Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

Tipsygypsy

christmas2012 wrote: »

tell that to me again AFTER you get an abortion,they use conscious sedation,and it is painful and invasive..the child is torn apart,or if comes out intact is left on a table to suffocate,you dont like the facts then think about what youre saying..and the impact of what you are saying..

again i would like to add i would make exception to these rules,such as those suffering the severe emotinal trauma of rape or incest etc..

christmas2012 wrote: »

There is NO mistruth in saying 1. they use concious sedation

2. no pain relief
3. foetus can get torn inside you or intact left on a table to die for hours

4. risk of infection and miscarriage later in life
5. it is a horribly invasive and painful procedure

Hello Again Christmas2012, can I suggest you have a look at the following page and then maybe follow the link to the Guardian article that goes with it.

http://www.thisismyabortion.com/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/09/photos-abortion-educate-empower-women?commentpage=all#start-of-comments

it gives a much better description with images (dont worry, they're realistic pictures of an abortion - not anything like what you'll have seen before). As mentioned several times before most abortions occur in the first trimester - this is how it looks.

oldrnwisr

beerbuddy wrote: »

can you tell us where it says this .....

Numbers 3:15

“Count the Levites by their families and clans. Count every male a month old or more.”

Leviticus 27:6

for a person between one month and five years, set the value of a male at five shekels of silver and that of a female at three shekels of silver;

For the record I think that anyone using the bible as a resource for an argument on abortion is wasting their time. The Hebrew bible uses the word 'banim' when it speaks of infants and the word does not discriminate between newborns and foetuses. It's kind of like creationists arguing for created kinds based on the bible.

MrPudding

gvn wrote: »

Pregnancy isn't necessarily a consequence of sex. You're arguing that abortion shouldn't be allowed because it removes pregnancy as a consequence of sex. Using that same logic, should contraception not be banned? If your sole objection to abortion is that it leads to diminished consequences of sex, then should you not also object to contraception? As far as I can tell, insofar as abortion removes consequences, contraception has much the same effect. No?

I don't like where this is going... Have not read all the posts yet, still working on it, but I think it also means an end to blow jobs and money shots. Down with this sort of thing.

MrP

Sonics2k

Sin City wrote: »

new borns develop personalities , they intialy just react. (or sleep.lol ) yes the right to life does extend to the.unborn .,as for a pacifist , I would like to think I am but I am not naieve enough to think I wouldn't want justice/vengence if someone hurt or killed any of my.loved ones

I'd disagree with that as the father of two very different children.

Both were born with a personality, maybe not like the full blown ones they have now, but they sure as hell did have their own personalities, and to this day are quite different to each other in all ways.

Sin City

Sonics2k wrote: »

I'd disagree with that as the father of two very different children.

Both were born with a personality, maybe not like the full blown ones they have now, but they sure as hell did have their own personalities, and to this day are quite different to each other in all ways.

are you sure ?
I'm pretty sure there are a lot of studies on personality aquisition

Sonics2k

Sin City wrote: »

are you sure ?
I'm pretty sure there are a lot of studies on personality aquisition

I'm very sure yes.

Believe me when I say this. Until my own were born I would have completely agreed with you. But having been there for the birth of both children I can say in all honesty they certainly had their own personalities from birth, and each has developed since then.

eviltwin

Just ask the parents of twins etc. They will say that they can see the differences between their children. Even at that very young age they can be totally different.

MrPudding

Sin City wrote: »

But the embryo if left alone will aquire even more brain power and become a viable person, whereas the Alzheimers patient will just degrade further

If left alone where?

christmas2012 wrote: »

Its these flippant attitudes that make me realise these people are not mature enough to have sex or face the music when it comes to getting pregnant and having a baby..

Seriously, the face the music argument is fairly retarded.

Pregnancy is a possible outcome of sex, particularly if it is not practised safely. Therefore, a woman must go through with the pregnancy.

Broken limbs are a possible outcome of parachuting, particularly if it is not practised safely. Perhaps parachutists should be forced to live with broken limbs? Let stop all medical treatment for parachutists that have injuries.

Burst lungs are a possible outcome of SCUBA diving, particularly if it is not practised safely. Perhaps SCUBA divers should be forced to live with burst lungs? Let stop all medical treatment for SCUBA divers that have injuries.

Various injuries are a possible outcome of crossing the road, particularly if it is not practised safely. Perhaps road crossers should be forced to live with their injuries? Let stop all medical treatment for road crossers that have injuries.

As a race we have spent thousand and thousands of years developing to a point where we have control of many of the negative consequences of our actions. Yes, I have called pregnancy a negative consequence. Yes, I understand that it is not always so, I have 4 kids myself, but this is an abortion discussion so it is fair to assume that is one is looking for an abortion then the pregnancy would be viewed as a negative thing.

There is no reason in this day and age for there to be any "consequences" for having sex. It is not something deserving of punishment. That said, having an abortion, if that is what happens is clearly a consequence. The only problem is it does not seem to be enough of a punishment to satisfy you.

MrP

Sin City

MrPudding wrote: »

If left alone where?

Left alone and not interferd with. From the womb to birth its always developing

Sin City

Sonics2k wrote: »

I'm very sure yes.

Believe me when I say this. Until my own were born I would have completely agreed with you. But having been there for the birth of both children I can say in all honesty they certainly had their own personalities from birth, and each has developed since then.

I know what you are saying, I felt the same when mine were born too but we are re writing the events to show they had personality


What they had was social releasers

The fear of strangers represents an important survival mechanism, built in by nature. Babies are born with the tendency to display certain innate behaviors (called social releasers) which help ensure proximity and contact with the mother or mother figure (e.g. crying, smiling, crawling, etc.) – these are species-specific behaviors. (Bowlby 69 & 88)

Lingua Franca

Correct me if I'm wrong, but surely the ECHR ruling demanded that Ireland simply implement it's constitutional position on termination for medical reasons rather than providing abortion on demand? Ie, TFMR is in the consitution but all abortions are against the law, This conflict needs to be fixed.

Termination for medical reasons (TFMR) must pass because women carrying foetuses incompatible with life shouldn't have to travel abroad at their own expense, and cancer patients like Sheila Hodgers shouldn't be refused treatment and left to die. It's a clear abuse of human rights.

YD and other anti abortion groups deny that there is ever a case for for TFMR, even insisting that 80% of ectopic pregnancies resolve themselves.

That is what desperately needs to be legislated for. TFMR is what you will be asked to vote on in a referendum if one comes up. TFMR

Not abortion on demand, not walk-in lunchtime "social" abortions with or without painkillers or follow up medical care. That's a whole different kettle of fish, one very unlikely to pass soon in Ireland given the zeitgeist, and a total distraction from the current legislation debate... which is exactly what YD and the RCC want.

robindch

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but surely the ECHR ruling demanded that Ireland simply implement it's constitutional position on termination for medical reasons [...]

Yes, that's right -- the ECHR has simply reiterated the request of the Irish Supreme Court.

There's nothing new in the request from the ECHR and the issue has simply been dodged by successive governments since the judgement was originally issued.

eviltwin

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but surely the ECHR ruling demanded that Ireland simply implement it's constitutional position on termination for medical reasons rather than providing abortion on demand? Ie, TFMR is in the consitution but all abortions are against the law, This conflict needs to be fixed.

Termination for medical reasons (TFMR) must pass because women carrying foetuses incompatible with life shouldn't have to travel abroad at their own expense, and cancer patients like Sheila Hodgers shouldn't be refused treatment and left to die. It's a clear abuse of human rights.

YD and other anti abortion groups deny that there is ever a case for for TFMR, even insisting that 80% of ectopic pregnancies resolve themselves.

That is what desperately needs to be legislated for. TFMR is what you will be asked to vote on in a referendum if one comes up. TFMR

Not abortion on demand, not walk-in lunchtime "social" abortions with or without painkillers or follow up medical care. That's a whole different kettle of fish, one very unlikely to pass soon in Ireland given the zeitgeist, and a total distraction from the current legislation debate... which is exactly what YD and the RCC want.

Ugh I really hate that term "social" abortion. I had what would be considered a "social" abortion. I can't begin to compare my situation with that of someone who was excited to be pregnant and looking forward to having a baby and then finding out the awful news that her child was not going to survive but women like me don't just wander in, have an abortion and then carry on like nothing happened.

I really want to dismiss that awful misconception. It took me a long time to come to terms with my abortion. It took a long time to make the decision in the first place but I felt looking at my situation and the family I had that it was my best option and I have no regrets. That doesn't mean I didn't have a hard time dealing with the aftermath, I had to get a lot of counselling and suffered quite badly for few years. It would have been lovely to move on from it just like that but I didn't take it lightly and I can't imagine there are many women who do.

One thing I worry about is this two tier idea of abortion where some women are comforted and supported and others are left alone to deal with it alone even though they may have situations that might not be as tragic or emotive but are just as hard from them to deal with.

Bannasidhe

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but surely the ECHR ruling demanded that Ireland simply implement it's constitutional position on termination for medical reasons rather than providing abortion on demand? Ie, TFMR is in the consitution but all abortions are against the law, This conflict needs to be fixed.

Termination for medical reasons (TFMR) must pass because women carrying foetuses incompatible with life shouldn't have to travel abroad at their own expense, and cancer patients like Sheila Hodgers shouldn't be refused treatment and left to die. It's a clear abuse of human rights.

YD and other anti abortion groups deny that there is ever a case for for TFMR, even insisting that 80% of ectopic pregnancies resolve themselves.

That is what desperately needs to be legislated for. TFMR is what you will be asked to vote on in a referendum if one comes up. TFMR

Not abortion on demand, not walk-in lunchtime "social" abortions with or without painkillers or follow up medical care. That's a whole different kettle of fish, one very unlikely to pass soon in Ireland given the zeitgeist, and a total distraction from the current legislation debate... which is exactly what YD and the RCC want.

My sister's ectopic pregnancy 'resolved' itself. She spent a week in intensive care and now has only one tube thanks to it 'resolving itself'. She was just lucky that she was at work when it happened as if she had been at home alone I would no longer have a sister.

Bannasidhe

eviltwin wrote: »

Ugh I really hate that term "social" abortion. I had what would be considered a "social" abortion. I can't begin to compare my situation with that of someone who was excited to be pregnant and looking forward to having a baby and then finding out the awful news that her child was not going to survive but women like me don't just wander in, have an abortion and then carry on like nothing happened.

I really want to dismiss that awful misconception. It took me a long time to come to terms with my abortion. It took a long time to make the decision in the first place but I felt looking at my situation and the family I had that it was my best option and I have no regrets. That doesn't mean I didn't have a hard time dealing with the aftermath, I had to get a lot of counselling and suffered quite badly for few years. It would have been lovely to move on from it just like that but I didn't take it lightly and I can't imagine there are many women who do.

One thing I worry about is this two tier idea of abortion where some women are comforted and supported and others are left alone to deal with it alone even though they may have situations that might not be as tragic or emotive but are just as hard from them to deal with.

eviltwin, I would just like to thank you for your honesty and openness in talking about what was a difficult time for you and your courage in refusing to be demonised.

aidan24326

Gongoozler wrote: »

It's hard to believe that abortion would be ever voted in by the country, especially considering the last census showed something like 84% still call themselves Roman Catholics.

Call themselves yes, act as such no. The true number of practising catholics in Ireland is much lower than that. And if we take 'practising' to mean what it's supposed to mean i.e adherence to the rules, rituals and dogma of the creed, then I'd say the real percentage is closer to 8.4 than 84.


Lots of people who call themselves catholic would probably vote in favour of abortion even though it's strictly forbidden by that religion.

Anyway, for me when it comes to issues like I this I think the RC Church have rather burnt their bridges when it comes to moralising. Not even just burnt them but blown them to smithereens.

robindch

Folks -- that's much better. Thanks.

Incidentally, this is the first debate on abortion I've seen in perhaps thirty years go generally smoothly. This is a terribly difficult topic to discuss calmly and I think everybody who's posting appreciates the candour and honesty of people's respective positions, even if they disagree mildly or profoundly.

That makes this debate a big change from most other debates I've seen and it's a thoroughly refreshing change.

Thanks again.

Lingua Franca

I also hate the term social abortion, eviltwin, which is why I put it in quotes. I'm hoping to challenge the deliberate obfuscation of what the current issue as addressed in the OP actually is, because I've just read 21 pages of "face the music" and "when does the foetus become a person with rights". These are tactics used by YD to prevent any abortions, including the medically necessary ones. Clouding the real, pressing, legal issue with slut-shaming, holocaust comparisons, bad science and god-bothering.

eviltwin wrote: »

One thing I worry about is this two tier idea of abortion where some women are comforted and supported and others are left alone to deal with it alone even though they may have situations that might not be as tragic or emotive but are just as hard from them to deal with.

Me too, and my heart goes out to every Irish woman who has had to endure an abortion abroad. But again, the right to termination for non medical reasons is not in the constitution and is not the looming issue. Passing TFMR would be a step on the road (or, if you prefer, "slippery slope") to acceptance.

Tipsygypsy

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but surely the ECHR ruling demanded that Ireland simply implement it's constitutional position on termination for medical reasons rather than providing abortion on demand? Ie, TFMR is in the consitution but all abortions are against the law, This conflict needs to be fixed.

Termination for medical reasons (TFMR) must pass because women carrying foetuses incompatible with life shouldn't have to travel abroad at their own expense, and cancer patients like Sheila Hodgers shouldn't be refused treatment and left to die. It's a clear abuse of human rights.

YD and other anti abortion groups deny that there is ever a case for for TFMR, even insisting that 80% of ectopic pregnancies resolve themselves.

That is what desperately needs to be legislated for. TFMR is what you will be asked to vote on in a referendum if one comes up. TFMR

Not abortion on demand, not walk-in lunchtime "social" abortions with or without painkillers or follow up medical care. That's a whole different kettle of fish, one very unlikely to pass soon in Ireland given the zeitgeist, and a total distraction from the current legislation debate... which is exactly what YD and the RCC want.

Just to clarify, the ECHR ruling does not include in it thse cases where the fetus cannot survive, it only deals with the case of the woman health/mental health. And neither is the 'expert group' considering these case of fetal fatal abnormality.

So if you have seen the coverage of those ladies who had fatal diagnosis for their babies, no, it is not expected to include them. Which is part of the reason why the whole issue needs a very serious looking into in this country.

OldNotWIse

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but surely the ECHR ruling demanded that Ireland simply implement it's constitutional position on termination for medical reasons rather than providing abortion on demand? Ie, TFMR is in the consitution but all abortions are against the law, This conflict needs to be fixed.

Termination for medical reasons (TFMR) must pass because women carrying foetuses incompatible with life shouldn't have to travel abroad at their own expense, and cancer patients like Sheila Hodgers shouldn't be refused treatment and left to die. It's a clear abuse of human rights.

YD and other anti abortion groups deny that there is ever a case for for TFMR, even insisting that 80% of ectopic pregnancies resolve themselves.

That is what desperately needs to be legislated for. TFMR is what you will be asked to vote on in a referendum if one comes up. TFMR

Not abortion on demand, not walk-in lunchtime "social" abortions with or without painkillers or follow up medical care. That's a whole different kettle of fish, one very unlikely to pass soon in Ireland given the zeitgeist, and a total distraction from the current legislation debate... which is exactly what YD and the RCC want.

Whats TFMR (excuse my ignorance)?

I think some people will resist because of the fear of the "thin edge of the wedge" concept. People thinking, "well if we open the door to this what else will come in. It may be for medical reasons now but perhaps in ten years it will be for anyone who wants one". Dont know, just saying. I think a lot of people who are supportive of abortion for "specific" reasons now will simply keep campaigning and lobbying until there is abortion on demand tbh. I'm not saying whether I agree with that or not, it's just my opinion on what I suspect would happen.

Turtwig

Sin City wrote: »

Jernal wrote: »

Why though? Why should something with potential be treated as if it is already that something? To use an analogy why should someone who could become the President of the United States be treated right now in this very moment as if he actually is the President of the United States. To suggest something that has potential should be treated as if it is the equivalent of something that reached that potential is ludicrous. A potential person is not a person.

In a formal sense :
Why is Potential X the equivalent to X?

at what stage would you class it as a person ? 20 weeks ? third trimester? birth?

What,stage would you class it as a lifeform?

then at what point would you consider it the taking off a life ?

what makes a person ? organ function ,brain function ? the ability to reason ?

I'd probably class it as a person 6 months after being born, or maybe even later. As a lifeform? Depends what you mean by lifeform. We're just a sum of various different lifeforms that interact to create an emergent whole human being. As for what defines a person all of what you mentioned.


So, would you mind answering my question? Why is a potential X the same as X?

Tipsygypsy

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Whats TFMR (excuse my ignorance)?

.

TMFR is Termination for Medical Reasons - afaik the term originated with the group of Irish woman who set up to support and campaign for people who have had to travel to England for terminations after receiving a fatal diagnosis for their fetus. Its a horrific ordeal to have to go through. They've raised a huge amount of public awareness since they formed at the beginning of this year.
http://www.facebook.com/#!/MakeTerminationForMedicalReasonsAvailableInIreland

Lingua Franca

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Whats TFMR (excuse my ignorance)?

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Termination for medical reasons (TFMR)

Tipsygypsy wrote: »

Just to clarify, the ECHR ruling does not include in it thse cases where the fetus cannot survive, it only deals with the case of the woman health/mental health. And neither is the 'expert group' considering these case of fetal fatal abnormality.

So if you have seen the coverage of those ladies who had fatal diagnosis for their babies, no, it is not expected to include them. Which is part of the reason why the whole issue needs a very serious looking into in this country.

I didn't realise that it didn't include those women carrying dead or dying babies. I agree, the whole issue needs addressed.

Bannasidhe

Lingua Franca wrote: »

I didn't realise that it didn't include those women carrying dead or dying babies. I agree, the whole issue needs addressed.

To force a woman to carry a child to term which has already died or cannot possibly survive is barbaric.

OldNotWIse

Lingua Franca wrote: »

I didn't realise that it didn't include those women carrying dead or dying babies. I agree, the whole issue needs addressed.

thanks :rolleyes: (duh)

fisgon

Sin City wrote: »

ill deal with complexity all you want, I trained as a scientist, did a module on human development. so when.in your view does it become a person and when does it become a lifeform ? and then how do we define a lifeform ?

You're not being very clear with your terminology. 'Lifeform' and 'person' are two different things. A tapeworm, a bacteria, a toad, a blackbird, are all lifeforms. They are not people. I don't see what distinction you are making, if any.

If you want to address the question of when it becomes a person, I've already answered this. It's a sliding scale. A foetus is fully a person when he/she is born, at 8 and a half months he/she is viable and so, as close to personhood as makes no difference. At three months s/he is at an intermediate stage, in development. An embryo of three days has almost no elements of personhood, in my view.

This is what I mean by an inability to deal with complexity. You want a date, when before it is not a person, and after it is. That is simply not connected to the reality. The anti-abortion side have a black and white view of the issue, and this is the problem, as the issue is complex. There is no one date or stage where you can say, "now it is a person", and any attempt to define this date is simply down to personal preference or opinion.

eviltwin

Lingua Franca wrote: »

I also hate the term social abortion, eviltwin, which is why I put it in quotes. I'm hoping to challenge the deliberate obfuscation of what the current issue as addressed in the OP actually is, because I've just read 21 pages of "face the music" and "when does the foetus become a person with rights". These are tactics used by YD to prevent any abortions, including the medically necessary ones. Clouding the real, pressing, legal issue with slut-shaming, holocaust comparisons, bad science and god-bothering.



Me too, and my heart goes out to every Irish woman who has had to endure an abortion abroad. But again, the right to termination for non medical reasons is not in the constitution and is not the looming issue. Passing TFMR would be a step on the road (or, if you prefer, "slippery slope") to acceptance.

Sorry I didn't mean it to read like I was having a go at you. Its just the way that term - which I had never heard before - has only now in the past few months begun to be used.

I suppose there has to be some way to label the situations that lead women to make the choice and maybe its easier in some ways to use an umbrella term for all those women who don't fall into the medical / rape category but I feel its just allowing groups like YD to come out with that crap that women have abortions so they can fit into their skinny jeans or something stupid like that.

eviltwin

Bannasidhe wrote: »

eviltwin, I would just like to thank you for your honesty and openness in talking about what was a difficult time for you and your courage in refusing to be demonised.

Thank you Bannasidhe

Bannasidhe

eviltwin wrote: »

Thank you Bannasidhe

Thanks is due to you. Not me.

christmas2012

You dont get painkillers for abortion they hand you one measly courtesy paracetemol - its not pain medication that would suffice after going through a horribly invasive procedure..

To those thinking abortion will be 'just another procedure'.......Think again,it's not its a horrible experience,very invasive,and yes you do feel the pain of it afterwards,one just ONE paracetemol to such a procedure is not sufficient pain medication.As they are not your regular doctors they cannot prescribe to you, and the experience is even worse if you dont have a supportive partner with you,its a living nightmare,you dont get pain medication in the aftermath,and here is a link i have found on concious sedation:http://www.northlandfamilyplanning.com/pain-medication-anesthesia/ which is very VERY popular with abortion clinics in the UK,very very few do general anaestheisa,its not as cost effective,as you need a seperate, qualified anaethetist - it is a profession in itself,the abortionist him/herself cannot carry out general anaesthetic..So be warned,to be warned is to be fore armed..