Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

Gurgle

MagicMarker wrote: »

Well, unless your idea of conception is different to every single other pro-lifer I've talked to then I don't see how you're in favour of the MAP.

I'm ok with being different to every single other pro-lifer. Thanks.

Did you read the wikipedia entry on the morning after pill?
It is not an abortion pill. That's something different, clarified in detail on wikipedia.

Bannasidhe

iguana wrote: »

I can only assume that anyone who thinks that the right to life of the embryo/foetus trumps the right to the right of the woman to bodily integrity is also in favour of mandatory blood, bone marrow and kidney donations. Because there are people, who unlike the unborn have been born and are inarguably alive, who will die without those donations and it is nothing more than selfishness for the rest of us not to make them. Never mind that there is pain, discomfort and occasional long-term health risks associated with making those donations, nobody should have the right to bodily integrity if it means someone else not living.

I'm pregnant now and this pregnancy along all with previous ones have been planned and wholey wanted. This is the only pregnancy I've had that's come close to term, the others ending early due to a medical condition. I've found miscarrying to be far more devastating than I ever could have imagined and I had major surgery in order to make it possible for me to complete a pregnancy. Finally getting to a point where the odds are that I will be a parent soon has made me happy in a way that's indescribable, I love feeling my baby move and planning our future together. However, that doesn't mean that pregnancy itself isn't awful. Absolutely stinkingly terrible.

On a physical level it's close to unendurable. I hurt all the time. Many days I can barely walk from pelvic pain. I can't catch my breath any more. I can't sleep for more than an hour or two at a time. I'm always tired. I have to work incredibly hard to control my emotional state and fail to far more than I like. I can't eat many foods I love because they could result in harm to my baby and on top of that I can't eat dairy at all as my digestive system has slowed down too much to handle it, or anything spicy because of the heartburn. All of which is better than the first 4 months of pregnancy where I threw up so much I burst blood vessels in my sinuses causing nose bleeds, the whites of my eyes to fill with pools of blood and severe migraines that I couldn't take proper medication for as that would harm the baby. It's been less than 7 months but it feels like a thousand years. If I didn't love my baby as much as it's possible to love anything I could not and would not go through this as it's absolute hell.

I know that not all women find pregnancy this hard but I also know that for others it's much, much worse. No one should ever have to go through a pregnancy for any reason other than they really want to. Whether that reason is because they want their own baby, they want to have a baby to give for adoption or they are a surrogate for a loved one or are hired to be one, is all valid. But if they do not make the choice not to continue with the pregnancy then that's valid too because pregnancy is a really, really big deal that takes a lot of a woman, requires a lot of sacrifices and can have long-term physical consequences. And if anyone feels like condemning her for not making those sacrifices then maybe they should first consider all of the ways that they could have saved someone's life these last 9 months but didn't choose to.

Wonderful post.

As a lesbian my son was planned and very much wanted but let's put it this way - Much as I love my son and have never for a second regretted having him there is no way I would ever go through that again!

There are people who say one will forget what it's like to be pregnant (the vomiting, the aches, the heartburn, the constant need to go to the toilet, the lack of sleep, the nausea, the being beaten up from the inside, and don't even mention what happens if one drops the soap- you're never gonna see that again) and the pain of labour (I could get gruesome but lets just say imagine trying to have a pooh the size of a rugby ball and this attempt to pooh can last for 3 days- there is a limit to how far the human body will 'stretch' before it tears) are lying.

I have had and passed kidney stones, I have torn my achilles tendon, I have experienced bile dripping on my liver digesting it - I would still prefer all of these simultaneously then go through 36 hours of labour again.

'Just 9 months' ....HA!

Piper101

This is a difficult debate for me, I've always been a very liberal person who believed that a person has a right to do whatever they want with their own lives and bodies as long as they don't hurt anyone else...however, since becoming pregnant I cannot wrap my head around the upper limit for abortion in most Jurisdictions (incl that of our nearest neighbour) is 24 weeks.

I'm 22+ weeks and i can feel my baby kicking, my baby is able to recognise my voice at this stage...what stage do people feel would be an acceptable cut off point for abortion should it be legislated for in this country?

When I misguidedly found myself in an abortion discussion with a close friend recently I was attacked when I said that I felt that 24 weeks was far too late, I understand that it is an emotive issue but if the life could be sustained outside the womb does that not give it a right to that life?

professore

MagicMarker wrote: »

Well, if you're so against abortion, then legally why don't you draw the line at no abortions for anyone unless the mother's life is at stake or the potential child has a disorder meaning they would not survive more than a few hours of intense pain after birth? This, to me, seems like a perfectly logical line to draw for someone who is against abortion generally.

But your line isn't logical, it's completely illogical, in fact it's completely different from what you said earlier in the thread...



..... "convinced of the preciousness of human life".... but only when the fetus is at least 8 weeks old.

You haven't told us your views on the subject so I'm not wasting my time replying.

professore

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

Just out of curiosity - if a woman decided to have an abortion and had one, do you think she's a criminal and should be incarcerated in the same way a murderer is punished?

Yes, if that's the law.

professore

Piper101 wrote: »

This is a difficult debate for me, I've always been a very liberal person who believed that a person has a right to do whatever they want with their own lives and bodies as long as they don't hurt anyone else...however, since becoming pregnant I cannot wrap my head around the upper limit for abortion in most Jurisdictions (incl that of our nearest neighbour) is 24 weeks.

I'm 22+ weeks and i can feel my baby kicking, my baby is able to recognise my voice at this stage...what stage do people feel would be an acceptable cut off point for abortion should it be legislated for in this country?

When I misguidedly found myself in an abortion discussion with a close friend recently I was attacked when I said that I felt that 24 weeks was far too late, I understand that it is an emotive issue but if the life could be sustained outside the womb does that not give it a right to that life?

I agree with you.

Turtwig

professore wrote: »

You haven't told us your views on the subject so I'm not wasting my time replying.

I'm just guessing here, but for some of us this concept is so complicated we haven't yet formed a concrete opinion on it. A week ago, I was conservatively pro-choice but mostly anti-abortion. Today, at this moment, I'm currently inkling pro-choice almost all the way. Tomorrow. . .

MisterEpicurus

professore wrote: »

Yes, if that's the law.

That's quite revealing.

You equate murderers and their punishment with a pregnant mother.

But if it wasn't the law - you'd feel that if you were in the presence of a woman who aborted a baby - that you'd be in the presence of a murderer?

So it should be on their criminal record according to you.

I find this all quite shocking to be honest. Thanks for your honesty though

:eek:

Penn

Sin City wrote: »

Ill admit its more suited to the plotline for a soap or something but it does exist. I know most women who have abortion may agonise over their decison , was it the right one etc, you wouldnt be human otherwise.But under that scenario you could get an abortion, probably saying that it would be psychololgicaly damaging if she doesnt.

As for the reverse, In my opinion why should the child or pp be exceuted because of the sins of the father? At least if the child is adopted there is more chance to reconcile any mistake later on in life , this wont happen with an abortion


Abortions R Us psml

(I'm not sure what "pp" means but I'll reply regardless)

It's hardly an "execution" though, as there are no measurable signs of the foetus being a separate person to the mother in early stages of pregnancy.

What matters most is why should a woman have to carry a child to term that she doesn't want against her wishes, provided she has the chance to have an abortion early enough that the abortion causes no measurable pain to the foetus (as the foetus can't feel pain before 20 weeks)? It's why the term is "pro-choice", a woman should have the choice because it's her body that carries the child. You and I, or even the government and the church should have no say in the matter really. If a woman gets pregnant accidentally and does not want the child, and most importantly does not want to carry the child for 9 months, then it should be her choice.

professore

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Wonderful post.

As a lesbian my son was planned and very much wanted but let's put it this way - Much as I love my son and have never for a second regretted having him there is no way I would ever go through that again!

There are people who say one will forget what it's like to be pregnant (the vomiting, the aches, the heartburn, the constant need to go to the toilet, the lack of sleep, the nausea, the being beaten up from the inside, and don't even mention what happens if one drops the soap- you're never gonna see that again) and the pain of labour (I could get gruesome but lets just say imagine trying to have a pooh the size of a rugby ball and this attempt to pooh can last for 3 days- there is a limit to how far the human body will 'stretch' before it tears) are lying.

I have had and passed kidney stones, I have torn my achilles tendon, I have experienced bile dripping on my liver digesting it - I would still prefer all of these simultaneously then go through 36 hours of labour again.

'Just 9 months' ....HA!

Being a man I have never experienced it. However I have seen my wife have 3 children with three very traumatic pregnancies - and I don't underestimate for a second how traumatic pregnancy can be - some women seem to fly through it while others have an awful time.

However this is beside the point - for me a line has to be drawn beyond which abortion is completely illegal, and before that line, there has to be some damn good reasons, of which the possibility of a traumatic childbirth is not one. At the end of the day, in most cases, the woman got pregnant because of consensual sex - and knew the possible consequences of that.

It's about rights - does the right to choose to have a baby trump the baby's right to life? For me, it doesn't, except in exceptional circumstances.

krudler

professore wrote: »

Being a man I have never experienced it. However I have seen my wife have 3 children with three very traumatic pregnancies - and I don't underestimate for a second how traumatic pregnancy can be - some women seem to fly through it while others have an awful time.

However this is beside the point - for me a line has to be drawn beyond which abortion is completely illegal, and before that line, there has to be some damn good reasons, of which the possibility of a traumatic childbirth is not one. At the end of the day, in most cases, the woman got pregnant because of consensual sex - and knew the possible consequences of that.

It's about rights - does the right to choose to have a baby trump the baby's right to life? For me, it doesn't, except in exceptional circumstances.

what if she does take precautions and it fails? the pill doesnt work because of other medication, condoms can split etc etc. all that falls on the woman? oh well life dealt you a sh1tty hand, sure its only 9 months you'll be grand.

Penn

Piper101 wrote: »

This is a difficult debate for me, I've always been a very liberal person who believed that a person has a right to do whatever they want with their own lives and bodies as long as they don't hurt anyone else...however, since becoming pregnant I cannot wrap my head around the upper limit for abortion in most Jurisdictions (incl that of our nearest neighbour) is 24 weeks.

I'm 22+ weeks and i can feel my baby kicking, my baby is able to recognise my voice at this stage...what stage do people feel would be an acceptable cut off point for abortion should it be legislated for in this country?

When I misguidedly found myself in an abortion discussion with a close friend recently I was attacked when I said that I felt that 24 weeks was far too late, I understand that it is an emotive issue but if the life could be sustained outside the womb does that not give it a right to that life?

I'd agree with that, I think 24 weeks is too late. Hell, I've been saying 20 weeks in earlier posts but even I'd consider that to be cutting it far too close.

Zamboni

The biggest problem with the Abortion Debate is the debate.
Where people are coming from, the hows, the butss and inbetweens are utterly irrelevant.
It is a zeitgest question for society. The reasoning doesn't matter due to the lack of wrong or right and only serves as division amongst the population.


Are you for or against abortion? Yes/No
If Yes, pick a number between 1 - 9 on the month that you think abortion should not be allowed past.

If the Yes wins tally up the highest ranked answer from 1 - 9.

Society agrees the majority and moves on.
As it is a zeitgest question, hold a referendum every 10 or 20 years.

Sin City

Penn wrote: »

(I'm not sure what "pp" means but I'll reply regardless)

It's hardly an "execution" though, as there are no measurable signs of the foetus being a separate person to the mother in early stages of pregnancy.

What matters most is why should a woman have to carry a child to term that she doesn't want against her wishes, provided she has the chance to have an abortion early enough that the abortion causes no measurable pain to the foetus (as the foetus can't feel pain before 20 weeks)? It's why the term is "pro-choice", a woman should have the choice because it's her body that carries the child. You and I, or even the government and the church should have no say in the matter really. If a woman gets pregnant accidentally and does not want the child, and most importantly does not want to carry the child for 9 months, then it should be her choice.

sorry penn pp stands for potential person , ive mentioned that a few.pages back. not to worry
so pain reception is alright for you, as long as the fetus feals no pain its.ok?

would you be.in favour of putting a disabled child down as.long as it was relitivly pain free ?

normally id agree with you its a womans body so its.up to her what she does to it ,

but its not just a womans body is it , there is another life in there too .

professore

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

That's quite revealing.

You equate murderers and their punishment with a pregnant mother.

But if it wasn't the law - you'd feel that if you were in the presence of a woman who aborted a baby - that you'd be in the presence of a murderer?

So it should be on their criminal record according to you.

I find this all quite shocking to be honest. Thanks for your honesty though

:eek:

That's of course what you wanted, that I think a 16 year old having an abortion is on a par with Anders Brevik, which of course I don't. I do believe if it's the law, then it's a crime, and be on the criminal record.

I do feel quite strongly like a previous poster about the aborting of a baby up to 22 weeks that's kicking etc is murder tbh. What else is it?

I am quite liberal on most things, but not this. I have thought long and hard on the subject, not just agreeing because it's fashionable to do so.

Turtwig

Zamboni wrote: »

The biggest problem with the Abortion Debate is the debate.
Where people are coming from, the hows, the butss and inbetweens are utterly irrelevant.
It is a zeitgest question for society. The reasoning doesn't matter due to the lack of wrong or right and only serves as division amongst the population.


Are you for or against abortion? Yes/No
If Yes, pick a number between 1 - 9 on the month that you think abortion should not be allowed past.

If the Yes wins tally up the highest ranked answer from 1 - 9.

Society agrees the majority and moves on.
As it is a zeitgest question, hold a referendum every 10 or 20 years.

Sorry, but either is something is wrong or isn't. If abortion is actually murder then it needs to be outlawed. If it's not actually murder then the questions of rights, sovereignty to ones body, fathers' rights all come into play. Leaving it to idiots to vote on resolves nothing.

professore

krudler wrote: »

what if she does take precautions and it fails? the pill doesnt work because of other medication, condoms can split etc etc. all that falls on the woman? oh well life dealt you a sh1tty hand, sure its only 9 months you'll be grand.

That's how life generally works? Despite your best efforts, sh1t happens. I've had some real sh1t happen to me and my family and I just had to suck it up. I couldn't go and shoot the people responsible and not expect any consequences.

Zamboni

Jernal wrote: »

Sorry, but either is something is wrong or isn't.

I would argue that there is no such thing as right and wrong.
What matters is democracy being allowed to define a societys current position on a topic.

Turtwig

professore wrote: »

I do feel quite strongly like a previous poster about the aborting of a baby up to 22 weeks that's kicking etc is murder tbh. What else is it?

Removal of an unwanted invader from the woman's body that just happens to be dependent on her body to live survive. Unfortunate, but what right does the foetus have to invade her body in the first place?

doctoremma

Penn wrote: »

I'd agree with that, I think 24 weeks is too late. Hell, I've been saying 20 weeks in earlier posts but even I'd consider that to be cutting it far too close.

I agree. I have a rather vague thought process forming that if the limit were reduced, women might make up their minds quicker? Most abortions are early (to 12 weeks), so undertaken quickly and decisively (in 6 weeks or so). There is no doubt for me that an abortion at 12 weeks is better (if such an adjective can apply) than an abortion at 24 weeks. I struggle to believe that anyone waiting until 24 weeks is really confident of their choice, and these are the women most vulnerable to negative outcomes.

professore

Jernal wrote: »

Sorry, but either is something is wrong or isn't. If abortion is actually murder then it needs to be outlawed. If it's not actually murder then the questions of rights, sovereignty to ones body, fathers' rights all come into play. Leaving it to idiots to vote on resolves nothing.

That's not true in all cases. Is killing someone always wrong for example? If you just take a dislike to someone and kill them then yes, but if that person was about to murder your family is it still wrong?

Abortion is one of these things that is not black and white.

Bannasidhe

professore wrote: »

Being a man I have never experienced it. However I have seen my wife have 3 children with three very traumatic pregnancies - and I don't underestimate for a second how traumatic pregnancy can be - some women seem to fly through it while others have an awful time.

However this is beside the point - for me a line has to be drawn beyond which abortion is completely illegal, and before that line, there has to be some damn good reasons, of which the possibility of a traumatic childbirth is not one. At the end of the day, in most cases, the woman got pregnant because of consensual sex - and knew the possible consequences of that.

It's about rights - does the right to choose to have a baby trump the baby's right to life? For me, it doesn't, except in exceptional circumstances.

It's about rights for me too. The right of a woman to determine what happens to her own body.

Not every woman chooses to become pregnant.

If every person alive in Ireland today was the result of a conscious decision to have a child, I suspect we would have a much smaller population then we currently have. I wouldn't be here for a start .


With the greatest of respect professore, it is easy to dismiss 'traumatic' childbirth as of no consequence when one will never have to experience that trauma oneself. Now add to that trauma the knowledge that one is having a child one does not want.

professore

doctoremma wrote: »

I agree. I have a rather vague thought process forming that if the limit were reduced, women might make up their minds quicker? Most abortions are early (to 12 weeks), so undertaken quickly and decisively (in 6 weeks or so). There is no doubt for me that an abortion at 12 weeks is better (if such an adjective can apply) than an abortion at 24 weeks. I struggle to believe that anyone waiting until 24 weeks is really confident of their choice, and these are the women most vulnerable to negative outcomes.

Finally someone proposing something and not just picking holes in other peoples ideas. That makes a lot of sense to me. I might even vote for that over a more liberal alternative, but would be in favour of restricting it to 7 weeks.

Gurgle

Zamboni wrote: »

What matters is democracy being allowed to define a societys current position on a topic.

'Society' has a nasty habit of running over human rights in favour of majority convenience.

Slavery for example, and other historical events the mentioning of which would Godwin the thread.

professore

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It's about rights for me too. The right of a woman to determine what happens to her own body.

Not every woman chooses to become pregnant.

If every person alive in Ireland today was the result of a conscious decision to have a child, I suspect we would have a much smaller population then we currently have. I wouldn't be here for a start .


With the greatest of respect professore, it is easy to dismiss 'traumatic' childbirth as of no consequence when one will never have to experience that trauma oneself. Now add to that trauma the knowledge that one is having a child one does not want.

I don't dismiss it, I recognise it - and try as I may, I can never have a baby.

Bannasidhe

professore wrote: »

I don't dismiss it, I recognise it - and try as I may, I can never have a baby.

So do you not think that those who can have babies should be given a choice as to whether they want to have a baby?

Zamboni

Gurgle wrote: »

'Society' has a nasty habit of running over human rights in favour of majority convenience.

Slavery for example, and other historical events the mentioning of which would Godwin the thread.

Human rights are merely concepts that are either adapted or not adapted by the society.
Democracy is what we have chosen as the best out of a bad bunch of theories to rganise our society. So put the put abortion to the electorate and move on.

(Let's not Godwin:))

professore

Bannasidhe wrote: »

So do you not think that those who can have babies should be given a choice as to whether they want to have a baby?

Yes. If you rewrite your sentence: "So do you not think that those who have children should be given a choice as to whether they want to have children?" To me these are identical statements.

Bannasidhe

professore wrote: »

Yes. If you rewrite your sentence: "So do you not think that those who have children should be given a choice as to whether they want to have children?" To me these are identical statements.

I'm sorry, you've lost me.

Edit - diabetic (brought on by pregnancy )having a bit of a hypo moment so I may need to come back to this.

Penn

Sin City wrote: »

sorry penn pp stands for potential person , ive mentioned that a few.pages back. not to worry
so pain reception is alright for you, as long as the fetus feals no pain its.ok?

I wouldn't use it as the only factor in the decision but I'd consider it to be an important one.

Sin City wrote: »

would you be.in favour of putting a disabled child down as.long as it was relitivly pain free ?

You mean a disabled child who has already been born? Of course not. If you mean a disabled child conceived less than 20 weeks ago, then the disability is irrelevant as I'd still consider the mothers rights to come first.

Also, "relatively pain free" does not equal "pain free". Like I said, as far as I'm aware the foetus has no ability to feel pain until at least the 20th week, so an abortion before that is pain free, not relatively pain free.

Sin City wrote: »

normally id agree with you its a womans body so its.up to her what she does to it ,

but its not just a womans body is it , there is another life in there too .

And this would be where your PP comes in. Does the foetus have its own life at that stage? At some stage the foetus changes from a ball of cells and developing organs to a human being. At what stage does this happen, and if we could say "That happens at the 14th week", would you then consider abortions up to the 13th week to be acceptable?

And as for the fact that it's not just the woman's body, it is primarily the womans body. Again, the foetus cannot live without the mother, but the mother can live without the foetus. The mother and the foetus are not equal.

Fairly Random Hypothetical: You and I are sitting in a house. You want me to go to the cinema with you as you need me to drive. I want to stay in. Stalemate, right? Except doing nothing and neither of us winning (1 vote each and split vote) means that we would end up staying in, so technically, I win.

Same with the mothers rights and the childs rights. If the mother wants to abort the child, but the child has a right to life, then the mother can't have an abortion. But that means that the childs rights have won against the mothers rights. Whereas in actuality, just like you were dependent on me to drive to the cinema, the child is fully dependent on the mother, so the mothers rights should come first.

(Again, this is all dependent on the abortion being before the child can be considered to be a person, which personally I would consider being at approx 20 weeks)