Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Stupify wrote: »

Am I right in saying married couples cannot give a child up for adoption?

Not any more. The recent referendum removes any Constitutional barrier to married parents volunteering their children for adoption.

I've no idea why; but, then again, this thread might not exist was it not for the capacity of the Irish people to vote for incomprehensible stuff.

Stupify

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Not any more. The recent referendum removes any Constitutional barrier to married parents volunteering their children for adoption.

I've no idea why; but, then again, this thread might not exist was it not for the capacity of the Irish people to vote for incomprehensible stuff.

That had to be done, otherwise if a woman who is married and is against abortion got pregnant from rape she would be forced to keep the rapists child.

Stark

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I've no idea why;

Really? You think it's completely impossible for married couples to be unfit parents? Plenty of kids in long term foster care who came from married families.

antiskeptic

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Yes, but we specifically say that 14 year olds can't consent to sex. And that's not arbitrary - its because we reckon they're not mature enough to make the necessary judgment.

Having sex isn't having a baby. Picking out on area where a 14 yr old can't give consent doesn't render them able to give consent in other areas

There's also good, physical, reasons why a 14 year old should not proceed with a pregnancy.

That is a consideration. And not necessarily a central one.

Now, clearly, you can assert anything that takes your fancy. Bulletin boards never refused electrons. However, you cannot assert that a pregnancy of a child is the same as a pregnancy of an adult - because there's no legal barrier preventing an adult from either deciding to become pregnant, or from engaging in activity that might cause a pregnancy.

I didn't assert that they were comparable. I was dealing with the implied assertion that the 14 year old had no role in consent giving just because they aren't allowed give consent elsewhere.

Do you see the point? You must do, it's glaring. You cannot argue as if the rights and responsibilities facing a pregnant adult and pregnant child are the same - because it's simply a fact that their rights and responsibilities are already agreed to be different.

I haven't agreed that the 14 year has no consenting role - just because she isn't an adult. You need to provide argumentation other than "she's not an adult"

We've already agreed that children shouldn't become pregnant. Does that automatically mean that abortion is justified if a child "accidently" becomes pregnant? By default, I'd say yes.

There is no argumentation in there showing where automatic and default come from. There is no intrinsic tie between what shouldn't happen and what does happen.

To maintain that abortion isn't justified in such circumstances requires explanation.

The argument is that abortion kills another life. And that no one is justified in talking that life. There's no point in forgetting that element with someone who's worldview is as mine is.

Why? Because we agree that children should not be allowed to consent to become pregnant. If we accept that principle, it seems to me ludicrous to maintain that a child can be forced to become pregnant, and be denied access to abortion in such cases.

Forced to become pregnant? She is pregnant - and we're talking of how to deal with that.

antiskeptic

Nodin wrote: »

I can. I put life before potential life,

I don't view a baby as potential life. It is living already.

You might tell me what your alternative to "psychological/psychiatric profession" is. I'm most curious.

If you read the interaction you'll reevaluate me as being slightly sarcastic.

Bannasidhe was displaying a decidedly cartoon cutout understanding of how support services might be designed to support a 14 year old rape victim through that crisis. I was suggesting a low degree of faith on B's part.

Stupify

I can see where people can be conflicted about women wanting abortions claiming they are suicidal.

Even if they had to get a doctors evaluation I would be a bit uneasy because it could still be abused.

But for women who get pregnant through rape its gotta be the case where they have a right to not have to give birth to their rapists baby.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Stupify wrote: »

That had to be done, otherwise if a woman who is married and is against abortion got pregnant from rape she would be forced to keep the rapists child.

Maybe you're right - although, in that situation, I'd have thought the child would not be a marital child - i.e. not a child of the marriage.

Stark wrote: »

Really? You think it's completely impossible for married couples to be unfit parents? Plenty of kids in long term foster care who came from married families.

The Constitution already provided for the situation of married parents being deemed to be unfit. It even allowed for the possibility of the children of unfit marital parents being adopted - although, adoption outside families is such a rarity these days there's probably no practical benefit in legislating for that.

What the recent amendment allows is the voluntary adoption of marital children - in other words, in situations were the parents are actually deemed fit (if you can get your head around the concept of fit parents putting their children up for adoption; I can't, incidently.)

But none of this matters - the people voted Yes, and adoptions by strangers are as rare as hen's teeth.

Stupify

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Maybe you're right - although, in that situation, I'd have thought the child would not be a marital child - i.e. not a child of the marriage.

That could indeed be the case, I'm not sure myself.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

antiskeptic wrote: »

Having sex isn't having a baby. Picking out on area where a 14 yr old can't give consent doesn't render them able to give consent in other areas

We're not talking about disconnected things; the question of consent is central.

antiskeptic wrote: »

You need to provide argumentation other than "she's not an adult"

But, sure, I have. I've pointed out that the fact of her not being an adult directly impacts on the applicable rights and responsibilities.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Forced to become pregnant? She is pregnant - and we're talking of how to deal with that.

Yeah, we're talking about it and noticing that the principle that children should not be allowed to consent to become pregnant is utterly inconsistent with the idea that a child can be forced to become pregnant, and then forced to bring the pregnancy to term.

The point is glaring and clear. I'm afraid I haven't a long enough attention span to see if you'll engage with it.

Hotblack Desiato

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Not any more. The recent referendum removes any Constitutional barrier to married parents volunteering their children for adoption.

No it doesn't - not until it's legislated for.*

Hopefully that won't take 20+ years but given that this is Ireland, you never know.



* to be utterly pedantic, yes the constitutional barrier to such legislation has been removed, but it still won't be legally possible until legislation is enacted.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

ninja900 wrote: »

* to be utterly pedantic, yes the constitutional barrier to such legislation has been removed, but it still won't be legally possible until legislation is enacted.

Absolutely - my point was simply that the wording passed by the recent referendum specifically allows such legislation; in other words, there's no principle that marital children should not be adopted.

Corkfeen

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

What the recent amendment allows is the voluntary adoption of marital children - in other words, in situations were the parents are actually deemed fit (if you can get your head around the concept of fit parents putting their children up for adoption; I can't, incidently.)

Do you think that every pregnancy that occurs in a marriage is wanted or planned?

Sarky

Y'know, when I was depressed, you know what my doc advised me to do above all else? Avoid the things that trigger depression. That's been backed up by every single medical professional I've met in the last five years, and considering the amount of chronic illness and surgery I've had in that time, that's a bloody lot of medical professionals.

Now how, I wonder, does a depressed pregnant woman do that? Why, she would need to become somehow un-pregnant. Or, I suppose, you could force her to stay depressed, with the source of her depression in-freaking-side her for 9 months, with a thoroughly unpleasant ending which often results in depression for women who WANTED a child. And all the physical damage a pregnancy causes of course, which as has been described, is pretty horrific. That's called torture. Dress it up however you like, you're still torturing a living human being for your beliefs. Sometimes to death. But hey, at least their soul will have been saved, amirite?

There's a rather excellent thread on depression in After Hours you should all look up. It's full of candid descriptions of the kind of abject despair a depressed person goes through. I wholly recommend you try to imagine yourself feeling like that as you read. Then multiply that feeling by a thousand, because words cannot describe just how thoroughly horrible it is.

Nodin

antiskeptic wrote: »

I don't view a baby as potential life. It is living already.

.......

Can it, at 12 weeks or 18, get outside the womb and go for a walk like the person carrying it? You're - again - choosing potential over actual.

Nodin

antiskeptic wrote: »

If you read the interaction you'll reevaluate me as being slightly sarcastic.

Bannasidhe was displaying a decidedly cartoon cutout understanding of how support services might be designed to support a 14 year old rape victim through that crisis. I was suggesting a low degree of faith on B's part.

She was skeptical as regards

antiskeptic wrote:

People of all types become suicidal for all sorts of reasons. There are services that assist people in dealing with and overcoming considering suicide an option. The pregnancy would resolve itself in due course.

which presupposes advice and support that would not recommend or back up a decision to have an abortion.

DB21

antiskeptic wrote: »

I don't view a baby as potential life. It is living already.

Please explain to me, in great scientific detail (that means no appeal to emotion, no "Cause god said so"), how a collection of cells that does not have sentience before week 12 is "living".

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Corkfeen wrote: »

Do you think that every pregnancy that occurs in a marriage is wanted or planned?

Is that supposed to be suggesting a need to provide for voluntary adoption of marital children? Because it's not working.

Sorry, just to avoid repetition of this irrelevance, no, I don't think that every marital birth is planned or wanted.

old hippy

antiskeptic wrote: »

I don't view a baby as potential life. It is living already.

A baby or a foetus or a clump of cells?

All very different things.

PopePalpatine

ninja900 wrote: »

A good aul' pray?

Is there anything that can be said for saying another Mass? :pac:


On a more serious note, I think part of the "don't allow abortions for suicidal women, ah sure they'll only fake it" probably stems from how, as a nation, we still attach huge stigma to suicide. I remember reading Sive for my Leaving Cert English course last year, and I remember how (I'm not going to spoil it by giving their name) a character's guardians were more concerned about whether they can have a Catholic burial than the fact that they are dead after they committed suicide.

Bannasidhe

antiskeptic wrote: »

Your faith in the abilities of the psychological/psychiatric profession is noted.

Your lack of detail as to what exactly you mean beyond 'she should get help then have the baby' is also noted.

If you think I have faith is the psychological/psychiatric profession you are very much mistaken. I know far too many of them personally to make that mistake.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I think part of the "don't allow abortions for suicidal women, ah sure they'll only fake it" probably stems from how, as a nation, we still attach huge stigma to suicide.

Maybe. But I think it's more likely just because the whole argument around suicide is baloney, for reasons already stated. If anything, the whole "don't mention the war" stuff around suicide is actually obstructing a realistic assessement of the situation. People are trying to leverage it's shock value. It's easy, if someone points out that the Emperer is naked, just accuse them of lacking empathy.

However, you can positively drip with empathy, while accepting without question the proposition that responsible marital parents would volunteer an unplanned child for adoption. Funny old world, really.

loveisdivine

GCU wrote:

However, you can positively drip with empathy, while accepting without question the proposition that responsible marital parents would volunteer an unplanned child for adoption. Funny old world, really.

I dont get why you find this so crazy.

I am soon to be very happily married. I dont want a child. My soon to be husband doesnt want a child. If contraception failed and I became pregnant, that isnt going to suddenly change. The fact we are married doesnt change anything. We would still both be completely unfit parents because we would no doubt hate the child (also something you probably find hard to grasp, as its a pwecious ickle miwacle).

If I didnt have access to an abortion, I would be sending hubby upstairs for a coat hanger, and he would come running back down with it! That is how serious we are about not wanting a child/to be pregnant.

How would that be a better situation, than me having access to abortion? Because theres no way I'd be having that baby either way.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

loveisdivine wrote: »

I dont get why you find this so crazy.

Well, do bear in mind that adoption in general, and by non-family members in particular, is quite a rare event these days; i.e. even adoption of non-marital children, where there aren't legal complications. So it's really not so crazy to recognise that it is highly unusual for anyone to put their children up for adoption.

loveisdivine wrote: »

How would that be a better situation, than me having access to abortion? Because theres no way I'd be having that baby either way.

I haven't said anything about denying access to abortion; the point at issue is about adoption. You've stated that you regard yourself as unfit to be a parent, and that you wouldn't envisage proceeding with a pregnancy in any event. So the points you raise are doubly irrelevant - adoption of marital children with unfit parents was envisaged already by the Constitution, if legally complicated; and if you abort, there's no prospect of an adoption.

antiskeptic

old hippy wrote: »

A baby or a foetus or a clump of cells?

All very different things.

Precisely. It's our worldview generally that informs us in this specific case.

And since worldviews can only be justified in the eye of the beholder (rather than in any absolute sense), discussion becomes pointless and the task moves towards how to have your point of view win the day.

antiskeptic

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Your lack of detail as to what exactly you mean beyond 'she should get help then have the baby' is also noted.

The argument is that with the aid of support services the various impacts on her have a chance of being diminished. And so the chances of her overcoming the various strands of the experience increase.

That you have no faith in the support services that could be brought to bear weakens your argument since no one is going to conclude, as you seem to, that support services can have no net beneficial effect

Sarky

How does torturing a pregnant woman fit into your worldview?

antiskeptic

DB21 wrote: »

Please explain to me, in great scientific detail (that means no appeal to emotion, no "Cause god said so"), how a collection of cells that does not have sentience before week 12 is "living".

What? You mean play by the rules of your particular worldview?

Which was my original point: since worldviews can't be justfied (except in the beholders (and like minded individuals) eyes, discussion is pointless.

antiskeptic

Sarky wrote: »

How does torturing a pregnant woman fit into your worldview?

Who is torturing a pregnant woman?

antiskeptic

Nodin wrote: »

Can it, at 12 weeks or 18, get outside the womb and go for a walk like the person carrying it? You're - again - choosing potential over actual.

It can't do that even when it's born. It'll be a year before the child is living according to that definition of life vs potential

This kind of stuff goes on forever - arbitrarily deciding what life is and when it begins. If you can pluck criteria out of the air then so can I. No?

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

And since worldviews can only be justified in the eye of the beholder (rather than in any absolute sense) [...]

Which suggests that people would be wise to avoid morally-absolutist worldviews.

I knew you'd come around to our point of view eventually!