abortion

lazygal

otto_26 wrote: »

lazygal wrote: »

I'm always confused as to the 'abortion only in cases of rape/incest' arguments. How does a woman go about proving she was raped in time to procure an abortion? I had several negative pregnancy tests before my pregnancy was confirmed by a doctor, no signs of pregnancy at all. And the conviction rate for rape is very low, combined with an overall low reporting rape. So how do doctors go about signing off on a rape victim who's become pregnant? What's the burden of proof for a rape-sanctioned abortion? The word of the woman? Signs of physical aggression? How on earth can that even be regulated?


I support abortion for Irish women in Ireland, regardless of what has led to them needing one.

The morning after pill is freely available in Ireland if a women is raped she can obtain the pill so abortion doesn't come into it

And if it doesn't work?

otto_26

lazygal wrote: »

And if it doesn't work?

Abortion would be needed then of course. I'm only against abortion if it's because people just don't want to take responsibility for their actions.

The percentage of the morning after pill not working is under 10% and a women within this 10% that took it because she was raped is without doubt extreme circumstances for an abortion.

lazygal

otto_26 wrote: »

lazygal wrote: »

And if it doesn't work?

Abortion would be needed then of course. I'm only against abortion if it's because people just don't want to take responsibility for their actions.

The percentage of the morning after pill not working is under 10% and a women within this 10% that took it because she was raped is without doubt extreme circumstances for an abortion.

And how does she prove she was raped? Why is that fetus ripe for abortion rather than others?

Demonique

crazy cabbage wrote: »

The church basicly say that it is wrong to destroy a sole, as it never gets a chance at life (i think. I dont exatly keep tabs on this)

Lets presume for a min that the sole does indeed exist (not bringing in god here. Just the concept of the sole).

If the sole does indeed exist there has to be a point during pregancy that the sole enters the fetus. This has to be true if the sole exists.

Then the question has to be, at what point does this happen? There has to be a point for the church to have any stance on this issue or to debate there point with reason.

I think buddists believe it is at 40days or something
Doctor strassman believes that a DMT spike during pregancy could be the point at which what some call the sole in 'put' into the body.

From my own view of the churchs point of view if the 'sole' is not yet in the fetus then there is nothing there to kill. So there shouldn't be a problem

So should the focus (to keep church and older generation happy) not be to try and prove this scientificly?

That would make this debate alot easier
1) if before sole enters then abort away
2) if after and scientific proof of sole is found then have the debate
3) if after and no scientific proof is found then abort away


Dont think i believe anything above but trying to see it from churchs point of view.

If the church is against destroying soles why is it for eating fish on Friday?

otto_26

lazygal wrote: »

And how does she prove she was raped? Why is that fetus ripe for abortion rather than others?

Go to the police and doctor tell them and let them do their jobs. Life is not fair and horrible things happen all the time...

The percentage of this happening is so so low the MAP is 91% effective so for the remaining 9% the percentage of them being women that were raped is also low.

I don't think you can use that as an argument for free abortions for everyone in case the MAP doesn't work for a rape victim.

It's a bit different from a women walking into a doctors office were shes told she is 12 weeks pregnant and then goes on to claim she was raped 12 weeks ago but never told the police or doctor...

Educating women on the importance of telling police and doctors of her rape straight away rather than free abortions for all just in case the MAP doesn't work is a far better solution along with a policy put in place for abortions were no rapist was charged.

Either way the answer for the MAP not working on rape victims isn't free abortions for all. Rape centers are available to help rape victims with talking to doctors and police.

jessiejam

Demonique wrote: »

If the church is against destroying soles why is it for eating fish on Friday?

I haven't stopped laughing at how people keep writing soles instead of souls!
I just keep thinking of soles of shoes!

otto_26

lazygal wrote: »

I support abortion for Irish women in Ireland, regardless of what has led to them needing one.

Speaking of the pro abortion people and responsibility for your actions if I got a girl pregnant and its within the time frame to have an abortion (I want one but girl doesn't) should I be legally entitled to abort the child in terms of my legal and moral responsibility for that child once its born?

And what about support for Irish men in Ireland who want an abortion, regardless of what has led to them needing one???

Gongoozler

otto_26 wrote: »

Speaking of the pro abortion people and responsibility for your actions if I got a girl pregnant and its within the time frame to have an abortion (I want one but girl doesn't) should I be legally entitled to abort the child in terms of my legal and moral responsibility for that child once its born?

And what about support for Irish men in Ireland who want an abortion, regardless of what has led to them needing one???

The woman is the one that has to physically go through with the pregnancy / birth, so I doubt it will ever be legal to make a woman abort / keep a child she wants / doesn't want, because the partner wants the opposite. Sucks donkey ass but hey, what can ya do.

Sin City

if anyone is interested there is a good debate about abortion here


http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=80545519#post80545519

Annasopra

robman60 wrote: »

Incorrect once again. I don't support abortion as a procedure in any case. Let's say for argument's sake the woman's uterus is cancerous and has to be removed. Remember, abortion is always the deliberate killing of the unborn. In this case the unborn's death is a side effect of the medical emergency, not an abortion. If the unborn has reached viability, it can be kept alive with an incubator, but this applies to a medical emergency before viability.

This is the only legislation I would support, which would in fact be medical legislation and not abortion legislation. This means the mother's health is protected from any potential threat to her life, without abortion.

So basically you think the woman should die instead of saving her life in a medical emergency!

otto_26

Gongoozler wrote: »

The woman is the one that has to physically go through with the pregnancy / birth, so I doubt it will ever be legal to make a woman abort / keep a child she wants / doesn't want, because the partner wants the opposite. Sucks donkey ass but hey, what can ya do.

I don't mean that way, i mean in terms of child maintenance and responsibility for the child if the man doesn't want the child but the women does. Should the man be able to get rid of his responsibility for that child when its born by " aborting all responsibility of the child within the abortion time frame"

I ask this because if it's ok for a women to not take responsibility for her actions is it ok for a man to do the same?

up for anything

otto_26 wrote: »

Speaking of the pro abortion people and responsibility for your actions if I got a girl pregnant and its within the time frame to have an abortion (I want one but girl doesn't) should I be legally entitled to abort the child in terms of my legal and moral responsibility for that child once its born?

For some people having an abortion is taking responsibility for their actions. Just because it doesn't fit in with your standards/morals/beliefs doesn't mean it's not taking responsibility.

otto_26 wrote: »

I don't think you can use that as an argument for free abortions for everyone in case the MAP doesn't work for a rape victim.

They wouldn't be free except perhaps on the medical card.

otto_26 wrote: »

Speaking of the pro abortion people and responsibility for your actions if I got a girl pregnant and its within the time frame to have an abortion (I want one but girl doesn't) should I be legally entitled to abort the child in terms of my legal and moral responsibility for that child once its born?

I would be happy to support your right to be legally entitled to abort your legal and moral responsibilities to any child you fathered. In fact I would go as far as to demand that you do so.

otto_26 wrote: »

I ask this because if it's ok for a women to not take responsibility for her actions is it ok for a man to do the same?

Once again these women are taking responsibility for their actions. Why do you refuse to see this?

otto_26 wrote: »

Educating women on the importance of telling police and doctors of her rape straight away rather than free abortions for all just in case the MAP doesn't work is a far better solution along with a policy put in place for abortions were no rapist was charged.

What would we do without you and your desire for our education!

otto_26

up for anything wrote: »

For some people having an abortion is taking responsibility for their actions. Just because it doesn't fit in with your standards/morals/beliefs doesn't mean it's not taking responsibility.

The only response i can give is that if 500,000 people believe that something that is wrong is right. It still doesn't make it right.

(Just because it doesn't fit in with your standards/morals/beliefs doesn't mean it's not taking responsibility)
If i father a child and think the best thing for the child is to not know me and just leave the mother and child that isn't taking responsibility it's the opposite..

otto_26

up for anything wrote: »

They wouldn't be free except perhaps on the medical card.

I meant everyone having abortions for any old reason just because its an convenience for them.

up for anything wrote: »

I would be happy to support your right to be legally entitled to abort your legal and moral responsibilities to any child you fathered. In fact I would go as far as to demand that you do so.

Why? just asking question :rolleyes:

up for anything wrote: »

Once again these women are taking responsibility for their actions. Why do you refuse to see this?

Because i don't see abortion as taking responsibility i see it as the opposite trying to justify abortion as actually taking responsibility is kinda scary..

up for anything wrote: »

What would we do without you and your desire for our education!

Doesn't make any sense?

up for anything

otto_26 wrote: »

The only response i can give is that if 500,000 people believe that something that is wrong is right. It still doesn't make it right.

(Just because it doesn't fit in with your standards/morals/beliefs doesn't mean it's not taking responsibility)
If i father a child and think the best thing for the child is to not know me and just leave the mother and child that isn't taking responsibility it's the opposite..

So, who decides what is right and what is not right?

If 'you' make a woman pregnant and then decide that the best thing for the child is not to know 'you' then 'you' are 100% right in that decision.

otto_26 wrote: »

I meant everyone having abortions for any old reason just because its an convenience for them.

Why not? Why should abortions not be freely available?

otto_26 wrote: »

Why? just asking question :rolleyes:

Just a feeling I have and I don't care if 500,000 other people disagree with it.

otto_26 wrote: »

Because i don't see abortion as taking responsibility i see it as the opposite trying to justify abortion as actually taking responsibility is kinda scary..

If you say it, it must be so.

otto_26 wrote: »

Doesn't make any sense?

Maybe some women are so traumatised by their rape that all they can think about is washing the touch and the bodily fluids of their rapists off and out of them. Maybe they can't bear to fast forward in their minds to a pregnancy or a need to prove rape in order to obtain an abortion. It could just be that all they have have ever learned about what they should do after a rape is wiped out by the terror and disgust of the act itself. Forcing them to present themselves to the police and intimate questioning and yet more invasive physical probing in order that they should be able, if they wish, to obtain an abortion some weeks later is abuse of their rights.

robman60

mango salsa wrote: »

So basically you think the woman should die instead of saving her life in a medical emergency!

Seriously, you're continuing to misrepresent what I've written. I'll keep it very simple for you as you seem to have extreme difficulty understanding.

I support medical intervention to save the mother's life, and if that medical intervention causes the unborn child to die I see it as an unpreventable tragedy.

I still support it as it saves one of the two lives. If you're still unsure of anything I said, just ask, but please stop misrepresenting what I've written.

Khannie

Sharrow wrote: »

Funny how few pro lifers are pro contraception and sex education.
Seriously you'd think they'd be supporting such measures and helping fund them to
prevent the number of unwanted pregnancies.
An ounce of prevention being better then a pound of cure.

Where are you getting that idea from? I'm pro life and I am also strongly in favour of contraception and sex education. My wife fits exactly the same bill. Amazingly we're perfectly rational people and still pro life.

I'm not aware of a single one of my friends or family who are pro life being anti-contraception or anti-sex-ed. Quite the opposite in fact. Maybe you need to readjust your perception of "pro lifers" a bit.

EZ24GET

I don't believe in abortion. Where I live you can legally obtain abortions for any reason. I realize that there are exceptions, incest, rape, mother's life at risk etc. but I have witnessed abortion as a means of birth control. One girl I worked with had two abortions then kept the third child hoping the father would keep her. When that didn't work out she became pregnant again and went on to have another abortion. The government footed the bill. I think this has nothing to do with accepting the responsibility for the pregnancy. I hope this isn't becoming the custom. With so many means of preventing an unwanted pregnancy I can't comprehend this sort of behavior. Ideally men and women should be equally responsible ( and responsibility should begin when a couple decide to have unprotected sex- not when there is a resultant conception) but I can't see how that is possible. The men in this girls life didn't suffer any inconvenience.

Sligo Quay

greenpilot wrote: »

Cardinal wants a referendum on abortion. Would he loose? Would there be a backlash against the church?

A backlash against what, a dying lion, this is not the 1950s, the world has moved on, but the Church has not.
What I don't understand, the Roman Catholic Church has this sacred view on protecting the ''unborn'' and yet this same Church abused ''born'' children for decades, moved pedifile priests around, covered up their crimes against children instead of reporting them to the Gardai. It doesn't make sense, its a hyprocritical form of view, its makes no sense, they have this sacred view of protecting unborn children, but failed to protect born children and covered up the crimes. No Im afraid the Roman Catholic Church don't have the high moral ground on Abortion, too many skeletons in their own closets.

crazy cabbage

I am pro-arbortion

Do people here realise that having an abortion is a very traumatic experience. It isn't something that you would go and do every other weekend. A very good friend of mine had one what she was younger and she described it as being raped by a hoover.

I realize that there are exceptions, incest, rape, mother's life at risk etc.

I don't think anyone whould dispute that in the case of rape, women should be alloud to have an abortion. That (in my eyes) is common sence.
Extending from that, how do we prove that a women was raped? By the courts surly. We all know that the court system can take years to bring someone accused of a crime to proving it and standing before judge and jury, by which time the child is born.
So what do we do there? If someone shouts rape then they can have an abbortion? That will leave tons of men being accused of crimes that they didn't commit so that the woman can have an abortion.

That can't work

Unless we seperate having an abortion becouse of rape from actully proveing that the woman was raped in the courts. This will leave a situation where anyone who wants an abourtion, just has to put 'rape' on the form
Will also leave a situation were one group of women who are willing to lie are allowed to have their abortion and another group who can't.

maby i am missing something. You said that in the case of rape that women should be allowed to have an abortion. how whould this be implemented? I can't see how

Or we could just legalise (with alot of controls naturaly).

my 2 cents