Your right to an Abortion

drkpower

OkayWhatever wrote: »

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.

But 'a life is a life' doesnt really mean anything at all.

And have you considered yet why the location of that life within another's body might make a difference?.

Wompa1

drkpower wrote: »

But 'a life is a life' doesnt really mean anything at all.

And have you considered yet why the location of that life within another's body might make a difference?.

Here comes a very very very unpopular statement both for men and women of my generation and because it ignores all the caveats e.g. women who are raped, are in risk of dying etc. But here it goes: that life is in that persons body through the actions of themselves. If you can't afford to get pregnant, don't have sex...it's not the unborn childs fault you and your b/f, ONS or F**k buddy couldn't keep it in your pants.

And I do have sex with my girlfriends out of wedlock, I'm not meaning to sound like a hypocrite. But it kind of sounds like we as people are trying to toss the responsibility here. where does the line get drawn? What if the woman is getting an abortion because she got pregnant from a one night stand? it is her body but it was also her risk when she had the one night stand. I really don't know...9 months carrying a child you might resent isn't good either but doesn't the logical thing seem to be cut down on the risky sex?? for guys and girls...not just girls

OkayWhatever

Wompa1 wrote: »

Here comes a very very very unpopular statement both for men and women of my generation and because it ignores all the caveats e.g. women who are raped, are in risk of dying etc. But here it goes: that life is in that persons body through the actions of themselves. If you can't afford to get pregnant, don't have sex...it's not the unborn childs fault you and your b/f, ONS or F**k buddy couldn't keep it in your pants.

And I do have sex with my girlfriends out of wedlock, I'm not meaning to sound like a hypocrite. But it kind of sounds like we as people are trying to toss the responsibility here. where does the line get drawn? What if the woman is getting an abortion because she got pregnant from a one night stand? it is her body but it was also her risk when she had the one night stand. I really don't know...9 months carrying a child you might resent isn't good either but doesn't the logical thing seem to be cut down on the risky sex?? for guys and girls...not just girls

You're going to get so much sh1t said to you for that, but i totally agree with you.

drkpower

Wompa1 wrote: »

Here comes a very very very unpopular statement both for men and women of my generation and because it ignores all the caveats e.g. women who are raped, are in risk of dying etc. But here it goes: that life is in that persons body through the actions of themselves. If you can't afford to get pregnant, don't have sex...it's not the unborn childs fault you and your b/f, ONS or F**k buddy couldn't keep it in your pants.

Even if that were a reasonable moral point to make, what does it add to the debate, and to the reality. Do you suggest that those who act 'recklessly' and end up pregnant should have different 'abortion rights' to those who do not act recklessly?

Can you think of any problems that might arise?

Wompa1

drkpower wrote: »

Even if that were a reasonable moral point to make, what does it add to the debate, and to the reality. Do you suggest that those who act 'recklessly' and end up pregnant should have different 'abortion rights' to those who do not act recklessly?

Can you think of any problems that might arise?

No I doubt you could have different rights because it would be impossible to detect. It would just have to result in no abortions for anyone.

But I'm not exactly married to that idea...I'm just throwing my 2 cents in. It doesn't seem to have been mentioned before now.

drkpower

Wompa1 wrote: »

No I doubt you could have different rights because it would be impossible to detect. It would just have to result in no abortions for anyone.

But I'm not exactly married to that idea...I'm just throwing my 2 cents in. It doesn't seem to have been mentioned before now.

Thats because it doesnt add anything to the debate, I suspect.

Wompa1

drkpower wrote: »

Thats because it doesnt add anything to the debate, I suspect.

ok...single Irish (not any other nationalities) parents numbers are on the rise and I don't want to throw stones or upset anybody on here but that to me would indicate a shift in the attitude towards sex here. Both men and women in this country have become much more for want of a better term 'sexually liberated' in the past 10-15 years. In my opinion chivillary is dead with guys and ladies are using sex as a form of empowerment.

for a tasteless pun can I please abort this discussion. I know my viewpoint won't be in line with the majority of the posters here.

drkpower

Wompa1 wrote: »

ok...single Irish (not any other nationalities) parents numbers are on the rise and I don't want to throw stones or upset anybody on here but that to me would indicate a shift in the attitude towards sex here. Both men and women in this country have become much more for want of a better term 'sexually liberated' in the past 10-15 years. In my opinion chivillary is dead with guys and ladies are using sex as a form of empowerment..

What does any of the above have to do with the abortion question?

Wompa1

drkpower wrote: »

What does any of the above have to do with the abortion question?

That perhaps legalizing abortion isn't the way to go and trying to change people attitude towards sex might be better aimed.

Probably not but it's an alternative.

drkpower

Wompa1 wrote: »

That perhaps legalizing abortion isn't the way to go and trying to change people attitude towards sex might be better aimed.

Probably not but it's an alternative.

Will changing people's attitudes to sex resolve the 'need' for abortions in all of the various scenarios?

Wompa1

drkpower wrote: »

Will changing people's attitudes to sex resolve the 'need' for abortions in all of the various scenarios?

no, that's why I pre-empted by saying it was ignoring the caveats e.g. when a woman has been raped or her own life is under threat by having the child. But these would be exceptionally cases anyway.

Xiney

I quite like my empowered attitude towards sex.

In fact, I quite like sex point final, and there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT.


I take precautions. I've only ever had one partner and I married him. I've never been pregnant, not even had a real scare.




But I will NOT give up my right to abort an unwanted pregnancy. My life is my own, I enjoy living it the way I wish to and being a productive member of society rather than a drain (I wager financial/career reasons rank highly among the reasons to have an abortion, certainly they are my reason)

LaBaguette

Wompa1 wrote: »

If you can't afford to get pregnant, don't have sex...

Lolwut ? Are you really saying this ?

If you can't afford to have children, don't get pregnant. That means contraceptions in whatever form you might prefer AND the possibility of early abortion, because nothing is faultproof. But by all means enjoy what life can give you, and that includes healthy amounts of sex, even if you're an arts student.

Re: "a life is a life", no I don't think it is. Pinpointing when cells can be called "life" is tricky (and indeed the core of the issue), but I'd guess it's somewhere near the start of brain activity, as someone posted earlier. A two-hour embryo probably is as conscious as a lemon tree, and I'd cut my lemon treet without second thoughts if I had to. And yes I equal life with conscience. Unless every sperm is sacred ?

And anyway, these moral considerations are for the parents to ponder. Law must allow them to make that choice.

Macha

Wompa1 wrote: »

Here comes a very very very unpopular statement both for men and women of my generation and because it ignores all the caveats e.g. women who are raped, are in risk of dying etc. But here it goes: that life is in that persons body through the actions of themselves. If you can't afford to get pregnant, don't have sex...it's not the unborn childs fault you and your b/f, ONS or F**k buddy couldn't keep it in your pants.

And I do have sex with my girlfriends out of wedlock, I'm not meaning to sound like a hypocrite. But it kind of sounds like we as people are trying to toss the responsibility here. where does the line get drawn? What if the woman is getting an abortion because she got pregnant from a one night stand? it is her body but it was also her risk when she had the one night stand. I really don't know...9 months carrying a child you might resent isn't good either but doesn't the logical thing seem to be cut down on the risky sex?? for guys and girls...not just girls

So for you it's about forcing the woman to "take responsibility" for getting pregnant. But then you acknowledge that there are scenarios where it isn't the woman's fault, ie being raped, but she should still be forced to carry the pregnancy to term. I think that's quite an inconsistency in your position.

And where are the measures forcing men to take responsibility for getting a woman pregnant? It is incredibly easy for a guy to walk away from a pregnant women. So basically what you're really saying is that the woman should take responsibility for both her and the man's actions. For me, this begs the question, when are we going to stop treating women as the guardians of chastity and morality?? (It's bad enough so many are given awful, loaded names like Chastity, Purity, Faith, Honour)

Ironically, those who shout the loudest against giving women choice on abortion today, were the ones who shouted the loudest against contraception in the past, which led to thousands of unnecessary abortions.

And THAT is why this isn't about the foetus, it's about controlling women's fertility as if it's a public good.

Side note: This manifests itself in other realms, most interestingly in sport, where the main argument down the years for banning women from participating has focused on damage to her fertility. Think: marathon running, ski jumping (which, suspiciously, women are better at than men & it still isn't an Olympic sport for women). It's also been used as an argument to ban women from being educated or allowed to drive.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Interesting article from the guardian. Was this brought up when it was oh so essential we legislated for blasphemy based on the constitution?

drkpower

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Interesting article from the guardian. Was this brought up when it was oh so essential we legislated for blasphemy based on the constitution?

Certainly was. Apparently, simply ignoring the constitutional issue/conflict/problem vis-a-vis blasphemy was not an acceptable solution for the government, while it has remained an acceptable solution vis-a-vis abortion for almost a decade now.

Wompa1

Didn't think it would go down well. Since I've started having sex I've always been aware of the risk and willing to deal with the consequences. Advancing in my career or having a ONS to me wouldn't merit killing a living being. But then I'm somebody who would try and get a wasp or bee out the window, rather than kill it.

bronte

Wompa1 wrote: »

But then I'm somebody who would try and get a wasp or bee out the window, rather than kill it.

I'm the type of person who lifts snails out of harms way on the footpath so people won't step on them, but I've managed to understand that women are not the sum of one of their body parts.

K-9

The underage percentage rate in pregnancies has been dropping for the last few years so the message is getting through there. IIRC the increased rate is women in their 30's but I'm not sure if that carries through to single pregnancies.

I'd agree with the responsibility thing to a degree, I'd say a big difference in countries that have reduced their rates and the UK would be the attitude to drink! Whether we could overcome that I'm not sure.

Wompa1

bronte wrote: »

I'm the type of person who lifts snails out of harms way on the footpath so people won't step on them, but I've managed to understand that women are not the sum of one of their body parts.

I don't think an unborn child is classed as a body part?

bronte

Wompa1 wrote: »

I don't think an unborn child is classed as a body part?

I was talking about the woman's uterus.

Malari

Wompa1 wrote: »

Didn't think it would go down well. Since I've started having sex I've always been aware of the risk and willing to deal with the consequences. Advancing in my career or having a ONS to me wouldn't merit killing a living being. But then I'm somebody who would try and get a wasp or bee out the window, rather than kill it.

So have I. But people's "dealing with consequences" and being responsible are not the same thing.

It's not just "my body, my choice" for me, it's "my body, my choice, and are you sure you are ok with that before you get in bed with me?"

Wompa1

bronte wrote: »

I was talking about the woman's uterus.

The womans uterus will be ok, they are remarkably durable.

Wompa1

Malari wrote: »

So have I. But people's "dealing with consequences" and being responsible are not the same thing.

It's not just "my body, my choice" for me, it's "my body, my choice, and are you sure you are ok with that before you get in bed with me?"

Yeah I always have that talk too

bronte

Wompa1 wrote: »

The womans uterus will be ok, they are remarkably durable.

You are effectively advocating forced birth.

Malari

Wompa1 wrote: »

Yeah I always have that talk too

So you understand that once the two people involved are in agreement as to how the sometimes unintended consequences of having sex are going to be dealt with, that is also taking responsibility.

py2006

Malari wrote: »

It's not just "my body, my choice" for me, it's "my body, my choice, and are you sure you are ok with that before you get in bed with me?"

If you get pregnant and decide to keep your baby. In equal measure would you accept a man saying "your body, your baby, I am off"

Not my view point necessarily, just interested in the reaction.

southsiderosie

Wompa1 wrote: »

Didn't think it would go down well. Since I've started having sex I've always been aware of the risk and willing to deal with the consequences. Advancing in my career or having a ONS to me wouldn't merit killing a living being. But then I'm somebody who would try and get a wasp or bee out the window, rather than kill it.

But the consequences of an unplanned pregnancy for a woman and for a man are biologically, socially, and economically different. So it's all well and good to say that you are willing to accept the consequences, but those consequences will vary significantly between you and your partner.

Wompa1

Malari wrote: »

So you understand that once the two people involved are in agreement as to how the sometimes unintended consequences of having sex are going to be dealt with, that is also taking responsibility.

Dealt with by killing a baby? I know my place as a man, it's not my choice. If a girl I'm going out with says she'd have an abortion I'd respect her decision but also make her aware that I'd prefer to father the child even if I had to do it alone. It's probably why like I said I'm not married being anti-abortion or pro-abortion. The only reason I've been replying is because a lot of the posts on here seem to be pretty cavalier. Like it's my body and a life is a life doesn't mean anything...how much does an abortion cost actually?

Malari

py2006 wrote: »

If you get pregnant and decide to keep your baby. In equal measure would you accept a man saying "your body, your baby, I am off"

Not my view point necessarily, just interested in the reaction.

I am not having a baby. But yes, in my current relationship I would totally understand if I did a 180 on that decision that my boyfriend would see it as a deal-breaker.

Wompa1 wrote: »

Dealt with by killing a baby? I know my place as a man, it's not my choice. If a girl I'm going out with says she'd have an abortion I'd respect her decision but also make her aware that I'd prefer to father the child even if I had to do it alone. It's probably why like I said I'm not married being anti-abortion or pro-abortion. The only reason I've been replying is because a lot of the posts on here seem to be pretty cavalier. Like it's my body and a life is a life doesn't mean anything...how much does an abortion cost actually?

Yes, like I said, it's not your choice but it has also been the choice of my sexual partners that they don't want children as much as I don't, so they know what is happening before any accidental pregancy occurs.

For me, it's not about someone else looking after the baby, or someone else adopting it. I don't want a child that I gave birth to existing. I don't want to be pregnant. That is my choice, but it's also something my boyfriend is acutely aware of, because I think that's only fair.

Oh, and I don't know how much an abortion costs, thankfully I haven't actually had to go down that road.