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
Options
Comments
-
MAP, IVF and embryonic stem cell research do have ethical issues in relation to their use.
Not really, what they have is some opposition from Christians. In Ireland, mainly conservative Catholics. Ordinary people use MAP or IVF without ethical worries when they are appropriate.
I'm in favour of Catholics giving out about IVF and the morning after pill as much as possible, it shows how out of touch they are, just as continuing to oppose "artificial" contraception does.0 -
Today's Examiner:http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/vardakar-abortion-legislation-shouldnt-be-changed-based-on-single-case-641489.html Just remembered he is the Minister with responsibility for Health0
-
No absolutely. We should wait until we have loads of terrible cases like these. Don't close the stable door after just one horse has bolted. Ignore it and wait until loads of them have done so.0
-
I have been reading the various viewpoints on this thread with interest and a number of things strike me.
Some people are of the opinion that human life in all it's myriad forms must be preserved regardless of the cost to other human lives. Yet Ireland does not do this. The Irish State makes a distinction between the 'brain alive' and 'the brain dead' and allows the termination of the latter. Yet, the 'brain does not yet/will never function' have a 'right' to life that trumps that of the fully functioning, brain working as it should, living, breathing on her own, human female incubator in which it is residing.
So - if all human life is worth preserving regardless of ability to function I assume those who hold this position also campaign against turning off life support machine with equal vigour.
Secondly - like it or not. Some women/girls get pregnant and they do not want to be. This has always been the case and always will be. Abortions are recorded throughout history (why, St Bridget performed a few in her day...). How or why they got pregnant is immaterial. What is material is how we as a society treat these women and if we are mature enough to accept an unpleasant reality. That reality is some women/girls will seek to terminate an unwanted pregnancy no matter how we feel about it and no matter what laws to protect the unborn are in place. The fact is that desperate women/girls will take desperate measures often with fatal consequences to themselves. Both die.
After all, War kills unique humans. The vast majority of us would agree that war is not something we want but nonetheless it is an unpleasant reality and so the State employs (at great expense) and trains people to kill other people on it's behalf should the need arise - to preserve our collective 'way of life'. Seems what is a good enough reason for the State is not a good enough reason for an individual.
We can bang on about who has what 'rights' and when/what/where/who is 'human' but that won't change a thing. Women/girls will still seek to rid themselves of unwanted pregnancies and risk their own lives in the process.
So - are we mature enough to accept what we cannot change and seek to ensure that such women do not resort to clothes hangers/ drugs off the internet/ throwing themselves down stairs/ back street abortionists etc etc by providing them with safe abortions or do we continue to pretend that Ireland is 'abortion free' while exporting our problems for foreign solutions?0 -
You are now moving into 'hard case', possibly even 'very hard case' territory. On the one hand there is a woman deeply hurt by a savage assault and on the other there is an embryonic Human Being totally innocent of anything to do with the crime perpetrated on the woman.
I think it is actually a 'cop out' to say that the decision should be left to the woman alone ... as if this unfortunate woman hasn't enough problems already ... this principle will make her responsible for possibly deciding to kill her child.
We all should collectively 'go off to the proverbial pub' ... and leave her do whatever she wants ... and live with the consequences, would seem to be the net effect of such an attitude.
Its almost as callus as somebody who says that she cannot have an abortion even where her life clearly depends on having it.
That is truly stunning in its infantilization of women! if a woman asks you to make the decision for her, go right ahead - but otherwise, get up the yard with you!
The list of women who would have been far better off, and in some cases simply still alive, had people like you indeed gone off to the pub is getting worrying. It makes me think maybe it would be a good thing for the country if you all developed a major drink habit tomorrow.
Are there any other situations where you would remove a mentally capable adult's right to make crucial decisions which will have no effect on the people making the decision, but may utterly destroy that person's life? And then you pretend that it's for her own good! :mad:
Poor little lady, too stupid to measure the consequences of her decision, she has to be made obey your decision instead. Riiight.
And on the one hand you say a woman who had consensual sex must be prepared to remain pregnant because she has to take responsibility for her actions, even though she may simply have had a failure of contraception.
But on the other hand, if she has been raped, you consider that she can't possibly take responsibility for herself by refusing to remain pregnant by her rapist.
Interesting double bind the women of Ireland find themselves in - competent when they have to take responsibility for something they don't want but you do, but incompetent when they want to make a decision that you don't like.
(And I think you were the poster who was whinging about me not saying enough good things about how women are treated in Ireland!)0 -
Advertisement
-
Bannasidhe wrote: »Some women/girls get pregnant and they do not want to be. This has always been the case and always will be. Abortions are recorded throughout history (why, St Bridget performed a few in her day...). How or why they got pregnant is immaterial. What is material is how we as a society treat these women and if we are mature enough to accept an unpleasant reality. That reality is some women/girls will seek to terminate an unwanted pregnancy no matter how we feel about it and no matter what laws to protect the unborn are in place. The fact is that desperate women/girls will take desperate measures often with fatal consequences to themselves. Both die.
This is where the pro life remain pregnant as a solution to every unwanted pregnancy regardless of any other considerations argument is so repulsive. Adoption is one solution to a man or woman with an unwanted child, but it is not a solution for every women with an unwanted pregnancy. I do not like the 'hierarchy of reasons' as to who can and cannot have an abortion - why would the circumstances of conception afford a foetus greater or lesser rights? Why is it ok to terminate a pregnancy as a result of rape but you must continue a pregnancy as a result of a condom splitting or a pill was forgotten?
I do not care why a woman wants to terminate or continue a pregnancy. All I care about is that the decision is hers alone and isn't made more difficult by having to spend money she may not have or travel or do anything she shouldn't have to do.0 -
aloyisious wrote: »Today's Examiner:http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/vardakar-abortion-legislation-shouldnt-be-changed-based-on-single-case-641489.html Just remembered he is the Minister with responsibility for Health
In other words, Leo, you won't touch anything to do with abortion. After all, you've got the next general election to think about.0 -
So therefore you agree with abortion as a form of contraception. It is purely the woman's decision if she wants to do this?I do not care why a woman wants to terminate or continue a pregnancy. All I care about is that the decision is hers alone and isn't made more difficult by having to spend money she may not have or travel or do anything she shouldn't have to do.
That is insane.0 -
Tim Robbins wrote: »So therefore you agree with abortion as a form of contraception. It is purely the woman's decision if she wants to do this?
That is insane.
So what if a woman is using it as a contraception? Should the fate of a foetus depend on how it was conceived? Why do some women "deserve" abortions but others don't? Do you care why people avail of the morning after pill or ivf?0 -
Tim Robbins wrote: »So therefore you agree with abortion as a form of contraception. It is purely the woman's decision if she wants to do this?
That is insane.
I 'believe' in contraception that is effective, free and without harmful side effects.
I also 'believe' in in Karma.
Sadly, neither of these things exist.
In the real world, contraception is not 100% effective, it is costly, and some forms can have nasty side effects.
Tell me Tim. When was the last time you visited your GP to get contraception? Would you mind telling me how much you paid as my future daughter-in-law is paying a fortune for her daily no-baby pill.
They could go down the condom route but son is wary of that as opps the condom split will be 8 on Friday.
Yes. 8 years old as she wasn't aborted. Her mother chose not to. If she had chosen to as she felt unable to raise I child I would have gladly raised her. I made the offer and I meant it. My Choice.
If she had chosen to abort then neither my son or myself would have stopped her. We would have supported her. He would have travelled to England with her. We would have paid.
Her body. HER choice.
I, personally, cannot imagine a situation outside of serious defects in the foetus making it incompatible with life where I would consider an abortion even though I have a chronic medical condition making pregnancy a very risky thing. MY Body = MY Choice.
Other women make different choices as fully functioning adults. It's a simple philosophy I have : Woman's body = Woman's Choice.
What difference does it make how a child was conceived? In the case of rape are the sins of the father visited on the child?
Why is it ok for that 'rape child' to die but not the 'split condom child' or the 'I'm an unemployed single parent who had wine at a party and well... child'?
Yes. A foetus which had the potential to become a fully functioning human being dies during an abortion.
But without safe abortion all too often the reluctant mother dies too. Is that ok with you Tim?
Is is ok that women die trying to have an unwanted foetus killed because they weren't rape victims an so didn't deserve a safe abortion?
It's not ok Tim.
If we had free contraception there would be a lot less people on the boat/plane to the UK - but there would still be some.
That is reality.
That is what we have to deal with as adults.
We may not be able to save every 'child' but we can damn well save those women who are so desperate attempting to pierce their cervix with a wire hanger becomes their only option.0 -
Advertisement
-
Tim Robbins wrote: »So therefore you agree with abortion as a form of contraception. It is purely the woman's decision if she wants to do this?
That is insane.
Contra-ception, the word itself means what it say's, behaviour contrary to inception, a way of preventing the start of a pregnancy, the using of a device or other method to assist a woman from becoming pregnant.
The church approves of natural contra-ception: https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FNatural_family_planning&ei=FUYPVNi6F7OO7Qb7yYGICw&usg=AFQjCNGBy_FqTrMzdC24HTNWMg6dCXrT5w
It sound's like you think of abortion as late-term contraception; a contradiction in itself. The use of the word insane is interesting, did you just chance to use that word?0 -
Yes, this idea that a woman might find it all too much of a bind to get the pill, or use a condom, but would be quite likely to decide it was easier to have an abortion instead, just beggars belief.aloyisious wrote: »Contra-ception, the word itself means what it say's, behaviour contrary to inception, a way of preventing the start of a pregnancy, the using of a device or other method to assist a woman from becoming pregnant.
Even in heathen England, and even an early abortion, is still a lot more hassle than getting the pill from your doctor. No-one decides to use abortion "as contraception" -quite apart from the fact that it's a contradiction in terms, it would also be far more time, expense and trouble than any contraceptive method. Except for the famous "rhythm method" that worked so well for our parents!0 -
MAP, IVF and embryonic stem cell research do have ethical issues in relation to their use.
I'm also not convinced that such concerns are in any way 'extreme' or held by a minority of people.
I don't know what country or decade you think you're living in...Opinion polls round the turn of the century were showing 90% supported the legal availability of the MAP, by now the figure is probably up near the vote Saddam Hussein used to get in Iraqi presidential elections.0 -
I would make the same presumption; but I would not presume a majority of those who oppose abortion are of the opinion that human life in all it's myriad forms must be preserved regardless of the cost to other human lives.Bannasidhe wrote: »Some people are of the opinion that human life in all it's myriad forms must be preserved regardless of the cost to other human lives. Yet Ireland does not do this. The Irish State makes a distinction between the 'brain alive' and 'the brain dead' and allows the termination of the latter. Yet, the 'brain does not yet/will never function' have a 'right' to life that trumps that of the fully functioning, brain working as it should, living, breathing on her own, human female incubator in which it is residing. So - if all human life is worth preserving regardless of ability to function I assume those who hold this position also campaign against turning off life support machine with equal vigour.
And as you point out, the State makes a distinction between the 'brain alive' and 'the brain dead' and allows the termination of the latter, but it does not say that the 'brain does not yet/will never function' has a 'right' to life that trumps that of the fully functioning, brain working as it should, living, breathing on her own, human female incubator in which it is residing. The State says it has an equal right, unless it threatens the fully functioning, brain working as it should, living, breathing on her own, human female incubator in which it is residing, in which case it has a lesser right.
Accepting the unpleasant reality that some women/girls will seek to terminate an unwanted pregnancy no matter how we feel about it does not require that we endorse their potential attempts to kill the foetus/child though; only that we consider the facts when we determine as a society what stance we wish to take on the issue.Bannasidhe wrote: »Secondly - like it or not. Some women/girls get pregnant and they do not want to be. This has always been the case and always will be. Abortions are recorded throughout history (why, St Bridget performed a few in her day...). How or why they got pregnant is immaterial. What is material is how we as a society treat these women and if we are mature enough to accept an unpleasant reality. That reality is some women/girls will seek to terminate an unwanted pregnancy no matter how we feel about it and no matter what laws to protect the unborn are in place. The fact is that desperate women/girls will take desperate measures often with fatal consequences to themselves. Both die.
Soldiers employed by the State however have a choice about whether or not to offer their lives for our collective way of life; the foetus has none. Additionally, the State has an obligation to protect our collective way of life (or more precisely our sovereignty and fundamental rights), which is why it trains people to to kill other people, not on it's behalf, but on our behalf.Bannasidhe wrote: »After all, War kills unique humans. The vast majority of us would agree that war is not something we want but nonetheless it is an unpleasant reality and so the State employs (at great expense) and trains people to kill other people on it's behalf should the need arise - to preserve our collective 'way of life'. Seems what is a good enough reason for the State is not a good enough reason for an individual.
And people will still seek to commit theft, rape, and murder. And risk their own lives in the process. The fact that people will still seek to do something anyway is not really a good reason to endorse it.Bannasidhe wrote: »We can bang on about who has what 'rights' and when/what/where/who is 'human' but that won't change a thing. Women/girls will still seek to rid themselves of unwanted pregnancies and risk their own lives in the process.
Are we mature enough to accept what we cannot change and seek to ensure that thieves, rapists and murderers don't needlessly endanger their lives whilst going about their activities as well?Bannasidhe wrote: »So - are we mature enough to accept what we cannot change and seek to ensure that such women do not resort to clothes hangers/ drugs off the internet/ throwing themselves down stairs/ back street abortionists etc etc by providing them with safe abortions or do we continue to pretend that Ireland is 'abortion free' while exporting our problems for foreign solutions?
I totally agree; within the constraints of the societies we live in everyone should have the maximim affordable choice over what is done with their bodies (which in fairness doesn't quite amount to 'my body = my choice', but I'm approximately there in spirit). Those constraints generally restrict how you can use your body to affect someone else, and in Irish society, the unborn are recognised as being, at least to some degree, someone else. Which means that just as you cannot use your body to kill a neighbour, you cannot use it to kill an unborn child.Bannasidhe wrote: »Her body. HER choice.
MY Body = MY Choice.
Woman's body = Woman's Choice.
Someone else's body (nascent as that body may be) = someone else's choice.0 -
Do you think he's saying effectively nothing because:In other words, Leo, you won't touch anything to do with abortion. After all, you've got the next general election to think about.
a) less people will vote for him if he expresses the opinion we need to liberalise abortion.
or
b) less people will vote for him if he expresses the opinion we need to restrict abortion further.
Since I suspect Leo is quite prepared to say whatever is most likely to get him elected?0 -
I would make the same presumption; but I would not presume a majority of those who oppose abortion are of the opinion that human life in all it's myriad forms must be preserved regardless of the cost to other human lives.
And as you point out, the State makes a distinction between the 'brain alive' and 'the brain dead' and allows the termination of the latter, but it does not say that the 'brain does not yet/will never function' has a 'right' to life that trumps that of the fully functioning, brain working as it should, living, breathing on her own, human female incubator in which it is residing. The State says it has an equal right, unless it threatens the fully functioning, brain working as it should, living, breathing on her own, human female incubator in which it is residing, in which case it has a lesser right.
Accepting the unpleasant reality that some women/girls will seek to terminate an unwanted pregnancy no matter how we feel about it does not require that we endorse their potential attempts to kill the foetus/child though; only that we consider the facts when we determine as a society what stance we wish to take on the issue.
Soldiers employed by the State however have a choice about whether or not to offer their lives for our collective way of life; the foetus has none. Additionally, the State has an obligation to protect our collective way of life (or more precisely our sovereignty and fundamental rights), which is why it trains people to to kill other people, not on it's behalf, but on our behalf.
And people will still seek to commit theft, rape, and murder. And risk their own lives in the process. The fact that people will still seek to do something anyway is not really a good reason to endorse it.
Are we mature enough to accept what we cannot change and seek to ensure that thieves, rapists and murderers don't needlessly endanger their lives whilst going about their activities as well?
I totally agree; within the constraints of the societies we live in everyone should have the maximim affordable choice over what is done with their bodies (which in fairness doesn't quite amount to 'my body = my choice', but I'm approximately there in spirit). Those constraints generally restrict how you can use your body to affect someone else, and in Irish society, the unborn are recognised as being, at least to some degree, someone else. Which means that just as you cannot use your body to kill a neighbour, you cannot use it to kill an unborn child.
Someone else's body (nascent as that body may be) = someone else's choice.
The argument has been made here many times.
Tell the latest victim of our unworkable laws that her rights were not trumped by that of the foetus she carried.
So trumped that she would be force fed to preserve it's life at the expense of her wellbeing. Welcome to Ireland.
'our collective way of life' - you mean the situation where the ethos of one hypocritical religion permeates our legislation in a State that has shown scant regard for children once they are born but will incarcerate women and girls to make sure the rights of the unborn are protected.
A State that allowed the laundries and industrial schools and is dragging it's heels on investigating and compensating while at the same time is unsure of how many children are currently dying in it's care or have been abducted from Direct Provision Centres?
Oh yes - we can pay people to protect that. Arm them, train them but we can't provide free contraception which is proven to reduce the number of abortions. We can, however, turn the full force of the law on a rape victim who wanted an abortion.
Do people often commit crimes like rape, theft and murder against their own persons? No.
By comparing abortion with these you are drawing a false comparison. The State says these are crimes against another person. A person who has been born and whose existence is recognised via Birth certificates, PPNS numbers and all the other identifiers that State attaches to us once we have been born. A foetus has none of these things. It is not recognised as a person by that very same State.
If, in the eyes of the State a foetus is exactly the same as a born citizen deserving of equal rights then the apparatus of the State should recognise it as such.
But it doesn't.
It can't.
Because the foetus is not yet a citizen of the State and may never be.
And you can quibble all you like but it will not change the facts.
Illegal or not - desperate women and girls will seek abortions and to pretend other wise is akin to saying if we outlawed alcohol there would be no more problems with alcohol abuse. Sure people could get on the boat if they wanted a drink that wasn't made in someone's shed from mostly potatoes.0 -
It has, and it still goes on...Bannasidhe wrote: »The argument has been made here many times.
But that's still not true is it? It's not like the story hasn't been trotted out enough in the media and covered extensively even in this thread.Bannasidhe wrote: »Tell the latest victim of our unworkable laws that her rights were not trumped by that of the foetus she carried. So trumped that she would be force fed to preserve it's life at the expense of her wellbeing. Welcome to Ireland.
So easy to say she was force fed to preserve it's life at the expense of her wellbeing. So much more difficult to say she was only force fed to keep her sufficiently healthy to safely have surgery because she went on hunger strike to protest at having the child delivered by c section rather than killed?
Since you offered the phrase feel free to offer the definition.Bannasidhe wrote: »'our collective way of life' - you mean the situation where the ethos of one hypocritical religion permeates our legislation in a State that has shown scant regard for children once they are born but will incarcerate women and girls to make sure the rights of the unborn are protected.
You're absolutely right... in order to absolve ourselves of guilt over the laundries we should kill babies. Makes total sense when you think about it?Bannasidhe wrote: »A State that allowed the laundries and industrial schools and is dragging it's heels on investigating and compensating while at the same time is unsure of how many children are currently dying in it's care or have been abducted from Direct Provision Centres?
If you bring forward the legislation to replace the defence forces with free contraception I'm sure some people will vote for it?Bannasidhe wrote: »Oh yes - we can pay people to protect that. Arm them, train them but we can't provide free contraception which is proven to reduce the number of abortions.
Yes, the full force of the law was turned on her, giving her medical care, counselling... sorry, the full force of the law how again?Bannasidhe wrote: »We can, however, turn the full force of the law on a rape victim who wanted an abortion.
I don't think anyone aborts themselves either? Well, suicides sort of do but...Bannasidhe wrote: »Do people often commit crimes like rape, theft and murder against their own persons? No.
That might be why I said 'the unborn are recognised as being, at least to some degree, someone else'.Bannasidhe wrote: »By comparing abortion with these you are drawing a false comparison. The State says these are crimes against another person. A person who has been born and whose existence is recognised via Birth certificates, PPNS numbers and all the other identifiers that State attaches to us once we have been born. A foetus has none of these things. It is not recognised as a person by that very same State.
But you know the State doesn't recognise a foetus as exactly the same as a born citizen deserving of equal rights? It recognises it as unborn, with a right to life. And recognises the destruction of that life as a crime. The State doesn't need to, and doesn't claim to, recognise a foetus as he same as a born citizen deserving of equal rights in order to recognise it and give it some rights, obviously. I thought we were all past that?Bannasidhe wrote: »If, in the eyes of the State a foetus is exactly the same as a born citizen deserving of equal rights then the apparatus of the State should recognise it as such.
What's to quibble? You know it's not a citizen, but you know it has a right to life.Bannasidhe wrote: »But it doesn't. It can't. Because the foetus is not yet a citizen of the State and may never be. And you can quibble all you like but it will not change the facts.
But no one is pretending otherwise? We're just not pretending them wanting to have an abortion makes having an abortion ok, just like thieves, rapists and murderers wanting to thieve rape and murder doesn't make thieving raping and murdering ok.Bannasidhe wrote: »Illegal or not - desperate women and girls will seek abortions and to pretend other wise is akin to saying if we outlawed alcohol there would be no more problems with alcohol abuse. Sure people could get on the boat if they wanted a drink that wasn't made in someone's shed from mostly potatoes.0 -
It has, and it still goes on...
But that's still not true is it? It's not like the story hasn't been trotted out enough in the media and covered extensively even in this thread.
So easy to say she was force fed to preserve it's life at the expense of her wellbeing. So much more difficult to say she was only force fed to keep her sufficiently healthy to safely have surgery because she went on hunger strike to protest at having the child delivered by c section rather than killed?
Since you offered the phrase feel free to offer the definition.
You're absolutely right... in order to absolve ourselves of guilt over the laundries we should kill babies. Makes total sense when you think about it?
If you bring forward the legislation to replace the defence forces with free contraception I'm sure some people will vote for it?
Yes, the full force of the law was turned on her, giving her medical care, counselling... sorry, the full force of the law how again?
I don't think anyone aborts themselves either? Well, suicides sort of do but...
That might be why I said 'the unborn are recognised as being, at least to some degree, someone else'.
But you know the State doesn't recognise a foetus as exactly the same as a born citizen deserving of equal rights? It recognises it as unborn, with a right to life. And recognises the destruction of that life as a crime. The State doesn't need to, and doesn't claim to, recognise a foetus as he same as a born citizen deserving of equal rights in order to recognise it and give it some rights, obviously. I thought we were all past that?
What's to quibble? You know it's not a citizen, but you know it has a right to life.
But no one is pretending otherwise? We're just not pretending them wanting to have an abortion makes having an abortion ok, just like thieves, rapists and murderers wanting to thieve rape and murder doesn't make thieving raping and murdering ok.
Have you ever, even for one second, put yourself into the shoes of a girl or woman who finds herself in a crisis pregancy situation?0 -
We're just not pretending them wanting to have an abortion makes having an abortion ok, just like thieves, rapists and murderers wanting to thieve rape and murder doesn't make thieving raping and murdering ok.
Yet when the Attorney General gets an injunction to actually prevent this "crime", we all say, no, no - that isn't what we meant, of course it's OK for you to kill the little baby - here's all the info you need on where to go, with a constitutional guarantee!
Just don't be poor or have a bad visa, makes us look bad, OK? Off to London with you!0 -
iwantmydinner wrote: »Have you ever, even for one second, put yourself into the shoes of a girl or woman who finds herself in a crisis pregancy situation?
I doubt he has.
Nor does he or any other banging on about the rights of the unborn acknowledge that regardless of what they think or what is in the Constitution or on the Statute books abortion will still happen. And women and girls will continue to place their own lives at risk as they cannot imagine their life continuing.
David Steel accepted that reality in 1967 in the UK. He realised that the illegality of abortion just meant women were dying too and that they, at least, could be saved.
That is the elephant in the room no one wants to talk about in these endless discussions on semantics and who has what rights.
Abortions will always happen.
There will always be women and girls who will do anything to no longer be pregnant.
No law will change that fact.
No amount of hand-wringing and sanctimonious mutters about the unborn will change that simple fact.
We, as adults, have a choice. We can accept an unpleasant reality and ensure that when abortions are carried out they are safe or we can continue to pretend we have such respect for life that we will continue to allow women and girls to die along with the unwanted foetus they unwillingly carry.0 -
Advertisement
-
If the UK stopped treating all women travelling from Ireland for abortion services we would have to deal with the reality of women with unwanted pregnancies immediately. If the UK wasn't so accommodating and easy to access women would be dying in Ireland under the current system. Women will always want to end pregnancies. There is no point bleating about the rights of the unborn until there is some way of something or someone else gestating unwanted foetuses for those who don't want to remain pregnant.0
-
Is that an appeal to my sentiment? I imagine a crisis pregnancy is an excruciating situation, and we can trot all the options that can make it even more excruciating if you like. If you want to reduce the entire complicated discussion to that one single thing, I simply imagine being dead is worse.iwantmydinner wrote: »Have you ever, even for one second, put yourself into the shoes of a girl or woman who finds herself in a crisis pregancy situation?0 -
Is that an appeal to my sentiment? I imagine a crisis pregnancy is an excruciating situation, and we can trot all the options that can make it even more excruciating if you like. If you want to reduce the entire complicated discussion to that one single thing, I simply imagine being dead is worse.
Some women committed suicide rather than remain pregnant. Maybe they thought being pregnant was worse than dying.0 -
Or we all say, we have made our will clear and voted to make abortion illegal in this country. We do not believe it is feasible to exercise that will in other countries.Zubeneschamali wrote: »Yet when the Attorney General gets an injunction to actually prevent this "crime", we all say, no, no - that isn't what we meant, of course it's OK for you to kill the little baby - here's all the info you need on where to go, with a constitutional guarantee! Just don't be poor or have a bad visa, makes us look bad, OK? Off to London with you!
You can pretend to any motivations you like really, but a national penchant for complicated hypocrisy seems a little over dramatic.0 -
Is that an appeal to my sentiment? I imagine a crisis pregnancy is an excruciating situation, and we can trot all the options that can make it even more excruciating if you like. If you want to reduce the entire complicated discussion to that one single thing, I simply imagine being dead is worse.
Tell that to the women and girls who would rather die than remain pregnant.0 -
Maybe. Maybe they thought having a child was worse than dying. Maybe they thought people knowing the circumstances under which they got pregnant was worse than dying. Maybe the reason they committed suicide actually had nothing to do with being pregnant at all. There's a plethora of maybes, but they certainly made a choice.Some women committed suicide rather than remain pregnant. Maybe they thought being pregnant was worse than dying.0 -
Why? If they thought it were true they wouldn't rather die. I imagine qualified counselling would be far more helpful than hearing my opinion.Bannasidhe wrote: »Tell that to the women and girls who would rather die than remain pregnant.0 -
Why? If they thought it were true they wouldn't rather die. I imagine qualified counselling would be far more helpful than hearing my opinion.
Yeah. The problem is that your 'opinion' and that of others like you gets to dictate the choices available to women.
Woman/girl finds out she is pregnant.
She is in despair.
She is faced with a situation that has a strict time limit.
You think qualified counselling is the answer????
FFS!
SHE DOES NOT WANT TO BE PREGNANT.
No amount of 'qualified' counselling will stop her being pregnant.
Do you think women are so stupid that we can be talked around? That we do not 'understand' how we feel?
We are not children. We understand that a thing is happening in our bodies and we DO NOT WANT IT. We know there are methods to stop it. Some safe. Some dangerous. That is the choice. Not whether or not we want to chat to a Freudian or a Jungian or a cuddly wuddly psychoanalyst and told how we are mistaken.
Do you really think when the choice is pay for counselling or pay for an abortion women who are unwillingly pregnant will think 'ah, lying down on a couch for an hour or two a week will sort me out'?
Can you really not understand that regardless of your opinion or what laws are in force some women/girls will still seek to terminate unwanted pregnancies?
Is your belief in the right to life of the unborn so all consuming that you would see them die too because of your 'opinion' about a set of circumstances you personally will never face?0 -
Why? If they thought it were true they wouldn't rather die. I imagine qualified counselling would be far more helpful than hearing my opinion.
I'd say it wouldn't be any better from a practical point of view all the same, it would just be better expressed.
What don't you understand about the fact of a pregnancy being the cause of a woman becoming suicidal?
Recently we've had people from the anti-choice side of the debate saying that the X case didn't prove the girl was suicidal because she saw a psychologist and not a psychiatrist.
Now we have two psychiatrists certifying that a young woman was suicidal due to her pregnancy, and still you think your opinion about how to treat her is important enough not just to be heard, but for it to be a reason to refuse a termination to someone you have never met and know nothing of.
The arrogance is stunning.0 -
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement