Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

Zombrex

eireannBEAR wrote: »

i never said you said that??

no one should be forced to abort a baby,but we all know its going to happen...and dont ask for a link either,lol

So your rebuttal to the pro-choice campaign is to just making crazy nonsensical s**t up. Bravo, slow clap.

The central principle of the pro-choice argument is the woman's right to decide how her internal organs are used. It is the "choice" in pro choice. She cannot be forced to abort her baby by pro-choice laws because the basic principle of pro-choice laws is that she cannot be forced to do something with her organs she doesn't want to do. The idea that she would be "forced to abort a baby" by pro-choice laws just shows you don't understand pro-choice laws.

But then I think your posts made it clear a while ago you don't understand this topic on any serious level.

Maybe you should just go back to posting pictures with blood in them, and leave the proper discussion to the grown ups.

Brown Bomber

candy-gal1 wrote: »

Forgive me If Im wrong, but I dont think I said that tbh, no one should be forced to either have an abortion/give the baby up for adoption or keep the child by anyone, its the womans choice, the person whos carrying the cells/foetus/baby etc, they can discuss their options etc with their parents/partner of course, but the in the end the decision should lie just with her.

In every possible situation though? I couldn't get a straight answer on this before so maybe you could oblige me? Do you think it's morally sound for a woman to choose to do this?

I'm in the UK 24 weeks pregnant, a stage when my unborn child has a chance of survival outside the womb. My friends are going to Australia for a year, I decide I want to go too and don't want my baby anymore. On advice, I go to my doctor and tell him I am suicidal. He books me in for D & E abortion at the taxpayers expense where my unborn child will have things done to them that are now censored to mention in this forum. My unborn child may feel the pain of these actions before the life is terminated.

eireannBEAR

candy-gal1 wrote: »

I wont

Ah, maybe that was my bad there, I assumed that was directed at my post as you said that underneath mine :)
I dont think being forced to abort a baby would happen really, if we brought in a rule there when/if abortion was ever legal here in Ireland of course, that the woman in question would have to be there of their own free will aka sit and wait on their own and be asked honestly did they want this and why.

Tbh though, yes you have a point there, it would possibly get abused if it was brought in but really most things brought in will be/are abused of in some way, its not a great situation, but why punish all just on a "what if" basis?!

but most of us support abortion for every other humane reason but ''life choices'' its just to big a crime for me to swallow that reasoning.

all the young women and old women i know do not support the suicide clause its just a one way ticket to abortion on demand.

its completely a moral issue for me,i was raised not to step on a bug let alone a baby.

eireannBEAR

Zombrex wrote: »

So your rebuttal to the pro-choice campaign is to just making crazy nonsensical s**t up. Bravo, slow clap.

The central principle of the pro-choice argument is the woman's right to decide how her internal organs are used. It is the "choice" in pro choice. She cannot be forced to abort her baby by pro-choice laws because the basic principle of pro-choice laws is that she cannot be forced to do something with her organs she doesn't want to do. The idea that she would be "forced to abort a baby" by pro-choice laws just shows you don't understand pro-choice laws.

But then I think your posts made it clear a while ago you don't understand this topic on any serious level.

Maybe you should just go back to posting pictures with blood in them, and leave the proper discussion to the grown ups.

no need for a personal attack,i have read your posts they are childish and baseless,but nice way to force me to respond to you, well done!!

candy-gal1

Brown Bomber wrote: »

In every possible situation though? I couldn't get a straight answer on this before so maybe you could oblige me? Do you think it's morally sound for a woman to choose to do this?

Thats one situation, and yes im sure there would be more, but if she went to her doctor and said that she was suicidal she would need proof of some sort to prove she was feeling like this, a therapists letter/proof that she has tried overdoses etc and had a long talk with a professional to why she doesnt want it.

But, and I know this will sound bad to some people, but tbh if a woman wants to abort her foetus and is well within the weeks deemed ok to abort - as early as possable imho, then yes they should have that right, whatever the reason.

candy-gal1

eireannBEAR wrote: »

but most of us support abortion for every other humane reason but ''life choices'' its just to big a crime for me to swallow that reasoning.

all the young women and old women i know do not support the suicide clause its just a one way ticket to abortion on demand.

its completely a moral issue for me,i was raised not to step on a bug let alone a baby.

Thats fine and is your opinion, Im never going to force you or anyone else to have an abortion, its a choice.
But life choices is a big part of it imho, they dont want to carry it around for 9months/go through all that goes with pregnancy/the pain of childbirth and years of looking after something they never actually wanted in the first place, that would seem wrong to me.

Brown Bomber

candy-gal1 wrote: »

Thats one situation, and yes im sure there would be more, but if she went to her doctor and said that she was suicidal she would need proof of some sort to prove she was feeling like this, a therapists letter/proof that she has tried overdoses etc and had a long talk with a professional to why she doesnt want it.

But, and I know this will sound bad to some people, but tbh if a woman wants to abort her foetus and is well within the weeks deemed ok to abort - as early as possable imho, then yes they should have that right, whatever the reason.

Thanks for your honesty.

I'm not sure why you think they have a "right" to inflict pain on and end the life of something they created themselves because they've decided they want to go travelling (for example).

Though I respect your opinion.

There is no scientific test for mental health issues and this can be easily abused. I've known lots of people -- especially in the civil service for some reason -- who have faked it to stay at home and get paid.

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Thanks for your honesty.

I'm not sure why you think they have a "right" to inflict pain on and end the life of something they created themselves because they've decided they want to go travelling (for example).

Though I respect your opinion.

There is no scientific test for mental health issues and this can be easily abused. I've known lots of people -- especially in the civil service for some reason -- who have faked it to stay at home and get paid.

So, going on your reasoning, because of the risk of "abuse", there should be no Abortion full stop. This would logically have to be extended to any form of alcohol, gun licencing, mixing of the genders.......

candy-gal1

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Thanks for your honesty.

I'm not sure why you think they have a "right" to inflict pain on and end the life of something they created themselves because they've decided they want to go travelling (for example).

Though I respect your opinion.

There is no scientific test for mental health issues and this can be easily abused. I've known lots of people -- especially in the civil service for some reason -- who have faked it to stay at home and get paid.

If it is done as early as is possable, within the first few months imho, then that is severly limiting any pain being felt by the foetus, especially if the abortion is done within the first month or max 2 as it actually would be a clump of cells imho.

It may be abused, theres not much we can do about that really, but punishing the people who may actually genuinely want it and are in the approprate times to get an abortion and as early as possable because there may be some that just use it willy nilly, pardon the pun :pac:, and flippantly just lie and do it, like that shouldnt be the case imho.

Turtwig

Brown Bomber wrote: »

There is no scientific test for mental health issues and this can be easily abused. I've known lots of people -- especially in the civil service for some reason -- who have faked it to stay at home and get paid.

There are scientific tests. Diagnosis can often be subjective but psychiatry is striving to change that. How do you know people are faking mental illnesses? When people who haven't seen me in a few months see me they usually tell me I'm looking really well. The reality though is I'm feeling awful, in extreme discomfort and have regressed a lot since they last saw me. Doesn't stop them from holding that opinion though.

People are usually crap at judging the state of health of others around them. And I'm just referring to physical health here. Mental health is worse thanks to a persistent stigma.

Turtwig

Zombrex wrote: »

leave the proper discussion to the grown ups.

Can we PLEASE leave this personal childish crap out?
(And that petty pot kettle exchange.)

Brown Bomber

Nodin wrote: »

So, going on your reasoning, because of the risk of "abuse", there should be no Abortion full stop. This would logically have to be extended to any form of alcohol, gun licencing, mixing of the genders.......

What I think is that they should be treated on a case-by-case basis. And in the example I provided my view is that an abortion such as this one where someone goes off the idea of having a baby for selfish reasons and lies about having mental health issues is morally wrong.

If they were to genuinely be suffering from mental health problems then this turns everything on it's head.

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

What I think is that they should be treated on a case-by-case basis. And in the example I provided my view is that an abortion such as this one where someone goes off the idea of having a baby for selfish reasons and lies about having mental health issues is morally wrong.

If they were to genuinely be suffering from mental health problems then this turns everything on it's head.

So you're against "on demand" abortion?

Brown Bomber

candy-gal1 wrote: »

If it is done as early as is possable, within the first few months imho, then that is severly limiting any pain being felt by the foetus, especially if the abortion is done within the first month or max 2 as it actually would be a clump of cells imho.

It may be abused, theres not much we can do about that really, but punishing the people who may actually genuinely want it and are in the approprate times to get an abortion and as early as possable because there may be some that just use it willy nilly, pardon the pun :pac:, and flippantly just lie and do it like that shouldnt be the case imho.

I can live with that. I don't think we are that far apart afterall.

TheChizler

Brown Bomber wrote: »

What I think is that they should be treated on a case-by-case basis. And in the example I provided my view is that an abortion such as this one where someone goes off the idea of having a baby for selfish reasons and lies about having mental health issues is morally wrong.

If they were to genuinely be suffering from mental health problems then this turns everything on it's head.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I can live with that. I don't think we are that far apart afterall.

So the last number of pages boils down to; you're ok with it if you could guarantee that it wouldn't be abused?

Zombrex

Brown Bomber wrote: »

What I think is that they should be treated on a case-by-case basis. And in the example I provided my view is that an abortion such as this one where someone goes off the idea of having a baby for selfish reasons and lies about having mental health issues is morally wrong.

If they were to genuinely be suffering from mental health problems then this turns everything on it's head.

What would be a case where the woman doesn't own her own womb and where her consent is not required for another person to use it?

Brown Bomber

Jernal wrote: »

There are scientific tests. Diagnosis can often be subjective but psychiatry is striving to change that. How do you know people are faking mental illnesses? When people who haven't seen me in a few months see me they usually tell me I'm looking really well. The reality though is I'm feeling awful, in extreme discomfort and have regressed a lot since they last saw me. Doesn't stop them from holding that opinion though.

People are usually crap at judging the state of health of others around them. And I'm just referring to physical health here. Mental health is worse thanks to a persistent stigma.

I'm not trying to diminish the seriousness of genuine mental health problems just pointing out that it is easy to fake. I had a friend who was perfectly fine but played the system. Ironically he developed a mental health problem due the amount of coke he took on his all expenses paid 2 year holiday before he was cut off.

On the other hand I have an employee who for the last 5 months and indefinitely into the future who is collecting his full and quite large designers salary, no questions asked, and with my full support due to his nervous condition.

It's something I understand to an extent due to my mother's severe mental health illnesses.

Corkfeen

eireannBEAR wrote: »

but most of us support abortion for every other humane reason but ''life choices'' its just to big a crime for me to swallow that reasoning.

all the young women and old women i know do not support the suicide clause its just a one way ticket to abortion on demand.

its completely a moral issue for me,i was raised not to step on a bug let alone a baby.

Ahh yes, anecdotal people that you know... The suicide clause was voted on by the public so clearly the majority disagree with all the women you know. Polling also indicates that the public support the legislation to a greater deal than it did a decade ago.

Brown Bomber

TheChizler wrote: »

So the last number of pages boils down to; you're ok with it if you could guarantee that it wouldn't be abused?

It's hard to describe exactly my view. I am against abortion of-itself. However, I am also against encroachment on personal freedoms. That is to an extent. For example, I a for peoples rights to take whatever drugs they want but I am against a person's right to "choose" to drink and drive.

So I have to balance each case individually on a scales of morality where 24 weeks abortion, when the foetus could realistically surive outside the womb and feel the pain of the abortion is morally wrong. The other side is where the mother's live is in danger and needs an emergency abortion.

That would be the two opposite sides in a venn diagram. It's the intersection of the diagram that I am currently unsure about,

I do respect everyone's opinion on this though, except for maybe eugenicists or abortionists whose primary concern is profits. Worth pointing out as well that I would never hold a woman having an abortion against them.

Zombrex

Brown Bomber wrote: »

So I have to balance each case individually on a scales of morality where 24 weeks abortion, when the foetus could realistically surive outside the womb and feel the pain of the abortion is morally wrong. The other side is where the mother's live is in danger and needs an emergency abortion.

If the fetus can survive outside the womb, and can survive the procedure to remove it, then abortion is simply early birth.

Mark Hamill

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I'm not convinced that a foetus can receive it directly unless a caesarian is performed and you haven't shown why you think so either.

I dont think you need to do a caesarian to stick a needle through the woman's abdomen into the foetus.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Nor am I convinced that you have shown anything to refute that a foetus can receive the required dose of anesthetic that would guarantee zero pain that doesn't endanger the mother. The surgery in the link is a "minimal invasive procedure" with tiny tools and was to remove 1cm of tissue. As well as this it's not clear what stage of development the lamb foetus was at.

The younger the lamb foetus was the more of it was taken in that 1 cm, the older it was, the more anaesthetic it was given to numb it. Even to a full grown foetus, 1cm of tissue is a lot of material. Your own link refutes your claim that the foetus cannot be anaesthetised without harming the mother.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

When he says that a foetus cannot be sufficently anesethised to avoid the incredible pain he believes it is likely to feel without risking the health of the mother I am inclined to believe him in the absence of a compelling argument to the contrary.

Its amazing how they can put a 100 kg person to sleep and cut them open anywhere, swap their heart if they need to, without them feeling it, yet they can't give enough anaesthetic to a pregnant women to numb a 300g parasite in her belly (assuming it does have to be given via the mother).

EDIT: Here is a scientific paper (from the US National Library of Medicine), where foetal anaesthetics is discussed. They give it through the mother:

Placental transfer of of anaesthetic agents to the fetus is a desirable effect of maternal anaesthesia. The fetus requires less muscle relaxant and anaesthetic agent.

General anaesthesia is preferable as it accomplishes both maternal and fetal anaesthesia.

Mark Hamill

Nodin wrote: »

So, going on your reasoning, because of the risk of "abuse", there should be no Abortion full stop. This would logically have to be extended to any form of alcohol, gun licencing, mixing of the genders.......

Going by Brown Bombers logic, abortion is an "abuse" of pregnancy, therefore pregnancy should be banned :pac:

Nodin

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Going by Brown Bombers logic, abortion is an "abuse" of pregnancy, therefore pregnancy should be banned :pac:

....no, theres always a few who would ignore the rules and get pregnant. We'll just have to ban women.

TheChizler

Brown Bomber wrote: »

So I have to balance each case individually on a scales of morality where 24 weeks abortion, when the foetus could realistically surive outside the womb and feel the pain of the abortion is morally wrong. The other side is where the mother's live is in danger and needs an emergency abortion.

That would be the two opposite sides in a venn diagram. It's the intersection of the diagram that I am currently unsure about,

Except it's more like a Venn diagram with about 15 different categories and very blurry intersections .

I imagine it as a scales weighing the rights of the foetus Vs. the mother, the foetus weights start to get added after a certain age, taken away if some condition means they'll have a lesser quality of life (harsh way to put it but it's a harsh reality) etc., the mother starts of with certain weight which gets added to if having a baby would affect her quality of life and she doesn't want that. Unfortunately legislation would in practical terms only be able to state at which age the foetus weights start being added. The rest as you say is on a case by case basis and the weights can be determined up to a certain point only by the mother, after that professionals get a say. The balance will always have to tip in favour of one or the other.

I think some version of the above model would work for everybody, of course some people would put all the weight in the universe at the point of conception on the foetus' side :rolleyes:. It's just a case of setting weights and thresholds.

Had a conversation with my mother about 'on demand' abortion, or abortion as a 'form of contraception' recently enough, she said she didn't like the idea of it. I said, "but you agree with the morning after pill don't you? It's the same thing only very early on" and she had to stop and think. Most rational people do have some level of acceptance of it once they stop to think. That's why emotive language and images don't contribute to the debate, they completely cover over the rational side of people with fear.

Not sure where I'm going with this ramble ramble... my 2 c.

Brian Shanahan

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Fair enough but I don't how you would go about arguing this. Take this tiny little baby for example. How do you go about gauging the pain felt this tiny little child being forcibly grabbed by a forceps, manipulated into position, having their head sliced open and then their brain vacuumed out?

I don't because the scenario you paint is a lie created by anti-abortionists (whose position is actually anti-life, for example read Barbara Eherenreich on the two abortions she had in order to realise how pro-life the pro-choice movement is, she chose the abortions because she needed to give a proper quality of life to the living members of her family) simply because without lies the anti-abortionists have no arguments beyond, "we want to restrict your freedoms because we can't abide others who are different from us."

_rebelkid

Little bit of info on survival stats at 24 weeks:

-9 out of every 100 pregnancies terminated/aborted at 24 weeks survive to live a perfectly normal life
-less than 25 survive past 1 year, others vary from still born, seconds, minutes, hours, days.
-of the remaining 16, all of them will have some variance of serious disability; be it limited movement of the hand, total paralysis and other mental disabilities.

So though they have a "chance of survival", their life after is, for the majority of those survivors, full of hardship, pain and extremely low quality of life.

One case on the BBC documentary that I got his info from, was of an 18 year old girl. She lives with her mother, has mild cerebral palsy, and has 3 nurses come to her home to assist her every day. Her school life was torture; torrid bullying and learning difficulty. When she turned 18, the UK government cut nearly all of her welfare payments.

Her mother did not chose to deliver at 24 weeks, nor did she chose to abort before hand.

What it showed was that though there is a chance, however slim, of the fetus surviving at 24 weeks, the chance of having a good quality of life is so much less. Which begs the question, is survival worth it. Is it worth "taking the chance" of either rearing your helpless son/daughter for the rest of their life, or watching the baby die in front of you, never getting the chance to hold it? That is the 24 week dilemma.


And quickly on the horrendous attitude being shown to suicide:

Suicide is no joke. Suicide is not an emotional excuse. I know that from personal struggles, and from many people I knew committing suicide.

Just because psychiatrists brought in by pro-life advocates say there is no evidence that abortion is a treatment to suicidal intent, does not in any way mean that it can't be. How many suicides are of pregnant women? No evidence. How many suicides are of gay teens? No evidence. Does that mean that pregnant women and gay teens have never committed suicide? No.

Suicide is vaguely treatable. Suicide stems from personal problems. Generic problem solving shows how to bypass or remove the problem. If a pregnancy is so much a problem that the woman will kill herself, and her unborn, why or how would anyone choose not to save 1 life. If a mother is so so troubled, pushed and shared by the carrying, birthing and either rearing or giving away of a possible child that she is willing to kill herself, how wold anyone deny her a termination. Yes, it may seem selfish and woman focussed, but it's not. Suicidal intent is much more complex than "wants and need".

To be honest, I think the the suicide clause will be the most under used part of the bill. Pregnancy is not something that goes unnoticed, so an enormous amount of thought has already gone into options. And even though I then it will be rarely used, it must stay in. Much like how there can't be time limits on the bill. If you remove it, you are condemning those women who would otherwise have gotten an abortion to death. Remove the time limits, and you are condemning them to death.

I support every part of the bill, and I hope to see he repeal of the 8th amendment.

TheChizler

I don't think I've seen it discussed here, but let's say 24 weeks is some magical threshold where those statistics always apply. What would the thought be on not forcing the mother to continue to full term, but seeing if some compromise could be reached, like waiting a few weeks until the chances of survival and quality of life have risen? In the meantime the foetus could be treated to prepare for premature delivery, steroids to develop the lungs etc.

Obviously it's a weighing game between the mother and foetus again, would waiting endanger the mother etc, either through a complication of pregnancy or mental health issues, but could the thought of drastically reducing the length of the pregnancy have benefits for the mental health of the mother? I suppose the answer as ever is, it depends...

And again, we're talking about the minority of a minority of cases where it's over 24 (or similar) weeks and the mother is potentially suicidal. And you'd be seeking the agreement of the mother to wait.

Edit: Actually I'd be surprised if all doctors/people involved wouldn't consider this option in late term cases, provided they think the mother could handle it.

Sarky

Anti-choice folks sometimes make some very interesting claims about brain activity.

Found a nice little piece that explains why such claims are pretty much bollocks.

lazygal

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I'm not trying to diminish the seriousness of genuine mental health problems just pointing out that it is easy to fake. I had a friend who was perfectly fine but played the system. Ironically he developed a mental health problem due the amount of coke he took on his all expenses paid 2 year holiday before he was cut off.

On the other hand I have an employee who for the last 5 months and indefinitely into the future who is collecting his full and quite large designers salary, no questions asked, and with my full support due to his nervous condition.

It's something I understand to an extent due to my mother's severe mental health illnesses.

You seem to have a large variety of friends, family and colleagues to drop upon when making your arguments about abortion. If they aren't getting abortions because of not having a 'perfect' baby, they're faking mental illnesses or are genuinely ill or have been adopted.

bumper234

Brown Bomber wrote: »

In every possible situation though? I couldn't get a straight answer on this before so maybe you could oblige me? Do you think it's morally sound for a woman to choose to do this?

Asking for a straight answer to a question asked yet refuses to answer questions that he has been asked. Oh the irony.