Your right to an Abortion

Fluorescence

teaandtoast wrote: »

Am I the only prolife person here? Who esle here is prolife?

If so having this debate is not fair. Pro choice includes the abortion option so it's also pro abortion. Its all or nothing

I have personally answered this same question for you twice in this thread already, and you have pointedly ignored my replies to you. No, you are not. You are not the lone voice of the anti-abortion stance here. You are not the only person to have had an abortion here. You are not the only person in this thread who have described themselves as pro-life, and there are a good few more here with a more ambiguous stance. Would you please read the thread you're posting in before asking the same question yet again? Even a quick skim over the most recent posts would show you some pro-life points of view.

Maple

teaandtoast wrote: »

Am I the only prolife person here? Who esle here is prolife?

If so having this debate is not fair. Pro choice includes the abortion option so it's also pro abortion. Its all or nothing

Banned 3 days for ignoring two earlier onthread warnings and for persistently trying to derail the thread.

Maple

Morag

20 years ago there was uproar in the country when the Lover Guide video was for sale, there was even an article on The Late Late show about it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uswOGpz5aKA

So there was moral panic in the country over sex, contraception and abortion.

philologos

I wasn't using that as a means of argument, merely to correct the year that was given by Sharrow earlier:

That after contraception was made legal in 1984 they panicked and demanded changes to the constitution to protect the unborn, so that we would have a judge hand down a judgement like Roe V wade and have abortion be made legal that way.

trackguy

Fascinating thread.

I have a few questions that I would be very grateful to have answered.

Do people in the 'pro choice' camp believe that the right of the mother outweighs the rights of the foetus/ unborn child in all instances, along with any that the father of the foetus/ unborn child possesses?

I have seen posts that state (paraphrasing) 'give ppl the choice, its that simple. If you don't want an abortion, don't get one, but it must be made legal.'

If this is true - why does the 'right to choose' for the mother override any other concern such as the life or possible life that has been conceived combined with those of the father? I am interested in an answer based on morality not legality.

I apologize if this question offends anyone, that is not my intention. Perhaps it's lack of empathy or insight on my part but the answer doesn't seem obvious to me. Thanks.

Stheno

trackguy wrote: »

Fascinating thread.

I have a few questions that I would be very grateful to have answered.

Do people in the 'pro choice' camp believe that the right of the mother outweighs the rights of the foetus/ unborn child in all instances, along with any that the father of the foetus/ unborn child possesses?

I have seen posts that state (paraphrasing) 'give ppl the choice, its that simple. If you don't want an abortion, don't get one, but it must be made legal.'

If this is true - why does the 'right to choose' for the mother override any other concern such as the life or possible life that has been conceived combined with those of the father? I am interested in an answer based on morality not legality.

I apologize if this question offends anyone, that is not my intention. Perhaps it's lack of empathy or insight on my part but the answer doesn't seem obvious to me. Thanks.

It will depend on what the individual people believe imo, throughout this thread those two questions have been covered fairly frequently and from the responses you'll have seen that there is no one opinion on it.

JamJamJamJam

trackguy wrote: »

Fascinating thread.

I have a few questions that I would be very grateful to have answered.

Do people in the 'pro choice' camp believe that the right of the mother outweighs the rights of the foetus/ unborn child in all instances, along with any that the father of the foetus/ unborn child possesses?

I have seen posts that state (paraphrasing) 'give ppl the choice, its that simple. If you don't want an abortion, don't get one, but it must be made legal.'

If this is true - why does the 'right to choose' for the mother override any other concern such as the life or possible life that has been conceived combined with those of the father? I am interested in an answer based on morality not legality.

I apologize if this question offends anyone, that is not my intention. Perhaps it's lack of empathy or insight on my part but the answer doesn't seem obvious to me. Thanks.

That's one of the pivotal questions of the whole discussion. I don't think it would be fair to say that any one answer is correct, since every pregnancy is different. The health of the mother, the likely health of the child (if determinable), potential complications and how far along the pregnancy has come are all (some of the) variables.

If the health of the mother is very much at risk, if the child is looking very unhealthy, if serious complications are likely or if it is early in the pregnancy, then abortion becomes more justifiable, and vice versa.

This is why a blanket law that 'abortion must never be done' is morally questionable for me, since there is a wide spectrum of possibilities.

Macha

For me, if you refuse a woman the right to have an abortion, you reduce her status to that of a human incubator. And for me, this is unacceptable.

Plus as JamJamJamJam said, there are too many nuances in each situation to judge each situation case by case. Plus it is a time-sensitive scenario.

iguana

Sharrow wrote: »

20 years ago there was uproar in the country when the Lover Guide video was for sale, there was even an article on The Late Late show about it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uswOGpz5aKA

So there was moral panic in the country over sex, contraception and abortion.

OT, but that woman who's sex life doesn't reach it's biological heights was on the Frontline 18 months ago defending the church and bishops in the sex abuse scandals. There was a thread about it on the television forum at the time.

Monty Burnz

Macha wrote: »

Plus as JamJamJamJam said, there are too many nuances in each situation to judge each situation case by case. Plus it is a time-sensitive scenario.

Macha, apologies if I have the wrong end of the stick here, but I think you mean that there are too many nuances in each situation not to judge each situation case by case?

I agree entirely if so, but it sets up the problem, who is to judge?

Fluorescence

Perhaps a dr of some description?

Monty Burnz

iguana wrote: »

OT, but that woman who's sex life doesn't reach it's biological heights was on the Frontline 18 months ago defending the church and bishops in the sex abuse scandals. There was a thread about it on the television forum at the time.

I tend to believe that this is the type of person who, had they been born in Afghanistan, would be extolling the virtues of suicide bombers and striving to prevent girls learning to read or write. An accident of birth made them Catholic rather than Muslim fundamentalists.

That sort of mentality reminds me of how you tightly swaddle a young baby to help them sleep; similarly, some people are not comfortable with freedom of thought or action (especially the freedom of others) and they are happier living under constraints applied by authoritarian figures or organisations.

Macha

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Macha, apologies if I have the wrong end of the stick here, but I think you mean that there are too many nuances in each situation not to judge each situation case by case?

I agree entirely if so, but it sets up the problem, who is to judge?

Well, no, I mean there are too many nuances in each situation for some neutral person to come in and judge or decide if the women should be granted an abortion. Why, you think that should be the case?

Given it's a stressful and time-sensitive situation, I don't think any sort of case-by-case judgement mechanism could work. Plus, as you say, who is to judge?

Therefore, abortion should be left up to the woman concerned to decide. It is her body after all.

K-9

trackguy wrote: »

Fascinating thread.

I have a few questions that I would be very grateful to have answered.

Do people in the 'pro choice' camp believe that the right of the mother outweighs the rights of the foetus/ unborn child in all instances, along with any that the father of the foetus/ unborn child possesses?

I have seen posts that state (paraphrasing) 'give ppl the choice, its that simple. If you don't want an abortion, don't get one, but it must be made legal.'

If this is true - why does the 'right to choose' for the mother override any other concern such as the life or possible life that has been conceived combined with those of the father? I am interested in an answer based on morality not legality.

I apologize if this question offends anyone, that is not my intention. Perhaps it's lack of empathy or insight on my part but the answer doesn't seem obvious to me. Thanks.

Well I'd tend towards a more pro life view, but the reality is we are exporting 4/5,000 women a year to have abortions. The problem for me is that the nearest location, the UK, from what I know has increasing rates of abortion, other European countries have managed to reduce theirs. We really are leaving ourselves open and aren't trying to reduce the rate, just pretending it isn't there.

If it was legalised we'd have control of it and could look to what other countries have done to reduce the rate. Abortions aren't going to end over night, ignoring it isn't going to stop it either.

Now whether other countries success is down to societal issues and a more realistic attitude, and maybe the UK and Ireland just doesn't have their outlook on drink, sex etc., I don't know.

Monty Burnz

Macha wrote: »

Well, no, I mean there are too many nuances in each situation for some neutral person to come in and judge or decide if the women should be granted an abortion. Why, you think that should be the case?

Ah, ok, I understand your point now. It really is such a complex area, I'm changing my mind on this hour by hour at this stage. The only thing I'm sure of at this stage is that nobody has monopoly on the rights and wrongs of it.

Stheno

K-9 wrote: »

Well I'd tend towards a more pro life view, but the reality is we are exporting 4/5,000 women a year to have abortions. The problem for me is that the nearest location, the UK, from what I know has increasing rates of abortion, other European countries have managed to reduce theirs. We really are leaving ourselves open and aren't trying to reduce the rate, just pretending it isn't there.

If it was legalised we'd have control of it and could look to what other countries have done to reduce the rate.

I'd agree with this also, from the older bbc link I posted the UK have some of the most liberal abortion laws in the EU.

The stats that were quoted in the Daily Mail yesterday (I know!) that a prof life Alliance group procured through freedom of information support your point as well.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Ah, ok, I understand your point now. It really is such a complex area, I'm changing my mind on this hour by hour at this stage. The only thing I'm sure of at this stage is that nobody has monopoly on the rights and wrongs of it.

A good example of possible complexity is that of genetic disease where one or both parents can be a carrier, but not a sufferer of the condition.

In that scenario women may choose never to have children and risk their being sufferers of the disease, but testing may not be available in utero to rule it out.

trackguy

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Ah, ok, I understand your point now. It really is such a complex area, I'm changing my mind on this hour by hour at this stage. The only thing I'm sure of at this stage is that nobody has monopoly on the rights and wrongs of it.

My sentiments exactly.

I find aspects of both the pro-life and pro-choice arguments troubling but as others have stated, women are travelling abroad to have abortions. It is happening, regardless of any law in Ireland.

Women who find themselves pregnant and wanting an abortion are being forced to flee somewhere else for a solution. This is inhumane.

In my heart of hearts, I know, it must be legalized. The reason that this troubles me so much is that, whether it is legal or illegal, it presents deep moral problems.

Support and compassion are all can offer for the people involved. The first step is legalizing it.

Stheno

trackguy wrote: »

. The reason that this troubles me so much is that, whether it is legal or illegal, it presents deep moral problems.

What deep moral problems? That of the public accepting that we as a country have voted to legistlate for abortion to be legal in certain circumstances, or the moral issues women have when faced with the choice they have to make?

K-9

Stheno wrote: »

I'd agree with this also, from the older bbc link I posted the UK have some of the most liberal abortion laws in the EU.

The stats that were quoted in the Daily Mail yesterday (I know!) that a prof life Alliance group procured through freedom of information support your point as well.

It's a couple of years since I looked at it, but from memory Sweden and Switzerland had reduced rates after liberalising their laws. They tend to have more liberal and nuanced views on societal issues like drugs eg. liberal ideas but with Sweden anyway, strong Lutheran principles on social responsibility.

Esoteric_

Only noticed this thread now. I was working the day of the rally, on O'Connell Street. Was crossing over the road and they stopped me and tried to give me their smiley face stickers that say "I'm pro life" on them. I said (politely!) "No thank you," they asked why and I said "Well, I'm actually pro-choice." They looked at me like I was the devil and started giving out to me. I just told them to p!ss off and walked away.

I was polite at first and I have no problem with people being pro life (hell, I was pro life for about 5 years), but don't force your views on me. If I have a different opinion, let me go on with my day and you go on with yours.

Self righteous gits.

Stheno

K-9 wrote: »

It's a couple of years since I looked at it, but from memory Sweden and Switzerland had reduced rates after liberalising their laws. They tend to have more liberal and nuanced views on societal issues like drugs eg. liberal ideas but with Sweden anyway, strong Lutheran principles on social responsibility.

Is that wider laws or abortion laws? From the 2007 linke I posted the Uk had the most liberal laws for abortion in terms of time limits and reasons to allow it.

Wompa1

allandanyways wrote: »

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

This is not something I believe and haven't read through everything here but this statement has been posted a few times. I don't think the debate is about your body but that of the unborn child.

I think the catholic church stance is no condoms but also no pre-marital sex which would mean you'd be in a better position from a relationship and support stand point at least to have the child.

I'm not religous at all. My only real influences have been real life experience, I've known several girls who play fast and loose with the morning after pill which to me is a ridiculously stupid thing and will increase the spread of STDs incredibly.

Also I went to a thing called the Bodies Exhibition which was a bit of an eye opener because they had unborn foetuses of different stages and it was a bit creepy to think that the baby is so developed when it's being terminated.

But again I don't really feel strongly either way. There's a myth that in New York crime has plummeted 1.) Because Guliani cracked down on minor drug offenders 2.) Abortion was legalized a few decades ago so the unwanted kids of poor or single mothers weren't born and didn't turn into hell raisers

Logical Fallacy

I noticed this today on the Guardian site and thought people might like to read it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/05/ireland-anti-abortion-lobby-rally-for-life

As protests go, it was one of the stranger ones. Several thousand people from around Ireland lined the streets of Dublin at the weekend to fight for an issue that isn't being discussed in parliament or by the media or on the streets. The benignly titled Rally for Life was an anti-abortion protest made up of parents with young children, priests, nuns, pensioners and teenage girls, and it was a key part of the ongoing passive-aggressive abortion war that's being fought in Ireland.

The march itself was billed as a family day out. There were facepainters, a red open-top double-decker bus laden with balloons, and bright yellow T-shirts for participants. Hundreds of placards had giant smiley faces with the slogan "Protect Life" written on them. Others read: "Enda [Kenny, the Irish prime minister], keep your pro-life promise". Parents were encouraged to bring their children along, and many did. A Facebook page afterwards showed photos of teenagers with big smiles enjoying their first anti-abortion march.

But beneath the carefully manufactured surface, this was a pre-emptive and deliberate flexing of political muscle to warn politicians that there is an organised and well-funded radical anti-abortion lobby in Ireland, which will fight hard against any attempt to loosen some of the strictest abortion laws in the western world.

Abortion is generally illegal in Ireland but a constitutional loophole means that it is not always illegal. The supreme court in 1992 ruled that abortion is allowed if the mother's life is in danger (including a suicide risk). However, successive governments have cowered away from legislating on the decision, leaving a massive grey area: because there is no law covering it, there are no guidelines on who can obtain an abortion, and doctors have no framework on what they can and can't do to advise women effectively. In December of last year the European court of human rights issued a judgment and compelled the government to act on this grey area, and the new coalition government has announced a plan to set up an expert group by the end of the year to examine this. In the meantime, however, it is estimated that 12 Irish women travel to the UK every day (4,402 last year) to terminate a pregnancy.

Saturday's march was a deliberate part of the ongoing rebranding of the radical anti-abortion lobby to move away from its image of a dogmatic, fiercely Catholic movement. But elements remain: some protesters held rosary beads and waved pictures of the Virgin Mary at a smaller pro-choice march, which was held at the same time. Priests in cassocks walked alongside groups of teenagers. Some protesters held signs conflating abortion with sodomy.

The religious left, meanwhile, has by and large stayed out of the abortion debate, organising instead around issues such as poverty and social exclusion. Unlike in Britain, with its vocal tradition of the religious left, the Catholicism which once saturated Irish society has had such a strong lingering effect that even the Labour party – now in government – has taken a softly softly approach to abortion.

The government has a prime opportunity now to take the small but crucial step of legislating to allow abortion in Ireland when a woman's life is in danger. Currently still enjoying a honeymoon period since March's general election and the much-praised state visits of the Queen and President Barack Obama, there are no elections due until at least 2014 so political pressure is off. If it chose to, it could finally fix this. It has the support of the people: surveys show more than three-quarters of the population support allowing abortion if the mother's life is in danger. Other surveys show more than half of people under 35 favour the introduction of abortion more generally.

These more moderate voices – on both sides of the debate – need to be listened to. Instead, the discourse is often hijacked by emotive language and religion, as with Saturday's march, to stop any real debate from happening. This happened with the three previous abortion referendums in Ireland and, if the Rally for Life is an indicator, is in danger of polluting future debates.

Legalising abortion is still a long way from happening. Abortion debates in Ireland have always been quagmires and there is little stomach for them, even if the country wasn't currently battling its economic crisis. But the government now has an opportunity to make small but significant progress in the area – as long as it refuses to kowtow to the religious right.

K-9

Stheno wrote: »

Is that wider laws or abortion laws? From the 2007 linke I posted the Uk had the most liberal laws for abortion in terms of time limits and reasons to allow it.

Well more at abortion laws, as you say your link showed they have a very liberal law, there was an attempt to reduce the term recently and that was rejected?

Wider laws and societal issues probably explain why the rate has gone up in the UK but reduced in others. AFAIK, the law has been the same in the UK for a considerable period of time so if it's increasing I'd find that worrying, personally.

Sweden and Switzerland have their laws in for a good while and are liberal compared to ours and are reducing numbers. Could be just a different outlook on these things, more socially democratic whereas the UK would have a more Boston than Berlin outlook.

OkayWhatever

rainbow kirby wrote: »

One person's desire to have a child does not outweigh another's right to bodily integrity.

If anybody killed a new born baby, or child, there would be uproar, so why should killing an unborn baby be legalized? It's still a life that's being killed. Where it is when it's killed shouldn't make a difference.

drkpower

OkayWhatever wrote: »

Where it is when it's killed shouldn't make a difference.

Can you think of any reason why it might make a difference? Seriously, give it a few minutes and think about it.

OkayWhatever

drkpower wrote: »

Can you think of any reason why it might make a difference? Seriously, give it a few minutes and think about it.

You obviously missed the point that I made..??

WesternNight

OkayWhatever wrote: »

You obviously missed the point that I made..??

It's the same point that's been made and refuted a thousand times..

drkpower

OkayWhatever wrote: »

You obviously missed the point that I made..??

Perhaps you might clarify it then.

OkayWhatever

drkpower wrote: »

Perhaps you might clarify it then.

I understand completely what you're saying and the points you're making, but IMO a life is a life. That is all I'm trying to say.