoo

Rothmans wrote: »

I think that this thread is getting extremely bitter, not that I've made any significant contribution to it myself btw. But, its the same thing being thrown back and forth time and time again. I've not even stated my opinion on the matter ( although I did illustrate the current position of the law) as I'm afraid I'll recieve a load of aggressive replies from either the Pro-life or pro-choice sides, depending what opinion I put forward. I really can't see anything good coming of this thread. It has progressively gotten more militant. It is clear that opinions won't be changed at all,
So can't we all just agree to disagree?

Please don't backseat mod. If you have an issue with a post or poster then report it and let the forum mods deal with it.

Posters are entitled to discuss this issue in this forum as long as posts adhere to both Boards rules and the forum charter.

Fluorescence

JamJamJamJam wrote: »

Lastly, if abortion became legal, I'd like that the father had some input. I know if my girlfriend got pregnant and had the abortion carried out without at least discussing it with me I'd go ape! Not because I want to have all the control in the relationship (something like that was suggested a few pages back and it annoyed the hell out of me!). I'd just hate the idea that our (potential) child was taken away, and I had no input. Yes, it's the woman's body and, sure, I'm just a man and I couldn't possibly even fathom what the fear of pregnancy must be like, but doing that is mean. And to be mean is to be immoral. And morality is the entire basis of this discussion. (Unfortunately, there'd always be, say, some man who wants the child and a woman who doesn't, which would be a difficult situation. I'm not sure right now how this would be resolved, but I don't think it means that a man shouldn't have some say.)

Of course the woman should discuss it with the man. I don't think anyone's denying that. However, ultimately it is her choice and hers alone. I do sympathise a great deal with men who would love to be fathers but the mother aborts (nobody wins in such a situation), but it is still not their place to have the mother keep a child she does not want to bear. Discuss away as much as ye like, have a frank and open conversation about where ye stand by all means, and both try to be open-minded. In the end though, it is the woman who runs the risks, it is her body on the line and it is her well-being at stake. Therefore it is entirely her choice to make.