Your right to an Abortion

Wompa1

fatmammycat wrote: »

You know why I didn't go to the exhibition you keep talking about? Respect. There was a huge question mark over where those bodies came from, with a great deal of evidence to suggest they were donated by the chinese from deceased prisoners. Did you look into that before you went along and paid your money?
You talk about respect, how about respecting women to know if and when they want to be pregnant.

Nope. Didn't know anything about it. I was in Vegas with my g/f who said she wanted to go so I went a long. What evidence suggested it was from prisoners? They did all look Asian alright!

fatmammycat

Wompa1 wrote: »

Nope. Didn't know anything about it. I was in Vegas with my g/f who said she wanted to go so I went a long. What evidence suggested it was from prisoners? They did all look Asian alright!

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/18/nyregion/18bodies.html?pagewanted=print


There is a lot more– and better– information out there too, google is your friend. I've got to get back to work.

K-9

iguana wrote: »

The fact that we evolved rather than were made of dust and ribs offends an awful lot of people. But quite frankly, tough! If people don't like facts, that's their own issue. Nobody is under any sort of social obligation to mince around with facts just because they don't suit someone else's agenda.

And the bunch of cells has very limited potential for human life, which is about as far away from my own personal agenda as you can get. Still doesn't change the facts though.

Don't want to make a big deal about, doesn't bother me that much.

Anyway, I'd say a 15% of miscarriage at 8 weeks is getting into the realms of pretty viable, that's a 85% of a normal birth. If I was offered that chance for say a successful operation I'd probably take it.

trackguy

Stheno wrote: »

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?

Both.

A woman has an abortion - issues that she has needed to address, for whatever reason, have been resolved. However, other issues have arisen. She has to deal with the aftermath and any physical and psychological damage. If she has no support, she must deal with it alone. If she has a partner, they both have to deal with it.

We must be aware of these issues when we vote on abortion.

Monty Burnz

fatmammycat wrote: »

Back in the good old sex free pre-abortion days, women with unwanted pregnancies often just killed the babies; often it wasn't even considered a crime.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/brizzlebornandbred/3411744452/

Indeed. As I stated much earlier in the thread, the unacceptability of infanticide is a cultural thing. The Spartans were quite comfortable with it. Whether aborted as a foetus or killed as a newborn, the consequence is the same for that pregnancy - it ends with no new person. Perhaps the real difference is in the mental/physical health of the woman involved?

sambuka41

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Whether aborted as a foetus or killed as a newborn, the consequence is the same for that pregnancy - it ends with no new person.

Not really everyone who is born dies. If baby is killed as a new born he/she dies sooner than the average life expectancy. That's not really the same a abortion.

Wompa1

fatmammycat wrote: »

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/18/nyregion/18bodies.html?pagewanted=print


There is a lot more– and better– information out there too, google is your friend. I've got to get back to work.

No evidence other than the accusations. Which are being contested by a professor. Going by the 4 links I checked on it. if you ever wanted to go the foetus section is completely seperate to the adults

py2006

fluorescence wrote: »

I would absolutely respect that decision, and choose not to sleep with him.

Your quote from me is slightly out of context. and the sleeping would have already been done! ;-)

Monty Burnz

sambuka41 wrote: »

Not really everyone who is born dies. If baby is killed as a new born he/she dies sooner than the average life expectancy. That's not really the same a abortion.

Well, we are getting into philosophical territory here again, and my earlier contributions along those lines were deemed quite unwelcome by the mods, so I'd better not say much. I will say that I don't disagree with you though.

Ellis Dee

fatmammycat wrote: »

Back in the good old sex free pre-abortion days, women with unwanted pregnancies often just killed the babies; often it wasn't even considered a crime.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/brizzlebornandbred/3411744452/

"Good old sex free pre-abortion days" - brilliant.:):)

Unfortunately, I lived in those days, and they weren't so good for everyone by a long shot. Naturally, the wealthy had all the rights, including the right to an abortion, but only in practice, not in theory. And if something went wrong, guess what ...?:rolleyes:

In fact, the last woman sentenced to death in Ireland was a certain Mamie Cadden, aka Nurse Cadden, who was the lady to see when one of the ruling classes found herself up the spout and it needed sorting.

She was sentenced to death in 1957 or 58 after one of her operations had a "negative treatment outcome", but her sentence was commuted to life imprisonment when she was ruled insane and incarcerated for the remainder of her life in the Central Criminal Lunatic Asylum. Why she was ruled insane has never been revealed, but the Health Board still refuses to release her file for the reason that "the release of these records would not respect the rights to privacy of third parties".

Clearly, she knew where a lot of bodies were buried (perhaps literally) and she also knew a lot of the intimate details of the hypocrisy of the priest-ridden state: she had the dirt on priests, bishops, gardaí and no doubt politicians too. But as a "criminal lunatic" her accusations could be dismissed. Meanwhile, the child sex abuse and the horrors in the gulag that the Ryan report so graphically described went on unchecked and unabated. Like all inmates of Dundrum, she was buried in a common grave when she died in 1959.

Ray Kavanagh wrote a brilliant book about the case (Mamie Cadden Backstreet Abortionist, Mercier press 2005). I'd warmly recommend it. Here's an article about it as well:

http://www.icl-fi.org/english/spi/index.html

ash23

I was always pro life until I found myself pregnant and dumped at 19. I went on to make the choice that was right for me which was to have my child.
However, I won't pretend my first thought was to have an abortion. And my parents offered to pay and to support me through it if that was what I wanted.

I am now pro choice as having been in that devestating situation where I found myself with an unwanted, unplanned pregnancy, I am glad that I had the option, that I could make the choice that was right for me at that time.
If it happened again I don't know what choice I would make. It would depend on the circumstances and how I felt about the pregnancy and the impact it would have on me. I can't guarantee that I will never have an abortion. I was so gung-ho about it before I was actually in that position.

I'm now of the opinion that it's for me to make my choices about my pregnancies and body but I wouldn't assume to make those choices for anyone else.

I would allow abortion up to about 22 weeks. Main reasons being some women don't realise they are pregnant until later into a pregnancy. But mainly because current procedure only offers women a scan at 20 weeks. So a woman may be planning on having her baby and a problem may arise at the 20 week scan and result in her needed/considering an abortion.

Personally if a pregnacy was known about and free from complication I wouldn't have an abortion past 15 weeks as it is then a D&E is needed. But thats just my personal choice. Unless I went for a 20 week scan and found out there was a problem, i would seriously consider having a later abortion.

JamJamJamJam

ash23 wrote: »

I was always pro life until I found myself pregnant and dumped at 19. I went on to make the choice that was right for me which was to have my child.
However, I won't pretend my first thought was to have an abortion. And my parents offered to pay and to support me through it if that was what I wanted.

I am now pro choice as having been in that devestating situation where I found myself with an unwanted, unplanned pregnancy, I am glad that I had the option, that I could make the choice that was right for me at that time.
If it happened again I don't know what choice I would make. It would depend on the circumstances and how I felt about the pregnancy and the impact it would have on me. I can't guarantee that I will never have an abortion. I was so gung-ho about it before I was actually in that position.

I'm now of the opinion that it's for me to make my choices about my pregnancies and body but I wouldn't assume to make those choices for anyone else.

I would allow abortion up to about 22 weeks. Main reasons being some women don't realise they are pregnant until later into a pregnancy. But mainly because current procedure only offers women a scan at 20 weeks. So a woman may be planning on having her baby and a problem may arise at the 20 week scan and result in her needed/considering an abortion.

Personally if a pregnacy was known about and free from complication I wouldn't have an abortion past 15 weeks as it is then a D&E is needed. But thats just my personal choice. Unless I went for a 20 week scan and found out there was a problem, i would seriously consider having a later abortion.

I thanked that post, and then removed my thanks just so I could thank it again
I agree with everything there After a certain time (like 15 weeks as you say), maybe it should only be legal to abort if there is a complication By then the parents have had quite a lot of time to decide that the pregnancy is not wanted and to get an abortion, and meanwhile the foetus is quickly becoming a baby.




This thread has made me want to start writing letters to politicians :rolleyes:

Ellis Dee

ash23 wrote: »

I was always pro life until I found myself pregnant and dumped at 19. I went on to make the choice that was right for me which was to have my child.
However, I won't pretend my first thought was to have an abortion. And my parents offered to pay and to support me through it if that was what I wanted.
.

What wonderful parents you are lucky to have! You must appreciate them a lot for caring more about you - their child - than some abstract ideas propagated by religious and other dogmatists. And for respecting your decision - either way. That is real pro-choice, and I hope you have had a lot of joy from your child as well.:)

I knew of another case, a university student who found herself pregnant after a one-off encounter and she was coming up to her final exams. She never even considered telling her parents, as they were really conservative Catholics and she believed they would just have sent her away to have the sprog in secret and then have it adopted. Fortunately, a few of her friends and acquaintances at the uni were able to scrape together a few bob and finance a trip to London for her.

Fluorescence

py2006 wrote: »

Your quote from me is slightly out of context. and the sleeping would have already been done! ;-)

Oh, so you mean after they find out the woman is pregnant the man comes out with this line? Well, I believe I mentioned somewhere earlier on this thread that men should be allowed to have some sort of legal abortion from the child. No rights, no responsibilities. It would be easily abused, but men should have the choice too. I'm firmly in the pro-choice camp

ash23

Ellis Dee wrote: »

What wonderful parents you are lucky to have! You must appreciate them a lot for caring more about you - their child - than some abstract ideas propagated by religious and other dogmatists. And for respecting your decision - either way. That is real pro-choice, and I hope you have had a lot of joy from your child as well.:)

My granny also offered me the money for an abortion. We're a very liberal bunch really

Ah no, see gran and mam both got pregnant out of wedlock and were forced into marriages that were miserable really.
So they are both of the mindframe that women should have more choices than they were offered when they were in that situation. They supported my choices either way and have been fantastic support since I got pregnant. My mother wasn't thrilled about the pregnancy but she has the sense to know that an abortion is an option if that is what I had wanted.
And when I chose against that she was there throughout the pregnancy and beyond. There was never pressure to do anything and the choice was entirely mine and as a result it's a choice that I am, and always have been, 100% happy with.

Please god, i'll never face the same situation with my own daughter but if I do I really hope I can do as my mam did for me and spare the lecture and judgement and just help her do what is right for her.

Ellis Dee

JamJamJamJam wrote: »

I thanked that post, and then removed my thanks just so I could thank it again
I agree with everything there After a certain time (like 15 weeks as you say), maybe it should only be legal to abort if there is a complication By then the parents have had quite a lot of time to decide that the pregnancy is not wanted and to get an abortion, and meanwhile the foetus is quickly becoming a baby.




This thread has made me want to start writing letters to politicians :rolleyes:

Well said! As to the bit I've boldfaced, however, knock yourself out, but I'm afraid all you're going to get back is a lot of "A Chairde --- blah, blah, blah --- Is mise le meas" merda taurorum.

py2006

fluorescence wrote: »

Oh, so you mean after they find out the woman is pregnant the man comes out with this line? Well, I believe I mentioned somewhere earlier on this thread that men should be allowed to have some sort of legal abortion from the child. No rights, no responsibilities. It would be easily abused, but men should have the choice too. I'm firmly in the pro-choice camp

Yea, so the women that shout 'my baby, my body' shouldn't be too put out IF a man shouts 'your baby, your body' and walks away!

Not suggesting ALL men should do this or anything like that.

ash23

py2006 wrote: »

Yea, so the women that shout 'my baby, my body' shouldn't be too put out IF a man shouts 'your baby, your body' and walks away!

Not suggesting ALL men should do this or anything like that.

A man can walk away from his child. His only legal obligation is financial. He isn't obliged to do anything more than set up a direct debit once a month into an account and he can walk.

Fluorescence

ash23 wrote: »

A man can walk away from his child. His only legal obligation is financial. He isn't obliged to do anything more than set up a direct debit once a month into an account and he can walk.

The question is though should he even be obliged to do that much? (personally I think it'd be scummy for him not to, but he shouldn't have to pay for a child he wanted nothing to do with and was clear about that from the beginning)

ash23

fluorescence wrote: »

The question is though should he even be obliged to do that much? (personally I think it'd be scummy for him not to, but he shouldn't have to pay for a child he wanted nothing to do with and was clear about that from the beginning)

Debateable.

Counter argument would be that if a woman wanted an abortion and he doesn't, should she make him pay for half? I mean, a woman is caught for the financial aspect whichever way she goes. Abortion? She has to pay. Adoption? She has to pay her pregnancy expenses. Having the child? She has to pay.

So if the woman has no choice in her financial responsibility after the conception, why should the man?

py2006

ash23 wrote: »

A man can walk away from his child. His only legal obligation is financial. He isn't obliged to do anything more than set up a direct debit once a month into an account and he can walk.

Yes I agree. But the baby is now his too. He can not choose to exclude himself fully like a woman can.

It would be an awful thing to do and the majority of men wouldn't do this.

Fluorescence

ash23 wrote: »

Debateable.

Counter argument would be that if a woman wanted an abortion and he doesn't, should she make him pay for half? I mean, a woman is caught for the financial aspect whichever way she goes. Abortion? She has to pay. Adoption? She has to pay her pregnancy expenses. Having the child? She has to pay.

So if the woman has no choice in her financial responsibility after the conception, why should the man?

Good point. It seems so unfair that the man has no choice no matter what his personal viewpoint is though. *shrug*

py2006

ash23 wrote: »

Debateable.

Counter argument would be that if a woman wanted an abortion and he doesn't, should she make him pay for half? I mean, a woman is caught for the financial aspect whichever way she goes. Abortion? She has to pay. Adoption? She has to pay her pregnancy expenses. Having the child? She has to pay.

So if the woman has no choice in her financial responsibility after the conception, why should the man?

Eh, I am sure men help financially if there is a joint decision. If the baby is kept men do have to pay as you said earlier!

ash23

py2006 wrote: »

Yes I agree. But the baby is now his too. He can not choose to exclude himself fully like a woman can.

It would be an awful thing to do and the majority of men wouldn't do this.

I'm just stating fact, not that it's right. Hey, I'm living it and I know the effect someone doing that to a child can have but there isn't any obligation for a man to form a relationship with his child other than moral.

Eh, I am sure men help financially if there is a joint decision. If the baby is kept men do have to pay as you said earlier!

my point was that if an abortion wasn't a joint decision the cost rests solely with the woman.

It seems so unfair that the man has no choice no matter what his personal viewpoint is though.

I suppose it is unfair but that's biology. A man has a choice though. To abstain from sex until he discusses the issue and is sure the woman would be on the same page as him if pregnancy occured or to use protection. His choice is more limited than a womans, agreed, but he isn't without any choice until conception and from then on his obligation is financial only.

metrovelvet

iguana wrote: »

So? Heartbeat doesn't mean viability. Heartbeat is detectable at 6 weeks, but at that point 15-25% of embryos spontaneously abort. At the time of your scan, you still had a 15% chance of miscarriage. That's not terribly viable.

Well, it was medically viable and scientifically viable, and according to the OB, absolutely viable.

metrovelvet

fluorescence wrote: »

The question is though should he even be obliged to do that much? (personally I think it'd be scummy for him not to, but he shouldn't have to pay for a child he wanted nothing to do with and was clear about that from the beginning)

As long as they are clear from the beginning, so you know what you are dealing with and you then not sleep with them.

But, there are cases, I know of one where HE persuaded her to have a child and then left, actually I know of two cases where that happenned. Sorry make that three. Direct debits. No relationship. They think they are the victims...women can have abortions....so...therefore....it's only fair.

Fluorescence

metrovelvet wrote: »

As long as they are clear from the beginning, so you know what you are dealing with and you then not sleep with them.

But, there are cases, I know of one where HE persuaded her to have a child and then left, actually I know of two cases where that happenned. Sorry make that three. Direct debits. No relationship. They think they are the victims...women can have abortions....so...therefore....it's only fair.

That is absolutely vile :eek:

K-9

py2006 wrote: »

It would be an awful thing to do and the majority of men wouldn't do this.

Which kind of begs the question, why legislate for it?

Wibbs

ash23 wrote: »

I suppose it is unfair but that's biology. A man has a choice though. To abstain from sex until he discusses the issue and is sure the woman would be on the same page as him if pregnancy occured or to use protection.

Great in theory ash, but it's not unusual for the woman to change her mind about termination when she actually gets pregnant(completely understandably too). It can also be the man who has this change of heart. So I'd certainly not advise a man(or woman) to rely on what's said before to the realities of after. The only real choice a man has is to abstain from sex that might lead to a pregnancy. Contraception is a slightly variable choice, given the failure rates. After the pregnancy occurs the only choice open is stay or leave. The latter is socially unacceptable in 99% of cases, regardless of the background story*.

While in regard to pregnancy obviously the case is strong, I'm also slightly cautious about appeals to biology when it comes to gender, as many's the ship of equality has perished on the rocks of that idea. Indeed the history of inequality and chauvinism aimed at women throughout the ages has often, if not largely been predicated on the appeal to biology idea. Too often it has been an argument that suits when it suits, depending on viewpoint.

metrovelvet wrote:

But, there are cases, I know of one where HE persuaded her to have a child and then left, actually I know of two cases where that happenned. Sorry make that three. Direct debits. No relationship. They think they are the victims...women can have abortions....so...therefore....it's only fair.

Christ. Talk about wastes of space. Mad to boot and funny enough MV you can add another two twats like that to your list from my experience.




*IMHO there are some rare enough cases where him leaving may be condoned or less vilified anyway. EG entrapment, rarer than the more paranoid male may believe but still happens, or even cases of being pregnant by another guy and claiming it's the primary guy(happened to a close friend, yet he got major stick from a few sources for scraping her off)

Monty Burnz

Ellis Dee wrote: »

What wonderful parents you are lucky to have! You must appreciate them a lot for caring more about you - their child - than some abstract ideas propagated by religious and other dogmatists.

To be fair, I don't think it's fair to characterise people whose opinions differ from yours as 'dogmatists'. They do exist of course, on both sides of the debate.