Your right to an Abortion

Morag

Even when a back street abortion has been carried out in this country and it comes to the notice of medical staff when a woman ended up in hospital (a maternity hospital) a report is made but charges are never pressed.

If after garda investigation it turns out there is someone preforming surgical abortions then cases are compiled and sent to the Dept of public prosecution.
Just as was the case with Mamie Cadden.

Morag

K-9 wrote: »

Yep, adoption is unimaginable. Inconceivable.

Due to the stigma of the Laundries and of the farming notion of an adopted child being a coocoo in the nest and it's only in the last decade that adopted children can inherit farm land after a case was taken to the high court,
adoption is still a huge taboo.

I know someone who was abused by family members for giving a child up for adoption, she was denying them the right to know their blood kin grandchild/niece/cousin and she was pretty much disowned by them.

She was considered more un natrual to have carried, given birth and held the child and then given it up then if she had of had an abortion.

southsiderosie

Monty Burnz wrote: »

What you say is true, but I'm wondering what it implies (if anything)? In the forest example, you invoke a third party to take care of a baby. But what if there is no third party? It's just the mother and the baby - the baby is dependent on the mother for its survival, agreed? So how is this different from a foetus at 20 weeks?

Because a baby at 20 weeks cannot breathe on its own. It has no neurological function. It will die if it is not in the womb. This is a fundamentally different situation, and is precisely why the cutoff for abortions in the UK is 24 weeks.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Ok - I'm not sure what I think on this to be honest, but we will run with your interpretation while I straddle the fence.

Well, it's not a birth defect, but it's just not the type of baby that they want. Should they not have the choice? If a woman wants a son, is that wrong? And the lateness of the development is surely a red herring if we agree that at 21 weeks the child has a negligible chance of surviving outside the mother?

Because I see a difference between saying 'I don't want to be a mother' and 'I want to be a mother, but only if my baby is male/female/not ginger'. And the fact that making that decision involves bringing a fetus to the tipping point of viability (some places and some pro-choicers would only support abortion in the first trimester) makes it more problematic.

Another argument you could make, if you buy the Freakonomics argument about the connection between crime and abortion, is that the broader social implications of what is essentially female infanticide are much more dire than the broader social implications for first-trimester/gender-blind abortion. The shortage of women in rural India and China is creating a potential social time bomb, as there will be a huge cohort of 20-something men who will not be able to find their own wives (and they will be disproportionately poor, since wealthier men will be able to find wives from other parts of the country or abroad). There are serious concerns in both countries about crime and social disorder related to this phenomenon. On the other hand, the Freakonimics guys argue that the introduction of widely available abortion in the 1970s explains (in part anyway) the dramatic decrease in crime rates in the US in the 1990s.

I am not sure I buy the Freakonomics argument, but the situation in China and India is highly disturbing, to say the least.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

But if there is nothing wrong with abortion, how can there be something wrong?

(Please don't assume that the arguments I'm making are things that I believe - I'm just trying to learn how others see things to help form my own opinion)

There is clearly something wrong if you are pro-choice but with viability limits. There is also something wrong because of the eugenics aspect of the gendered abortion versus the non-wanting-to-be-a-parent abortion. And I don't think this thread needs to turn into a debate about eugenics.

Monty Burnz

southsiderosie wrote: »

Because a baby at 20 weeks cannot breathe on its own. It has no neurological function. It will die if it is not in the womb. This is a fundamentally different situation, and is precisely why the cutoff for abortions in the UK is 24 weeks.

No, I agree with all you say here - but the point stands: where is the clear difference between a foetus at 20 weeks totally dependent on its mother, and a baby at 1 day in an isolated jungle, totally dependent on its mother? It's quite ok if you can't answer this - I can't either.

southsiderosie wrote: »

Because I see a difference between saying 'I don't want to be a mother' and 'I want to be a mother, but only if my baby is male/female/not ginger'. And the fact that making that decision involves bringing a fetus to the tipping point of viability (some places and some pro-choicers would only support abortion in the first trimester) makes it more problematic.

Another argument you could make, if you buy the Freakonomics argument about the connection between crime and abortion, is that the broader social implications of what is essentially female infanticide are much more dire than the broader social implications for first-trimester/gender-blind abortion. The shortage of women in rural India and China is creating a potential social time bomb, as there will be a huge cohort of 20-something men who will not be able to find their own wives (and they will be disproportionately poor, since wealthier men will be able to find wives from other parts of the country or abroad). There are serious concerns in both countries about crime and social disorder related to this phenomenon. On the other hand, the Freakonimics guys argue that the introduction of widely available abortion in the 1970s explains (in part anyway) the dramatic decrease in crime rates in the US in the 1990s.

I am not sure I buy the Freakonomics argument, but the situation in China and India is highly disturbing, to say the least.

I'd regard the social problems associated with this type of sex-selection abortion as very much a secondary consideration - like the banning of alcohol. If you ban it/don't ban it, you get certain social problems - but these can be considered separately to whether or not you think drinking alcohol is acceptable per se.

I wouldn't regard this as getting into the territory of eugenics either because the issue isn't created by some sort of social planning, or national policy (well, arguably it is, indirectly, in China) - it's created by individual men and women who want to have a child of a specific gender, and it only becomes a problem at an aggregated/societal level.

Ickle Magoo

Monty Burnz wrote: »

No, I agree with all you say here - but the point stands: where is the clear difference between a foetus at 20 weeks totally dependent on its mother, and a baby at 1 day in an isolated jungle, totally dependent on its mother? It's quite ok if you can't answer this - I can't either.

Surely the obvious difference is a 20 week old foetus is wholly dependent on it's mother to even reach the point it is a viable independent life while a 1 day old baby is an independent life - dependent on nutrition/nurture for continued survival but not necessarily dependant on getting that from it's mother.

K-9

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

To what? A 14 yr old rape victim?

I did mention extremes are always brought into it with adoption. Glad you obliged.

Adoption is inconceivable as I said.

Ickle Magoo

K-9 wrote: »

I did mention extremes are always brought into it with adoption. Glad you obliged.

Adoption is inconceivable as I said.

You posted a one-liner after a post about a 14 yr old rape victim who wanted an abortion - as the posts read you seemed to be implying the child should have been forced to go to term as adoption would be such a palatable and suitable option, despite being 14, having been raped and clearly wanting an abortion. Again, this adoption panacea.

I was more astonished at the sentiment that adoption would be anything other than inconceivable given the facts, rather than trying to oblige anything...

K-9

Sharrow wrote: »

Due to the stigma of the Laundries and of the farming notion of an adopted child being a coocoo in the nest and it's only in the last decade that adopted children can inherit farm land after a case was taken to the high court,
adoption is still a huge taboo.

I know someone who was abused by family members for giving a child up for adoption, she was denying them the right to know their blood kin grandchild/niece/cousin and she was pretty much disowned by them.

She was considered more un natrual to have carried, given birth and held the child and then given it up then if she had of had an abortion.

Indeed.

The new stigma is adoption, enlightened as we are. Adoption as a stigma seems okay.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

K-9

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

You posted a one-liner after a post about a 14 yr old rape victim who wanted an abortion - as the posts read you seemed to be implying the child should have been forced to go to term as adoption would be such a palatable and suitable option, despite being 14, having been raped and clearly wanting an abortion. Again, this adoption panacea.

I was more astonished at the sentiment that adoption would be anything other than inconceivable given the facts, rather than trying to oblige anything...

What?

I'd about 5 replies before that, you should read all my posts and in context, as I seriously don't know what you are talking about.

K-9

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

You posted a one-liner after a post about a 14 yr old rape victim who wanted an abortion - as the posts read you seemed to be implying the child should have been forced to go to term as adoption would be such a palatable and suitable option, despite being 14, having been raped and clearly wanting an abortion. Again, this adoption panacea.

I was more astonished at the sentiment that adoption would be anything other than inconceivable given the facts, rather than trying to oblige anything...

Sorry, we are seriously on a different wave length here!

Ickle Magoo

K-9 wrote: »

What?

I'd about 5 replies before that, you should read all my posts and in context, as I seriously don't know what you are talking about.

Okay - well, I'm just reading the posts in the order they are posted in...so given there was no quote to give context, what context was

K-9 wrote: »

Yep, adoption is unimaginable. Inconceivable.

in then? I take it the "yep" was aimed at a specific point being made?

K-9

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

in then? I take it the "yep" was aimed at a specific point being made?

Sometimes I don't quote a post, just reply to the last or a recent post.

I made the point about adoption as an option.

Can you point out where I mentioned 14 year old rape victims as you seemed to think I did? You deemed it worthy of mentioning anyway for some reason.

beeftotheheels

K-9 wrote: »

Sometimes I don't quote a post, just reply to the last or a recent post.

I made the point about adoption as an option.

Can you point out where I mentioned 14 year old rape victims as you seemed to think I did? You deemed it worthy of mentioning anyway for some reason.

Your post showed up immediately after a post on the X case - this may be the source of the confusion, it looked like you were responding to that post.

Ickle Magoo

K-9 wrote: »

Sometimes I don't quote a post, just reply to the last or a recent post.

I made the point about adoption as an option.

Can you point out where I mentioned 14 year old rape victims as you seemed to think I did? You deemed it worthy of mentioning anyway for some reason.

I told you, I'm just reading the posts as they are in the thread...there is a post by iguana which ends with a rather harrowing story about a 14 yr old rape victim seeking an abortion, which was followed by a post which just stated "Yep, adoption is unimaginable. Inconceivable." with no other reference or point of reply stated.

The "for a 14 yr old rape victim??" was my incredulity that your one-liner was meant as a response to the story it had been posted after...

K-9

beeftotheheels wrote: »

Your post showed up immediately after a post on the X case - this may be the source of the confusion, it looked like you were responding to that post.

Looking back, adoption was brought up but it was just ignored.

Same as it always was really, something to be ashamed of.

Ickle Magoo

How do you know it was ignored? Dismissing an option is not the same as ignoring it.

K-9

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I told you, I'm just reading the posts as they are in the thread...there is a post by iguana which ends with a rather harrowing story about a 14 yr old rape victim seeking an abortion, which was followed by a post which just stated "Yep, adoption is unimaginable. Inconceivable." with no other reference or point of reply stated.

The "for a 14 yr old rape victim??" was my incredulity that your one-liner was meant as a response to the story it had been posted after...

Yeah and I tend to respond to replies to my posts. You don't seem to have read my previous posts tonight.

I don't see the problem? Crossed wires obviously. There isn't an issue here.

K-9

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

How do you know it was ignored? Dismissing an option is not the same as ignoring it.

Adoption is dismissed, it's the same as ignoring it. It can't possibly work is the same as ignoring and dismissing.

It couldn't possibly work even though it could. Obviously it can work as it does happen.

Ickle Magoo

K-9 wrote: »

Yeah and I tend to respond to replies to my posts. You don't seem to have read my previous posts tonight.

I don't see the problem? Crossed wires obviously. There isn't an issue here.

If you mean the repeated cries that adoption is the answer and those who wish to abort should go through pregnancy and put their child up for adoption - I have read your posts. As both a mother and an adoptee I feel I have a little first hand experience with both the repercussions of pregnancy and adoption.

It's also a 498 post thread, so throwing in one-liners which are in reply to a post made at whatever previous point in the discussion and to goodness-knows what poster are understandably quite confusing, to me anyway.

K-9 wrote: »

Adoption is dismissed, it's the same as ignoring it. It can't possibly work is the same as ignoring and dismissing.

It couldn't possibly work even though it could. Obviously it can work as it does happen.

Well, no, reaching the conclusion that adoption isn't for them for whatever reason is not the same as ignoring it is there as an option for others. There are several clear choices available in pregnancy, not all of them are going to suit all women - especially if that choice involves a full-term pregnancy.

beeftotheheels

K-9 wrote: »

Looking back, adoption was brought up but it was just ignored.

Same as it always was really, something to be ashamed of.

Well, to set out my views on it, and bearing in mind my starting point is as an atheist who believes that the fetus should only be afforded rights when it has a chance of a sustainable life outside the mother.

Abortion is a solution to a crisis pregnancy. You make the decision and it is over. For some women they may later regret that decision, for many others they do not. The pregnancy was unwelcome, it ends, end of story.

Adoption doesn't end the problem. You go through the trials an traumas of giving birth to a child. You give it away. You know it is out there somewhere. Is it being loved and cared for? Does it hate you? Does it hate all women because it was given away? Will it find you? What if it needs a kidney/ bone marrow/ other transplant and doesn't have family members to ask?

My views on this are biased from watching family members who gave away offspring for adoption, and to some extent from talking to friends who are themselves adopted.

If you believe in some sanctity of life above all else, or if you believe that the fetus deserves protecting from conception or implantation then it makes sense.

But if you don't, it offers you a lifetime of "what ifs" with no "taksie backsie". It offers you a life time of worrying about another life in being, rather than the alternative (which to my mind would be the worrying about a one time potential, but never actual life).

Just my thoughts though.

K-9

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

If you mean the repeated cries that adoption is the answer and those who wish to abort should go through pregnancy and put their child up for adoption - I have read your posts. As both a mother and an adoptee I feel I have a little first hand experience with both the repercussions of pregnancy and adoption.

It's also a 498 post thread, so throwing in one-liners which are in reply to a post made at whatever previous point in the discussion and to goodness-knows what poster are understandably quite confusing, to me anyway.

As an adopted child and a single father, it is an option and I have a little experience too and I deal with the repercussions.

Adoption isn't the answer, it's an option, why you say it was presented as an answer, I do not know.

Why you persist in putting up 14 year old's and other straw manning I don't know.

Ickle Magoo

K-9 wrote: »

As an adopted child and a single father, it is an option and I have a little experience too and I deal with the repercussions.

Adoption isn't the answer, it's an option, why you say it was presented as an answer, I do not know.

It seems to be an angle you keep pushing for in lieu of options being chosen over and above that one? Is it not?

K-9 wrote: »

Why you persist in putting up 14 year old's and other straw manning I don't know.

I'm not persisting with anything - I made a single query about your post because of the post it followed and appeared to be in response to. Simple as that. There was no strawman made, I don't know where you are getting that from.

K-9

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

It seems to be an angle you keep pushing for in lieu of options being chosen over and above that one? Is it not?

Huh? It's an option. Why it seems to draw such disdain and dismissiveness is what I'm wondering about. Such a brave and selfless decision that was looked down on 30 years ago and is still looked down on, with such a modern and more liberal society.

Ickle Magoo

K-9 wrote: »

Huh? It's an option. Why it seems to draw such disdain and dismissiveness is what I'm wondering about. Such a brave and selfless decision that was looked down on 30 years ago and is still looked down on, with such a modern and more liberal society.

Well, thanks to my "brave and selfless" parents and the legacy they left me with, I'd never do that to a child. Having experienced some horrific side-effects of pregnancy, I don't believe it should be "rated" as this we-all-win type scenario that some pro-lifers like to push, either.

It's an option - it's an option that doesn't suit a lot of people for a lot of very obvious reasons. I'm all for educating on all options but I really don't think pushing any one as being a blanket "better" to any other is appropriate or even correct.

Monty Burnz

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Surely the obvious difference is a 20 week old foetus is wholly dependent on it's mother to even reach the point it is a viable independent life while a 1 day old baby is an independent life - dependent on nutrition/nurture for continued survival but not necessarily dependant on getting that from it's mother.

Right, but for the umpteenth time, how is that different from a newborn baby in an isolated location with only its mother present? If there isn't a third party there to provide for the baby, it's in the exact same situation, no?

Mallei

And threads like this are why I don't bother posting in the Ladies' Lounge anymore. A thread in a women's forum to discuss a women's issue from a woman's perspective, and it's completely and utterly derailed by the same old male posters calling us murderers and saying we have no right to feel the way we do.

No man, not a single man on the surface of this entire planet, should ever wade into a debate on abortion, because there is no possible or conceivable way that they should have a say in what women can or cannot do with their own bodies.

Monty Burnz

Mallei wrote: »

No man, not a single man on the surface of this entire planet, should ever wade into a debate on abortion, because there is no possible or conceivable way that they should have a say in what women can or cannot do with their own bodies.

I'm denied the right to discuss the issues around abortion due to my gender? Sexist much?

For your convenience, would you kindly post a comprehensive list of topics that men can't discuss or have a view on?

Mallei

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I'm denied the right to discuss the issues around abortion due to my gender? Sexist much?

It's not sexist; it's biology.

Please explain to me how, given that there's no way you'll ever be required by biology to grow a baby inside of your body, you should be able to demand what women - who do have to go through that - should be able to do in that situation?

I'm not going to reveal my position on the subject, but I strongly believe that it is for women - and women only - to decide the future of the abortion law in Ireland, as it is women - and women only - who endure a pregnancy.

Tandey

Mallei wrote: »

It's not sexist; it's biology.

Please explain to me how, given that there's no way you'll ever be required by biology to grow a baby inside of your body, you should be able to demand what women - who do have to go through that - should be able to do in that situation?

I'm not going to reveal my position on the subject, but I strongly believe that it is for women - and women only - to decide the future of the abortion law in Ireland, as it is women - and women only - who endure a pregnancy.

How do women get pregnant? Men and i think its only fair to let men be able discuss this topic, I doubt any man on here is as you say ''demanding what women do''.

Think you need to have a morning coffee:pac:

(first post in this forum)

Wibbs

Mallei everyone is welcome to discuss this topic or others, so long as they stand by the ethos of the forum, woman or man.