Abortion Discussion

PrettyRad

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You started off your post saying you do not like replying to others because when you are rubbed up the wrong way..... well like bruce banner says.... you will not like me when I am angry.

But joking aside in my experience.... which is only mine you understand so do not take this feeling as being indicative of anything..... a huge proportion of the anti abortion argument is made from portraying the pro choice side as "pro abortion".

And you need to watch this propoganda rhetoric. The shame filled retreat of one of this forums biggest proponents of this argument.... a user called philologos who does not post on these fora any more after he tucked tail and ran...... is a perfect example of it.

Because the reality is that a large % of pro choice debators, including myself, are actually "anti abortion". We do not want them to happen. We want to do everything there is possible to stop them happening. More education. More and cheaper access to contraceptices, more education on choice and options to people who ARE pregnant. We want it all.

Pro Choice is NOT pro abortion. The Anti choice side are anti abortion at all. The Pro choice side are anti abortion as a first line. Neither group want abortions.

I think some people think that offering a "choice" is like asking someone if they want ketchup or mayo with their fries and you go either way as a whim. Whereas in my experience pro "choice" is like offering someone anti biotics or amputation as a first line of defense........ in that perhaps the word "choice" would be better replaced by "option".

They say every great resolution starts from a point of agreement..... and MY experience tells me that if you ask 100 pro choice..... and 100 anti choice..... people....... how many abortions they HOPE will happen in ireland next year under ANY new legislation...... BOTH groups will near 100% say "none".

And this might be an.... admitedly invented but likely true..... statistic that both sides need to dwell on.

I gave this post a thanks, but can I just thank you again? Seeing people like you express their views so eloquently is like a breath of fresh air. I'm not too fantastic with words myself, and you put into words what I was trying to say in my first post in this thread!

nozzferrahhtoo

Ralphdejones wrote: »

Then presumably you'll be glad the child is alive today instead of having been aborted.

How about we just live our day thinking presumably most people read the whole post and not just your bit?

UNHELPFUL PROSE DELETED

Nodin

From the Times

"Concerns for the psychological welfare of the young woman at the centre of the latest abortion controversy were brought to the HSE at the end of May, two months earlier than has been reported, it is understood.

She says she was pregnant as a result of rape before she came to the country and first asked for an abortion when she was eight weeks and four days pregnant, at the beginning of April. She was referred to the Irish Family Planning Association (IFPA) for counselling.

When told that the cost of travelling for an abortion could be as high as €1,500 at an IFPA counselling session in late May, she said she would rather die than continue with the pregnancy. The Irish Times understands she was then referred to a HSE staff member.

The revelation raises new questions about the HSE’s role in her care and why she was not referred at this stage to a GP, who could then refer her on to a psychiatrist under the terms of the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act. The Act did not come into play in her case until July, when she attended a GP and was then referred to a psychiatrist. "
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/socia...-may-1.1902063

Indo says the same thing in vague terms.

Absolam

Nodin wrote: »

The Irish Times understands she was then referred to a HSE staff member.

That reads as someone in in the IFPA referred her to a HSE staff member, which seems strange, but not quite as strange as not saying what kind of staff member.

Chattastrophe!

Ralphdejones wrote: »

Then presumably you'll be glad the child is alive today instead of having been aborted.

Extending that logic, I could ask you if you're glad that the woman had been raped so that the child is alive today instead of never having existed?

Because, had she not been raped, that particular baby would never have been born.

Are you glad that her rapist didn't use a condom? Again, that would have prevented this potential baby from being born.

What about the morning after pill - if she'd had access to this in the days following the rape, do you think she should have taken it? Because isn't the morning pill essentially a very early abortion?

What I'm getting at is - to me - taking the morning after pill to terminate a pregnancy from becoming a viable foetus is really no different to taking abortion pills to terminate an early pregnancy from becoming a viable foetus.

Early term abortions are, to me, not comparable to killing a baby. Because at that stage there is not a baby there to be killed. It is a tiny growing clump of cells.

Second trimester abortions are where it gets morally questionable for me. Between maybe 18-25 weeks, the foetus is rapidly growing and developing, and not all develop at the same rate. At this stage, personally I believe abortions should be decided on on a case by case basis, after examining the foetus' potential viability through ultrasound, based on standard criteria (size of foetus, organ development, etc.)

I'm all for having cut-off points and rules around when abortion is acceptable, and when a foetus becomes viable. But, to me, abortions should be entirely the woman's choice for at least the first trimester, probably a few weeks afterwards, when there is absolutely no chance of a viable baby at that stage.

Had this woman presented herself for the first time at 25 weeks, I can understand the reluctance to perform an abortion (although, to me, the woman's physical and mental health takes priority over the foetus at all stages of the pregnancy.) However she presented herself at 8 weeks - there was plenty of time to end the pregnancy before it even resembled a baby, and avoid the moral dilemma of whether or not to force an unwanted C Section on the woman at 25 weeks.

Cabaal

Absolam wrote: »

Another point of view would be it's a f***ed up country where you can kill someone to make yourself feel better about a crime that someone else entirely committed against you.

Its not about "feeling better",
Its about the women's own right to remove the rapists genetic material from her body, to stop her body being used as a vessel against her wishes.

You're forgetting here that in the case of rape the women's body has been violated, her rights and freedom's have been ignored when she was raped. To force her to remain pregnant means you continue to ignore her rights and freedoms and you continue to allow her body to be violated against her wishes.

A reasonable ethical compromise is probably going to be somewhere between the two.

and what would that be exactly?
The women goes to term with the rapists off spring?

Anything else ignores the women's own rights to her body that was violated when she was raped.

Absolam

Cabaal wrote: »

Its not about "feeling better",
Its about the women's own right to remove the rapists genetic material from her body, to stop her body being used as a vessel against her wishes.

Well, it's more about whether the woman should have a right to remove the rapists genetic material from her body if that means causing the death of another individual; currently she does not have that right. We simply disagree as to whether she should.

Cabaal wrote: »

You're forgetting here that in the case of rape the women's body has been violated, her rights and freedom's have been ignored when she was raped. To force her to remain pregnant means you continue to ignore her rights and freedoms and you continue to allow her body to be violated against her wishes.

I'm not forgetting it, or ignoring the continuing pain and trauma it incurs; I'm quite deliberately weighing it against the destruction of another persons life.

Cabaal wrote: »

and what would that be exactly? The women goes to term with the rapists off spring? Anything else ignores the women's own rights to her body that was violated when she was raped.

If I knew what it would be exactly don't you think I'd be anxious to share the ideal solution?
However, whilst further limiting a womans right to do what she chooses with her body in order to preserve a life may be a horrific, unfair, and an unconscionable act, it still seems (to me) to be less horrific, unfair, and unconscionable than killing an innocent individual.

Frito

Absolam wrote: »

The Irish Times interview says she said "I said I am not capable of going through with this. I said I could die because of this." to an IFPA staff member. Not that she could kill herself; that she could die. I would have taken that as she feared for her life if people found out she was pregnant. Even if the staff member were qualified to determine that this expression could 'evolve' into suicidal ideation, they could not state that suicidal ideation existed at the time.
I wouldn't be surpised if the suiciday ideation began to occur at a point after which the woman realised she could not obtain an abortion in Ireland in her particular circumstances, and that she also wouldn't be provided with the means to travel to another jurisdiction for an abortion.
I'm not sure the IFPA staff member would necessarily be well informed on the potential evolution of suicidal ideation, or that it would be part of their remit to assess it?

Are you saying the onus was on the IFPA staff member to suspect potential future suicidal ideation and suggest to the woman that she attend a GP who could assess that (as yet unexpressed) wish and convene a panel to review it once it occured? That seems a lot of pressure to put on that person.
The (Irish Times) report doesn't say that she verbalised suicidal ideation during contact with the IFPA, it says that she said by the time they told her the problem with going to England was the money she had decided to kill herself; not that she told them so.

I'm not sure 'opportunities' is the word I'd use, but it seems to me that aside from the IFPA staff member whom you think should have determined future suicidal ideation, the GP and the panel (who are the only parts of 'the system' here really) acted appropriately and with alacrity?

The point is she doesn't have to say she is suicidal to warrant an assessment, just there needs to be a suspicion. Of course it is incorrect to say that suicidal ideation could have been determined at 8 weeks. And it is possible that ifpa staff had a discussion with her about what she meant by dying because of the pregnancy, and how she would feel if she didn't have an abortion, and they may not have had any reason to suspect suicidal ideation but the woman does not reference this in the article.
I agree with you that the lack of abortion was probably key regarding suicidal ideation. I don't know if this funding issue was discussed with her at 8 weeks, but I'm speculating that at 8 weeks, if she was told she would need to fund the abortion herself then she may have verbalised suicidal ideation. Because this is what happened at 16 weeks. "I told them (ifpa 'medic') I was prepared to kill myself".
Yes, to refer on suspicion of suicidal ideation is within ifpa's remit as per the act's guidance document for health professionals.

It's possible that the ifpa did refer onwards, think there's some new reports about them raising concerns with HSE.

Cabaal

Absolam wrote: »

I'm not forgetting it, or ignoring the continuing pain and trauma it incurs; I'm quite deliberately weighing it against the destruction of another persons life.

So you see a bunch of cells as a person, equal to that of a 1 year old baby? Interesting, so you're in favour of women being charged with intoxicating a minor if they drink when pregnant?

What if they travel to the UK for an abortion, should the Irish state charge them with murder when they return back to Ireland?

If I knew what it would be exactly don't you think I'd be anxious to share the ideal solution?

The ideal solution right now is to allow the women to restore you freedoms, rights and bodily integrity. Forcing a women to remain as a host to the rapists genetic material means she continues to be violated by the rapist.

Ralphdejones

Chattastrophe! wrote: »

Extending that logic, I could ask you if you're glad that the woman had been raped so that the child is alive today instead of never having existed?

To answer your question, no. A Rape is not equivalent to a child and mother, both of whom have done nothing wrong, being alive today. I'm surprised you would genuinely need that explained. A suicidal pregnant women and her child are both alive today. Would you have preferred if the child had been aborted ? I can't see how this would have been a better outcome. What's next, it would have been better if the woman had been aborted when she was a child ? I don't see anyone calling for execution of the rapist (which would be far more justifiable), yet the innocent child should be ? It's time this stigmatisation of an innocent mother and child should be removed from society.

robindch

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

UNHELPFUL PROSE DELETED

None of that please.

Stark

Ralphdejones wrote: »

A suicidal pregnant women and her child are both alive today.

Thanks to her being raped. More precious babies, hooray.

Ralphdejones wrote: »

Would you have preferred if the child had been aborted ? I can't see how this would have been a better outcome. What's next, it would have been better if the woman had been aborted when she was a child ?[

Or if her parents never met or if she was never raped. About as tragic an outcome as if an embryo that gave life to two identical twins never split and only one precious baby was alive today instead of two. Sometimes kids are never to be, people should have the choice as to whether to have kids or not.

lazygal

Ralphdejones wrote: »

To answer your question, no. A Rape is not equivalent to a child and mother, both of whom have done nothing wrong, being alive today. I'm surprised you would genuinely need that explained. A suicidal pregnant women and her child are both alive today. Would you have preferred if the child had been aborted ? I can't see how this would have been a better outcome. What's next, it would have been better if the woman had been aborted when she was a child ?

I would have preferred if the woman concerned was able to deal with the pregnancy at such an early stage that the matter being removed from her body would have been nothing more than a heavy period.
25% of pregnancies are spontaneously miscarried. Where's the outrage about that? Do you know what will happen if I turn up at a maternity hospital at four or eight weeks pregnant with a suspected miscarriage? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. I might get a scan and they might try to find a heartbeat but after than I'll be sent home to see what happens. No intervention to save the unborn happens. Is that ok? Prolifers are obsessed with the intent behind abortion, that its a deliberate attempt to kill and unborn child, yet not once have I heard any pro life commentator outraged about the callous disregard for the natural abortions nature carries out 25% of the time.
Which makes me conclude that pro lifers are not pro life, they're pro control for their point of view, and the solution to every single pregnancy is to remain pregnant, regardless of any other considerations. They don't like women having control over their bodies. And when women do exercise control and decide to terminate a pregnancy deliberately, the pro life crowd harp on about regret and post abortion trauma and whatever other means necessary to make women feel guilty, while ignoring the women who have no regrets whatsoever.

Ralphdejones

Stark wrote: »

Thanks to her being raped. More precious babies, hooray.

There are two innocent lives involved, not just one.

Cabaal

Ralphdejones wrote: »

Would you have preferred if the child had been aborted ?

First off it was a fetus not a child, its simply mature enough that due to medical advances it "might" live and it "might" not have disabilitys after the early c-section.

The women's life is far more important then any fetus or bunch of cells. Always will be.

If you think otherwise then I gather you'd rather save 20 eggs from a burning building instead of saving one baby. After all you'd be saving 20 children instead of one right?
:rolleyes:

I don't see anyone calling for execution of the rapist (which would be far more justifiable), yet the innocent child should be ?

So you'd see the rapists death as justified?

Wouldn't the death of the rapist be ignoring the rights of the fetus you care so much about?, after all if you kill the rapist aren't you denying the fetus the right to know who their father is and the right to have visitation rights as they grow up.

Sure the women can just suck it up for the rights of the child, its not a big deal to continue to have the rapist in her life for another 18 years or so.

It's time this stigmatisation of an innocent mother and child should be removed from society.

You'll find that any stigma directed at women over the decades stems from twisted religious "morals". The same people who now want to dictate what a women can do with her body even in cases of rape.

The stigma continuous when people against women's right to choose what genetic material gestates inside them is something other people say they should have no right to do.

kylith

Absolam wrote: »

Well, it's more about whether the woman should have a right to remove the rapists genetic material from her body if that means causing the death of another individual; currently she does not have that right. We simply disagree as to whether she should.
I'm not forgetting it, or ignoring the continuing pain and trauma it incurs; I'm quite deliberately weighing it against the destruction of another persons life.

If I knew what it would be exactly don't you think I'd be anxious to share the ideal solution?
However, whilst further limiting a womans right to do what she chooses with her body in order to preserve a life may be a horrific, unfair, and an unconscionable act, it still seems (to me) to be less horrific, unfair, and unconscionable than killing an innocent individual.

Except that it was not an individual. When she first presented and requested a termination it was months away from anything that could be reasonably considered an individual. It was as independent as a kidney, and she wished to withdraw her service as an incubator.

Absolam

Cabaal wrote: »

So you see a bunch of cells as a person, equal to that of a 1 year old baby?

Well, a one year old baby is a bunch of cells. However, no; I do think there is a point where the something becomes a someone but I'm not convinced where that point is. Until I am convinced I'd rather err on the side of caution.

Cabaal wrote: »

Interesting, so you're in favour of women being charged with intoxicating a minor if they drink when pregnant? What if they travel to the UK for an abortion, should the Irish state charge them with murder when they return back to Ireland?

Facile, but no. If I am in favour of things I think are relevant to the discussion though I'll let you know; you need not worry about making them up for me.

Cabaal wrote: »

The ideal solution right now is to allow the women to restore you freedoms, rights and bodily integrity. Forcing a women to remain as a host to the rapists genetic material means she continues to be violated by the rapist.

I don't think that is an ideal solution as it causes someone to die. Which I think is (generally) a greater evil than causing someone to suffer.

Absolam

kylith wrote: »

Except that it was not an individual. When she first presented and requested a termination it was months away from anything that could be reasonably considered an individual. It was as independent as a kidney, and she wished to withdraw her service as an incubator.

If we're talking specifically about this instance rather than the general theory of when abortion is justified, it's much clearer cut. When she first presented it didn't matter whether or not it was an individual; a termination was against the law. It only became legal when she was judged to be suicidal due to the pregnancy, and it remained legal whether or not the foetus/child could reasonably be considered an individual.

swampgas

Absolam wrote: »

Well, a one year old baby is a bunch of cells. However, no; I do think there is a point where the something becomes a someone but I'm not convinced where that point is. Until I am convinced I'd rather err on the side of caution.

It's odd however that your caution seems to be entirely in favour of the foetus, and to disadvantage the woman. I could just as easily assert that erring on the side of caution means allowing women full control over their bodies by allowing abortion on demand.

Basically you seem to be saying that "caution" must prioritise the foetus, which is another way of saying that the woman is less important than the foetus she is carrying.

Absolam

swampgas wrote: »

It's odd however that your caution seems to be entirely in favour of the foetus, and to disadvantage the woman. I could just as easily assert that erring on the side of caution means allowing women full control over their bodies by allowing abortion on demand.

If you did, what would you say you were being cautious of?

swampgas wrote: »

Basically you seem to be saying that "caution" must prioritise the foetus, which is another way of saying that the woman is less important than the foetus she is carrying.

No, basically I'm saying that killing someone is an irrevocable act; when they're dead they're dead. There are many things you may repair or redress if you get them wrong, but you can't fix a dead person. So we should be particularly cautious about killing them. At least without a very good reason.

Ralphdejones

Absolam wrote: »

Well, a one year old baby is a bunch of cells. However, no; I do think there is a point where the something becomes a someone but I'm not convinced where that point is. Until I am convinced I'd rather err on the side of caution.
Facile, but no. If I am in favour of things I think are relevant to the discussion though I'll let you know; you need not worry about making them up for me.

Biologically speaking when does human life begin ?

Calina

Ralphdejones wrote: »

Biologically speaking when does human life begin ?

At birth, with the first breath.

At any point to that, you are looking at potential, not guaranteed.

Vivisectus

Absolam, you say that you do not know when a potential person becomes a person and would rather err on the side of caution. You are aware of the suffering created by an unwanted pregnancy such as this rape-case: there is no ambiguity there.

So do you think the possibility that you could be destroying a person weigh more in your view than the certain horror and loss of freedom that women are being subjected to?

Is it your view that we should (continue to) forbid abortions on the basis that the small clump of cells that could potentially develop into a human might already be a person? Or are you referring more to second trimester terminations and beyond?

Absolam

Ralphdejones wrote: »

Biologically speaking when does human life begin ?

Biologically speaking life exists when there are living cells. A sperm cell is alive, and is human insofar as it contains human DNA. However, you can't realistically equate the simple existence of life with personhood.

Obliq

Absolam wrote: »

If we're talking specifically about this instance rather than the general theory of when abortion is justified, it's much clearer cut. When she first presented it didn't matter whether or not it was an individual; a termination was against the law. It only became legal when she was judged to be suicidal due to the pregnancy, and it remained legal whether or not the foetus/child could reasonably be considered an individual.

Yes, seemingly for an abortion to be legal in Ireland, the woman must be callously and nauseatingly forced to carry through a pregnancy to a point where she is properly attempting suicide - in this case, an interrupted attempt to hang herself.

Absolam wrote: »

If you did, what would you say you were being cautious of?

Cautious perhaps of pushing the woman's desperation to a point where she attempts suicide?

I have such a massive problem with how avoidable her level of desperation was, but because it has now resulted in the (happy?) delivery of a live baby, it was apparently ok to push her to this limit.

Appalling. Utterly appalling. I'm so sorry the poor girl ended up in Ireland.

Ralphdejones

Absolam wrote: »

Biologically speaking life exists when there are living cells. A sperm cell is alive, and is human insofar as it contains human DNA. However, you can't realistically equate the simple existence of life with personhood.

Unless you learn biology from Monty python, a sperm is not a human life.
I'm asking biologically, when does a human life begin ?

Absolam

Vivisectus wrote: »

Absolam, you say that you do not know when a potential person becomes a person and would rather err on the side of caution. You are aware of the suffering created by an unwanted pregnancy such as this rape-case: there is no ambiguity there.
So do you think the possibility that you could be destroying a person weigh more in your view than the certain horror and loss of freedom that women are being subjected to?

I probably would, though the more remote the possibilty the greater I'd weigh the suffering.

Vivisectus wrote: »

Is it your view that we should (continue to) forbid abortions on the basis that the small clump of cells that could potentially develop into a human might already be a person? Or are you referring more to second trimester terminations and beyond?

It is; as long as we can't (and I mean I can't since I'm only voicing my opinion) be reasonably certain that the living cells we are destroying are not a living person, then I think we should not destroy them unless we must do so to save another living persons life.

Absolam

Ralphdejones wrote: »

Unless you learn biology from Monty python, a sperm is not a human life.
I'm asking biologically, when does a human life begin ?

If you don't want to discuss the ramifications of the various words you're using to frame your question, why don't you simply ask a biologist? I'm not one by the way.

Ralphdejones

Absolam wrote: »

If you don't want to discuss the ramifications of the various words you're using to frame your question, why don't you simply ask a biologist? I'm not one by the way.

How can you discuss the ramifications, if you've not looked into that, you said you wish to err on the side of caution

Vivisectus

Ralphdejones wrote: »

Biologically speaking when does human life begin ?

That depends how you define it. Just like there is no such thing as a clear-cut point of death, there is no clear-cut point of life either. There is no unambiguous set of circumstances that we can point to and call "life". All we have is a rather imprecise shorthand.