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
Termination of Preganancy Bill
-
21-04-2012 9:05pm#1The last few threads on this had to be closed, so hopefully this one will fare better.
As most people know, the Medical Treatment (Termination of Pregnancy in Case of Risk to Life of Pregnant Woman) Bill , which was proposed by the ULA & Mick Wallace, was defeated in the Dail last week.
What some people may have missed, was Mick Wallace's reading of a letter he received from a constituent who found herself in an impossible situation arising out of Ireland's failure to legislate for pregnant women who, for one reason for another, seek to undergo an abortion of their pregnancy.My colleagues and I have received a large number of e-mails and letters from people caught in this terrible situation. One of these letters tells a story which many may not have heard. I will read it out in full:
Please take time to read this e-mail and consider why abortion should be legalised in Ireland. I am not saying it should be fully legalised, but I also do not think it is enough just to legalise it where the mother’s life is in danger. I will explain as I go. I had always been someone who said I would never have an abortion. Unfortunately, I did not know what lay ahead for me. I was with my husband ten years when we decided it was time to have children. Much to our delight, after ten months, I finally fell pregnant. I did everything right, took perfect care of myself as I was trying to conceive. My bump grew and I began to feel my lovely baby kick me and move about.
I finally received an appointment for my first scan at 22 weeks, on Christmas week in 2010, and here it all changed. When I had my scan I was told that my beautiful daughter had a condition called anencephaly, a neural tube defect which means part of her brain and skull had not formed properly while everything else had grown perfectly normally. The short of it was that our daughter had no hope of surviving and would die without a doubt. If she survived the pregnancy, she would probably die at birth or within a few hours. To say we were heartbroken is an understatement. We were told in Ireland that I had to carry my baby to full term. I was told I would not be brought in early; in fact, I would be left to go two weeks over. I would not be given a Caesarean section and would have to go through the labour. Alternatively, I could travel to the UK to terminate our pregnancy.
How would I cope emotionally? How could I keep going day by day and feel the baby inside me? How would I deal with the questions from well-meaning people: “When is your baby due?” How could I watch my perfect baby struggle and die in my arms? After much deliberation I felt it would be too difficult to continue with the pregnancy knowing our daughter was going to die and opted for a termination in the UK on New Year’s Eve 2010, at 24 weeks. Because of our laws I was not allowed to receive any help from the hospital here. I was given one recommendation of a well known UK clinic and we went with this. I was treated so coldly. They had no understanding that I did not want to terminate this pregnancy. I wanted this baby so much but she was going to die. No medical intervention could prevent this.
To put this into context, the well reported comments of Michelle Mulhern are probably not worth repeating here, but they can be found via the following link.
http://debates.oireachtas.ie/dail/2012/04/19/00006.asp
I know the issue of what is rather unfortunately termed "abortion on demand" is a contentious one, so maybe it might be best for people to leave that issue aside for now and only focus on the issues regarding seriously ill foetuses or cases where the mother's life is in danger.
Can we agree, for example, that a woman carrying a baby with anencephaly such as in the example of Depty Wallace's letter, ought to be given access to abortion in Ireland?
And what threats to the mother's life should the Dail legislate for, if it is to clearly establish the situations whereby women can access abortions as per the European Convention on Human Rights Ruling of 2011? I would suggest that a risk of suicide is a legitimate risk to the mother's life that should permit access to an abortion, would others agree?14
Comments
-
Join Date:Posts: 13683
Abortions for some, small American flags for everybody else.
There really is no agreement to e reached in the abortion debate, although having to travel to Belfast is about the only impediment to getting an abortion.0 -
Northern Ireland has similar abortion laws to the Republic, except slightly clearer in their denials.0
-
Its utter insanity they won't 'teminate' in cases of Anencephaly, the baby is effectively dead by any human standards.
Basically the brain doesn't develop. The foetus that grows is in life terms no different to a miscarriage that for some reason needs to be surgically removed. If you're looking it up for more information be aware you're likely to run into some very disturbing images.
I can see why there's debate about regular abortions, I can see why there's debate for cases such as rape, I can see why there's debate about aborting babies with down syndrome, but with anencephaly there should be no debate at all.0 -
Hard to believe that this is still going on - the constitution is clear:40 3 3° The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.
The right in principle to an abortion in circumstances where pregnancy endangers the mother has been settled for 20 years:This conclusion leads inevitably to the recognition that the wording of the Amendment contemplates abortion lawfully taking place within this State.
Hard to believe that our governments have been so terrified of rocking the boat that no action has been taken on this. Utter cowardice.
For me, a credible threat of suicide, based on the totality of the circumstances, such as that in the X case, should be sufficient, but in any event, some action on this is long past due. Whatever you think about Wallace in general, he's right in this instance. This idea that we can just export the problem to the UK ... that as long as pregnant women can travel, even in extreme circumstances such as those contemplated in the bill, sure isn't it grand for them and everybody's happy?0 -
I'd be for this completely. I understand why you're asking people not to discuss the whole 'abortion on demand' type argument, but I think peoples' opinions will still be formed by whatever their understanding of that concept is. For the people who would deny this woman's right to terminate her pregnancy when the baby has no chance of survival doesn't take away from their understanding of the right to life. I guess similar in some ways to voluntary euthanasia. Because they understand the right of the life of the baby as central here, the right of the mother to choose doesn't come in to the argument. Regardless of the specifics.0
-
Advertisement
-
I think that in certain circumstances, abortion is a sound option for an individual to choose. If a woman has been raped, if giving birth would pose a significant risk to her health or if the child would be born with a dilapidating condition then ending the pregnancy is, perhaps, the best decision to be made. This could be said of various other situations too.
On the other hand, abortion on demand is not something I would ever support. I don't take this stance for any religious or chauvinistic reason it's simply a case that I do firmly believe that life begins at conception and not at birth. An infant in the womb may be dependant on its mother to survive but it is alive and it is human. I can not morally bring myself to accept that it is right to terminate that life without a very, very good reason.
I'm aware that some might disagree with me and I request that if anyone wishes to argue with me on my opinion, they do so in a respectful manner.0 -
I truly can't understand how so many ignore the obvious right to life of an innocent baby. Of course the situation of a baby born with Anencephaly is heartbreaking. I am pregnant myself and also have another young baby and I would be devastated if I was given this news. However, that would never give me the right to decide that my little baby would have to die because I couldn't face watching my beautiful baby die. How could I choose to abort my child to protect myself from the further misery of watching my baby die? How is that protecting my child? It would instead be protecting myself. I would see it as my responsibility as my child's mother to ensure that he or she was as comfortable as possible and given the best care possible for the time that he / she had. That is the job of a mother, no matter how difficult, not to decide to end your child's life.
Sadly, life is not easy and we are sometimes faced with very difficult situations. No matter how our society changes, the responsibility of a mother and the right to life of an innocent baby will never change. Of course, the right to life of a mother is always essential, but let's be honest and not kid ourselves anymore - it is a very rare situation that a Mother's health is in danger.
I hope that someone will renew my faith in humanity and show that there are people out there who recognize that an innocent, dependent baby needs society to protect them.0 -
I truly can't understand how so many ignore the obvious right to life of an innocent baby. Of course the situation of a baby born with Anencephaly is heartbreaking. I am pregnant myself and also have another young baby and I would be devastated if I was given this news. However, that would never give me the right to decide that my little baby would have to die because I couldn't face watching my beautiful baby die. How could I choose to abort my child to protect myself from the further misery of watching my baby die? How is that protecting my child? It would instead be protecting myself. I would see it as my responsibility as my child's mother to ensure that he or she was as comfortable as possible and given the best care possible for the time that he / she had. That is the job of a mother, no matter how difficult, not to decide to end your child's life.
Sadly, life is not easy and we are sometimes faced with very difficult situations. No matter how our society changes, the responsibility of a mother and the right to life of an innocent baby will never change. Of course, the right to life of a mother is always essential, but let's be honest and not kid ourselves anymore - it is a very rare situation that a Mother's health is in danger.
I hope that someone will renew my faith in humanity and show that there are people out there who recognize that an innocent, dependent baby needs society to protect them.
I feel that women unfortunately get maternal and equate a smiling baby with what is developing inside themselves. Case point example in the post above where the word 'baby' is used used in the context of killing a baby when getting an abortion. That terminology betrays a blinkered view on abortion.0 -
RandolphEsq wrote: »I feel that women unfortunately get maternal and equate a smiling baby with what is developing inside themselves. Case point example in the post above where the word 'baby' is used used in the context of killing a baby when getting an abortion. That terminology betrays a blinkered view on abortion.
So what then would you call an unborn infant?0 -
RandolphEsq, I would suggest that your post is the blinkered one on two fronts.
1. Surely a baby deserves that their mother would be maternal - what is that we are debating here only pregnancy and motherhood.
2. I refer to the child in question as a baby. What else are we referring to but a baby???? What does a pregnant woman say to her family and friends..... "I am expecting a......" can you enlighten me???? Not using the term "baby" is simply trying to blinker the facts of the matter.
Of course every potential mother imagines their child smiling but sadly life often takes over and a baby may not have the health that we would all wish for. My exact point is that it is then that a baby needs his / her Mother more.0 -
Advertisement
-
Yeah, the mother is expecting a baby, but what she has in her is not actually a baby yet.RandolphEsq, I would suggest that your post is the blinkered one on two fronts.
1. Surely a baby deserves that their mother would be maternal - what is that we are debating here only pregnancy and motherhood.
2. I refer to the child in question as a baby. What else are we referring to but a baby???? What does a pregnant woman say to her family and friends..... "I am expecting a......" can you enlighten me???? Not using the term "baby" is simply trying to blinker the facts of the matter.
Of course every potential mother imagines their child smiling but sadly life often takes over and a baby may not have the health that we would all wish for. My exact point is that it is then that a baby needs his / her Mother more.RichardAnd wrote: »So what then would you call an unborn infant?
An embryo or a fetus I think.
But for the purposes of the current abortion debate, the issue is not a black or white, abortion is right or wrong debate, the life of the mother needs to be taken into account. For this reason, we need to discuss the balancing of the rights of the mother and the unborn. Since I would be in favour of abortion in general, I would obviously be in favour of abortions in this specific situation too.0 -
I truly can't understand how so many ignore the obvious right to life of an innocent baby. Of course the situation of a baby born with Anencephaly is heartbreaking. I am pregnant myself and also have another young baby and I would be devastated if I was given this news. However, that would never give me the right to decide that my little baby would have to die because I couldn't face watching my beautiful baby die. ............
Yes, but either way its going to die, which is the brutal truth of it. And, as you may well be aware of, it's not like pregnancy takes place over a long weekend. Not everyone is going to take those months well, to put it mildly.0 -
Given that any expectant mother who wishes can travel to the UK for an abortion, what exactly does the ban on abortion in Ireland achieve? At best the salving of the consciences of a few and pandering to the desires of the church. Ultimately, those women who are intent on abortion will have them, circumstances permitting, the ban only affects those who can't afford to do it, it doesn't actually prevent abortions taking place.
I find the "not on my patch" attitude a bit hypocritical.0 -
I truly can't understand how so many ignore the obvious right to life of an innocent baby. Of course the situation of a baby born with Anencephaly is heartbreaking. I am pregnant myself and also have another young baby and I would be devastated if I was given this news. However, that would never give me the right to decide that my little baby would have to die because I couldn't face watching my beautiful baby die. How could I choose to abort my child to protect myself from the further misery of watching my baby die?
That's your choice. You have no right to impose it on other mothers. In the case you cited, the child is already dead, you want to force mothers to grow the body to term just so they can suffer.0 -
Personally I'm against abortion but I'd rather have people choose for themselves without state interference.
It would be in the country's best interests too if half of the single mothers breeding to avail of the hand out culture were to terminate their pregnancy.
Controversial I know but thats how I feel on it.0 -
I have never understood why people become so squemish around this subject. Even as some of the comments here have shown, the issue becomes very emotive very quickly. Human nature I suppose.
From my own point of view, I'd see the issue in very simple terms. Legalise abortion full-stop. We've already got something like 4500 women traveling for abortions each year, or certainly last year if I remember where I got that figure from. It's highly hypocritical of us as a nation to maintain this situation so that we can be happy to say that abortion on demand isn't here. We're simply exporting the problem. We're good at exporting our problems as those currently heading to Aus etc. to find work will attest to.
It takes leadership and courage to finally stand up and call things as they are and move to change the situation. Even if abortion became legal and available in the morning, it's doubtful there'd be a rush in the takeup greater than that we see already, nor a sudden explosion in unwanted pregnancies due to a correlated sudden catastrophic abandonment of personal responsibility. In the end, those who genuinely needed the option would have it, and the level of support and advice available would be far more balanced and useful.
For each of us as individuals, it's easy to say that we wouldn't do something but I believe you have to walk a mile in somebody's shoes before you can judge them. What any of us believe can suddenly change when we're challenged by circumstances we did not foresee. If I found myself in a similar situation, I'd rather deal with it with the help of my own contacts than be treated like a lepper and have to rely on incomplete information. It's time that things moved on in this country.0 -
In the case of the mothers life being in danger. I think it rather silly that this has not been legislated for already. The various governments over the years have really dropped the ball on that one. Also, in a case like the one highlighted by the OP, I think should be legal as well.0
-
That's your choice. You have no right to impose it on other mothers. In the case you cited, the child is already dead, you want to force mothers to grow the body to term just so they can suffer.
This basically sums it up for me. Let the individual and potentially their other half/parents etc. decide. Don't have the government tell people want to do, and don't have other peoples views imposed on people.
If you are against abortion, don't have one.
If you aren't and feel it's your last option, well that's your choice.0 -
RichardAnd wrote: »So what then would you call an unborn infant?
A human organism, yes, but a human being - uncertain.DanDan6592 wrote: »This basically sums it up for me. Let the individual and potentially their other half/parents etc. decide. Don't have the government tell people want to do, and don't have other peoples views imposed on people.
If you are against abortion, don't have one.
If you aren't and feel it's your last option, well that's your choice.
But that argument makes no sense; people who are anti-abortion believe that unborn foetuses are human beings and are thus entitled to the same protection under law as any other human beings; one may as well say "if you are against murder, don't kill anyone, but don't question other people's right to kill those who bother them." I don't believe an unborn foetus can be considered a proper human, at least not in the early months, but if I did, of course I would see abortion as murder.
But again that doesn't make sense. Irish men travel abroad and have sex with child prostitutes; is that an argument that it should be permitted here? Again, I'm not opposed to abortion, but it's quite illogical that Irish law gives legal protection to a foetus once it's in the state, but permits the foetus being taken out of the state for the express purpose of murdering* it and then allows the killer* return to the state with impunity.Given that any expectant mother who wishes can travel to the UK for an abortion, what exactly does the ban on abortion in Ireland achieve? At best the salving of the consciences of a few and pandering to the desires of the church. Ultimately, those women who are intent on abortion will have them, circumstances permitting, the ban only affects those who can't afford to do it, it doesn't actually prevent abortions taking place.
I find the "not on my patch" attitude a bit hypocritical.
*I'm using these terms because that is the Irish law's point of view re. abortion.0 -
Giving suicidal women the right to kill the unborn doesn't solve anything because every Jacintah will just say "aw yeah, I'm totally suicidal like!!!!"
Think of the medical staff who have to perform the operation when they've taken vows to protect life.
Say what you want but life starts at conception. Ending life is murder.0 -
Advertisement
-
Atomicjuicer wrote: »
Think of the medical staff who have to perform the operation when they've taken vows to protect life.
Doctors who work in abortion clinics are happy to do so because they know they're protecting vulnerable women from botched home abortions.0 -
My understanding based on recent reports in the British press is that a significant proportion of Abortion clinics are willing to cut corners in their willingness to accept "clients". The abortion debate shows how far the chattering classes are divorced from the Catholic heritage of the country by seeking to declassify as human that which does not fit into a known mold - a fact reflected in the judicial decisions in cases such as Roche v Roche, the frozen embryos case.0
-
On the issue off freely available abortion I've mixed and quite hypocritical feelings.
The situation in relation to non-viable fetus's and other extreme cases certainly needs to be improved.
I think the UK is not a good a example to follow, no matter what ones opinions on abortion is I would be surprised if any one considered a termination rate of around 20% of pregnancies a good thing, especially considering the fact that the abortion bill was originally introduced and worded in a way that it is most definitely not being applied at present.
A more philosophical/theoretical issue is in relation to the you can't tell a woman what do with her body is that in our current society our freedoms in relation to our own bodies are constantly being restricted through legislation, to extrapolate this argument out to some extreme examples, its a womans right to be allowed to consume massive amounts of alcohol while pregnant.
More interestingly (because it makes people think about the unintended consequences of their views) is in utero influencing of fetal development, for example it may be possible in the future for the likely hood of homosexuality to be reduced by hormonal adjustment, this could be easily justified in that the future development of the fetus/person is not harmed in anyway and there is legitimate reasons due to religious beliefs or even from a strictly rationalist desire to increase the likelihood of their genetic material to be passed onto future generations.0 -
Ya see. Legalising abortion means that you can still choose to not abort.I truly can't understand how so many ignore the obvious right to life of an innocent baby. Of course the situation of a baby born with Anencephaly is heartbreaking. I am pregnant myself and also have another young baby and I would be devastated if I was given this news. However, that would never give me the right to decide that my little baby would have to die because I couldn't face watching my beautiful baby die. How could I choose to abort my child to protect myself from the further misery of watching my baby die? How is that protecting my child? It would instead be protecting myself. I would see it as my responsibility as my child's mother to ensure that he or she was as comfortable as possible and given the best care possible for the time that he / she had. That is the job of a mother, no matter how difficult, not to decide to end your child's life.
Sadly, life is not easy and we are sometimes faced with very difficult situations. No matter how our society changes, the responsibility of a mother and the right to life of an innocent baby will never change. Of course, the right to life of a mother is always essential, but let's be honest and not kid ourselves anymore - it is a very rare situation that a Mother's health is in danger.
I hope that someone will renew my faith in humanity and show that there are people out there who recognize that an innocent, dependent baby needs society to protect them.
You, personally, have a moral problem with abortion. Great! If abortion was legalised, no-one would suddenly force you to abort your baby.
However, your position is that because it offends your morality, your opinion is more important than everyone else's so no-one in the whole state should be allowed to abort.
Essentially, you're forcing your views on everyone else in a moralistic "WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN ARGUMENT".
I find that kind of closed-minded viewpoint incredibly offensive. What gives you the right to decide who gets to abort and why, just because you personally find it distasteful?0 -
RDM_83 again wrote: »On the issue off freely available abortion I've mixed and quite hypocritical feelings.
The situation in relation to non-viable fetus's and other extreme cases certainly needs to be improved.
I think the UK is not a good a example to follow, no matter what ones opinions on abortion is I would be surprised if any one considered a termination rate of around 20% of pregnancies a good thing, especially considering the fact that the abortion bill was originally introduced and worded in a way that it is most definitely not being applied at present.
A more philosophical/theoretical issue is in relation to the you can't tell a woman what do with her body is that in our current society our freedoms in relation to our own bodies are constantly being restricted through legislation, to extrapolate this argument out to some extreme examples, its a womans right to be allowed to consume massive amounts of alcohol while pregnant.
More interestingly (because it makes people think about the unintended consequences of their views) is in utero influencing of fetal development, for example it may be possible in the future for the likely hood of homosexuality to be reduced by hormonal adjustment, this could be easily justified in that the future development of the fetus/person is not harmed in anyway and there is legitimate reasons due to religious beliefs or even from a strictly rationalist desire to increase the likelihood of their genetic material to be passed onto future generations.
what about gender? If gender could be changed by hormonal adjustment, wouldn't that be the same argument as sexuality?
Terminating a terminal foetus, should be allowed.0 -
Ya see. Legalising abortion means that you can still choose to not abort.
You, personally, have a moral problem with abortion. Great! If abortion was legalised, no-one would suddenly force you to abort your baby.
However, your position is that because it offends your morality, your opinion is more important than everyone else's so no-one in the whole state should be allowed to abort.
Essentially, you're forcing your views on everyone else in a moralistic "WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN ARGUMENT".
I find that kind of closed-minded viewpoint incredibly offensive. What gives you the right to decide who gets to abort and why, just because you personally find it distasteful?
Hmmmm it may be in need of an update but in Ireland we get to vote on changes on our constitution so the 8th amendment means its hardly just her forcing her opinion on you.
One of the problem with living in a democracy is there is always an issue with the tyranny of the majority but your aggressive and combative post style means that you probably haven't thought of it in those terms.0 -
I haven't been given the opportunity to vote on either the constitution or changes to the constitution?RDM_83 again wrote: »Hmmmm it may be in need of an update but in Ireland we get to vote on changes on our constitution so the 8th amendment means its hardly just her forcing her opinion on you.
One of the problem with living in a democracy is there is always an issue with the tyranny of the majority but your aggressive and combative post style means that you probably haven't thought of it in those terms.
There's likely to only be a few tens of thousands left alive who were asked to vote on the original constitution(and that vote itself was hardly a roaring success was it?)?
The 12th and 25th amendment's failing would also indicate it isn't tyranny of the majority, as would the many opinion polls on the issue.
It isn't tyranny of the majority, it's tyranny of the elected.
As for Redz' post, please do point out what is logically incorrect with my assertion that legalising abortion would have no impact on her right to not abort whereas her finding it distasteful and insisting no-one should be allowed to abort under any circumstances - would have an impact on other individuals right to abort?
Oh, you can't so you're going to waffle about the constitution and tyranny of the majority(which you showed you don't really understand)? Right.0 -
what about gender? If gender could be changed by hormonal adjustment, wouldn't that be the same argument as sexuality?
Terminating a terminal foetus, should be allowed.
I actually not quite sure what my opinions are on this matter myself
, I use it as an example of how the argument 'its a womans body, she can do what she wants with it' are a lot more complex than they first appear (or will be in the future), I lean towards the view that if abortion is freely available there is no logical reason to have a problem with in utero modification that is not directly harmful. 0 -
I haven't been given the opportunity to vote on either the constitution or changes to the constitution?
There's likely to only be a few tens of thousands left alive who were asked to vote on the original constitution(and that vote itself was hardly a roaring success was it?)?
The 12th and 25th amendment's failing would also indicate it isn't tyranny of the majority, as would the many opinion polls on the issue.
It isn't tyranny of the majority, it's tyranny of the elected.
As for Redz' post, please do point out what is logically incorrect with my assertion that legalising abortion would have no impact on her right to not abort whereas her finding it distasteful and insisting no-one should be allowed to abort under any circumstances - would have an impact on other individuals right to abort?
Oh, you can't so you're going to waffle about the constitution and tyranny of the majority(which you showed you don't really understand)? Right.
I was saying that it was not just her opinion that restricts the right to abort rather the historic position of the majority of the citizens of this state, also you do know the content of the 12th and 25th ammendments, their rejection is in no way a defacto acceptance of abortion in all but the most extreme circumstances (which I actually agree urgently needs to legislated on), also what redz actually said wasI
Of course, the right to life of a mother is always essential, but let's be honest and not kid ourselves anymore - it is a very rare situation that a Mother's health is in danger.
In your post you use the word choose to abort, even in the UK you don't have a free choice to abort as it technically relies on the approval of two doctors.
From wiki "The phrase "tyranny of the majority" (or "tyranny of the masses"), used in discussing systems of democracy and majority rule, envisions a scenario in which decisions made by a majority place its interests so far above those of an individual or minority group as to constitute active oppression" I thought my use of the phrase was pretty correct, could you tell me how it was flawed?0 -
Advertisement
-
And? I was quoting her opinion not the constitution, with her opinion being because she finds it morally unacceptable, no-one else should be able to do it. You still have yet to point out the logical error in what I posted and are still maundering on about the constitution when I never argued constitutionality.RDM_83 again wrote: »I was saying that it was not just her opinion that restricts the right to abort rather the historic position of the majority of the citizens of this state
And? You essentially claimed that there was a majority against Abortion in any sense and argued 'tyranny of the masses' when there is zero evidence of what the masses actually currently want/believe.also you do know the content of the 12th and 25th ammendments, their rejection is in no way a defacto acceptance of abortion in all but the most extreme circumstances (which I actually agree urgently needs to legislated on), also what redz actually said was
Who chooses to go to the doctors to get their approval? Technically, that's a choice isn't it? Who chooses to go the abortion clinic on the day? Technically, I believe that is also a choice? Should i technically go on about more technical choices?In your post you use the word choose to abort, even in the UK you don't have a free choice to abort as it technically relies on the approval of two doctors.
You have yet to support the idea that the masses have a uniform opinion on this while even a cursory google shows the exact opposite.From wiki "The phrase "tyranny of the majority" (or "tyranny of the masses"), used in discussing systems of democracy and majority rule, envisions a scenario in which decisions made by a majority place its interests so far above those of an individual or minority group as to constitute active oppression" I thought my use of the phrase was pretty correct, could you tell me how it was flawed?
Now, can we drop this sideline that was started by you trying to be superior by posting
and move on? Unfortunately I was forced to study political theory in first year of University, so your attempt was sadly misplaced - I'm sadly well aware of what it is. If you want to argue tyranny of the masses, libertarianism and whatnot, maybe do it in another thread and without being condescending?One of the problem with living in a democracy is there is always an issue with the tyranny of the majority but your aggressive and combative post style means that you probably haven't thought of it in those terms.0
Advertisement