Risk to life, including suicide?

HellFireClub

Piliger wrote: »

Indeed. Me me me me sums up what Human Rights are all about, and why we need to give Women their Human Rights in Ireland.

On the other hand the Anti Choice only want THEIR morality adhered to, only THEIR values adhered to ....... it's all about them them them ....... ironic really.

When you say you are pro-choice, do you believe in giving a woman a right to access to an abortion up to the point of pregnancy? If not, why not?

Emeraldy Pebbles

HellFireClub wrote: »

The vast majority of women (that I know), are not going around harbouring these fairly unusual views on motherhood, yet we are being told that this is what we have to legislate for now.

If the "vast majority" don't feel the same as her, then what does it matter if it's legislated for? They're not suddenly going to change their viewpoint of legislation changes.

HellFireClub

Emeraldy Pebbles wrote: »

If the "vast majority" don't feel the same as her, then what does it matter if it's legislated for? They're not suddenly going to change their viewpoint of legislation changes.

Well the "vast majority" of Irish people are not heroin users, but yet we don't legislate for the availability of heroin in shops because we believe it is wrong and harmful to have it available, regardless of relatively small number of people who may wish to use it.

Either we believe something is right or wrong to have available, and that's usually the basis for legislating for or against it, not the relatively small number of people who might not agree with the law and go and do it anyway, regardless of what the law says. Same with murder, a relatively small number of people commit murder every year, yeah we don't just legislate for murder to be legal because a small number of people decide to commit murder every year, do we? :rolleyes:

Emeraldy Pebbles

HellFireClub wrote: »

Well the "vast majority" of Irish people are not heroin users, but yet we don't legislate for the availability of heroin in shops because we believe it is wrong and harmful to have it available, regardless of relatively small number of people who may wish to use it.

Either we believe something is right or wrong to have available, and that's usually the basis for legislating for or against it, not the relatively small number of people who might not agree with the law and go and do it anyway, regardless of what the law says. Same with murder, a relatively small number of people commit murder every year, yeah we don't just legislate for murder to be legal because a small number of people decide to commit murder every year, do we? :rolleyes:

Well, the women who are determined to have an abortion can do so, by leaving the country. You can't shoot up or murder anyone legally many other places, now can you? Daft hyperbolic comparison.

As for illegal drugs, well, just because you might think they'd be as well to be legal doesn't mean you want to use them.

HellFireClub

Emeraldy Pebbles wrote: »

Well, the women who are determined to have an abortion can do so, by leaving the country. You can't shoot up or murder anyone legally many other places, now can you? Daft hyperbolic comparison.

As for illegal drugs, well, just because you might think they'd be as well to be legal doesn't mean you want to use them.

Where did I say I think illegal drugs should be legalised?

Emeraldy Pebbles

HellFireClub wrote: »

Where did I say I think illegal drugs should be legalised?

Discussion about abortion being legalised. Bring up that heroin shouldn't be legalised because a small minority want to use it. Heroin = illegal drug.

HellFireClub wrote: »

Well the "vast majority" of Irish people are not heroin users, but yet we don't legislate for the availability of heroin in shops because we believe it is wrong and harmful to have it available, regardless of relatively small number of people who may wish to use it.

Oi vey.

Piliger

HellFireClub wrote: »

When you say you are pro-choice, do you believe in giving a woman a right to access to an abortion up to the point of pregnancy? If not, why not?

If you bothered to read this thread discussion you would have read my statement on this a couple of days ago here.

Piliger

HellFireClub wrote: »

I don't care if we have abortion on demand in this country, even though I completely disagree with it, I will only care if it ever were to directly affect me, in terms of how I could get left with having an emotional shít hemorrhage to deal with if a girl I was with, decided to abort a child I had conceived.

The avoidance of that scenario for me, to my mind, rests with me & the choices I make in life, particularly with regard to who I have a relationship with, not with someone else.

That's all well and good - but what comes across from you is a person severely lacking in compassion and imagination - who has zero tolerance of mistakes by other people who do not reach your personal standards of control.

You do not seem to live in the world where not everyone is super smart and in total control of their lives. Women, including married women, become pregnant as a result of human error with their contraceptives. NO contraceptive is 100% efficient. Some people are not that bright. Some people are not that clever. Some people have bad memories. But you lump them all in to your simplistic vision of how people should exert total control over their lives without ever making a mistake - and if they do make a mistake then you damn them to suffering the life long consequences. And those consequences are not just having a child and bringing it up. If you brushed up against real life you would encounter many women who are pressured to have sex by their boy friends or husbands and if they get pregnant they can suffer physical and other abuse that can continue for a very very long time and ruin their lives.
The world is not the neat and tidy little package that you seem to believe it to be.

Piliger

HellFireClub wrote: »

Well the "vast majority" of Irish people are not heroin users, but yet we don't legislate for the availability of heroin in shops because we believe it is wrong and harmful to have it available, regardless of relatively small number of people who may wish to use it.

Either we believe something is right or wrong to have available, and that's usually the basis for legislating for or against it, not the relatively small number of people who might not agree with the law and go and do it anyway, regardless of what the law says. Same with murder, a relatively small number of people commit murder every year, yeah we don't just legislate for murder to be legal because a small number of people decide to commit murder every year, do we? :rolleyes:

Except a foetus is not a human life.

A woman has a right to control her own body and what grows in it. She has a right to have anything inside it removed if she wishes. Otherwise she has no rights over her own body - one of the most fundamental human right possible.

eviltwin

HellFireClub wrote: »

I don't care if we have abortion on demand in this country, even though I completely disagree with it, I will only care if it ever were to directly affect me, in terms of how I could get left with having an emotional shít hemorrhage to deal with if a girl I was with, decided to abort a child I had conceived.

The avoidance of that scenario for me, to my mind, rests with me & the choices I make in life, particularly with regard to who I have a relationship with, not with someone else.

She still can. She just has to travel to England. Not having abortion here doesn't stop that possibilty happening. And it is happening and where do men go if they need help and support? They have nowhere. What does a man do if he feels guilty for wanting an abortion his partner regrets? Nowhere. The woman has nowhere to go either.

I would like to see abortion here but with a requirement for counselling beforehand so both mother and father are sure its the right decision and with decent, easy to access post abortion counselling for all who need it.

Right now there is nothing, you come home and you are on your own and that has to change.

Piliger

eviltwin wrote: »

I would like to see abortion here but with a requirement for counselling beforehand so both mother and father are sure its the right decision and with decent, easy to access post abortion counselling for all who need it.

Right now there is nothing, you come home and you are on your own and that has to change.

This is the fall out that results from the fundamentalist regime imposed on us by the Catholic Church and the Anti Women's Choice people. They have no compassion. They have no care for women and their rights. They only have their dogma and their fundamentalist attitudes. A bundle of 100 cells is more important to them than a real live woman.

Pro Choice people support comprehensive counselling both before and after any abortion decision. Women need choices. The State should support women in these situations and make sure that they are supported in their decision. Should they be persuaded to carry to term and offer the child for adoption, then there should be positive and financial support. But where a woman is in a situation where is is simply not possible, for reasons she ultimately decides, then an abortion and post abortion counselling should be in place.

iptba

Honey-ec wrote: »

I'm speaking specifically about the current "concerns" about legislating specifically for the X case, under the auspices of which, it wouldn't really matter if the man is suicidal, because he's not the one seeking and potentially being denied an abortion that could save his life. Basically, taking the X case on its own, the man's life doesn't even come into it.

Moving away from X, in general terms, I've no doubt that a man could feel suicidal at the thoughts of becoming a father. But I have absolutely no idea how you could legislate for that. Allowing him to legally abdicate all legal responsibility for the child seems like the obvious answer, but how would it work in practice? How long does he have to decide? 25 weeks, same as the cut-off for abortion? Can he change his mind at a later date? And how would the situation work in reverse? What if he's threatening suicide because his partner wants a termination and he wants to have the baby? How do you legislate for that? Force her to carry the baby to term and then hand it over to him? Because then we're back to forcing women to act as incubators for babies that they don't want, and frankly, the thought of that frightens the living sh*t out of me.

I don't see why the reverse should come in to it. One can have the first rule without having the second rule.

eviltwin

Honestly can't see how it would ever work in practice. What if the blokes parents want to be involved, can they see the child? Will he be obliged to tell a future partner he has fathered a child or his future kids? What about when the child grows up and wants to know about his or her father, will the mother be allowed to give his name? Will his name be on the birth cert?

iptba

eviltwin wrote: »

Honestly can't see how it would ever work in practice. What if the blokes parents want to be involved, can they see the child?

If a man wanted it to work well, he wouldn't tell his parents. If somebody gives their child up for adoption, their parents can't see the child. Do you think people shouldn't be allowed give their children up for adoption?

eviltwin wrote: »

Will he be obliged to tell a future partner he has fathered a child or his future kids?

We don't expect it of people who give their children up for adoption. Do you think people who have given a child up for adoption should be expected to tell future partners?

eviltwin wrote: »

What about when the child grows up and wants to know about his or her father, will the mother be allowed to give his name? Will his name be on the birth cert?

It could be a similar situation to adoption.

eviltwin

Its not adoption. Its nothing like adoption. Anyone putting their child up for adoption is putting their trust in the state to get the best people to raise that child. Often they get to meet the people. A man or woman who just walks away from a child could be leaving them in any situation. Adoption is often done out of a sense of deep love for the child, walking away is the action of an asshole.

iptba

eviltwin wrote: »

Its not adoption. Its nothing like adoption.

I was dealing with the specific questions you mentioned about how it might work in practice.

eviltwin wrote: »

Anyone putting their child up for adoption is putting their trust in the state to get the best people to raise that child. Often they get to meet the people. A man or woman who just walks away from a child could be leaving them in any situation. Adoption is often done out of a sense of deep love for the child, walking away is the action of an asshole.

How do you know the circumstances? What if he's suicidal, to give the example in the OP. Are women who have abortions, to use your language, "assholes"? Or are only men able to be assholes?

YumCha

HellFireClub wrote: »

Surprise surprise, if you have sex you "could" get pregnant.

Well of course, but I wasn't the one who said this (bolded for emphasis):

HellFireClub wrote: »

There's a very simple practical solution to all of this. Just don't get into any sexual activity that would have the potential to end in pregnancy or a termination thereof, with someone who clearly doesn't have the same view of you, whether you be for or against abortion.

That would mean no sex right? Doesn't seem simple or practical to me.

eviltwin

iptba wrote: »

I was dealing with the specific questions you mentioned about how it might work in practice.

How do you know the circumstances? What if he's suicidal, to give the example in the OP.

I don't and I have no doubt for some men it would be a genuine issue and I would have nothing but compassion for them. But I am a great believer in counselling. I wouldn't want to see a woman make a life changing decision without it so the same would go for a man, living with regret is not something I would wish on anyone.


Its hard not to be cynical though. The problem is for every genuine case you will have the arseholes who just can't be bothered. Would we be expected to be okay with it in the case of a man who is feeling suicidal for the 4th or 5th time?

iptba

eviltwin wrote: »

Its hard not to be cynical though. The problem is for every genuine case you will have the arseholes who just can't be bothered. Would we be expected to be okay with it in the case of a man who is feeling suicidal for the 4th or 5th time?

Do you think there should be similar restrictions if people are saying, for more than one time, they want an abortion because they're suicidal?

eviltwin

iptba wrote: »

Do you think there should be similar restrictions if people are saying, for more than one time, they want an abortion because they're suicidal?

I would think after the first time people would learn! But if the worst happens no of course not, but then that doesn't result in a child that needs support for 18+ years. I don't want to end up paying for some feckless man or woman who can walk away from a child by saying that its too much. At some stage personal responsibilty has to come into it.

iptba

eviltwin wrote: »

I would think after the first time people would learn! But if the worst happens no of course not, but then that doesn't result in a child that needs support for 18+ years. I don't want to end up paying for some feckless man or woman who can walk away from a child by saying that its too much. At some stage personal responsibilty has to come into it.

So if two people, either the father or mother, are suicidal when there is pregnancy, the option of allowing a woman have an abortion is ok because that doesn't cost much money while allowing the man to cut off ties with the child isn't because that costs more money? It's useful to get at the heart of issues.

HellFireClub

Piliger wrote: »

That's all well and good - but what comes across from you is a person severely lacking in compassion and imagination - who has zero tolerance of mistakes by other people who do not reach your personal standards of control.

You do not seem to live in the world where not everyone is super smart and in total control of their lives. Women, including married women, become pregnant as a result of human error with their contraceptives. NO contraceptive is 100% efficient. Some people are not that bright. Some people are not that clever. Some people have bad memories. But you lump them all in to your simplistic vision of how people should exert total control over their lives without ever making a mistake - and if they do make a mistake then you damn them to suffering the life long consequences. And those consequences are not just having a child and bringing it up. If you brushed up against real life you would encounter many women who are pressured to have sex by their boy friends or husbands and if they get pregnant they can suffer physical and other abuse that can continue for a very very long time and ruin their lives.
The world is not the neat and tidy little package that you seem to believe it to be.

That's just rubbish. First of all, unplanned pregnancies happen, I've been in situations where they could have happened to me, but I don't see any reason why a "get out of jail card" should be made available to me if it did happen because I've been brought up to understand and accept that with actions come consequences. I'm a stranger to this mentality you subscribe to, where we can have our actions, no matter how reckless, but we can then just brush the consequences under the carpet. The least I've done in my life with regard to avoiding unplanned pregnancies, was to first of all, be in some sort of a stable relationship if I was in a sexual relationship with a girl, and secondly be very careful with contraception. Surprise surprise, I'm 36 and never had a pregnancy scare and if I did, I'd have been man enough to face up to the consequences of what can happen when two people have sex. I didn't expect a solution to be legislated for on my doorstep that involves an absolutely horrific medical procedure to be undertaken that will clean up my mess for me.

Contrary to me being cold & heartless, I fail to see how any person who advocates cutting up a human form with arms, legs, a head and a pulse, as is the norm when abortions are performed, can keep a straight face when telling someone else they are cold, cruel or heartless,, that's just taking the complete píss altogether with that line of reasoning.

HellFireClub

Piliger wrote: »

It all reminds me of the hype that the anti Divorce Campaign created when they made a huge effort to scare the bejaysus out of women in the country, saying that their men will abandon them straight after the referendum. It was absolutely appalling and immoral. Thankfully they failed.

It seems to surprise you that a guy would judge a girls worthiness in terms of a potential partner, on something as serious as her view on abortion, which I find to be breathtakingly naive. Who would want to go out with a girl who could be minded to bolt for an abortion if she gets pregnant in a relationship with you, if you were the kind of guy who loves kids and wants to have kids??? Why on earth is it a shock to you that a guy who respects life and who wants kids some day, would run a mile from a girl who has pro-abortion ideologies in her head? No more than I have to ask why you would be surprised if a girl who was pro-abortion would run a mile from a guy with my stated ideologies on the subject matter?

eviltwin

iptba wrote: »

So if two people, either the father or mother, are suicidal when there is pregnancy, the option of allowing a woman have an abortion is ok because that doesn't cost much money while allowing the man to cut off ties with the child isn't because that costs more money? It's useful to get at the heart of issues.

So your happy to provide people with a get out clause if they decide they can't be bothered to pay for their own offspring and pick up the tab yourself? Sorry that doesn't sit well with me.

Mistakes happen I get that, I admire anyone who can put that child up for adoption, I think that is an amazing thing to do. I also don't judge anyone who choose to have an abortion, I know how hard that is.

Bringing a child into the world and raising it yourself is a massive responsibility, that kid will need food, clothes, an education, health care etc. Someone has to pay. Its nearly impossible for a single person to pay for all that on their own.

I can just about live with paying for the people who are at least raising the child and doing the hard work that involves but when I have to sacrifice something for my own children so I can pay for the scumbag down the street who walks away becasue he or she can't be arsed then I get angry.

eviltwin

HellFireClub wrote: »

It seems to surprise you that a guy would judge a girls worthiness in terms of a potential partner, on something as serious as her view on abortion, which I find to be breathtakingly naive. Who would want to go out with a girl who could be minded to bolt for an abortion if she gets pregnant in a relationship with you, if you were the kind of guy who loves kids and wants to have kids??? Why on earth is it a shock to you that a guy who respects life and who wants kids some day, would run a mile from a girl who has pro-abortion ideologies in her head? No more than I have to ask why you would be surprised if a girl who was pro-abortion would run a mile from a guy with my stated ideologies on the subject matter?

Nothing wrong with that, I'm sure we all have things that would be deal breakers when it comes to relationships but don't make out women who have abortions just do it on a whim or don't take their partners concerns into it. Often there are men who are as in favour of the decision as the women is.

HellFireClub

Piliger wrote: »

As a Pro Choice man, I do not believe in any way shape or form that life begins at conception. I believe strongly that there is no difference between those cells and the cells I scrape off my nose when it's itchy. None. I do believe that there is a time ..... somewhere late in gestation, when those cells change from non-life to life and hence I am opposed to late term abortions. What exact time that change takes place - I do not know. I don't believe anyone can know. I therefore agree fully with the UK abortion laws and their choice of when abortion is allowed until, although I would be agreeable to choosing to bring it back a week or so.

Well, there is a very considerable difference between the snot that you pick from your nose and a collection of human form cells with the obvious potential to become the same person as you or I or any person here discussing this subject. You don't know when transition occurs from a collection of independently formed human cells, to an actual life. Neither do I, and neither does anyone else, which is why I think that until we can answer that question, we ought to err very much on the side of caution and accept that as developed and civilised as we like to think we are these days, that we do not know everything, we cannot solve every problem and we should let the best that nature has given us, take its course when conception has occurred.

HellFireClub

eviltwin wrote: »

Nothing wrong with that, I'm sure we all have things that would be deal breakers when it comes to relationships but don't make out women who have abortions just do it on a whim or don't take their partners concerns into it. Often there are men who are as in favour of the decision as the women is.

But there are women who don't take their partners concerns into it, there are women with the attitude, "My body my choice", they are the same women waving banners and posters saying so at protests in this country for abortion on demand, so any rational guy who doesn't ever want to be involved in this debate in terms of having a personal experience of it, is going to judge women who are pro-abortion. Why people say this is somehow unfair is a bit ridiculous. This is where the problem actually is, if you avoid people who do not have the same views as you, you won't actually have a problem here at all...

RDM_83 again

eviltwin wrote: »

So your happy to provide people with a get out clause if they decide they can't be bothered to pay for their own offspring and pick up the tab yourself? Sorry that doesn't sit well with me.

Mistakes happen I get that, I admire anyone who can put that child up for adoption, I think that is an amazing thing to do. I also don't judge anyone who choose to have an abortion, I know how hard that is.

Bringing a child into the world and raising it yourself is a massive responsibility, that kid will need food, clothes, an education, health care etc. Someone has to pay. Its nearly impossible for a single person to pay for all that on their own.

I can just about live with paying for the people who are at least raising the child and doing the hard work that involves but when I have to sacrifice something for my own children so I can pay for the scumbag down the street who walks away becasue he or she can't be arsed then I get angry.

Whatever about the rights and wrongs of this debate I don't think financial issues should be the deciding factor in this debate, as if it ever comes to pass abortion services would be at least part tax payer funded in Ireland (including those tax payers who believe its literally murder)

Also from another perspective mandatory abortion in certain cases could be a massive money saver for the state, the cost of long term care for those born with severe disabilities/conditions can be vast, and in the most severe cases it could even be considered moral depending on your viewpoint (I'm honestly not a eugenicist )

Piliger

HellFireClub wrote: »

Well, there is a very considerable difference between the snot that you pick from your nose and a collection of human form cells with the obvious potential to become the same person as you or I or any person here discussing this subject.

Yet I do not agree with this at all. I see no difference whatsoever. None. Potential is a worthless and meaningless concept in this issue, imho.

You don't know when transition occurs from a collection of independently formed human cells, to an actual life. Neither do I, and neither does anyone else, which is why I think that until we can answer that question, we ought to err very much on the side of caution and accept that as developed and civilised as we like to think we are these days, that we do not know everything, we cannot solve every problem and we should let the best that nature has given us, take its course when conception has occurred.

I don't agree. There is an enormous difference between erring on the side of caution, and the fundamentalist absolutism that is applied by the Catholic view and the anti Women's Choice view.

I believe that erring on the side of caution is the basis of the UK system and they have a very good balance in place that we should echo.

RDM_83 again

Piliger wrote: »

Yet I do not agree with this at all. I see no difference whatsoever. None. Potential is a worthless and meaningless concept in this issue, imho.

I don't agree. There is an enormous difference between erring on the side of caution, and the fundamentalist absolutism that is applied by the Catholic view and the anti Women's Choice view.

I believe that erring on the side of caution is the basis of the UK system and they have a very good balance in place that we should echo.

Come on if Pro-abortion isn't used saying Anti-Choice is just looking for an argument and derailment.

UK is 24 weeks which is quite late (in comparison to other places with legal abortion) and you could argue (scientifically!) by that stage there is a potential for fetal response (18-20 weeks would be a different story and I'm saying that as some one with conflicted views on the issue).

Anyway sorry for bringing this thread back off topic! (there is a million generic abortion arguments on here)

HellFireClub

Piliger wrote: »

Yet I do not agree with this at all. I see no difference whatsoever. None. Potential is a worthless and meaningless concept in this issue, imho.

I don't agree. There is an enormous difference between erring on the side of caution, and the fundamentalist absolutism that is applied by the Catholic view and the anti Women's Choice view.

I believe that erring on the side of caution is the basis of the UK system and they have a very good balance in place that we should echo.

I think that comment is central to how we see things extremely differently. If I was to accept your view in totality, I'd have to accept that Nelson Mandela was probably better off having been aborted on the basis that his mother reckoned he may well end being a nuisance, in the absence of his father who was in jail, and therefore his ultimate contribution to politics ought to have been automatically negated by virtue of his political lineage or his circumstances of the day, on the casual pleadings of his expectant mother.

The same argument could be made to ground an abortion for any expectant Irish woman today, who found that in years of old, she would have been grateful to bear a child in a kind of poverty, but in the completely fúcked up world that is 2012, maybe she got her means tested dole or medical card stopped and now wishes to have an abortion.

This is where the pro-abortion on demand community would seem to run into serious trouble with the whole notion of the "potential" of a human, whether born or unborn...

Apparently Michael Collins mother struggled to bring her children up, all I can say is that thank Christ she was not living in our self obsessed day and age.

iptba

eviltwin wrote: »

I can just about live with paying for the people who are at least raising the child and doing the hard work that involves but when I have to sacrifice something for my own children so I can pay for the scumbag down the street who walks away becasue he or she can't be arsed then I get angry.

So do you think that abortions should only be available privately, or, similarly, the cost billed to those who available of the service?

HellFireClub

Piliger wrote: »

Except a foetus is not a human life.

A woman has a right to control her own body and what grows in it. She has a right to have anything inside it removed if she wishes. Otherwise she has no rights over her own body - one of the most fundamental human right possible.

You've actually managed to convert me to your view tonight. It is of course an absolute right for a woman to have complete control over her body. If she is pregnant and wants to abort a pregnancy, up to the moment of pregnancy, for an reason or for no reason at all, I fully agree that a woman should have, and be immediately granted, that right, without question.

However, as a male who could, by virtue of his gender and his orientation, ultimately find himself to be a be party to such a situation and such an arbitrary and selfish remedy, without any consultation, information, or input, I would urge any man to be extremely careful of ending up in such a situation with any woman who has these kind of arbitrary and absolute views on the termination of a life (or potential for life), that you may have conceived.

Piliger

HellFireClub wrote: »

You've actually managed to convert me to your view tonight. It is of course an absolute right for a woman to have complete control over her body. If she is pregnant and wants to abort a pregnancy, up to the moment of pregnancy, for an reason or for no reason at all, I fully agree that a woman should have, and be immediately granted, that right, without question.

Very amusing :rolleyes: .. except of course the most obvious part ... which is that this is not my view at all, as stated clearly in a previous comment.

However, as a male who could, by virtue of his gender and his orientation, ultimately find himself to be a be party to such a situation and such an arbitrary and selfish remedy, without any consultation, information, or input, I would urge any man to be extremely careful of ending up in such a situation with any woman who has these kind of arbitrary and absolute views on the termination of a life (or potential for life), that you may have conceived.

I actually agree with that

blacklilly

Piliger wrote: »

Yet I do not agree with this at all. I see no difference whatsoever. None. Potential is a worthless and meaningless concept in this issue, imho.

I don't agree. There is an enormous difference between erring on the side of caution, and the fundamentalist absolutism that is applied by the Catholic view and the anti Women's Choice view.

I believe that erring on the side of caution is the basis of the UK system and they have a very good balance in place that we should echo.

In 2005 a baby boy in Manchester was born alive at 24 weeks after surviving three attempts to abort him. He is now a seven-year-old schoolboy.
Would you honestly want this echoed? You do know what a 20 wk or 24 wk fetus looks like? No doubting it is human , how anyone can think it humane to abort at this stage in pregnancy( and still be so determined in their pro choice view)is utterly beyond me. It is clearly not only your body.
Surely even those who are pro-choice feel some discomfort with this.

Piliger

blacklilly wrote: »

In 2005 a baby boy in Manchester was born alive at 24 weeks after surviving three attempts to abort him. He is now a seven-year-old schoolboy. Would you honestly want this echoed? You do know what a 20 wk or 24 wk fetus looks like?

My small cousin has a doll that looks exactly like a new born baby. That doesn't make it a new born baby. What it looks like is irrelevant to me and irrelevant to the issue.

No doubting it is human , how anyone can think it humane to abort at this stage in pregnancy( and still be so determined in their pro choice view)is utterly beyond me.

It is sad indeed but your inability to get your head around it is your problem. 24 weeks is a very acceptable boundary in my view.

Surely even those who are pro-choice feel some discomfort with this.

You rally cannot grasp people disagreeing with you.

RDM_83 again

Do you have a reason for the 24 weeks or is it just because its the UK status quo (and as i pointed out quite late in comparison with other countries). And though there is an argument that not many abortions take place between 20-24 weeks they can still occur, and any apparent extra strictures are slightly meaningless in a system that a year ago undercover reporters were able to demonstrate a gross disregard for the law.

LeeHoffmann

wants to abort a pregnancy, up to the moment of pregnancy,

I don´t get what you´re all talking about here. What does this mean? How does somebody abort a pregnancy before the moment of pregnancy?

That´s not just aimed at you HFC as other poster seem to understand what you mean by this

blacklilly

Piliger wrote: »

My small cousin has a doll that looks exactly like a new born baby. That doesn't make it a new born baby. What it looks like is irrelevant to me and irrelevant to the issue.
It is sad indeed but your inability to get your head around it is your problem. 24 weeks is a very acceptable boundary in my view.

You rally cannot grasp people disagreeing with you.

Well now pilger, plenty of people disagree with me and I've no problem with that, I just find it sad and tbh inhumane that you agree that a fetus at 20-24weeks is very "child" like and yet you've no issue with it being torn apart.

Again the above is my opinion but why would you stop at 24 weeks? That's a valid question, does your conscience tell you that it is wrong after this limit and if so, why?

LeeHoffmann

seeing as this thread is basically a debate on abortion now...
I´m not 100% sure where I stand. I want to give women the option in case they´re in desperate circumstances but the timing issue bothers me. For me, 24 weeks is way too late. I read recently that the brain only begins to form at week 4/5/6 and that the neurological system is well developed by week 9 (so the fetus could feel pain at that point). I think when there´s no brain, there´s no personality and no pain so I´d be in favour of legalising abortion up to at least week 4 but I think at a max of week 7/8.

HellFireClub

Piliger wrote: »

My small cousin has a doll that looks exactly like a new born baby. That doesn't make it a new born baby.

Does the doll your referring to have a human heartbeat and an actual human brain???

HellFireClub

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

I don´t get what you´re all talking about here. What does this mean? How does somebody abort a pregnancy before the moment of pregnancy?

That´s not just aimed at you HFC as other poster seem to understand what you mean by this

Apologies, I meant up to the point of the due date for the pregnancy or up until the natural end of the pregnancy...

LeeHoffmann

thanks for clarifying

iptba

If a father is going to be allowed waive their rights and responsibilities, ideally I think this should be a few weeks before whatever deadline is set for abortion.

LeeHoffmann

^ why, iptba? because it might affect the mother´s decision on whether or not to have an abortion/keep the child?

iptba

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

^ why, iptba? because it might affect the mother´s decision on whether or not to have an abortion/keep the child?

Yes, that's what I was thinking.

HellFireClub

iptba wrote: »

If a father is going to be allowed waive their rights and responsibilities, ideally I think this should be a few weeks before whatever deadline is set for abortion.

I just don't get what is so completely broken with our society these days where anyone has it in their head these days that responsibilities can just be walked away from. This notion of giving a father to be, some kind of a "get even" legislative option, to somehow try to balance out the lack of a call that he gets to have in relation to the birth of the child, (which is completely the call of the mother whether she proceeds with the pregnancy or has it terminated), it all sounds seriously fúcked up and actually pointless.

If a girl decides to terminate and the guy wants to be a father, no amount of legislation that gives him the option to walk away, will be of any consolation to him.

I do think its maybe time we sat down with ourselves and had a serious talk about the kind of society we really want to live in.

We are now living in an age where kids as young as 12 are committing suicide, women are saying they need abortion in case they feel like committing suicide, I genuinely think it's about time we started testing the water or something in this country...

iptba

HellFireClub wrote: »

I just don't get what is so completely broken with our society these days where anyone has it in their head these days that responsibilities can just be walked away from. This notion of giving a father to be, some kind of a "get even" legislative option, to somehow try to balance out the lack of a call that he gets to have in relation to the birth of the child, (which is completely the call of the mother whether she proceeds with the pregnancy or has it terminated), it all sounds seriously fúcked up and actually pointless.

I'm confused by what you are saying. I thought you thought abortion shouldn't be available? Have you suddenly changed your mind?

ETA: But it would certainly be a significant change, depending on how strict or otherwise the criteria were. But things change. Contraception changed behaviour. Other things could also. Who knows, perhaps there would lead to less casual sex (something many men might not like).

LeeHoffmann

We are now living in an age where kids as young as 12 are committing suicide

...and getting pregnant

HellFireClub

iptba wrote: »

I'm confused by what you are saying. I thought you thought abortion shouldn't be available? Have you suddenly changed your mind?

As you can see from my posts, I'm anti-abortion or anti-choice or am whatever label gets put on someone with my views on the subject. But as things currently stand, the fact is that a woman can be pregnant, decide not to proceed with the pregnancy and travel for a termination in the UK. I think we will see abortion clinics in Ireland within 12 months because that's what the majority of people are asking for.

I obviously completely disagree with it but I am a realist and I've stated previously that if people have my views on the subject, then it really does fall to themselves to be more careful with who they end up with when it comes to this very emotive subject. I think too many people look to the constitution or legislation for their answers on this whole debate, the answer is really to be found in the choices you make I think. Any girlfriend I've ever had has had similar views to me on this subject, so if a pregnancy arose, we'd have found a way to deal with that, without the nuclear & horrifying option of abortion having to be availed of.

I might just add, the girlfriends I had in the past, would have been every bit as repulsed at the idea of an abortion as I would have been, and there was nothing extreme or "religious" about them. I have to also say, my mates have views that wouldn't be radically different to mine, most of them being very grateful fathers themselves at this stage...