Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Abortion Discussion
Comments
-
alaimacerc wrote: »Perhaps you might attempt to provide an actual counterargument, rather than lame sardonicism.
I'm sure you consider yourself to have all sorts of very worthy harm/immorality-reduction aspirations. But your chosen means seems to be "ban it, throw people in jail". That hardly seems to be wildly inconsistent with "suffering against the patient's wishes".
Do you mind quoting my post when you refer to something I said as I never said this.
Also please let me know what "suffering against the patient's wishes" refers to. It may have been mentioned in the thread but unless I see the context I don't know what point you are making and I'm not going searching for the quotation when you could just quote it.0 -
every person that says abortion of any sort is wrong should hang their heads in shame every time a women in such a situation has to go her own and travel to another country,
You may think you are on some sort of moral high horse by saying any sort of abortion is wrong but in reality all you want is a women to be put into an awful situation and to suffer against her wishes, if this makes you happy then you are a very very sick person
Do you honestly think that everyone that is completely anti-abortion wants women to suffer? Any situation where somebody might want or need an abortion is an awful situation. Anybody I know that is anti-abortion takes that stance because they believe that the foetus has a right to live, not because they want people to suffer, if anything for many of them it is because they hold that belief that they are preventing the foetus from suffering.
Personally I don't feel educated enough to know what is right and what is wrong. Unless I had a degree in medicine or maybe biology I wouldn't feel comfortable giving a solid opinion. However, to accuse people to accuse people who hold a belief because they think it is the right thing of holing their beliefs out of malice is wrong. Nobody wants pregnant people in desperate situations to suffer out of malice.0 -
PopePalpatine wrote: »If I was your daughter I'd definitely lie to you about it.
Again - why do pro-abortion people need to get personal? Is your argument not strong enough to win the day? Does all this hate make you feel good?
If you were my daughter you wouldn't have to lie to me about it. I've never condemned anyone who has had an abortion. The Pro-Life movement welcomes women who have had abortions as they have a valuable story to tell (so many of them regret it).0 -
Richard Bingham wrote: »Again - why do pro-abortion people need to get personal?
Because it comes down to personal choice.0 -
Richard Bingham wrote: »Do you mind quoting my post when you refer to something I said as I never said this.Also please let me know what "suffering against the patient's wishes" refers to. It may have been mentioned in the thread but unless I see the context I don't know what point you are making and I'm not going searching for the quotation when you could just quote it.
The very post you were replying to. This is going to be a very long and tortuous thread if you're going to be playing the "quote where everyone said everything!" card the whole time.0 -
Advertisement
-
Richard Bingham wrote: »Again - why do pro-abortion people need to get personal? Is your argument not strong enough to win the day? Does all this hate make you feel good?The Pro-Life movement welcomes women who have had abortions as they have a valuable story to tell (so many of them regret it).
If think you mean, "welcomes them if they regret it".0 -
alaimacerc wrote: »I'm not sure you'd be well served by direct quoting,
You're not trying to 'serve' me. You're trying to reverse out of an argument which you're losing.alaimacerc wrote: »as you just said "legalise" where you could only logically have meant "illegalise".
Where? I literally haven't time for this. Do you think I'm going to go searching for where I used the word legalise to find the context so I can come back to you with my retort!
Is it too much to ask that where you accuse me of stating something you actually quote me.alaimacerc wrote: »Because if you're happy for it to be legal, we're happy for you to be as shocked, appalled, and pursuing other means to reduce its prevalence.
What does this even mean? I never said I was happy for it to be legalised. I never said I as shocked, appalled or pursing anything. What are you on about?
It's obvious that you are trying to make it impossible for me to respond to you, I assume because you know I can handle anything you have to say. Your like the stereotypical 5'5" guy in the pub shouting "let me at him", when in reality you know if you get stuck in, you'll get eaten alive.
Did you ever see a boxer running around the ring, cos he knows he'll get a whoopin if he stands his ground? That's you.0 -
"I have time to make a lengthy multi-quotation post but I'm far too busy to check back a page to reacquaint myself with my own words. Now watch me play pigeon chess."0
-
I'll start with the bit you're clearly very keen to avoid, eh, I mean, "seem to have inadvertently omitted", hence the need for all the subsequent bluster:alaimacerc wrote: »But perhaps you'd just skip the pointless deflection and state your actual position on abortion and the criminal law.Richard Bingham wrote: »You're not trying to 'serve' me. You're trying to reverse out of an argument which you're losing.Where? I literally haven't time for this. Do you think I'm going to go searching for where I used the word legalise to find the context so I can come back to you with my retort!Is it too much to ask that where you accuse me of stating something you actually quote me.I never said I was happy for it to be legalised.
Of course, one can envisage something without favouring it as a course of action; though one would wonder why you were wasting your supposedly scarce and notionally valuable time doing so, well, it certainly beats me.It's obvious that you are trying to make it impossible for me to respond to you, I assume because you know I can handle anything you have to say. Your like the stereotypical 5'5" guy in the pub shouting "let me at him", when in reality you know if you get stuck in, you'll get eaten alive.
Isn't it terrible when those nasty "pro-abortion" types "get personal", as opposed to your own dispassionate masterpiece of precision, above.
Look, just try making an actual argument, rather than merely waving your arms around, and yelling "You'll never prove I actually said anything! Another masterstroke on my part!"
It's very simple. Criminal sanctions for abortion, or not? If that's "impossible for you to respond to", I don't think your pub-fight fantasies about me are at all related to your difficulty.0 -
every person that says abortion of any sort is wrong should hang their heads in shame every time a women in such a situation has to go her own and travel to another country,You may think you are on some sort of moral high horse by saying any sort of abortion is wrong but in reality all you want is a women to be put into an awful situation and to suffer against her wishes, if this makes you happy then you are a very very sick person
Wild sweeping generalisations like these don't do anything to further a discussion on abortion, they just demonstrate entrenched positions. I suspect there are few people on either side of the discussion who take their position with a view to deliberately causing suffering; I imagine the majority on both sides want a process and outcome which is as beneficial as possible (in their own eyes) to everyone involved.0 -
Advertisement
-
LordChessington wrote: »In before "women who get abortions aren't truthful" and "don't have sex unless you want a child". Any other nonsense I forgot about?Richard Bingham wrote: »Nobody ever lies when they are going for an abortion. Why would they?
Beat you to it0 -
Nobody wants pregnant people in desperate situations to suffer out of malice.
Of course we all tell ourselves this and undoubtedly want to think it true. Certainly it applies to all people of religion for whom compassion is a given... Hmmm...
The problem with this is when I hear expressions , especially from 'matrons' pontificating with
"Serves her right, the slag..."
and an old favourite
"Well she's no better than she should be" though clearly meant as an insult I do wonder what it really means!
Never underestimate the power of malice from those with deep religious convictions. The whole concept of hell is based on malice.
Let us not get this out of proportion. There is no suggestion that the majority or even a significant minority are motivated by malice but to pretend no one is is probably equally misguided.
Steven Weinberg understood this when he said
"With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."0 -
"Well she's no better than she should be" though clearly meant as an insult I do wonder what it really means!
As far as I know, it's an insult to her AND her family. If she came from good upright/downright worthy citizens, it would be "she should be better than that". This phrase is saying "she's no better than expected" :mad:0 -
Richard Bingham wrote: »That's 436 too many for me (and quite a lot of people).
OK, two things here.
Firstly, it's not as if a pregnant woman goes into a hospital and asks for an induced labour abortion. The reason that induced labour abortion is selected over another method like, IDX, for example is because it is in line with best medical practice. Induced labour abortion is favoured in situations where a fatal foetal abnormality is present, particularly since it allows the parents some time with the foetus and a degree of closure.
Secondly, as I already pointed out, however unpalatable the procedure may be to you or the number of these abortions carried out, they are unrepresentative of abortions in general and irrelevant to any debate on abortion. What you are doing is arguing the red herring fallacy, trying to tar the entire abortion debate with something you find to be distasteful.Richard Bingham wrote: »I've addressed the problem with this analogy in an earlier post.
No, you really didn't. In fact, you pointed out here:Richard Bingham wrote: »Shipman was supposed to be curing patients and he was instead killing (some) of them.
Gosnell was supposed to be aborting babies and he was instead killing them.
exactly why the analogy is valid. They were both killing people when they should have been doing their appointed duties.
Furthermore, there is another reason why this analogy holds. Harold Shipman is not representative of geriatricians and thus you can't use his example as a stick to beat his entire field with. Similarly Gosnell isn't representative of abortion doctors and yet you seek to make generalisations about abortion in general based on this one unrepresentative example. This is the same red herring argument that you use above. Probably because you don't have a real argument to offer.Richard Bingham wrote: »Your using the minority case to justify legislation - it doesn't work that way. Extreme cases make for bad law.Richard Bingham wrote: »There's no point regurgitating the "woman's life at risk" argument ad nausem. It can't be an argument for abortion because doctors don't call this abortion, and no woman who needs a termination in these circumstances should be made to feel like she had an abortion.
Eh, no. We've heard this "doctors don't call it an abortion" argument before and it doesn't hold any water. Doctors do refer to it as an abortion. What doctors also do, however, is add extra descriptors to the term abortion to distinguish the reasons for performing an abortion.
Options for early therapeutic abortion: a comparative review.
When doctors perform an abortion for medical reasons it is commonly referred to as a therapeutic abortion but an abortion nonetheless.Richard Bingham wrote: »Brian Shanahan wrote: »
Also the majority of the population are currently in favour of a more liberal system than we have
No, not true. The debate last year was coloured by two big factors;
Well, actually it is true:- A 1997 Irish Times/MRBI poll found that 18% believed that abortion should never be permitted, 77% believed that it should be allowed in certain circumstances (this was broken down into: 35% that one should be allowed in the event that the woman's life is threatened; 14% if her health is at risk; 28% that "an abortion should be provided to those who need it") and 5% were undecided.[14]
- A September 2004 Royal College of Surgeons survey for the Crisis Pregnancy Agency found that, in the under-45 age groups, 51% supported abortion on-demand, with 39% favouring the right to abortion in limited circumstances. Only 8% felt that abortion should not be permitted in any circumstances.[15]
- A September 2005 Irish Examiner/Lansdowne poll found that 36% believe abortion should be legalized while 47% do not.[16]
- A June 2007 TNS/MRBI poll found that 43% supported legal abortion if a woman believed it was in her best interest while 51% remained opposed. 82% favoured legalization for cases when the woman's life is in danger, 75% when the foetus cannot survive outside the womb, and 73% when the pregnancy has resulted from sexual abuse.[17]
- A January 2010 Irish Examiner/Red C online poll found that 60% of 18-35 year olds believe abortion should be legalised, and that 10% of this age group had been in a relationship where an abortion took place. The same survey also showed that 75% of women believed the morning-after pill should be an over-the-counter (OTC) drug, as opposed to a prescription drug.[18]
- A September 2012 Sunday Times/Behaviour and Attitudes poll of 923 people showed that 80% of voters would support a change to the law to allow abortion where the life of the woman was at risk, with 16% opposed and 4% undecided.[19]
- A November 2012 Sunday Business Post/Red C poll of 1,003 adults showed that 85% of voters would like the government to "Legislate for the X case, which means allowing abortion where the mother's life is threatened, including by suicide", with 10% opposed and 5% undecided. The same poll also found that 82% of voters supported "A constitutional amendment to extend the right to abortion to all cases where the health of the mother is seriously threatened and also in cases of rape", and 36% of voters supported "A constitutional amendment to allow for legal abortion in any case where a woman requests it". In addition, 63% of voters also supported "A constitutional amendment to limit the X case, by excluding a threat of suicide as a grounds for abortion, but still allowing abortion, where the mother's life is threatened outside of suicide".[20][21]
- A January 2013 Paddy Power/Red C poll of 1,002 adults found that 29% of voters believed that there should be a constitutional amendment to allow abortion "in any case where the woman requests it". 35% supported legislating for the X case allowing for abortions where the life of the mother is at risk, including from suicide. 26% supported legislating for the X case but excluding suicide and 8% believed no legislation at all was necessary.[22]
- A January 2013 Sunday Times/Behaviour and Attitudes poll of 916 voters found that 87% would support legislation to provide abortion where the woman's life was in danger for reasons other than threat of suicide, 80% would support legislation to provide abortion where there was a foetal abnormality meaning the baby could not survive outside of the womb, 74% would support legislation to provide abortion where the pregnancy was a result of rape, and 59% would support legislation to provide abortion where the woman displayed suicidal feelings. Overall, 92% supported allowing abortion in one of these four circumstances, while 51% supported allowing abortion in all four circumstances.[23]
- A February 2013 Irish Times/Ipsos MRBI poll of 1,000 voters in face-to-face interviews in all constituencies found that 84% felt that abortion should be allowed when the woman's life is at risk, 79% felt that abortion should be allowed whenever the foetus cannot survive outside the womb, 78% felt that abortion should be allowed in cases of rape or incest, 71% felt that abortion should be allowed where the woman is suicidal as a result of the pregnancy (the X case result), 70% felt that abortion should be allowed when the woman's health is at risk, and 37% felt that abortion should be provided when a woman deems it to be in her best interest.
Richard Bingham wrote: »I don't think about it that much. This is just an arbitrary definition. It's defined by different people using different criteria, none of which are supreme.
I certainly believe it is life when the heart starts to beat which is at about 18 to 22 days and if it is life, it is human life. Dogs have dogs. Cats have cats. Humans have humans.
If there is no supreme definition and its just arbitrary then why do you hold to life beginning when the heart starts to beat. What makes that a more authoritative starting point than any other? After all, you can have a heart beat and still be legally dead.Richard Bingham wrote: »Your quotation that "156,076 women travelled from the Republic" was in response to my comment that "Women are not dying in Ireland for want of abortion" so it would seem you are implying that these 156,076 traveled for health reasons. Do you not think that the vast majority of these abortions were for societal reasons? Do you think that even 1,000 traveled because their lives were at risk?
Well, yes actually. The UK are quite comprehensive in publishing abortion statistics and we know that approximately 3,000 women travelled to the UK for medically necessary abortions in the period specified by Bellatori.Richard Bingham wrote: »There would be close to 200,000 illegal or exported abortions among the poplulations of England and Wales each year if abortion was legalised? Seriously?
A ban on murder would only drive it underground....
I'm not sure why you're so surprised by Bellatori's comment. It should be plain to most people that there is no relationship between the restrictiveness of abortion laws and the amount of abortions carried out.
There is no correlation, much less causation, between the restrictiveness of abortion laws and abortion rates.
From this link, out of 53 African countries, only 3 have abortion on demand (i.e. Tunisia, South Africa, Cape Verde). However, the abortion rate for this group (defined number of abortions per 1000 women aged 15-44t) for 2003 is 29.
Again from the link, the number of countries comprising Latin America and the Caribbean is 30. Again, only 3 countries have abortion on demand (Cuba, Guyana, Uruguay). The abortion rate for this group is 31.
Now, let's look at North America. Both countries have a category 4 (i.e. abortion on demand) legal system. However, the abortion rate is just 21.
Finally, if we look at the developed world (Europe, USA, Canada, Japan, Australia, New Zealand) we see that out of 40 countries there are 26 with abortion on demand laws and yet the abortion rate is 19.
We have a good understanding of the causal factors of social issues like abortion. The real issues that we need to tackle if we want to reduce abortions globally are women's rights, education, access to and promotion of modern contraceptive methods and access to safe abortion.
We already know that one of the principal factors in the procurement of an abortion is an unplanned pregancy and in this we know that 82% of unplanned pregancies in developing countries result from a lack of uptake in contraception.
The numbers of Irish women seeking abortions abroad has already been falling over the last 10 years from 6320 in 2003 to 4402 in 2010. This has not been implemented through toughening abortion legislation.
Finally, just to put a point on this topic, the people who actually research this area have already concluded that abortion laws have no impact on abortion rates or demand:
"The findings presented here indicate that unrestrictive abortion laws do not predict a high incidence of abortion, and by the same token, highly restrictive abortion laws are not associated with low abortion incidence. Indeed, both the highest and lowest abortion rates were seen in regions where abortion is almost uniformly legal under a wide range of circumstances."
Sources:
Induced abortions: estimated rates and trends worldwide
Adding It Up: The Costs and Benefits of Investing in Family Planning and Maternal and Newborn Health0 -
I hear a lot of prolifers refer to people who decide to remain pregnant in difficult circumstances as brave or having made the correct decision, and there's been suggestions that perinatal hospice setups are the ideal solution for women faced with fatal foetal abnormalities. The religious guff like Mother Teresa and her fetishes about suffering play a part too. And if you're not suffering before or during an abortion they'll make sure you should be regretting forever more.0
-
I hear a lot of prolifers refer to people who decide to remain pregnant in difficult circumstances as brave or having made the correct decision, and there's been suggestions that perinatal hospice setups are the ideal solution for women faced with fatal foetal abnormalities. The religious guff like Mother Teresa and her fetishes about suffering play a part too. And if you're not suffering before or during an abortion they'll make sure you should be regretting forever more.
I wouldn't have an issue with perinatal hospices for women who choose to continue with the pregnancy if they feel it would be helpful to them. Its this whole either/or with the prolifers. One woman has her baby and is sure she made the right decision but another woman ends the pregnancy and she's made a mistake. Why is the opinion of the woman who keeps her child any more important or valid than that of the woman who ends the pregnancy.0 -
I wouldn't have an issue with perinatal hospices for women who choose to continue with the pregnancy if they feel it would be helpful to them. Its this whole either/or with the prolifers. One woman has her baby and is sure she made the right decision but another woman ends the pregnancy and she's made a mistake. Why is the opinion of the woman who keeps her child any more important or valid than that of the woman who ends the pregnancy.
Absolutely they're the right choice. But I know they wouldn't be appropriate for me. I'd have no interest in continuing a pregnancy if the foetus had fatal abnormalities. Nor would I want to be counselled by someone who thinks I should be continuing such a pregnancy.0 -
"Well she's no better than she should be" though clearly meant as an insult I do wonder what it really means!Never underestimate the power of malice from those with deep religious convictions. The whole concept of hell is based on malice.
I can't help but think of something Orson Scott Card said (he of the latest "boycott the homophobe" movie, though hilariously with lots of Hollywood people defending it on the basis of "don't be putting lots of gay-supportive equal-opportunity simple filmmaking folk out of work, just because they happen to work for massive bigot!"). Before creating a stink over opposing marriage equality, he'd written an earlier piece favouring the criminalisation of homosexuality. Of course, he felt he had to lay it on pretty thick that he didn't want to see gay people in jail. Just a matter of creating proper incentives, you understand. Force them to be "discreet", and not be "flaunting" it in people's faces. Which is to say, have prison sentences available, but employ them essentially capriciously in rule-by-decree manner.
'Pro-life' people, if you want to threaten people with state-backed legal sanction, at least own that that's what you're doing.0 -
Wild sweeping generalisations like these don't do anything to further a discussion on abortion, they just demonstrate entrenched positions.
I can tell you what definitely won't further the discussion: endlessly alluding to a "more nuanced" position, denying having any particular position that's being argued against, and (at great, great length) declining to elucidate what one's actual position really is.0 -
alaimacerc wrote: »I can tell you what definitely won't further the discussion: endlessly alluding to a "more nuanced" position, denying having any particular position that's being argued against, and (at great, great length) declining to elucidate what one's actual position really is.0
-
Advertisement
-
Lets get down to basics here. Who seriously thinks that abortion is a good thing? That everyone should have at least one? (Well the women anyway!?). Its a great idea for something to do in your lunchtime as an alternative to the gym?
Do I see any hands up? No I didn't think so. I am not being frivolous here. I just want to make the point that I cannot believe anyone thinks an abortion is a 'GOOD' thing. That does not mean that it is not a 'necessary' thing. It does not mean that ALL abortion is wrong. What we are discussing is where in the continuum the dividing line should be. Somewhere between
ON DEMAND<
>NO ABORTIONS EVER
There is never going to be a "wonderful" option, a "lovely" option, an "all hearts and flowers" option. There are only going to be tough options. As I said in one of my first posts we hopefully get the "least worst" option.
I find the discussion difficult because, as a man, I never had to suffer a pregnancy over which I agonised. My main argument is that forcing women to go abroad is morally indefensible. Banning women from going abroad, banning abortions and suffering the consequences of the backstreet abortionist is at least consistent. Appalling but consistent. Farming out the problem to neighbouring countries is not consistent it is simply hypocritical.
It is worth reading
theguardian.com/society/2007/oct/24/health.medicineandhealth
about David Steel and the 1967 Abortion act."My view is it should stay at 24 weeks unless there is compelling evidence to the contrary," Steel says. "There may be - I am reasonably open minded about it - but I don't start from the proposition that it should be changed." There is, he suggests, a case for requiring only one doctor's signature for abortions in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, since there is some evidence that the two-signature rule causes delay.
While he retreats not an inch from his 1967 convictions on abortion, Steel acknowledges - and shares - concerns about the rising numbers undergoing the procedure in Britain. There were more than 200,000 abortions in 2006, up 3.9% from the previous year, fuelled by an increase in teenagers having terminations.
"I don't think we had expected anything like those numbers," he concedes, "but when people say there are 'too many' I say: 'All right, you give me the right figure.' And of course, nobody can."
The article shows that the situation of abortion in the UK is still not 'right' either. How is it possible for 13 women to have had 9 abortions. Personally once you get to even three or four I would start to wonder if they were not somehow mentally deficient and require sectioning under the mental health act... Given the free access to contraception and the morning after pill in the UK (I don't know what the situation in Ireland is... anyone?) how is this possible?0 -
Join Date:Posts: 26420
Banning women from going abroad, banning abortions and suffering the consequences of the backstreet abortionist is at least consistent. Appalling but consistent. Farming out the problem to neighbouring countries is not consistent it is simply hypocritical.
It may be "consistent" but its incredibly backwards and I'm wager its likely illegal to put in place such a ban in place within the EU.
We've seen what has happened in the past when women have had what they can do with their body's dictated to them by a religious viewpoint, there's no point trying to sugar coat the fact that the whole pro-life lobby is very much rooted in a religious base.
This base effectively thinks that because their imaginary friend apparently says something is wrong then this should be made unavailable to everyone regardless of their belief or none belief, Its this sort of backwards view that made condoms illegal for general sale until the early 90's.
The way I always imagine things is what in the morning my wife was pregnant and found she had a fetus that had a fetal abnormality that made it incompatible with life, the HSE's response to which was that she would have to go to term.
I know that if she wanted to travel I'd support her 100%, after all she's the one that has to go through the experience.0 -
There are myriad reasons for multiple abortions. Maybe there's an abnormal gene and unfortunately the woman concerned wanted to abort rather than continue the pregnancies. Maybe there's an abuse situation. Maybe there's mental health issues. Maybe they don't care about getting pregnant and abort when they do.
Who cares? We don't section people because they keep getting pregnant many times and give birth, or section men who get multiple women pregnant at the same time, or women or men who are multiple users of other health services. No one's reason for wanting an abortion is more or less valid, like no one's reason for continuing a pregnancy is more or less valid.0 -
alaimacerc wrote: »I'll start with the bit you're clearly very keen to avoid, eh, I mean, "seem to have inadvertently omitted", hence the need for all the subsequent bluster:
Or do you "literally not have time for" the simplest and most relevant matter to hand?
Hardly. I'm trying to progress a discussion that you seem to think you can conduct by throwing out random emotionalist canards, and then dictating to people as to whether they're allowed to ask you what you're advocating be done about them.
You literally have time to type out reams and reams of blather, but you don't have time to read what you're supposedly writing about.
Oh, I didn't accuse you of doing anything so sensible as stating it. I said (and I quote!) "your chosen means seems to be" (emph added). That's your cue to say "yes, I believe that procuring an abortion should, broadly speaking, be illegal, and subject to criminal sanctions up to and including imprisonment", or "no, I don't, you've made an incorrect inference from my 'pro-life' fulminations". This "I might think it, but you'll never prove it!" guff is getting no-one anywhere.
And I never said you said that. No, as I said, you envisaged it being legalised in the UK, where quite clearly you meant "made illegal". Literally didn't have time to read what I said, and literally didn't have time to write something that made any actual sense in the first place, apparently.
Of course, one can envisage something without favouring it as a course of action; though one would wonder why you were wasting your supposedly scarce and notionally valuable time doing so, well, it certainly beats me.
Isn't it terrible when those nasty "pro-abortion" types "get personal", as opposed to your own dispassionate masterpiece of precision, above.
Look, just try making an actual argument, rather than merely waving your arms around, and yelling "You'll never prove I actually said anything! Another masterstroke on my part!"
It's very simple. Criminal sanctions for abortion, or not? If that's "impossible for you to respond to", I don't think your pub-fight fantasies about me are at all related to your difficulty.
I like that post so much I think it deserves this:
Thanks for kicking it up a notch!0 -
Do I see any hands up? No I didn't think so. I am not being frivolous here. I just want to make the point that I cannot believe anyone thinks an abortion is a 'GOOD' thing. That does not mean that it is not a 'necessary' thing. It does not mean that ALL abortion is wrong. What we are discussing is where in the continuum the dividing line should be. Somewhere between
ON DEMAND<
>NO ABORTIONS EVER
Compare this against the situation in many continental countries where for early medical abortions (and in the case of for example Sweden, not so very "early"), it is literally and formally an at-will matter. If the UK is so anathema, then, why not still more vehement condemnation of (say) France as pawns of Satan? Some other factors at work here, I can't help but think.
The question for me is not so much, "which abortions are OK, and which not?" as "who should ultimately decide?" I think the worst answer to this is "your friendly local religion". Somewhat better is "politicians and lawyers". Better still is "doctors". But the least worst option, for me, is "the woman concerned". Crazy talk, I know.I find the discussion difficult because, as a man, I never had to suffer a pregnancy over which I agonised. My main argument is that forcing women to go abroad is morally indefensible. Banning women from going abroad, banning abortions and suffering the consequences of the backstreet abortionist is at least consistent. Appalling but consistent. Farming out the problem to neighbouring countries is not consistent it is simply hypocritical.
I don't think that there's any but a tiny number of people who're prepared to be truly rigorous in facing up to the consequences of their "force 'em to give birth, for their own good!" philosophy. The precise amount of the hypocrisy is just somewhat variable around the edges.The article shows that the situation of abortion in the UK is still not 'right' either. How is it possible for 13 women to have had 9 abortions. Personally once you get to even three or four I would start to wonder if they were not somehow mentally deficient and require sectioning under the mental health act... Given the free access to contraception and the morning after pill in the UK (I don't know what the situation in Ireland is... anyone?) how is this possible?
The MAP is available in Ireland, and for the last few years (in effect) without prescription. One suspects due to a marginal rate of dicking around by "traditional" GPs, or at least the anxiety of this happening.
I'm not thrilled to hear about such cases either, but equally, it's a tiny number, and we know literally nothing about their circumstances. Judge not, etc.
Ideal for me would be the old Clintonesque (in a good way, for once!) mantra of "safe, legal, and rare". If there's any way to give a woman an option other than an abortion that she'd actually be happier with, then bejeezis let's do everything feasible to give it to her. But spare us this "better alternatives" stuff as soft-soaping "nope, abortion's illegal, guess again!"0 -
I wouldn't have an issue with perinatal hospices for women who choose to continue with the pregnancy if they feel it would be helpful to them. Its this whole either/or with the prolifers. One woman has her baby and is sure she made the right decision but another woman ends the pregnancy and she's made a mistake. Why is the opinion of the woman who keeps her child any more important or valid than that of the woman who ends the pregnancy.
Because she's the one that submitted to the misogynistic judgement of old religious men.0 -
Do some women use the abortion pill in the UK when barrier contraception fails? Yes.
Some women can not use hormonal contraception, for health reasons drs can not prescribe it for them, so bad are the contraindications. So they have to use barrier methods which are less then 80% effective.
So a woman who can not use hormonal contraception and had barrier contraception fail, over the 40 years she is fertile and sexually active, is 9 abortions with the abortion pill before 9 weeks over 40 years to many? Less then 1 per 5 years?0 -
Do some women use the abortion pill in the UK when barrier contraception fails? Yes.
Some women can not use hormonal contraception, for health reasons drs can not prescribe it for them, so bad are the contraindications. So they have to use barrier methods which are less then 80% effective.
So a woman who can not use hormonal contraception and had barrier contraception fail, over the 40 years she is fertile and sexually active, is 9 abortions with the abortion pill before 9 weeks over 40 years to many? Less then 1 per 5 years?
Hey now. Less of that reason and logic and basic knowledge of biological function. It's emotive language and fact-dodging we need in this debate.0 -
Yes, though...so many women can't use hormonal contraception. I'm one. Turns me into a spotty, water-retaining mess with a permanent case of PMT (depression, in a long-term way). Thanks be to jebus for the copper IUD.0
-
Advertisement
-
I've been relying on the mirena coil for over a decade as it's one of the safest forms of contraception you can get.
...and yet I have a friend who has an interesting scan photo in which both her mirena and a foetus can be seen! She hadn't had it in very long so she's not sure which came first, the coil or the pregnancy.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement