Your right to an Abortion

Wolfe Tone

beeftotheheels wrote: »

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?

There is a second life involved, your question is very similar to asking if it is ok for the majority to imposed in law a ban on, say assault, because they have a moral objection to it, when a minority may not.

Ickle Magoo

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

There is a second life involved, your question is very similar to asking if it is ok for the majority to imposed in law a ban on, say assault, because they have a moral objection to it, when a minority may not.

Or democracy, as it's also known...

NomdePlume

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.

This isn't about the right to life, then. It's not about the foetus at all; it's about the woman, her level of fault, and her comeuppance.

If it's your fault that you got pregnant, you must endure the pregnancy or be termed a murderer. You are not allowed off the hook.

If it's not your fault, because you were raped, you are entitled to an abortion. We won't term you a murderer because, well, you weren't a slut.
In other words, we never really considered it murder; we just use that word to shame the girls we don't like.

EGAR

Wolfe Tone, a moral certainty is based on strong likelihood or firm conviction, rather than on the actual evidence. What's immoral for one person is perfectly moral for another.

I have read nothing but rhetorics and semantics in your posts. Oh and of course the patronizing *moral* undertone of what YOU perceive as right or wrong.

I do not do *morals* nor do I do *immorals* the whole concept of morals is a highly suspect one to me. My life, and I am sure the lives of many others, does not revolve around the fact/fear of what other people might think of my actions and whether they are perceived as moral by their individual standards.

MissFlitworth

JamJamJamJam wrote: »

Lastly, if abortion became legal, I'd like that the father had some input.

This is probably a whole heap off topic but the idea that a father should have input in whether or not an abortion is carried out is something that I would have serious issues with, I can't for the life of me see how it would work & it seems like it would be open to a lot of abuse.

As far as I'm aware finding out the paternity of a child in-utero isn't easy and (I think) involves taking a sample of amniotic fluid & carries a small risk of causing a miscarriage. It isn't quick either which is a problem with something as time sensitive as an abortion

Also, and this is where my biggest issue lies, how would it work out practically? If a man had a say in whether an abortion was carried out would I have to get a signed letter from the father or something? Bring him to the abortion clinic with me? How would the staff in the clinic know that this was the actual father & not some randomer I'd dug up? What would I do if I didn't know who the father was. You'd end up with a situation where a woman couldn't have an abortion without male permission. (I know that all just imaginary problems in a country with a far larger problem of no legal abortion at all but I would be very much against male/fathers permission needed for an abortion)

southsiderosie

NomdePlume wrote: »

This isn't about the right to life, then. It's not about the foetus at all; it's about the woman, her level of fault, and her comeuppance.

If it's your fault that you got pregnant, you must endure the pregnancy or be termed a murderer. You are not allowed off the hook.

If it's not your fault, because you were raped, you are entitled to an abortion. We won't term you a murderer because, well, you weren't a slut.
In other words, we never really considered it murder; we just use that word to shame the girls we don't like.

Exactly.

The whole 'fallen woman' attitude is a sickening throwback to the past.

Women do not magically become pregnant by themselves - yet it is her fault, and she must bear the stigma and consequences of pregnancy?

Bollocks to that!

I posted this in a different thread a while ago, but it is certainly relevant here:

Women have historically carried the burden of an unwanted pregnancy. At best this meant she was quickly married off, and everyone snickered marveled at how big the "premature" baby was. At worst, she was locked away to give birth in secret, her baby was taken from her (never to be seen again), and she spent the rest of her life as a social outcast. For those women brave enough to keep their children out of wedlock, they and their "bastard" child faced a lifetime of ostracism, and quite often poverty.

On the other hand, a man who got a woman pregnant and who didn't want the baby could do a runner or stay put and deny it was his - an option a pregnant woman simply does not have.

Men were not put into Magdalene laundries. Men were not seen as "damaged goods" by virtue of an out of wedlock child. Men were not told for centuries that they were the gatekeepers of virtue. Instead the social burden of fertility was placed at the feet of women, and it has been that way for centuries.

Set against this backdrop, being pro-choice isn't simply about the choice to have an abortion. It's about having choices and autonomy over the trajectory of one's life. Clearly some things have changed for women, both socially and economically, but I would still argue that the physical, social, and economic costs of unplanned pregnancy still fall much more heavily on a woman's shoulders, even today.

...if the burden of fertility and/or chastity is to fall on women - and historically it has - then so does the decision over whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term.

beeftotheheels

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

There is a second life involved, your question is very similar to asking if it is ok for the majority to imposed in law a ban on, say assault, because they have a moral objection to it, when a minority may not.

Ah, but the point is that whether there is a second life deserving of protection is the moral argument, as evidenced by differing opinions as to when a life deserving of protection starts.

Is it at conception? Implantation? Is it before that (as the Catholic church would once have had us believe when contraception was banned)? Or is it at the stage when fetal development is such that it could potentially sustain itself (as reflected in the laws of many of our neighbors)?

You have morally rationalized a position you are comfortable with - implantation - but that is your moral position and not mine, and indeed not the position of many other pro-lifers.

This is completely different from assault when it is clear that another person exists, has rights, including the right not to be assaulted. Ditto murder.

So again I ask, what gives?

JamJamJamJam

MissFlitworth wrote: »

This is probably a whole heap off topic

I don't think it's too off topic. It's related to the right a woman has to choose abortion.

MissFlitworth wrote: »

...but the idea that a father should have input in whether or not an abortion is carried out is something that I would have serious issues with, I can't for the life of me see how it would work & it seems like it would be open to a lot of abuse.

As far as I'm aware finding out the paternity of a child in-utero isn't easy and (I think) involves taking a sample of amniotic fluid & carries a small risk of causing a miscarriage. It isn't quick either which is a problem with something as time sensitive as an abortion

Also, and this is where my biggest issue lies, how would it work out practically? If a man had a say in whether an abortion was carried out would I have to get a signed letter from the father or something? Bring him to the abortion clinic with me? How would the staff in the clinic know that this was the actual father & not some randomer I'd dug up? What would I do if I didn't know who the father was. You'd end up with a situation where a woman couldn't have an abortion without male permission. (I know that all just imaginary problems in a country with a far larger problem of no legal abortion at all but I would be very much against male/fathers permission needed for an abortion)

I suppose you (and fluorescence) are right. It just upsets me that I could be powerless to really do anything

WesternNight

NomdePlume wrote: »

This isn't about the right to life, then. It's not about the foetus at all; it's about the woman, her level of fault, and her comeuppance.

If it's your fault that you got pregnant, you must endure the pregnancy or be termed a murderer. You are not allowed off the hook.

If it's not your fault, because you were raped, you are entitled to an abortion. We won't term you a murderer because, well, you weren't a slut.
In other words, we never really considered it murder; we just use that word to shame the girls we don't like.

I think this actually hits the nail on the head completely.

It's between allowing someone to be absolved by having an abortion in one case, and punishing them by forbidding an abortion in another. In neither scenario does the welfare of the foetus come into it, because if it was genuinely about that, it wouldn't matter how it was conceived, would it? It would be innocent of wrong-doing in either case, surely.

And, as I alluded to before, the idea of punishing someone by forcing them to continue with a pregnancy is more of a punishment for the child than anyone else tbh in the long run, and I'm not sure how that's reconciled with this 'precious life' rhetoric.

neuro-praxis

I'm always in favour of abortion, just as long as the baby in question has given their consent.

Fluorescence

JamJamJamJam wrote: »

I suppose you (and fluorescence) are right. It just upsets me that I could be powerless to really do anything

It's unfortunate, and an undeniably crap circumstance to be in . Alas, that's how biology works!

Monty Burnz

allandanyways wrote: »

But this is my point, it's my body.

It's selfish, and I don't care. I should not have to put myself through the stress and pain of being pregnant and giving a child that I do not want up for adoption because I have no means to support it just because this backwards secular-but-still-sort-of-Catholic-just-cos-we-have-to-be society has made the decision for me that I can't have an abortion in my own country.

The problem with this for me is deciding when your rights as an organism trump the rights of the organism growing inside you. As Drk pointed out, by your logic then abortion at 39 weeks, or even infanticide are permissible (a child, even after birth, cannot survive on its own - so is not truly viable in a practical sense).

And, just to fill out the picture, the problem I have with my own qualms is that the people I find in a similar camp are people I disagree with absolutely on just about every other social issue (homophobia etc.).

Stheno

JamJamJamJam wrote: »

I don't think it's too off topic. It's related to the right a woman has to choose abortion.


I suppose you (and fluorescence) are right. It just upsets me that I could be powerless to really do anything

I am one of those women who never ever wants to be pregnant and have made that clear to all serious partners in my life. I feel physically ill at the thought of being pregnant, and do everything I can to avoid it. So much so that as i reach the age where as a childless woman, this state allows me to, I am considering tubal ligation.

If I were to become pregnant I do know I would not want to go through nine months of pregnancy for a child I did not want, and if my partner at the time had the power to force me to go through with it, it would end the relationship if they chose to exercise any ability they had to make me do so.

WesternNight wrote: »

I think this actually hits the nail on the head completely.

It's between allowing someone to be absolved by having an abortion in one case, and punishing them by forbidding an abortion in another. In neither scenario does the welfare of the foetus come into it, because if it was genuinely about that, it wouldn't matter how it was conceived, would it? It would be innocent of wrong-doing in either case, surely.

And, as I alluded to before, the idea of punishing someone by forcing them to continue with a pregnancy is more of a punishment for the child than anyone else tbh in the long run, and I'm not sure how that's reconciled with this 'precious life' rhetoric.

Relating back to myself, I'd prefer in that scenario to give the child up for adoption rather than be forced to bring them up.

iguana

MissFlitworth wrote: »

As far as I'm aware finding out the paternity of a child in-utero isn't easy and (I think) involves taking a sample of amniotic fluid & carries a small risk of causing a miscarriage.

OT, but. Not any more. It's now possible from 14 weeks to isolate feotal dna from a blood sample from the mother. A simple blood test from her, the type of which there are multiple throughout standard prenatal care, is enough now, alongside a cheek swab from any paternal candidates.

Fluorescence

iguana wrote: »

OT, but. Not any more. It's now possible from 14 weeks to isolate feotal dna from a blood sample from the mother. A simple blood test from her, the type of which there are multiple throughout standard neonatal care, is enough now, alongside a cheek swab from any paternal candidates.

Ah but that's after 14 weeks. Anything after the first trimester gets into a much grayer area. If it was required by law to have the father's consent, and it was required to have this blood test done first then it would be unfeasible as a system. It'd only be allowing women to abort only when the abortion procedure gets more messy and dangerous.

metrovelvet

Stheno wrote: »

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?

I suppose if there were a country where murder was legal it would be ok for me to travel to that country and commit murder, come back here and not be charged.

Ok, Ive worked that one out - having thought it through a bit more.

However, it would strike me though that it would be a criminal offense for organisations and individuals in Irish jurisdictions, to facilitate me to travel so I could commit what is considered a crime in an Irish jurisdiction.

Can you be incriminated for helping people hide their tax money in off shore bank accounts? I think you can?

Stheno

metrovelvet wrote: »

I suppose if there were a country where murder was legal it would be ok for me to travel to that country and commit murder, come back here and not be charged.

Ok, Ive worked that one out - having thought it through a bit more.

However, it would strike me though that it would be a criminal offense for organisations and individuals in Irish jurisdictions, to facilitate me to travel so I could commit what is considered a crime in an Irish jurisdiction.

Can you be incriminated for helping people hide their tax money in off shore bank accounts? I think you can?

But the right to travel has been reinforced by several referendums so it's not the same.

Morag

metrovelvet wrote: »

I suppose if there were a country where murder was legal it would be ok for me to travel to that country and commit murder, come back here and not be charged.

Ok, Ive worked that one out - having thought it through a bit more.

However, it would strike me though that it would be a criminal offense for organisations and individuals in Irish jurisdictions, to facilitate me to travel so I could commit what is considered a crime in an Irish jurisdiction.

Can you be incriminated for helping people hide their tax money in off shore bank accounts? I think you can?

This is why there are strict guidelines for drs and for family planning clinics on how and to where they refer women looking to have an abortion.
This is why positive option was set up, so that you don't get rogue pregnancy agencies messing women about.

It used to be that the UK phone directories in all the post offices had the names of clinics and the British pregnancy advisory services blacked out.
The same with any women's publications from the Uk, it was done with marker or with heavy duty stickers.

It was illegal to repeat the phone number of the hotline for Irish women,
unless you were quoting the full sentence from where it was mention in the Dáil or you sang the song with Zarzy released with it in it.

Student's unions here were taken to court and to the high court for giving information to women, when I was invovled with the SU where I went to college I had several middle aged women come looking for someone who could give them information and phone numbers.

NomdePlume

Stheno wrote: »

But the right to travel has been reinforced by several referendums so it's no the same.

Maybe that's sufficient comeuppance for a slut? I mean, she has to save all that money, and go through all the hassle/inconvenience of air travel. Maybe the staunch "Pro-Life" Catholics of Ireland are pacified by this level of mandatory suffering for Bad Women?

After all, that's their main concern, deep down -- that women who dared to make a sex-related mistake must pay. They don't particularly care whether that 'payment' is in the form of an unwanted child or a fùck-ton of general inconvenience, as far as I can tell.

bronte

neuro-praxis wrote: »

I'm always in favour of abortion, just as long as the baby in question has given their consent.

I was that baby back in 1984.
I didn't have a voice then...I do now.
My birth mother should have had a choice.

MissFlitworth

Sharrow wrote: »

It used to be that the UK phone directories in all the post offices had the names of clinics and the British pregnancy advisory services blacked out.
The same with any women's publications from the Uk, it was done with marker or with heavy duty stickers.

It was illegal to repeat the phone number of the hotline for Irish women,
unless you were quoting the full sentence from where it was mention in the Dáil or you sang the song with Zarzy released with it in it.

Jesus could I ask roughly around when that was? I always remember a friend of the family telling me that if someone suspected I was pregnant and thinking of travelling for an abortion that I could be reported to the Gardai & my passport confiscated! This would have been in the mid 90's, bit fuzzy on when things changed

K-9

southsiderosie wrote: »

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.

And that is rather sad.

There shouldn't be that need that for privacy at all, the options seem to be have an abortion or keep the baby, adoption is a stigma, something to be ashamed about, as it always was.

We seem to have literally, thrown the baby out with the bath water! Sorry if that's a bit strong but it seems adoption is still a shameful thing, we haven't moved forward at all, if anything we've moved backwards.

metrovelvet

Sharrow wrote: »

This is why there are strict guidelines for drs and for family planning clinics on how and to where they refer women looking to have an abortion.
This is why positive option was set up, so that you don't get rogue pregnancy agencies messing women about.

It used to be that the UK phone directories in all the post offices had the names of clinics and the British pregnancy advisory services blacked out.
The same with any women's publications from the Uk, it was done with marker or with heavy duty stickers.

It was illegal to repeat the phone number of the hotline for Irish women,
unless you were quoting the full sentence from where it was mention in the Dáil or you sang the song with Zarzy released with it in it.

Student's unions here were taken to court and to the high court for giving information to women, when I was invovled with the SU where I went to college I had several middle aged women come looking for someone who could give them information and phone numbers.

You see this tells me again, they dont really see anything wrong with it morally.

If you had organsiations helping people go to Thailand to molest kids without any fear of punishment, Im sure the law would step in. Oh, wait. maybe not.

Ok... still thinking of an example...

metrovelvet

K-9 wrote: »

And that is rather sad.

There shouldn't be that need that for privacy at all, the options seem to be have an abortion or keep the baby, adoption is a stigma, something to be ashamed about, as it always was.

We seem to have literally, thrown the baby out with the bath water! Sorry if that's a bit strong but it seems adoption is still a shameful thing, we haven't moved forward at all, if anything we've moved backwards.

Its because pregnancy comes with public consequences, like losing your job, like your body changing forever.

Problem is in the valley of the squinting windows people have still not learned to stop giving a ****, which is really the only way to survive them.

Morag

Right to information.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland

The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland specified that the prohibition of abortion would not limit the right to distribute information about abortion services in foreign countries. It was effected by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution Act, 1992, which was approved by referendum on 25 November 1992 and signed into law on the 23 December of the same year.

So it was signed into law the very end of 1992 and it took a while to trickle down from then.

Right to Travel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland

The Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland specified that the prohibition of abortion would not limit freedom of travel in and out of the state. It was effected by the Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution Act, 1992, which was approved by referendum on 25 November 1992 and signed into law on the 23 December of the same year.

Ickle Magoo

K-9 wrote: »

And that is rather sad.

There shouldn't be that need that for privacy at all, the options seem to be have an abortion or keep the baby, adoption is a stigma, something to be ashamed about, as it always was.

We seem to have literally, thrown the baby out with the bath water! Sorry if that's a bit strong but it seems adoption is still a shameful thing, we haven't moved forward at all, if anything we've moved backwards.

I'm not sure if adoption is still viewed as shameful - it certainly isn't the panacea that some think it is.

Going through with a pregnancy still means carrying a child and delivering and all the implications to the women that scenario gives, on top of possibly having a child come looking for you in years to come. I think abortion is a more popular choice because it ends the pregnancy and all associated issues there and then - I'm sure any shame regarding bumps and no babies could be explained away by surrogacy or the likes if women actually thought going to full term was a preferential choice to having an abortion.

K-9

metrovelvet wrote: »

Its because pregnancy comes with public consequences, like losing your job, like your body changing forever.

Problem is in the valley of the squinting windows people have still not learned to stop giving a ****, which is really the only way to survive them.

Probably that and add in the Irish context, adoption means the old single mother and illegitimate thing, a single girl getting pregnant in the 50/60/70's, even up to the 80's usually meant adoption to the nearest, usually nuns managed orphanage.

Because the debate is so hardline and so extreme the adoption option is seen as weak or even worse! The nuts have taken over the asylum and the brave, noble choice is frowned upon.

Monty Burnz

metrovelvet wrote: »

Its because pregnancy comes with public consequences, like losing your job, like your body changing forever.

Metrovelvet, at what point do you think that a foetus/baby becomes a person? Because this seems important in addressing whether a woman getting fat is sufficient reason to end a (potential/actual) life.

Edit - actually, the second sentence sounds very sarky - it wasn't meant like that. Apologies.

Fluorescence

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Metrovelvet, at what point do you think that a foetus/baby becomes a person? Because this seems important in addressing whether a woman getting fat is sufficient reason to end a (potential/actual) life.

Because the only thing that happens to a woman during pregnancy is a bit of weight gain :rolleyes:

Ickle Magoo

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Metrovelvet, at what point do you think that a foetus/baby becomes a person? Because this seems important in addressing whether a woman getting fat is sufficient reason to end a (potential/actual) life.

Rather than being sarcastic and glib about it - look up SPD, pre-eclampsia, episiotomy, emergency caesarean, the time that is required to be taken out of a job to have and recover from having a baby in all eventualities, etc, etc - why not look at things from another perspective....if millions of women have no issue with taking contraceptives and having uterine devices inserted that ensure a fertilised egg never becomes a viable baby - what huge difference is there in getting a chemical abortion that flushes the same fertilised egg plus a few more cell divisions out of their body?