Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Your right to an Abortion

Options
13567…32

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    wild_cat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,291 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #63
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #64
    wild_cat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,291 ✭✭✭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!


  • Options
    #65
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #66
    drkpower
    Registered Users Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭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;).


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #68
    wild_cat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,291 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #69
    drkpower
    Registered Users Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #70
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #71
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭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...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #73
    rainbow kirby
    Registered Users Posts: 26,928 ✭✭✭✭rainbow kirby


    gargleblaster wrote: »
    I call them anti-choice myself.

    Or pro-forced birth.


  • Options
    #74
    lace
    Registered Users Posts: 400 ✭✭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.


  • Options
    #75
    HellFireClub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,912 ✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #76
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #77
    gargleblaster
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,425 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #78
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #79
    drkpower
    Registered Users Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #80
    drkpower
    Registered Users Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭drkpower


    Wolfe Tone wrote: »
    Legally in this country would the label "murderer" apply to someone who preformed such an act?
    No.


  • Options
    #81
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #83
    drkpower
    Registered Users Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #84
    lace
    Registered Users Posts: 400 ✭✭lace


    Outdated law is exactly the problem here


  • Options
    #85
    drkpower
    Registered Users Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #86
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    lace wrote: »
    Outdated law is exactly the problem here
    When was the last abortion referendum held? Hardly outdated


  • Options
    #87
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #88
    wild_cat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,291 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #89
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #90
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭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. :)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    gargleblaster
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,425 ✭✭✭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.


Advertisement