Abortion Discussion

28064212

mbiking123 wrote: »

Why do pre-choice/pro abortion keep going back to religion, nothing to do with religion

mbiking123 wrote: »

Mod can religion, god, prayers etc etc etc be banned from this forum, some kind of software to ban those words ???

Its the pro abortion crowd that keep at it, like some big joke

if you are against abortion then this crowd reckon your on some wi-fi hotspot/iphone etc from the parish church, mixing doin a bit of blogging with praying

mbiking123 wrote: »

less religious rubbish, why do your group jump on religion bandwagon. I avoided that whole thing. just mentioned that as opposite to nature

mbiking123 wrote: »

For some reason Jesus was brought into this whole argument, and lets be honest it is an argument. leave religion out and lets look at science or nature

mbiking123 wrote: »

obviously you think all people who are against abortion are religious tut tut

...

mbiking123 wrote: »

Do you believe in Padre Pio and his miracles - for example ?

if you don't believe in religion there is probably nothing I can do to make you believe. You put your faith in something, you probably have put your faith in science 'big bang' theory. Huge gaps in that one, but if that's what you have faith in.

Oh dear

iwantmydinner

28064212 wrote: »

...

Oh dear

Fair dues.

I'm sure mbiking won't just ignore your post, though. I'm sure he'll address the contradictions head-on.

iwantmydinner

mbiking123 wrote: »

With people like Cora around there will be no abortion in Ireland;)

....except for the thousands of Irish women who get abortions every year.



And what's with the creepy winky face??

Corkfeen

mbiking123 wrote: »

She is on the ball ! I can see from twitter she said that B Howlin when he was minister for health in 94 he stated it was impossible to legislate for the x case. She knows her stuff !

With people like Cora around there will be no abortion in Ireland;)

She's a property lawyer so her legal knowledge isn't related to debate. The fact it has been legislated for indicates her legal knowledge on the subject is severely lacking.

old hippy

mbiking123 wrote: »

I don't know what you want

Do you believe in Padre Pio and his miracles - for example ?

if you don't believe in religion there is probably nothing I can do to make you believe.

You could force me against my will to believe, even though it's not what I want and it would severely traumatise me. You could restrain me until I start speaking in tongues, would that suit?

I don't believe in Padre Pio - whoever he is - no more than I believe in the tooth fairy. Neither of them have anything, anything to do with a woman's right to govern what happens to her body.

Bannasidhe

old hippy wrote: »

You could force me against my will to believe, even though it's not what I want and it would severely traumatise me. You could restrain me until I start speaking in tongues, would that suit?

I don't believe in Padre Pio - whoever he is - no more than I believe in the tooth fairy. Neither of them have anything, anything to do with a woman's right to govern what happens to her body.

My grandmother believed in Padre Pio - met him many times.

She also believed absolutely in the Right to Choose and voted, aged 70, against the 8th Amendment.

I'm not sure what Padre Pio has to do with this either...

oceanclub

Cabaal wrote: »

Yeah, she's doing a excellent job, i mean ireland went from no abortion to the current legislation.

Clearly shes stopped abortion.... Oh wa

William "Inadvertently Legalised Abortion" Binchy, as he'll always be known.

P.

lazygal

oceanclub wrote: »

William "Inadvertently Legalised Abortion" Binchy, as he'll always be known.

P.

I vote that's how we refer to him in perpetuity.

Morag

oceanclub wrote: »

William "Inadvertently Legalised Abortion" Binchy, as he'll always be known.

P.

Nope he's William "Abortion Mills" Binchy

Bannasidhe

Morag wrote: »

Nope he's William "Abortion Mills" Binchy

Billy Floodgates.


:pac:

aloyisious

Jernal wrote: »

I normally get jokes. I don't get this one.

Maybe they are all named Thomas?

aloyisious

mbiking123 wrote: »

She is on the ball ! I can see from twitter she said that B Howlin when he was minister for health in 94 he stated it was impossible to legislate for the x case. She knows her stuff !

With people like Cora around there will be no abortion in Ireland;)

Have you told the doctors?

Bannasidhe

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Billy Floodgates.


:pac:

Now that I think on it - can whomever 'introduces' gay marriage also be named William so he can be dubbed 'Willie Floodgates'?

Turtwig

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Now that I think on it - can whomever 'introduces' gay marriage also be named William so he can be dubbed 'Willie Floodgates'?

Or Richard. "Dick Floodgates"

Bannasidhe

Jernal wrote: »

Or Richard. "Dick Floodgates"

Gráinne Ní Mháille's husband's nickname translates into English as 'Iron Dick'...he had two brothers - 'Long Wally' and 'Blind Willie'. All three of them were also Burkes





Risteard an Iarainn, Ultar Fada and Uilliam Caoch if anyone is interested.

Turtwig

I really want to learn more about history sometime. Bann's repository of knowledge is so cool at times.

Bannasidhe

Jernal wrote: »

I really want to learn more about history sometime. Bann's repository of knowledge is so cool at times.

Sometimes my mental filing system fails - cannot for the life of me remember which one of the Galway Burkes nickname translates as 'Penis of Plenty'

Piliger

So ... in a more than likely vain re-attempt to breathe life into this topic ... Do other Atheists feel that most Atheists make their decisions based on an assessment of when a foetus changes from a 'potential' human being to a 'real human being' ? or do they base everything on the rights of the host mother ? or are there other, better or worse criteria ? and what do people think is the spread of Atheists beliefs on this ?

Sulla Felix

I base mine on the viability of the foetus surviving outside the womb. Right now that's about 22 weeks as far as I know.
So, think there should be no limits up until 22 weeks, entirely up to the woman if she wants an abortion, but at that limit, it's possible to deliver the child rather than abort it.
I'm open to correction, but most issues regarding non-viability would be revealed by then, so if an abortion is going to be carried out for that reason, then it should have been by then.

Piliger

Sulla Felix wrote: »

I base mine on the viability of the foetus surviving outside the womb. Right now that's about 22 weeks as far as I know.
So, think there should be no limits up until 22 weeks, entirely up to the woman if she wants an abortion, but at that limit, it's possible to deliver the child rather than abort it.
I'm open to correction, but most issues regarding non-viability would be revealed by then, so if an abortion is going to be carried out for that reason, then it should have been by then.

I get that. The question to you then is ... do we forbid the woman from withdrawing her hosting from then on ? or do we allow the baby to be removed, but not killed, and if she doesn't want it offer it for adoption ? A lot of issues in there I think ...

Sulla Felix

I think it's a big decision, probably the biggest most people will face, whether or not to abort or keep the eventual child. In most cases, 22 weeks should be enough time to make that decision. I think you'll have very few people arguing for full discretion into the third trimester anyway.
If there is a change of mind after that, I think early delivery of the viable foetus rather than abortion is the fairest compromise.

Now, that's not precluding abortions beyond the 22nd for medical reasons, just discretionary don't want the baby, not the right time etc reasons. Again, someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but there's a limited set of reasons where it's necessary to abort the foetus rather than just deliver it at such a late stage. Ectopic is one, but there's probably more.

lazygal

Its not always a big, big decision. Plenty of women make the decision without heartrending analysis. I think its presented as though its a major life changing decision, for whatever reason, but for example Caitlin Moran said picking worktops for her kitchen was a more difficult decision. Having had two children I'd find abortion a very easy choice in some circumstances, such as in the case of a fatal abnormality or if I didn't want any more children.

Piliger

lazygal wrote: »

Its not always a big, big decision. Plenty of women make the decision without heartrending analysis. I think its presented as though its a major life changing decision, for whatever reason, but for example Caitlin Moran said picking worktops for her kitchen was a more difficult decision. Having had two children I'd find abortion a very easy choice in some circumstances, such as in the case of a fatal abnormality or if I didn't want any more children.

I don't go along with this. I believe that the overwhelming and vast majority of women would consider this an agonising an life affecting decision.

rainbow kirby

Piliger wrote: »

I don't go along with this. I believe that the overwhelming and vast majority of women would consider this an agonising an life affecting decision.

Part of the reason for that is because certain segments of society want them to feel guilty and shameful over it.

Bannasidhe

Piliger wrote: »

I don't go along with this. I believe that the overwhelming and vast majority of women would consider this an agonising an life affecting decision.

The overwhelming and vast majority of the women I know (and I know many) who had abortions didn't agonise in the slightest. Can't say the same about women who gave children up for adoption.

lazygal

Piliger wrote: »

I don't go along with this. I believe that the overwhelming and vast majority of women would consider this an agonising an life affecting decision.

I think its uncomfortable to think its a decision that isn't agonising and life changing, but I know, as I said, I wouldn't agonise for a moment and wouldn't find it overwhelming to decide to have an abortion, and from talking with other women who've had children they feel the same. I find the narrartive around abortion interesting, its almost as if you have to have sleepless nights about it rather than just deciding to have one without too much deep analysis.

Piliger

Sulla Felix wrote: »

I think it's a big decision, probably the biggest most people will face, whether or not to abort or keep the eventual child. In most cases, 22 weeks should be enough time to make that decision. I think you'll have very few people arguing for full discretion into the third trimester anyway.
If there is a change of mind after that, I think early delivery of the viable foetus rather than abortion is the fairest compromise.

Many women don't find out they are pregnant until they are 6-10 weeks. So not a lot of time to make a decision. However no one said life is easy and a decision must be made. Choosing to have sex brings responsibility, as men know only too well.

I myself believe first and formost that there is NO absolutely right answer to these questions, though there are absolutely wrong ones.

I myself would chose a time somewhere between 26-30 weeks as the point where the foetus gains it's own share of rights that challenge the host mother's.
Survival outside the womb for me is not a good line to draw. The foetus' health would be diminished for life, at 22-25 weeks. hence my choice of 25-30. After that time I believe that the host mother takes on what I would call a 'duty of care' for the foetus. As you said she has had an ample opportunity to make a choice before that, and having failed to chose to abort ... then she has to face the fact, imho, that the foetus' rights match hers.

I am torn between this concept of allowing an aborting of the pregnancy with the premature baby being adopted, or forcing the mother to carry to term. The reason why I am torn is because I have historically tended to believe in the host mother's right to have something removed from her body. But over time I have realised that that is not a satisfactory balancing of the rights.

So on balance I would vote that the host mother has a duty to carry to term once that threshold has passed.

All of that of course is subject to other facts that might affect the situation such as severe handicap or quality of life defects, the mother's health etc.

Piliger

lazygal wrote: »

I think its uncomfortable to think its a decision that isn't agonising and life changing, but I know, as I said, I wouldn't agonise for a moment and wouldn't find it overwhelming to decide to have an abortion, and from talking with other women who've had children they feel the same. I find the narrartive around abortion interesting, its almost as if you have to have sleepless nights about it rather than just deciding to have one without too much deep analysis.

I believe that 95% do. Women I have known, who are now in their 50s, have carried that decision heavily. I find nothing criticisable about your view, but I believe it is extremely unusual.

lazygal

Piliger wrote: »

I believe that 95% do. Women I have known, who are now in their 50s, have carried that decision heavily. I find nothing criticisable about your view, but I believe it is extremely unusual.

I'd say its utterly taboo to say you regret having a child. I see the line "You'll never regret the children you have, only the ones you don't" trotted out on forums all the time. Pro lifers have a vested interest in making abortion a decision that should weigh heavily on those who choose the option, but that contributes to the "agonizing decision" view. I've spoken to women who've never looked back from having an abortion. Their experience is as valid as those who might regret their abortions.

Piliger

lazygal wrote: »

Their experience is as valid as those who might regret their abortions.

Of course it is. It's just that there are only a tiny number of them.