Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

doctoremma

christmas2012 wrote: »

Have you ever read about an abortion procedure,they do cut off amniotic fluid,how do you think the baby survives??

I'm not sure what you mean? What is an amniotic tube? And what you mean by "cutting off amniotic fluid"?

OldNotWIse

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You are arguing against a point no-one here has made. People here have said they believe women have the right to decide what happens to their own bodies and that right should be inviolate. I don't recall anyone saying no womb = no say, but rather that the ultimate decision rests with the woman who is pregnant because it is her body.

Yes, you can use roll eyes all you want - but it doesn't help keep the debate civil when one employs little sarcastic emoticons nor does it add anything positive to any points you are making if it causes people to scroll on by your posts.

Do you not find it interesting that many of anti-abortion brigade whose side you are firmly on in this debate would see you as 'unfit' to have a child as you are a lesbian?

Intersting? No. Sad? Yes.

Also, what is your implication? That I'm not allowed to have the same views on abortion as someone who does not approve of my sexual orientation?

A new low on boards...

OldNotWIse

christmas2012 wrote: »

ok robin im leaving off for a while,i was just defending myself against comments like im a liar,and insinuations being made that im lying or spreading mistruths etc..I think i have a right to defend myself,but ill leave it for now maybe come back tommorrow..When hopefully its less heated like you say..Byes

Time for me to go too...I'm not supposed to have a view on abortion because I'm gay and some people who are pro life are homophobic...

christmas2012

OK this is my last post for today,the womb and the baby is surrounded by amnoitic fluid when an abortion happens they no longer have the amniotic fluid to surive,by your handle if you are a doc you should know this stuff - the baby cannot survive without amniotic fluid.

Ive noticed ive gotten peoples backs up with saying that abortion is an invasive procedure and painful,but i would rather some women informed then none at all..

What i witnessed with my friend is something i never want to go through,and she said herself she would never go through it again,whether it was a pregnancy with perfect circumstances or not.She wouldnt face that horribly invasive procedure again.

Im sorry im getting peoples backs up,but i feel its their right to know,and abortion is not just a word it can give you a whole new set of problems.

thats it bye for now.

marienbad

Sin City wrote: »

It is a good tool to get your point accross but its locking someone into an either or answer when the truth is a bit more complicated than that

Indeed it is Sin City- so leave it to individual choice . You seem to wish to have your definition of when ''life'' begins enshrined in law. Is that not locking everone in ?

OldNotWIse

eviltwin wrote: »

Proof please?

Here's an idea, what about instead of trying to discredit all posts that "tell us" how abortion is carried out, why dont you tell us? You seem happy to deny all of christmas's posts about what actually happens to bring about the destruction of the foetus - you clearly know what actually happens so feel free to enlighten us.

MagicMarker

christmas2012 wrote: »

Ive noticed ive gotten peoples backs up with saying that abortion is an invasive procedure and painful,but i would rather some women informed then none at all..

Well you should know that you are misinforming women yourself, as has been shown time and time again in this thread. If you truly want to inform women (which no one has a problem with), then you need to inform them with the facts.

doctoremma

christmas2012 wrote: »

OK this is my last post for today,the womb and the baby is surrounded by amnoitic fluid when an abortion happens they no longer have the amniotic fluid to surive

But the death of the embryo is not induced by removal of the amniotic fluid. In an early abortion (to 12 weeks, 90 % of abortions), the embryo is, well, instantly destroyed. It's not removed from the woman and left to die "naturally". In later abortions, the baby's heart is stopped, prior to any procedure. Again, it is not the intent of the abortion to remove the baby and allow it to die "naturally" (although I understand that nothing is ever certain and mistakes - horrific ones that should never be repeated - DO happen).

christmas2012 wrote: »

by your handle if you are a doc you should know this stuff - the baby cannot survive without amniotic fluid.

Well, I know that something called the "amniotic tube" doesn't exist. And I know that a baby doesn't survive without amniotic fluid. But again, this is irrelevant to the mechanism used to induce death in any abortion.

Bannasidhe

Quote thingy apparently not working...

@Sin City.

It wasn't intended as a low blow (and I apologise without reservation to OldNotWIse if I offended her.)

My point is this:

One of the issues for women arguing for choice is control of their own sexuality and their own body. To be lesbian is to defy what many will insist is 'natural' - you've been on the various threads so I don't need to tell you the kind of rubbish that is spouted.

But it all comes down to women's rights. The right to not be heterosexual is part of the same broad movement that states a woman's right to control her own life is inviolate. For a woman to be able to control her life - she must have control over her own body.

Those who tell lesbians and gay men they 'hate the sin but not the sinner' and it's ok to be Gay as long as you never never have gay sex are trying to control what people do with their own bodies. How is that so different from telling women they cannot have an abortion in any circumstances?

I thought this was obvious, but I see I should have been clearer when making my point.

eveya

I don't necessarily think abortion is always the answer, but at the end of the day, it's a woman's body and she should have a choice in what happens to it.

Tipsygypsy

christmas2012 wrote: »

step 1 : baby is aborted

step 2: no longer connection to amniotic tube in womb.

step 3: suffocates

i wasnt suggesting the foetus was ready to breathe air and as a result of no amniotic fluid suffocates..as it can no longer respire..

Proof Christmas, evidence, documentation.... I am not asking you to repeat yourself, I am not asking you to further explain your assertions, I am asking you to provide actual documented evidence. This is why people are arguing with you, because you continue to make representations that you cannot then back up with anything other than your own opinion. If what are saying is what is actually happening then your argument would hold much more sway if you actually backed it up with the word of someone other than yourself. Medical or scientific expert for preferance. I dont understand why this concept escapes you.

Im going to suspend my own beliefs for the moment and ask you, completely open-mindedly to show me where you get this information from. You didnt get the suffocation thing from your friend, so where did you get it, can you show us the information that was shown to you that has you so convince.

Im genuinely asking you to help us see it from your point of view.

OldNotWIse

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Quote thingy apparently not working...

@Sin City.

It wasn't intended as a low blow (and I apologise without reservation to OldNotWIse if I offended her.)

My point is this:

One of the issues for women arguing for choice is control of their own sexuality and their own body. To be lesbian is to defy what many will insist is 'natural' - you've been on the various threads so I don't need to tell you the kind of rubbish that is spouted.

But it all comes down to women's rights. The right to not be heterosexual is part of the same broad movement that states a woman's right to control her own life is inviolate. For a woman to be able to control her life - she must have control over her own body.

Those who tell lesbians and gay men they 'hate the sin but not the sinner' and it's ok to be Gay as long as you never never have gay sex are trying to control what people do with their own bodies. How is that so different from telling women they cannot have an abortion in any circumstances?

I thought this was obvious, but I see I should have been clearer when making my point.

I cant believe it. You think I should be ok with abortion bc I am gay?? What?? Listen to what you are actually saying...

Being gay is not a choice, its the way you are born. getting pregnant and having an abortion is a choice. Do not even attempt to try to draw parallels between the two, and please do not infer that just because I do not tolerate homophobia, that this somehow obliges me to support abortion. Do you think black people who experience racism should be more "understanding" of abortion?? What, some kind of token empathy brought about by the fact that we are all "victims" or something. I really could do without your condescending claptrap.

Honestly some people...

Tipsygypsy

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Here's an idea, what about instead of trying to discredit all posts that "tell us" how abortion is carried out, why dont you tell us? You seem happy to deny all of christmas's posts about what actually happens to bring about the destruction of the foetus - you clearly know what actually happens so feel free to enlighten us.

as you wish:

http://www.thisismyabortion.com/

Sin City

marienbad wrote: »

Indeed it is Sin City- so leave it to individual choice . You seem to wish to have your definition of when ''life'' begins enshrined in law. Is that not locking everone in ?

its already enshrined in law well before I knew anything about it . plus the individual choice is.biased

OldNotWIse

Tipsygypsy wrote: »

as you wish:

http://www.thisismyabortion.com/

I suspect the imagery will flag a code red on my work pc (also wouldnt want IT to think I had or am considering an abortion) I'll check it later. Thanks

Bannasidhe

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I cant believe it. You think I should be ok with abortion bc I am gay?? What?? Listen to what you are actually saying...

Being gay is not a choice, its the way you are born. getting pregnant and having an abortion is a choice. Do not even attempt to try to draw parallels between the two, and please do not infer that just because I do not tolerate homophobia, that this somehow obliges me to support abortion.

Honestly some people...

No getting pregnant is not always a choice. Did women who get pregnant having been raped make a choice?

Is any of the 10 women who endure 'corrective rape' in South Africa every week making a choice if they get pregnant? That's over 500 lesbians a year who have no choice in whether they get pregnant or not. Perhaps you should think about what you are saying!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2055289/Corrective-rape-South-Africa-women-attcked-cure-lesbians.html

No - I do not think that being gay means one is automatically pro-choice. I am simply saying that I find it hard to understand how someone can be pro- free expression of sexuality which is a form of exerting control over one's own body but against the idea that women's control over their own bodies is inviolate.

robindch

christmas2012 wrote: »

Ive noticed ive gotten peoples backs up with saying that abortion is an invasive procedure and painful,but i would rather some women informed then none at all.

In the case you've mentioned, it was invasive and painful, but other people have had other experiences. It would therefore be fairer to say that "abortion can be an invasive procedure and painful"

christmas2012 wrote: »

just defending myself against comments like im a liar,and insinuations being made that im lying or spreading mistruths etc..

I've mentioned it quite often, but in this heavily-moderated discussion, any post that intimates that any other poster is being dishonest -- indeed any personal comments at all contra other posters -- will be deleted, probably without comment, as soon as I see it.

This topic is highly emotive and highly personal, and it can only be discussed calmly if the strict rules about avoiding personal comments which have been mentioned many times before are applied equally to all posters, and that includes everybody else, as well as you.

Thanks for your input into the discussion. It's appreciated.

Tipsygypsy

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I suspect the imagery will flag a code red on my work pc (also wouldnt want IT to think I had or am considering an abortion) I'll check it later. Thanks

Actually its probably safe for work, its nothing like what you expect it to be like. Its a first trimester abortion. But I understand why you would want to wait. I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

Sin City

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Quote thingy apparently not working...

@Sin City.

It wasn't intended as a low blow (and I apologise without reservation to OldNotWIse if I offended her.)

My point is this:

One of the issues for women arguing for choice is control of their own sexuality and their own body. To be lesbian is to defy what many will insist is 'natural' - you've been on the various threads so I don't need to tell you the kind of rubbish that is spouted.

But it all comes down to women's rights. The right to not be heterosexual is part of the same broad movement that states a woman's right to control her own life is inviolate. For a woman to be able to control her life - she must have control over her own body.

Those who tell lesbians and gay men they 'hate the sin but not the sinner' and it's ok to be Gay as long as you never never have gay sex are trying to control what people do with their own bodies. How is that so different from telling women they cannot have an abortion in any circumstances?

I thought this was obvious, but I see I should have been clearer when making my point.

I understand what your saying but as far as.I am aware no one brought any anti gay remars to the arguement.,anyway lets carry on

robindch

OldNotWIse wrote: »

[...] wouldnt want IT [...]

And they're ok with time spent on boards.ie?

OldNotWIse

Tipsygypsy wrote: »

Actually its probably safe for work, its nothing like what you expect it to be like. Its a first trimester abortion. But I understand why you would want to wait. I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

ok fair enough, but I'm going to hold off anyway. Like I said, dont want IT to think I'm considering etc

OldNotWIse

robindch wrote: »

And they're ok with time spent on boards.ie?

So it would seem?????

old hippy

christmas2012 wrote: »

are you putting a plug in or what?ive seen how some abortion clinics and transport agencies linked with abortion clinics operate and its sickening,THEY SHOULD MENTION THEY DONT DO AFTERCARE ITS NOT COST EFFECTIVE,AND GIVE YOU ONE MEASLY PARECETEMOL TABLET,but the first mention of youth defence who dont profit from getting their adverts out is a different story..

Ah, so you've seen more than the one you previously claim... which ones would they be & how many exactly, if I'm not being horribly invasive asking that question?

OldNotWIse

robindch wrote: »

And they're ok with time spent on boards.ie?

I like the way you essentially snipped my post into non existance btw - the entire point was about not wanting IT to think I am going down that route. In future if you quote me, at least use the whole sentence and not just three words...

OldNotWIse

Bannasidhe wrote: »

No getting pregnant is not always a choice. Did women who get pregnant having been raped make a choice?

Is any of the 10 women who endure 'corrective rape' in South Africa every week making a choice if they get pregnant? That's over 500 lesbians a year who have no choice in whether they get pregnant or not. Perhaps you should think about what you are saying!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2055289/Corrective-rape-South-Africa-women-attcked-cure-lesbians.html

No - I do not think that being gay means one is automatically pro-choice. I am simply saying that I find it hard to understand how someone can be pro- free expression of sexuality which is a form of exerting control over one's own body but against the idea that women's control over their own bodies is inviolate.

Straws everywhere, clutching desperately. You are essentially saying the same thing but sugar coating it. Claiming that being a lesbian is in any way like aborting an unborn child is ridiculous and I find it incredibly insulting.

Incidentally, how many abortions carried out are women who have been raped?

doctoremma

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Incidentally, how many abortions carried out are women who have been raped?

Difficult. Pro-life sites reckon about 1%. I'd view this as conservative, given the endemic under-reporting of rape across all cultures.

marienbad

Sin City wrote: »

its already enshrined in law well before I knew anything about it . plus the individual choice is.biased

Ok- but I thought we were having a discussion in the general sense . But to take your point , correct me if I am wrong but the current position in Ireland is that there is no time limit in ireland for an abortion as long as there is a risk to the life of the mother.

It is to correct that anomaly the new legistation is required .

So what if individual choice is biased ? What difference does it make to you if someone else has an abortion ? Pro-choice dos'nt force people to have abortions. And the fact of the matter is if they want one they will travel to get one.

So why not legislate for what is actually happening rather than what we pretend is happening.

The usual firgure given for Irish abortions in the UK is somewhere between 4 and 5 k per annum, and it has been like this for years . ANd that is only for those women that give Irish addresses, so the real figure is probably even higher .

So over the last 25 years we have had between 100,000 and 125,000 Irish abortions- that is the reality.

OldNotWIse

doctoremma wrote: »

Difficult. Pro-life sites reckon about 1%. I'd view this as conservative, given the endemic under-reporting of rape across all cultures.

good point

Sin City

marienbad wrote: »

Ok- but I thought we were having a discussion in the general sense . But to take your point , correct me if I am wrong but the current position in Ireland is that there is no time limit in ireland for an abortion as long as there is a risk to the life of the mother.

It is to correct that anomaly the new legistation is required .

As far as I am aware and I am open to correction on this is that the statethat 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.

marienbad wrote: »

So what if individual choice is biased ? What difference does it make to you if someone else has an abortion ? Pro-choice dos'nt force people to have abortions. And the fact of the matter is if they want one they will travel to get one.

So what if its biased? if its biased then not all factors are taken into account for a just law to take place

marienbad wrote: »

So why not legislate for what is actually happening rather than what we pretend is happening.

Because both rights have to be taken into consideration

marienbad wrote: »

The usual firgure given for Irish abortions in the UK is somewhere between 4 and 5 k per annum, and it has been like this for years . ANd that is only for those women that give Irish addresses, so the real figure is probably even higher .

So over the last 25 years we have had between 100,000 and 125,000 Irish abortions- that is the reality.

Yes that is the reality, but just because a lot of women seek these servies doesnt make it morally or right or legal. Its a dilemma alright but not one that can be taken lightly. again both rights have to be taken into account

Sin City

doctoremma wrote: »

Difficult. Pro-life sites reckon about 1%. I'd view this as conservative, given the endemic under-reporting of rape across all cultures.

Very good point , but Im sure you can agree that the vast majority of abortions come from consensual sex