Abortion

gozunda

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Stark wrote: »

Which is the only scenario that the legislation being drawn up will deal with. Anything more is expressly forbidden by the Constitution. It's only the nut cases who would prefer the mother to die in a threat to life scenario or be sent to England where she'll be "out of sight, out of mind" who have anything to worry about.

Oh come off it, thin edge of the wedge anyone? Do you really think they will stop at that?

Are you saying that legislation is the thin edge ? Don't quite get your meaning...

Khannie

Stark wrote: »

And how do you propose they're going to get round the Constitution? And what's your rationale for not legislating for the X-case?

I think we should alter the constitution or legislate for X personally.

Zulu

gozunda wrote: »

Well we can't be having that then...I mean she is only a woman after all...

I don't understand, what's wrong with a woman?

I find it interesting that you'd choose to play the "sexist" card while completely dismissing the father. I guess men don't count, except when they are used to represent the "she is only a woman after all" attitude. Frankly this speaks volumes about your own prejudices.

I know let's ask the fetus / collection of cells ...

Is there a case, at all, where a living person who can not speak for themselves is assumed to want to die by the state? AFAIK, the state tends to take the position that life is to be protected, and for good reason.

Zulu

Khannie wrote: »

It's exactly the same thing.

It's incredibly simple. I think it's killing a child. To me it's morally wrong on a fairly serious level. I Therefore it should be legislated for.

Other things that I think are wrong that should be legislated for: <insert more or less the entire statute books here>.

Indeed. I can't understand how someone can take the position: well I don't agree with it, but it's not my choice!

Frankly it's your civic duty to stand against what you believe is wrong. It's your democratic responsibility as a member of a society to vote for what you believe.

I see it as killing defenseless people at a lower stage of development. I wouldn't like the execution of adolescents, or pre-adolescents children, nor children, or toddlers, or infants, or babies would are born premature, or those about to be born. So I can't justify killing those 4 weeks before birth, or 8 weeks, or 16 weeks. I err on the side of caution (considering a life is at stake).

daisybelle2008

Dangerous Man wrote: »

This debate has nothing to do with religion. I'm an atheist and am pro-life. If my beliefs run in accord with what some religious institutes preach / believe - it's not because I believe in that religion or some god / deity. Forget about religion - focusing on it won't get you anywhere.

My point is about imposing your beliefs on other people (religious or not).
The poster said that pro-choice people, if they believe abortion was the just removal of a ‘bunch of lifeless cells’, should have 'courage of your convictions' and they have a duty to tell people grieving over a miscarriage that they haven't lost a child just a 'life form' it's ok to kill.

I was pointing out how ridiculous his argument was by putting it in the context of another belief that happened to be religious.

I believe it is social conditioning that makes us ‘greive’. I don’t believe grieving is ‘right or wrong’. Some cultures celebrate death as it is passage into eternal bliss. Personally abortion or miscarriage and in most cases death would not be a grieving matter for me. But I respect people feel that. It does not make me cold and heartless that I do not feel ‘sad’ over death. I cannot create an emotion I don’t feel to satisfy other people or societies sensibilities. It is inevitable and grieving or celebrating it makes no sense to me. But I would not dream of imposing that belief on other people the way tomtherobot suggests it’s ‘my duty’.

Khannie

Zulu wrote: »

I wouldn't like the execution of adolescents, or pre-adolescents children, nor children, or toddlers, or infants, or babies would are born premature, or those about to be born. So I can't justify killing those 4 weeks before birth, or 8 weeks, or 16 weeks.

That more or less sums up my position too. I asked myself "Is it ok as the baby's just about to pop?" Obviously not. "What about a day before that? Definitely not either. Then I just kept repeating that "one day earlier?" thing over and over and the final conclusion for me was....well it just seems like a bad idea basically. I find it hard to reconcile this with thinking that the MAP is grand for example when I get down to the nitty gritty of it all. Certainly I think someone who has been raped should be given the MAP for example. I think the hard core pro-lifers might disagree with that though. I'm not generally hard core anything.

Khannie

daisybelle2008 wrote: »

I believe it is social conditioning that makes us ‘greive’.

Disagree. I don't think my 2.5 year old has been socially conditioned to grieve for example, but if I died she would definitely grieve. On a recent work trip I have seen how my absence for a prolonged period affected her. I think grief is built into humans. You don't grieve? Grand of course. I think it's unusual though and nothing to do with conditioning (else you would be subject to the same conditioning).

Zulu

Khannie wrote: »

I find it hard to reconcile this with thinking that the MAP is grand for example when I get down to the nitty gritty of it all.

I don't really. The MAP is taken at a point in time before the egg implants itself in the uterus. AFAIK, there's arguably a greater chance of the egg not taking than taking, so I'm happy enough at that point.

Gurgle

Khannie wrote: »

I find it hard to reconcile this with thinking that the MAP is grand for example when I get down to the nitty gritty of it all.

I think there's a lot of misinformation knocking around on the morning after pill. The hard-core conservative Catholics are to blame, the ones who object to every form of contraception including condoms.

It is categorically NOT an abortion pill. It prevents fertilization if taken in time and does nothing if fertilization has already happened.

wikipedia entry

Emergency contraceptive pills (ECPs) are not to be confused with mifepristone (RU486, Mifeprex), which is used as an "abortion pill". The term "emergency contraceptive pill" does not refer to mifespristone, which is most commonly used in 200- or 600-mg doses as an abortifacient.

Khannie

Nice one. Well that clears that up. I had actually thought it might have had an effect on a fertilised egg so that is good to know. Pretty sure that perception came from an abortion discussion in tLL many moons ago, which prompted me to swear that I would never engage in another abortion discussion ever again in the history of the universe. This one has been fairly pleasant all round though.

OldNotWIse

Gurgle wrote: »

I think there's a lot of misinformation knocking around on the morning after pill. The hard-core conservative Catholics are to blame, the ones who object to every form of contraception including condoms.

It is categorically NOT an abortion pill. It prevents fertilization if taken in time and does nothing if fertilization has already happened.

wikipedia entry

What about levonelle?

daisybelle2008

Khannie wrote: »

Disagree. I don't think my 2.5 year old has been socially conditioned to grieve for example, but if I died she would definitely grieve. On a recent work trip I have seen how my absence for a prolonged period affected her. I think grief is built into humans. You don't grieve? Grand of course. I think it's unusual though and nothing to do with conditioning (else you would be subject to the same conditioning).

Social Conditioning affects people to different degrees. Even 2.5 year olds have been exposed to a great deal. The child may have an instinctual biological reaction to it's source of food/shelter/comfort being absent until another is identified. We would maybe like to make it personal and call it 'grief'. We are flattered by this dependency and we embrace 'grief' as positive. I see your point though I just have taken a slightly different view as I have struggled to find this 'grief'.

charlietheminxx

OldNotWIse wrote: »

What about levonelle?

Ehhh yeah it's certainly Levonelle I've taken, and I'm pretty sure it stops implantation if, against the odds, the egg is fertilized.

Turtwig

lugha wrote: »

Thus we (pro-choicers) will afford people the freedom to personally decide on the ethics, but only on the singular, isolated question of abortion. On all other grave matters, you must be bound by societal rules. Surely this anomaly is a testament to our capacity for rationalisation? (This of course be is a question for someone on the other side of the fence)

Incest makes me feel queasy and a little uneasy and being fully honest gay men kissing and holding hands used to too. (Thankfully, not any longer.) However, as much as I don't like the vibes I get from Incest, I don't think it should be outlawed or made illegal. As long as there's mutual consent among mature adults and no grooming or underhandedness involved, then who am I to tell them what is right or wrong? (Incest leading to reproduction is another matter - but it's still an ethically grey area.) I also don't drink. I find our drink culture reproachable at times but that doesn't mean I'm going to wish for the enforcement of an all out ban on alcohol. Even though I cannot fathom why you need to get pissed off your face to have a good time.

Yeah, I guess, you could say I'm liberal. Very liberal probably, but really I think that's the only reasonable stance to have on issues that get complicated and as it turns out abortion gets very complicated. If I ask anyone "What is life?" Nobody can give me a definite answer. To use the old cliché if life truly begins at conception why doesn't death begin at total decay? Why is that a person is classed as dead when there's still a hand, limbs, brain, organs present? Yet a foetus that doesn't even have any of these is suddenly alive? What happens if that foetus fails to develop a head? Was it alive but is now dead. Was it never alive. Surely an human entity without a head isn't classed as a person. Then you've got twinning, does one person somehow magically become two? And then what happens if the twins recombine? Should we charge one of the twins with murder?

There's too many grey areas that are constantly brushed past and that's why I see abortion purely as an issue on the denial of rights issue. I think it's unfortunate that the father gets so little say but really it is an issue between the rights of the foetus and the rights of the woman. She's definitely human and if we're to be consistent assuming the foetus is a person from conception then surely the rights should be equally spread at most? I don't get how the right to life trumps the rights of another to bodily integrity. To use an analogous situation suppose I kidnap you and a female stranger and in my mad maniacal moments surgically attach her to you so she is now your only means of existing. Should she be forced to keep you alive even though her quality of life is markedly affected? It's unfortunate that you'd have to die but I don't see why the woman should be forced against her will to sustain you for nine months. Now, I appreciate you can say the difference is I forcibly attached you to the woman's body and the foetus got no say in the matter. The women herself had sex so she knew the potential risks that were at stake but then what about rape? Why does the foetus's right trumps hers here and yet if you look elsewhere in society . . .
We don't force people to give blood, we don't force mandatory vaccinations on people so that those who can't get vaccinated actually have immunity from the herd, we don't force mandatory organ donations, yet here on nothing more than religious speculation,potentiality and fears, we force a woman into a course of action she might not necessarily have wanted.
All because we supposedly care about everyone's right to life? It's hypocritical. If life really is so precious why don't we show it everywhere where there's unquestionably life? Why is that only when the possibility for life is concerned we harp off all the things about rights, concerns, morality, ethics. My personal viewpoint, if the best a person can offer is that the foetus has the "potential" then I'm the potential overlord of this planet and you should regard me as such right now. A potential person isn't an actual person, the logic in the claim is ludicrous. And if you truly believe life begins at conception then you'd have to admit that when given the choice between saving a live newborn kitten (not a human, not ever going to be a person) or a vessel containing 100 embryos that can be readily implanted for gestation from a burning inferno, you'd save the vessel because that's would result in saving 100 lives. Even if the number of embryonic cells numbered in the billions, I'd save the kitten and I hate cats.

So even though abortion still makes me feel morally queasy at times*, I still think that choice should be there for everyone to make. It's too grey an area to blanketly declare a position on one way or the other. Until there's some consistency and reasonableness in someone's framework for either side I plan to remain neutral on the issue but by default that means I can't deny a woman her right to choose for herself.

*My position on it changes almost weekly. The question I keep asking myself at what point in the burning inferno scenario would I sacrifice the kitten? How old would the foetus have to be? Even that scenario is only really examining my intuitions. When I try to examine it rationally it gets even harder again. In all these cases though I still don't consider the foetus a person - so no, I don't think I'll ever consider it murder.

/lunchtime rant over.

Gurgle

OldNotWIse wrote: »

What about levonelle?

That's the one referred to on the wikipedia page.

up for anything

Khannie wrote: »

Nice one. Well that clears that up. I had actually thought it might have had an effect on a fertilised egg so that is good to know. Pretty sure that perception came from an abortion discussion in tLL many moons ago, which prompted me to swear that I would never engage in another abortion discussion ever again in the history of the universe. This one has been fairly pleasant all round though.

Levonelle

Levonelle® One Step is thought to work in different ways depending on where you are in your cycle. For example:

It may stop an egg being released from the ovary (i.e. prevents ovulation)
It may prevent sperm from fertilising any egg that may already have been released
It may stop a fertilised egg from attaching itself to the lining of the womb

You were right in your previous thinking. See the bit in bold.

OldNotWIse

Gurgle wrote: »

That's the one referred to on the wikipedia page.

Oh sorry

Border-Rat

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Ray D'Arcy doesn't speak for the country.

Thank Christ for that, he shoulda stuck to being humiliated daily by a turkey at 4pm. Ray Dee'Arsey indeed.

OldNotWIse

up for anything wrote: »

Levonelle



You were right in your previous thinking. See the bit in bold.

hmmm, I often feel really guilty about havigng taken the MAP. I sometimes think, "oh if I hadn't taken it, I could have a baby now thats x months old". I was so sure it said it would not "undo an established pregnancy" but I guess they were referring to implantation. For me though, I would have thought "established pregnancy" was fertilisation? I feel really guilty...

Bipolar Joe

Has no one noticed what a fucking weird post Jernal has made?

charlietheminxx

OldNotWIse wrote: »

hmmm, I often feel really guilty about havigng taken the MAP. I sometimes think, "oh if I hadn't taken it, I could have a baby now thats x months old". I was so sure it said it would not "undo an established pregnancy" but I guess they were referring to implantation. For me though, I would have thought "established pregnancy" was fertilisation? I feel really guilty...

I understand we have very different views on this topic with regards abortion and where life begins.

However, I would like to say that you shouldn't beat yourself up about it. It is very very unlikely fertilisation had occurred. You can ponder the what ifs but if we scrutinised everything like that we would never make any decisions at all. I'm sure you had a reason for taking the MAP at the time or you wouldn't have done so.

Zulu

Bipolar Joe wrote: »

Has no one noticed what a fucking weird post Jernal has made?

I was letting it slide to be honest.

tempura

Bipolar Joe wrote: »

Has no one noticed what a fucking weird post Jernal has made?

Yes , its a little strange but here is someone who actually weights up the what if's of life albeit in a strange way. The post actually comes across as quite open minded and someone who thinks for themselves instead of being constantly influenced by society's take on things.

It was interesting, a good read.

Khannie

OldNotWIse wrote: »

For me though, I would have thought "established pregnancy" was fertilisation?

It's a grey area (like most areas ). I wouldn't consider an ectopic pregnancy to be "established" for example, though it is a fertilised egg.

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I feel really guilty...

Don't feel guilty. These things can't be measured. Too many variables. May have prevented you ovulating etc. as minxx pointed out.

Ickle Magoo

Jernal wrote: »

Why does the foetus's right trumps hers here and yet if you look elsewhere in society . . .
We don't force people to give blood, we don't force mandatory vaccinations on people so that those who can't get vaccinated actually have immunity from the herd, we don't force mandatory organ donations, yet here on nothing more than religious speculation,potentiality and fears, we force a woman into a course of action she might not necessarily have wanted.
All because we supposedly care about everyone's right to life? It's hypocritical.

Great post Jernal...above ^^ specifically is where I'd be at too. I'm no fan of abortion but I see even less logic and empathy for human life in enforced pregnancy - doubly so as it seems the argument here isn't for the right to life across the board (otherwise certain contraceptives, the MAP, procuring or assisting a woman to procure an abortion regardless of circumstance would be a criminalised) but rather just ensuring women keep having to get that boat to maintain a kind of weird geographical illusion of moral supremacy...

Sponge25

Fizzlesque wrote: »

How do you know she's happy? Can you be sure she doesn't feel abandoned by me, or think badly of me? How do you know she wasn't treated badly by her adopted parents? How do you know she doesn't curse the fact she was ever born?

Thing is, you don't, and neither do I.

I hope you're right, I hope she is happy ---- oh how I hope that's the case, but only one person can answer that question, and it ain't you or me.



Job not done. Only one person can make me feel better, and that one person is not yet ready to take on board the enormous emotional baggage that that would involve. That's presuming she ever will be.

I assumed that by giving a baby up for adoption you couldn't take care of the baby properly at the time and the family who adopted it could, hence she would be happier! I wouldn't feel too bad about it unless you did something horribly wrong or something which I don't think ya did!

Out of curiosity. When someone adopts a baby away in Ireland do they know where the baby went, how she's doing etc. and can they contact him/her? Just curious!

Sponge25

eviltwin wrote: »

I'll try and understand people's motives yes. I don't know anything about the mindset of rapists or pedophiles. I can't say why they do what they do, if they are sick or just bad people. I'll let others better qualified do that.

I don't think women who have abortions are like them though, rape and child abuse are crimes, abortion is not.

I'm not comparing abortion with rape but I could never under ANY circumstance remotely understand why someone who rape someone else! Even if it's their wife or a prostitute etc. I wouldn't even try to undersstand their motives. I believe these people ought to be executed!

charlietheminxx

Sponge25 wrote: »

I'm not comparing abortion with rape but I could never under ANY circumstance remotely understand why someone who rape someone else! Even if it's their wife or a prostitute etc. I wouldn't even try to undersstand their motives. I believe these people ought to be executed!

You seem to have very drastic views and make statements calling for exectution and calling people evil. I'm going to agree that you are either much younger than you say (as already suggested) or a troll.

suicide_circus

Sometimes i grieve a little after i masturbate...

up for anything

Sponge25 wrote: »

I assumed that by giving a baby up for adoption you couldn't take care of the baby properly at the time and the family who adopted it could, hence she would be happier! I wouldn't feel too bad about it unless you did something horribly wrong or something which I don't think ya did!

Out of curiosity. When someone adopts a baby away in Ireland do they know where the baby went, how she's doing etc. and can they contact him/her? Just curious!

Leave it alone! Fizzle told us of her experience yesterday and it was very obvious that it is still very upsetting and unsettling for her. A decent person would have left it there. I very much doubt whether she needs your half-hearted moral support and lukewarm approval with your 'At least you didn't terminate the baby...' and 'I wouldn't feel too bad about it....'

I'm beginning to think you are some kind of crap journalist trying to squeeze the bones of an article out of this thread. From post to post your style changes - one minute you're using perfectly correct English grammar and syntax, the next you're posting 'American', then you ask a series of questions a ten year old would be ashamed of - all of your posts seem designed to provoke responses and reactions and not the usual kind.

up for anything

suicide_circus wrote: »

Sometimes i grieve a little after i masturbate...

Never mind, someday you'll have sex and then you'll cry even harder.

OldNotWIse

Sponge25 wrote: »

I assumed that by giving a baby up for adoption you couldn't take care of the baby properly at the time and the family who adopted it could, hence she would be happier! I wouldn't feel too bad about it unless you did something horribly wrong or something which I don't think ya did!

Out of curiosity. When someone adopts a baby away in Ireland do they know where the baby went, how she's doing etc. and can they contact him/her? Just curious!

No. Both parties have to be in agreement to get in touch. For example, my brother let the agency know that he would be interested in meeting his birth mother, but because she never communicated this message independently about meeting him, they will not give out information. I think he was quite hurt about this but I'm sure she has her reasons. Perhaps a partner who doesn't know about the adoption etc. I'm not going to judge her because she gave us the most amazing gift - him!

Edit: afaik the agency sent out letters to mothers and (now grown up) babies and asked that the letter be returned with a yes/no essentially.

OldNotWIse

charlietheminxx wrote: »

I understand we have very different views on this topic with regards abortion and where life begins.

However, I would like to say that you shouldn't beat yourself up about it. It is very very unlikely fertilisation had occurred. You can ponder the what ifs but if we scrutinised everything like that we would never make any decisions at all. I'm sure you had a reason for taking the MAP at the time or you wouldn't have done so.

Thank you, I really appreciate the post. I guess it doesn't help that I am getting broody now (hitting 29 soon) so thinking about the "could have been" baby. A little silly I know

OldNotWIse

Sponge25 wrote: »

I'm not comparing abortion with rape but I could never under ANY circumstance remotely understand why someone who rape someone else! Even if it's their wife or a prostitute etc. I wouldn't even try to undersstand their motives. I believe these people ought to be executed!

Why should there be any distinction? Rape is rape, it is no greater or lesser a crime if its against a woman you dont know or your wife.

charlietheminxx

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Thank you, I really appreciate the post. I guess it doesn't help that I am getting broody now (hitting 29 soon) so thinking about the "could have been" baby. A little silly I know

Well now that you're in your late 20's and broody, when you have a baby, he or she will be loved and wanted. You'll be ready and a better parent for being so.

Khannie

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I'm no fan of abortion but I see even less logic and empathy for human life in enforced pregnancy

It's a harsh and sensationalist term to use, so I can only assume you know that when you use it. It's just like "anti-choice". I'm not in favour of enforced pregnancy at all and I'm sure most people who dislike abortion dislike the notion of forcing pregnancy on anyone. It's not like I'm shoving a fertilised egg into somebodies womb though. It's not enforced that way. I'd much prefer if you used a less sensationalist term tbh.

When I was a youngfella ridin' like the clappers I was well aware that any resulting pregnancy was going to result in a baby. I took that on the chin and I was bloody careful because of it. There would have been nothing enforced about it if a pregnancy happened. Two consenting people would have made a baby that they didn't want. The limited number of people that I slept with (mostly I had reasonably long relationships when I was a youngfella) I'm confident would have gone to term, despite neither of us wanting the baby (and I did have close calls).

Yes accidents happen. Yes sometimes people find themselves in horrible situations (pregnant from rape etc.). My belief though is that some, possibly large, percentage of people would be a shed load less careful knowing that "ah sure the option of an abortion is there". I was absolutely shocked (and to be honest sickened) by some of the statistics on abortion that I've seen for other countries in this thread. I have experienced first hand the difference in how people in other countries perceive a pregnancy and how flippantly they perceive abortion and it is my hope that that mentality never enters this country.

OldNotWIse

charlietheminxx wrote: »

Well now that you're in your late 20's and broody, when you have a baby, he or she will be loved and wanted. You'll be ready and a better parent for being so.

True. Can't wait tbh. I know its not the right time but someday!

Khannie

Just for clarity folks....any posts I make in this thread are firmly with admin hat off. I'm just a regular Joe having a discussion. Except I'm better than you of course. :pac:

Bipolar Joe

Khannie wrote: »

Just for clarity folks....any posts I make in this thread are firmly with admin hat off. I'm just a regular Joe having a discussion. Except I'm better than you of course. :pac:

There can only be one Joe, bitch.

Khannie

There's only one bipolar joe...I'm "regular Joe".

charlietheminxx

Khannie wrote: »

It's a harsh and sensationalist term to use, so I can only assume you know that when you use it. It's just like "anti-choice". I'm not in favour of enforced pregnancy at all and I'm sure most people who dislike abortion dislike the notion of forcing pregnancy on anyone. It's not like I'm shoving a fertilised egg into somebodies womb though. It's not enforced that way. I'd much prefer if you used a less sensationalist term tbh.

When I was a youngfella ridin' like the clappers I was well aware that any resulting pregnancy was going to result in a baby. I took that on the chin and I was bloody careful because of it. There would have been nothing enforced about it if a pregnancy happened. Two consenting people would have made a baby that they didn't want. The limited number of people that I slept with (mostly I had reasonably long relationships when I was a youngfella) I'm confident would have gone to term, despite neither of us wanting the baby (and I did have close calls).

Yes accidents happen. Yes sometimes people find themselves in horrible situations (pregnant from rape etc.). My belief though is that some, possibly large, percentage of people would be a shed load less careful knowing that "ah sure the option of an abortion is there". I was absolutely shocked (and to be honest sickened) by some of the statistics on abortion that I've seen for other countries in this thread. I have experienced first hand the difference in how people in other countries perceive a pregnancy and how flippantly they perceive abortion and it is my hope that that mentality never enters this country.

You weren't in that position though. A baby didn't result. You or your girlfriend(s) at the time didn't have that call to make.

I agree abortion can be abused in other countries. No-one is denying that. But just like other things mentioned, that would be a small minority. Most women having one would be doing so for genuine reasons. They can get an abortion anyway, why can't they get it in their home country? We need to provide support for these women. Bring in stringent measures by all means, but bring it in. Whether you agree with it or not it is happening every week to irish women. We need to accept this and plan for it going forward.

Khannie

Khannie wrote: »

It's exactly the same thing. Personal morality dictates that lying is wrong, but so minor that it's generally irrelevant (except in some circumstances as you point out). So the morality here is that it shouldn't be punished under law (and therefore it's not).

The point was simply that there is not a 1:1 mapping of morality and law. Many things we call immoral are not enshrined in law nor should they be. Lying or cheating on your girlfriend for example. The post I was replying to you claimed "You think it's morally wrong? Enshrine it in law." and all I am doing is pointing out that this is not always true.

Khannie wrote: »

You would happily keep some things illegal that others would like to do.

Not always, which is the point I am making. There are some things I want illegal because I think other people should not do them. There are things however that I personally find immoral or distasteful but I have no arguments against anyone else doing them. I simply do not do them myself.

Khannie wrote: »

I don't see why abortion should be given the free ride of "well, I don't agree with it, and I'll enforce my morality everywhere else, but not in this case".

I am not asking for a "free ride". I am asking only that if someone wants to enshrine in law that it is illegal for people to do X - then they should give reasons for it that are something stronger than "I personally do not want to do X" or "X is distasteful to me".

Khannie wrote: »

It's incredibly simple. I think it's killing a child. To me it's morally wrong on a fairly serious level. I Therefore it should be legislated for.

Thats nice for you. I will be voting the opposite way to you whenever the issue goes to poll however until such time as I hear some arguments to convince me a zygote or fetus is a child in the moral or ethical sense.

cynder

charlietheminxx wrote: »

Khannie wrote: »

It's a harsh and sensationalist term to use, so I can only assume you know that when you use it. It's just like "anti-choice". I'm not in favour of enforced pregnancy at all and I'm sure most people who dislike abortion dislike the notion of forcing pregnancy on anyone. It's not like I'm shoving a fertilised egg into somebodies womb though. It's not enforced that way. I'd much prefer if you used a less sensationalist term tbh.

When I was a youngfella ridin' like the clappers I was well aware that any resulting pregnancy was going to result in a baby. I took that on the chin and I was bloody careful because of it. There would have been nothing enforced about it if a pregnancy happened. Two consenting people would have made a baby that they didn't want. The limited number of people that I slept with (mostly I had reasonably long relationships when I was a youngfella) I'm confident would have gone to term, despite neither of us wanting the baby (and I did have close calls).

Yes accidents happen. Yes sometimes people find themselves in horrible situations (pregnant from rape etc.). My belief though is that some, possibly large, percentage of people would be a shed load less careful knowing that "ah sure the option of an abortion is there". I was absolutely shocked (and to be honest sickened) by some of the statistics on abortion that I've seen for other countries in this thread. I have experienced first hand the difference in how people in other countries perceive a pregnancy and how flippantly they perceive abortion and it is my hope that that mentality never enters this country.

You weren't in that position though. A baby didn't result. You or your girlfriend(s) at the time didn't have that call to make.

I agree abortion can be abused in other countries. No-one is denying that. But just like other things mentioned, that would be a small minority. Most women having one would be doing so for genuine reasons. They can get an abortion anyway, why can't they get it in their home country? We need to provide support for these women. Bring in stringent measures by all means, but bring it in. Whether you agree with it or not it is happening every week to irish women. We need to accept this and plan for it going forward.

Why do we need to accept this? Just because people murder people every day doesn't mean we have to accept it, plan for it going forward.

What is a genuine reason?

No wanting a baby is not a genuine reason. No to me anyway. The baby having down syndrome is not a genuine reason. Not to me. Having a girl instead of a boy is not a genuine reason.

Tbh I think most women having one, do not have genuine reasons.

We do not need to support them, they make a choice live with it,it it's that hard to make then they know it's wrong but they brainwash themselves to make them think it's right.. If you continue to tell yourself something over and over you believe it.

Khannie

charlietheminxx wrote: »

You weren't in that position though. A baby didn't result. You or your girlfriend(s) at the time didn't have that call to make.

Not true in fact but I wont go into the details.

charlietheminxx wrote: »

I agree abortion can be abused in other countries. No-one is denying that. But just like other things mentioned, that would be a small minority.

I don't get that impression at all. In Russia it looks like almost 50/50 abort / live birth (and in fact the statistics are probably worse when you take miscarriages that people would have let go into term into consideration). That stinks of using it flippantly.

In the UK it's 1 in 5 (again I'm relying on numbers from this thread). In sweden around 1 in 4 in 2008 (source). I would argue the same flippancy definitely exists there. I made it through 15 years of regular sex with zero resulting babies and zero abortions. It's not that hard.

charlietheminxx wrote: »

Most women having one would be doing so for genuine reasons.

What would be a genuine reason then?

charlietheminxx

cynder wrote: »

Why do we need to accept this? Just because people murder people every day doesn't mean we have to accept it, plan for it going forward.

What is a genuine reason?

No wanting a baby is not a genuine reason. No to me anyway. The baby having down syndrome is not a genuine reason. Not to me. Having a girl instead of a boy is not a genuine reason.

Tbh I think most women having one, do not have genuine reasons.

We do not need to support them, they make a choice live with it,it it's that hard to make then they know it's wrong but they brainwash themselves to make them think it's right.. If you continue to tell yourself something over and over you believe it.

Plenty of genuine reasons have been mentioned;

• If it puts the mother's life at risk
• If the baby won't survive outside the womb
• If the mother is an addict
• Personal circumstances (you cannot afford a baby, are too young, are in a violent relationship etc etc)
  As examples.

It's not about if it is a genuine reason to you. These women are not accountable to you. Certainly your opinion has merit, and you're free to encourage other options but these women are travelling to England and having them anyway. Away from home and support.

Who are you to deny them that?

Your last point is incredible ignorant. Not everyone shares your personal moral code, nor have they been brainwashed. You think they should suffer indefinitely because they made a choice you, and other people of your viewpoint, don't agree with?

Stark

Khannie wrote:

I made it through 15 years of regular sex with zero resulting babies and zero abortions. It's not that hard.

Aren't you the lucky one? I've made it through 30 years of life without any debilitation diseases. Sure not getting sick is not that hard.

charlietheminxx

Khannie wrote: »

Not true in fact but I wont go into the details.

I made it through 15 years of regular sex with zero resulting babies and zero abortions. It's not that hard.

I've answered some of your questions in response to another poster. Just seems odd you contradict yourself here.... not going to press for details obviously, that would be disrespectful.

You're lucky. I'm lucky. But not everyone is. The most failsafe contraception statistically is the implanon at 0.03% failure. It still isn't 0% and that doesn't suit everyone. Most contraceptions have a much higher fail rate.

Khannie

Deleted User wrote: »

The post I was replying to you claimed "You think it's morally wrong? Enshrine it in law." and all I am doing is pointing out that this is not always true.

I would say you're splitting hairs there tbh. I can't see why you'd even bother to raise that. Of course not everything that's morally wrong is enshrined in law. This isn't quite the same as having an oul' lie though.

Deleted User wrote: »

I am not asking for a "free ride". I am asking only that if someone wants to enshrine in law that it is illegal for people to do X - then they should give reasons for it that are something stronger than "I personally do not want to do X" or "X is distasteful to me".

And I did that.

Deleted User wrote: »

Thats nice for you. I will be voting the opposite way to you whenever the issue goes to poll however until such time as I hear some arguments to convince me a zygote or fetus is a child in the moral or ethical sense.

Ah the ol' scientific terms use. Sure it's not a human if you call it a fetus. At what point is it a child in a moral or ethical sense for you?

nozzferrahhtoo

Deleted User wrote: »

The point was simply that there is not a 1:1 mapping of morality and law. Many things we call immoral are not enshrined in law nor should they be. Lying or cheating on your girlfriend for example. The post I was replying to you claimed "You think it's morally wrong? Enshrine it in law." and all I am doing is pointing out that this is not always true.

The blasphemy law is another good example of this. Many people have religious values that tell them blasphemy is not just immoral but in some cases the worst thing you can possibly do (such as some religions opinion on blaspheming the holy spirit).

Yet there are many good reasons to resist having a Blasphemy law and to work towards having our one removed. Some things simply should not be law just because some peoples personal morality is against it.

Abortion is also on that list for me. You do not want one then by all means do not have one. If someone wants to tell others they can not have one however I hope they can wheel out better arguments than appealing to their own personal subjective morality.

Khannie wrote: »

At what point is it a child in a moral or ethical sense for you?

Never an easy question to answer and everyone gives different answers. My own attempt is here.

Safe to say however that a fetus with zero consciousness, subjective experience, sentience and so on is likely not going to be it for me and everything I have read in the scientific literature would place a fetus before 20 weeks as certainly being in that category. As such I must say such a fetus has as much moral and ethical concern to me as a rock or a table leg and I see no reason for making abortion of such illegal.

Khannie

Khannie wrote: »

I can't see why you'd even bother to raise that. Of course not everything that's morally wrong is enshrined in law.

Then we are in agreement. All I was doing was replying to your first statement of "You think it's morally wrong? Enshrine it in law."

I was just pointing out that this is not always correct and now you have agreed with me so think thats a line drawn under that.