Your right to an Abortion

Wolfe Tone

wild_cat wrote: »

Not until you answer my question first or does it mean that you'd be willing to consider abortion up to a certain point in the case or rape or incest?

I'm quite happy with the 26/24 week rule the English have in place. But if needs be it should be increased.

No, abortion should not be allowed in those cases, it is not the childs fault.

So if it is over that amount of time you would "force" the woman to carry the child? Or you would have the child killed at a late stage in development?

wild_cat

dark crystal wrote: »

You think an abortion should be available for someone who has had 6 months to get one and still hasn't? In fact, you think abortions should be performed after 6 months?

You do realise there is a chance that the foetus can survive outside the womb at that stage? Yet, you think the mother's right to terminate supercedes that fact?

If there are severe birth defects it should be allowed over the 6 month mark - hence why I said needs be. What if a woman could only afford the abortion after saving for the 6 months?

I'm well aware of what my beliefs in tail..... and I won't back down on them. I've heard the same pro life argument again and again. It hasn't changed my mind yet and it never will, no matter how many rants/opinions I hear.

wild_cat

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

So if it is over that amount of time you would "force" the woman to carry the child?

Nope. See my post above. Personally I'd rather kill myself than carry the child or rape. But of course the unborn are worth more than me.

Wolfe Tone

wild_cat wrote: »

Nope. See my post above. Personally I'd rather kill myself than carry the child or rape. But of course the unborn are worth more than me.

No, they are worth just the same.

wild_cat

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

No, they are worth just the same.

So as long as the "host" dies to its ok for the "baby" to die to?

An eye for eye?

Wolftone supporting suicide instead of abortion?

dark crystal

wild_cat wrote: »

If there are severe birth defects it should be allowed over the 6 month mark - hence why I said needs be. What if a woman could only afford the abortion after saving for the 6 months?

I'm well aware of what my beliefs in tail..... and I won't back down on them. I've heard the same pro life argument again and again. It hasn't changed my mind yet and it never will, no matter how many rants/opinions I hear.

No one is asking you to back down. Opinions and rants can apply on both sides of the debate, btw.

By the way, I'm pro choice, but I do believe there should be stricter limits set on the time limits available for terminations.

As far as I'm aware, women in the UK can get an abortion on the NHS, so the affordibility issue is a moot point.

Hermione*

I really, really, REALLY hate the term "pro-life". I have never been able to understand why this movement isn't more accurately and correctly called the anti-abortion movement.

Wolfe Tone

wild_cat wrote: »

So as long as the "host" dies to its ok for the "baby" to die to?

An eye for eye?

Wolftone supporting suicide instead of abortion?

Thats just stupid, I don't support suicide ffs.

drkpower

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

No, they are worth just the same.

Again with the simplistic statements. But do you even really believe that the woman and the unborn have equal rights?

I suspect not. Try this: If a woman has a, lets say, 60% risk to her life if she proceeds with a pregnancy, do you believe that she is entitled to a termination?

Bear in mind that if mother and foetus are genuinely equal, the right answer would be to prohibit a termination and let both parties take their chances, rather than killing one to save the other.

gargleblaster

Hermione* wrote: »

I really, really, REALLY hate the term "pro-life". I have never been able to understand why this movement isn't more accurately and correctly called the anti-abortion movement.

I call them anti-choice myself.

wild_cat

dark crystal wrote: »

No one is asking you to back down. Opinions and rants can apply on both sides of the debate, btw.

By the way, I'm pro choice, but I do believe there should be stricter limits set on the time limits available for terminations.

As far as I'm aware, women in the UK can get an abortion on the NHS, so the affordibility issue is a moot point.

Its not free in every country and Irish women have to pay.

Wolfe Tone

drkpower wrote: »

Again with the simplistic statements. But do you even really believe that the woman and the unborn have equal rights?

I suspect not. Try this: If a woman has a, lets say, 60% risk to her life if she proceeds with a pregnancy, do you believe that she is entitled to a termination?

Bear in mind that if mother and foetus are genuinely equal, the right answer would be to prohibit a termination and let both parties take their chances, rather than killing one to save the other.

No, imo she is not.

When I said a "huge risk" I meant "huge" 90% or so.

I think its funny how people will attack my position, cal themselves "pro choice" yet set limits etc on when abortions can be preformed. Then call me a hypocrite.

wild_cat

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Thats just stupid, I don't support suicide ffs.

But this actually happens. Women kill themselves because they can't get abortions and thousands of women die each year getting un safe abortions.

So you'd rather the actual living die than having access to something that could save them. Therefore you are supporting suicide as its the only choice you're willing to give!

Wolfe Tone

wild_cat wrote: »

But this actually happens. Women kill themselves because they can't get abortions and thousands of women die each year getting un safe abortions.

So you'd rather the actual living die than having access to something that could save them. Therefore you are supporting suicide as its the only choice you're willing to give!

Why arent you accusing those who set limits, say 24 weeks, of supporting suicide?

Besides, suicide is preventable.

drkpower

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

When I said a "huge risk" I meant "huge" 90% or so..

Why 90%? It is the same principle. You are favouring the mother over the foetus. If they are equal, why not let them both run the 10% chance? Why favour one over the other?

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

I think its funny how people will attack my position, cal themselves "pro choice" yet set limits etc on when abortions can be preformed. Then call me a hypocrite.

The pnly position of yours I am 'attacking' is that this issue is 'simple'. But i suspect you would admit yourself that you were wrong on that one.:P

As for your positions, I am simply exploring them. Its for your own benefit. You might learn something;).

Wolfe Tone

drkpower wrote: »

Why 90%? It is the same principle. You are favouring the mother over the foetus. If they are equal, why not let them both run the 10% chance? Why favour one over the other?



The pnly position of yours I am 'attacking' is that this issue is 'simple'. But i suspect you would admit yourself that you were wrong on that one.:P

As for your positions, I am simply exploring them. Its for your own benefit. You might learn something;).

Not entirely the same, what if the risk posed by the pregnancy will result in the death of the mother, thus the childs death too? Is it not better to terminate when that risk is very very high than to let both die?

Why dont we explore your position so? Its easy to sit back and poke holes, I'm sure I could do the exact same to you.

wild_cat

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Why arent you accusing those who set limits, say 24 weeks, of supporting suicide?

Besides, suicide is preventable.

They're giving women a choice of up to 24 weeks. You want a blanket ban. Its not preventable if your blocking the solution to the cause, no amount of counselling is going to make a woman "want to mother" a child she doesn't want.

Get your head out of the sand.

drkpower

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Not entirely the same, what if the risk posed by the pregnancy will result in the death of the mother, thus the childs death too? Is it not better to terminate when that risk is very very high than to let both die?.

Why?
If they are genuinely equal, as you claim, why would you take the foetus' 10% chance away from him to save the mother? That is not equality. Equality is giving them both the same chance.

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Why dont we explore your position so? Its easy to sit back and poke holes, I'm sure I could do the exact same to you.

You can definitely poke holes in my position. It is full of holes. I freely admit it. That is becasue I never claimed this question to be 'simple'. You did.

Wolfe Tone

wild_cat wrote: »

They're giving women a choice of up to 24 weeks. You want a blanket ban. Its not preventable if your blocking the solution to the cause, no amount of counselling is going to make a woman "want to mother" a child she doesn't want.

Get your head out of the sand.

What if the woman doesn't know she is pregnant till after 24 weeks, or is too ashamed and traumatized to come forward until then? In your book then having a ban on late term abortions is supporting suicide.

Ickle Magoo

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

No, imo she is not.

When I said a "huge risk" I meant "huge" 90% or so.

I think its funny how people will attack my position, cal themselves "pro choice" yet set limits etc on when abortions can be preformed. Then call me a hypocrite.

I said your claiming an arbitrary point at which a bunch of cells that has the potential to be a full-term baby not being allowed to go any further as being moral and just Vs anyone else's views on exactly the same was hypocritical...and it is.

I'm not claiming I have the right line it should be set at - just a line at which I think it should be set. I don't claim to think all life is sacrosanct, or I wouldn't use contraceptives or approve of the MAP. If I did make some claim about life being sacrosanct, draw my own arbitrary line of what is acceptable which still involves the deliberate destruction of fertilised eggs or even embryos (such as in some IVF treatments) and call everyone else murderers and unjustified, THEN, I'd be a hypocrite...

Wolfe Tone

drkpower wrote: »

Why?
If they are genuinely equal, as you claim, why would you take the foetus' 10% chance away from him to save the mother? That is not equality. Equality is giving them both the same chance.
You can definitely poke holes in my position. It is full of holes. I freely admit it. That is becasue I never claimed this question to be 'simple'. You did.

So what is your position then? Bad form to basically smugly sit back and poke holes and not outline your position and why you have it. What is your position and why do you feel it is correct?

My position is one I'm not entirely comfortable with(cause of the things you have posted), but I feel it is a fair compromise which can be legislated and allows things such as IVF, morning after pill etc

rainbow kirby

gargleblaster wrote: »

I call them anti-choice myself.

Or pro-forced birth.

lace

Guidelines and regulations have to be put in place for any medical procedure. They all have limits. Personally, I think the 24-26 week upper limit in the UK is a little high seeing as a child can survive outside the womb by that stage. I would be happier with the limit of around 16-18 weeks. Most women who want an abortion are only held back by the fact that they have to save money to travel to the UK at the moment. I would hope that if the service were to be provided in this country it would be free (or close to it) to anyone with a medical card.

HellFireClub

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I have no issue with abortion...once a pregnancy gets to more than, say, six to eight weeks - then I have more and more of an issue with it.

Why? Why would you have a problem with abortion at 16 weeks but not at 6 weeks?

Wolfe Tone

rainbow kirby wrote: »

Or pro-forced birth.

Should we have a little competition where we try to come up with hyperbolic labels for people on both sides of the debate?

gargleblaster

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Should we have a little competition where we try to come up with hyperbolic labels for people on both sides of the debate?

You opened the door to hyperbolic language with "murder" so you can hardly start complaining now of anyone else doing the same.

Wolfe Tone

gargleblaster wrote: »

You opened the door to herperbolic language with "murder" so you can hardly start complaining now of anyone else doing the same.

Is a late term abortion murder?

Legally in this country would the label "murderer" apply to someone who preformed such an act?

drkpower

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

So what is your position then? Bad form to basically smugly sit back and poke holes and not outline your position and why you have it. What is your position and why do you feel it is correct?

My position is one I'm not entirely comfortable with(cause of the things you have posted), but I feel it is a fair compromise which can be legislated and allows things such as IVF, morning after pill etc

I see you are avoiding the issue of equality. I think I have demonstrated that you do, in fact, favour the mother over the foetus. You do not really believe they are equal.

But lets move on. My position is that you have two entities with rights, that conflict. In any balancing of rights, one party tends to 'win'. In my view, the mothers rights win. However, where one party wins, they should only be allowed to exercise their rights, at the expense of the other party, as far as is required. Therefore, as a general rule, a mother should be entitled to a termination up until a certain point. I am open to arguments on where that point lies. My instinct is 8-10 weeks.

As for a threat to life/health, any reasonable threat should warrant an abortion. I would suggest than in non-emergency situations, a Tribunal should endorse these decisions sop as to ensure that part of the law is not 'abused'.

There are other exceptions that I would consider that are too detailed to get into now.

Poke away:D

drkpower

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Legally in this country would the label "murderer" apply to someone who preformed such an act?

No.

Wolfe Tone

drkpower wrote: »

No.

What would a person who preform a late term abortion illegally in this country be tried for then, what would the punishments etc be?

Genuinely curious here. I ha assumed it would be some form of murder, hence why I said it, appears I am wrong.

Wolfe Tone

drkpower wrote: »

I see you are avoiding the issue of equality. I think I have demonstrated that you do, in fact, favour the mother over the foetus. You do not really believe they are equal.

But lets move on. My position is that you have two entities with rights, that conflict. In any balancing of rights, one party tends to 'win'. In my view, the mothers rights win. However, where one party wins, they should only be allowed to exercise their rights, at the expense of the other party, as far as is required. Therefore, as a general rule, a mother should be entitled to a termination up until a certain point. I am open to arguments on where that point lies. My instinct is 8-10 weeks.

As for a threat to life/health, any reasonable threat should warrant an abortion. I would suggest than in non-emergency situations, a Tribunal should endorse these decisions sop as to ensure that part of the law is not 'abused'.

There are other exceptions that I would consider that are too detailed to get into now.

Poke away:D

Why do the mothers rights win, and why only an abortion up to a certain point? Does the foetus suddenly get more rights at ten weeks?

drkpower

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

What would a person who preform a late term abortion illegally in this country be tried for then, what would the punishments etc be?

1861 Offences against the person Act still applies here i think. Offence = procuring a miscarriage. I think the sentence is up to life.

lace

Outdated law is exactly the problem here

drkpower

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Why do the mothers rights win, and why only an abortion up to a certain point? Does the foetus suddenly get more rights at ten weeks?

You, yourself, allow the mother's rights to win (where there is a 90% risk to her life) so perhaps you might answer that one yourself.;)

I am open to debate on the time limit as I said. There would be many considerations that would go into its determination.

However, on the principle of a time limit: If the mother's rights win, you have to allow her to exercose them but you have to have due regard to the rights of the foetus. A time limit (with well defined exceptions) is the only way you can achieve that.

Wolfe Tone

lace wrote: »

Outdated law is exactly the problem here

When was the last abortion referendum held? Hardly outdated

Wolfe Tone

drkpower wrote: »

You, yourself, allow the mother's rights to win (where there is a 90% risk to her life) so perhaps you might answer that one yourself.;)

I asked you tbf, why do you allow it?

I am open to debate on the time limit as I said. There would be many considerations that would go into its determination.

However, on the principle of a time limit: If the mother's rights win, you have to allow her to exercose them but you have to have due regard to the rights of the foetus. A time limit (with well defined exceptions) is the only way you can achieve that.

Does the foetus suddenly get a right to life at 10 weeks? Why not before? Should that right not be protected before ten weeks? Why not?

wild_cat

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

What if the woman doesn't know she is pregnant till after 24 weeks, or is too ashamed and traumatized to come forward until then? In your book then having a ban on late term abortions is supporting suicide.

Nope your twisting it around to make yourself feel better about what you believe in.

Wolfe Tone

wild_cat wrote: »

Nope your twisting it around to make yourself feel better about what you believe in.

How am I?

According to you preventing someone from having an abortion is supporting suicide, hence those who want to impose limits on abortions are doing the same

Ickle Magoo

HellFireClub wrote: »

Why? Why would you have a problem with abortion at 16 weeks but not at 6 weeks?

It's still embryonic rather than foetal stage, over 80% of spontaneous abortions happen in the first trimester, I think it's time enough to know and make a decision about a pregnancy, being the biggy.

Basically - out-with the mothers life being at risk or the foetus having some kind of horrific abnormality - I can't think of any reason why, if abortion is legal, it should be allowed at just any stage of pregnancy of the mothers choosing. Other people can, I don't. That's the arbitrary point I'm most comfortable with.

gargleblaster

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

I asked you tbf, why do you allow it?


Does the foetus suddenly get a right to life at 10 weeks? Why not before? Should that right not be protected before ten weeks? Why not?

Really? Do you really still not realize that his apparently arbitrary limits are not so different from yours? Someone who believes that life begins at conception could challenge you this way about why you draw the line at implantation, but what is the point?

It's an extremely complex issue, fraught with emotion. The limits have to be set with input from the public as well as medical experts, not a few posters on a message board.

We've already established that you would condone these "murders", it is only a matter now of coming to an agreement on limits.

Wolfe Tone

gargleblaster wrote: »

Really? Do you really still not realize that his apparently arbitrary limits are not so different from yours? Someone who believes that life begins at conception could challenge you this way about why you draw the line at implantation, but what is the point?

It's an extremely complex issue, fraught with emotion. The limits have to be set with input from the public as well as medical experts, not a few posters on a message board.

We've already established that you would condone these "murders", it is only a matter now of coming to an agreement on limits.

The limits have been set, abortion(on demand etc) is, thankfully, illegal in this country.

I know someone could challenge me on my position, its one I am not entirely comfortable with, but if I were to say that fertilization was the point things such as IVF would be illegal.

As I said, it is a compromise.

Magic Beans

Suaimhneach wrote: »

...if a woman is raped and becomes pregnant, under our current laws she is not entitled to an abortion, even if that rape consititutes incest.

We all know that there is a steady stream of women who go abroad each year to have the abortion that is denied to them under Irish law. I know by the private nature of the act it is impossible to ascertain exactly how many but there are reasonable estimates of the number.

AbortionIreland.org wrote:

Some 6,673 women gave Irish addresses to abortion clinics in Britain during 2001, and the figure dropped to 4,422 in 2009. At least 12 women leave Ireland every day to seek clandestine abortions.
There are no figures available for the amount of women resident in Ireland who give false addresses, or who travel to clinics in the Netherlands or Spain.

It seems to run into thousands. Anybody care to hazard a guess at how many of these terminations are the direct result of rape? Would it even be 10% of the total? I don't think it would. What is the justification of terminating the vast majority of these pregnancies? To be quite blunt I think the rape card is just being played to get abortion legalised so that it can become just another form of contraception.

AbortionIreland.org wrote:

IN OCTOBER last year the Irish Medicines Board (IMB) reported that it seized 1,216 abortion pills being imported into Ireland in 2009. In 2008, only 48 pills were seized. It looked like a real challenge to the State’s abortion laws was emerging – could such huge numbers really be trying to get around our strict laws by ordering these pills online?
The media asked whether Irish women, no longer able to afford to travel to the UK for a termination, were now beginning to self-abort out of financial desperation.
Although some reports gave the impression there were 1,216 individual packages, the breakdown is less dramatic. There were 62 consignments: 50 addressed to women and, interestingly, 12 to men. That some were bulk supplies suggests an abortion pill black market is operating in Ireland.

It would appear that the demand for abortions is increasing despite the availability of contraception. I will acknowledge that no form of contraception is 100% perfect but abortion is now being seen as just another form of contraception.


Let's have a little honesty here. Most abortions are purely lifestyle choices and have little or nothing to do either with rape or directly with the health of the mother.

HellFireClub

I'm trying to work out how this argument about abortion on demand, could possibly fit into the kind of a discussion that any couple might have before there was any pregnancy...

Say the views that are being presented on here, which are pretty much all pro-abortion.

If you are in a long term relationship where the possibilities are there for life long commitment, and possibly a family, and most lads I know, like myself, would love a family and to have kids, how on earth do people who are so obviously pro-abortion under any circumstances or indeed advocate an abortion under possibly no circumstances at all, how do you find men who can run with something that as far as I can see, would be abhorent to an awful lot of men, men I might add who just might end up being roped into this whole argument some day if you ever got pregnant?

Please do not come back with an accusation here that I'm trolling. If I was seeing a girl with the possibility that it was going to get serious, I'd need to know what her view on these kind of things was, and if I was hearing back, (after enquiring), that, "it's my body and I'll do what I like with it", I wouldn't consider that person to be a potential partner for me, and this I believe is is true for a lot of men or at least the fairly normal Joe's that I know...

Wolfe Tone

Let's have a little honesty here. Most abortions are purely lifestyle choices and have little or nothing to do either with rape or directly with the health of the mother.

Thats the harsh truth.

HellFireClub

The OP started out with the usual, "women who are raped and even those who are pregnant through incest are forced to carry babies"...

But when you scratch below the surface, you see that they are trying to introduce abortion on demand, by trying to place the argument on the tiny number of women who end up pregnant after a rape or pregnant due to incest.

Why not just be honest and say that you want abortion for any reason or for no reason at all, why all the lies and misinformation about the tiny number of women who might need an abortion based on a pregnancy caused by rape or incest?

lace

HellFireClub wrote: »

If I was seeing a girl with the possibility that it was going to get serious, I'd need to know what her view on these kind of things was, and if I was hearing back, (after enquiring), that, "it's my body and I'll do what I like with it", I wouldn't consider that person to be a potential partner for me, and this I believe is is true for a lot of men or at least the fairly normal Joe's that I know...

Most men I've spoken to about the topic feel that it's a service that needs to br provided. I can understand men in committed relationships wanting there to be a discussion about the topic if they're interested in having children but not all men are. Not everyone is at a stage in their life where children are on the cards.

As for you not wanting a partner who views her body as her own - good luck! I can't imagine many women nowadays being too happy about their partner having such a posessive view of their body. Does, say, a lifesaving historectomy qualify as one of "these kinds of things" to you?

gargleblaster

A lifestyle choice? That is breathtakingly ignorant.

As for the long term serious relationship scenario, nice framing. I only wish we could determine how many of those 'lifestyle choice trips' were paid for in part if not entirely by the father.

Wolfe Tone

As a man I would be devastated if a girl I got pregnant got an abortion. Even though I would be willing to be a single father etc, there would be nothing I could do to stop her from getting my child killed.

HellFireClub

lace wrote: »

Most men I've spoken to about the topic feel that it's a service that needs to br provided. I can understand men in committed relationships wanting there to be a discussion about the topic if they're interested in having children but not all men are. Not everyone is at a stage in their life where children are on the cards.

As for you not wanting a partner who views her body as her own - good luck! I can't imagine many women nowadays being too happy about their partner having such a posessive view of their body. Does, say, a lifesaving historectomy qualify as one of "these kinds of things" to you?

Well I'm in my 30's and I don't know any of my own mates in long term relationships (most but not all are), who would be at ease with a woman who is in her 30's and still banging on about, "it's my body my choice"...

I don't personally know one person in my life who wouldn't consider a pregnancy a blessing.

I'm just making the point where I can't understand who women who have such an overt and expressive view of abortion on demand, find men to have relationships with, because the lads I know who are out there either in committed relationships or on the dating scene, they would run a MILE from the kind of "me, me, me, me, me" mentality that I'm seeing on here, because these guys want to settle down at some stage and have kids and the last thing they would want I imagine is someone with strong views in this area.

In one case I know of, a girl in a long term relationship exercised her right to go to the UK for an abortion, she didn't tell her boyfriend (a mate of mine), before she went but she told him when she came back, and the reason she wanted an abortion was because she didn't want the shame of telling her mother that she was pregnant?!?

So much for relagious freedom... So anyway, she had her abortion and the relationship ended soonafter, but those of us who were mates of this guy swore we would never ever end up in a situation such as that, because this girl had pro-abortion sentiments all along...

Magic Beans

Magic Beans wrote: »

Let's have a little honesty here. Most abortions are purely lifestyle choices and have little or nothing to do either with rape or directly with the health of the mother.

I think this is the problem. People thinking that the mother's role is to either go abroad for an abortion or stay and have the child. Giving birth isn't just a choice. It is a horrifically (for most women, some deal better with it) painful experience, has life-threatening risks, and takes 9 months. A woman's body is never the same after having a child, and I'm not talking looks. Some women are left unable to have sex, incontinent, or there could be worse complications. During some births there just isn't enough room for the baby to come out and an incision has to be made in the womans vagina, sometimes reaching from the vagina all the way to the anus. Sometimes vaginal tears occur.

Let's imagine for a second that a girl gets pregnant. Let's say she used condoms + the oral contraceptive pill, but accidents happen. Let's say she's 16. Let's say her life (from a health perspective) is not under immediate risk from pregnancy (I say immediate because as above, there are always risks). Let's say she even hasn't been raped. So she has what some would call no excuse. What Magic Beans would call a "lifestyle choice". And she chooses abortion. Because she knows she can't care for a child. She would be thrown out of her house by her parents and would have to go through the pregnancy alone. She would have to get a job and work through her pregnancy for minimum wage to try to survive. And if she got through the nine months, of morning sickness and weak bladder she would then have to go through giving birth. Then after birth, left changed forever, she would have to give the baby away. After all that. For something she never wanted. And then walk out of the hospital and try and live a life? Try and sit the Leaving Cert in a few years maybe? Her life would be ruined, and she would have been forced to do it by the state. By "pro-lifers".