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
1…275276278280281…334

Comments

  • Options
    #8312
    rainbow kirby
    Registered Users Posts: 26,928 ✭✭✭✭rainbow kirby


    Huntergonzo wrote: »
    But again ideally most chosen abortions should take place within the first trimester and I've heard they do.

    Have some statistics - England and Wales 2013

    79% before 10 weeks, 20% 10-20 weeks, 1% after 20 weeks.


  • Options
    #8313
    Huntergonzo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,160 ✭✭✭Huntergonzo


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    It obviously can. This is a simple fact.

    After a certain point yes, I'm not denying that, I'm talking about before that point, not after.

    Anyway that's sort of getting side tracked, what's your opinion of first trimester abortions for example, would you be for or against?


  • Options
    #8314
    qo2cj1dsne8y4k
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,646 ✭✭✭✭qo2cj1dsne8y4k


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    No problem.Are you requesting to add a qualifier to that statement?


    Can you please bold the part there that shows where I say I think it's fine to KILL a child ONE MINUTE before its removed from its mother


  • Options
    #8315
    Huntergonzo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,160 ✭✭✭Huntergonzo


    rainbow kirby wrote: »
    Have some statistics - England and Wales 2013

    79% before 10 weeks, 20% 10-20 weeks, 1% after 20 weeks.

    Ok thank you for that information, this is why I'm not too interested in debating the fine details of when life becomes viable with people who are anti-abortion, I think they're just deliberately diverting the argument because most abortions seem to occur when the fetus is still dependent on the mother.


  • Options
    #8316
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    LexieOnRale wrote: »
    Can you please bold the part there that shows where I say I think it's fine to KILL a child ONE MINUTE before its removed from its mother
    If you want the pregnant woman to have sole control over the fate of the foetus up until the moment it is born then you are saying this.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #8317
    qo2cj1dsne8y4k
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,646 ✭✭✭✭qo2cj1dsne8y4k


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    If you want the pregnant woman to have sole control over the fate of the foetus up until the moment it is born then you are saying this.


    Can you show me where I said this? Because I would hate to accuse you of making something up.


  • Options
    #8318
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Huntergonzo wrote: »
    Ok thank you for that information, this is why I'm not too interested in debating the fine details of when life becomes viable with people who are anti-abortion, I think they're just deliberately diverting the argument because most abortions seem to occur when the fetus is still dependent on the mother.
    Who said I was anti-abortion? I've said myself I'm not.
    Because I don't agree with abortion a minute before birth (the logical extension of a woman have sole control of the fate of the foetus at any stage in pregnancy) I am automatically against abortion at all stages? Really?


  • Options
    #8319
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    LexieOnRale wrote: »
    Can you show me where I said this? Because I would hate to accuse you of making something up.
    Again, no problem.
    LexieOnRale wrote: »
    And if she does not want something in her body she has a right to remove it.
    So you are adding the qualifier now that this removal will not kill the foetus?


  • Options
    #8320
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Huntergonzo wrote: »
    Ok thank you for that information, this is why I'm not too interested in debating the fine details of when life becomes viable with people who are anti-abortion, I think they're just deliberately diverting the argument because most abortions seem to occur when the fetus is still dependent on the mother.
    And you don't think that's connected in any way to the fact that it is illegal at a later stage?


  • Options
    #8321
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    SW wrote: »
    Nonsense. Anyone can provide for the child once it has been born, it's no longer reliant on a physical connection to the woman for nutrients/food etc.
    But what if nobody else wanted to take responsibility for it? Kill it?
    Or should the State look after it? If the State is expected to look after the interests of this individual after birth, why shouldn't the State have some input or advocacy for it before birth?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #8322
    Huntergonzo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,160 ✭✭✭Huntergonzo


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Who said I was anti-abortion? I've said myself I'm not.
    Because I don't agree with abortion a minute before birth (the logical extension of a woman have sole control of the fate of the foetus at any stage in pregnancy) I am automatically against abortion at all stages? Really?

    My apologies if you're not anti-abortion, I have no idea what you're for, you never answered me on that, however the point I was made was as a result of our exchange but it was aimed more generally than specifically at you.

    Also I never said I was for a chosen abortion up until the point of birth, I took 24 weeks as the upper limit as I believe that's the British limit.

    However I do think if the doctor decides a woman's life is in severe danger and or if the fetus has no chance of surviving then a very late abortion should be allowed, but this is a different argument, this is an abortion out of necessity.


  • Options
    #8323
    qo2cj1dsne8y4k
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,646 ✭✭✭✭qo2cj1dsne8y4k


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Again, no problem.
    So you are adding the qualifier now that this removal will not kill the foetus?


    I've read this quote but it's not what I asked for. You've stated that I said I was ok with a child being killed one minute before its birth. It's quite a sick and serious statement to make, as to the best of my knowledge, I have said the woman has the right to remove something she does not want in her body, but over a certain number of weeks, the foetus is viable outside the mothers body. The woman should have sole control over her body.

    So either quote me where I said its okay to kill a child a minute before its born or admit you're ramming your words into other people's posts in order to discredit the post and make your own irrational ramblings seem more plausible


  • Options
    #8324
    Huntergonzo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,160 ✭✭✭Huntergonzo


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    And you don't think that's connected in any way to the fact that it is illegal at a later stage?

    Probably yes, but also I don't think too many women would decide just willy nilly to head down to the hospital and look for an abortion after week 20, I think you're arguing here for the sake of it.


  • Options
    #8325
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    recedite wrote: »
    But what if nobody else wanted to take responsibility for it? Kill it?
    Or should the State look after it? If the State is expected to look after the interests of this individual after birth, why shouldn't the State have some input or advocacy for it before birth?
    This is the question that has STILL not been answered. If the mother has a legal responsibility for a child immediately after birth, why wouldn't this apply immediately before birth? I'm pro-choice, but not for abortion after the foetus can be medically sustained outside the womb. Others here are claiming the woman should be able to terminate at any stage.
    Now you can tell me when most abortions currently happen, but that's due to the legal position, not a statement of preference or logically argued position from the poster.


  • Options
    #8326
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Huntergonzo wrote: »
    Probably yes, but also I don't think too many women would decide just willy nilly to head down to the hospital and look for an abortion after week 20, I think you're arguing here for the sake of it.
    As I stated earlier, that's like saying we don't need laws for anything most people won't do most of the time. Do you think nobody would ever avail of an abortion after week 20 if there was no regulation at all?


  • Options
    #8327
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,779 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    recedite wrote: »
    But what if nobody else wanted to take responsibility for it? Kill it?
    Or should the State look after it?
    No, I'm not advocating infanticide on unwanted infants. Yes, the state should look after the child if the parents/family aren't willing to take care of it.
    If the State is expected to look after the interests of this individual after birth, why shouldn't the State have some input or advocacy for it before birth?

    do you mean that the State should ban abortion? or do you mean something else?

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #8328
    Huntergonzo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,160 ✭✭✭Huntergonzo


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    As I stated earlier, that's like saying we don't need laws for anything most people won't do most of the time. Do you think nobody would ever avail of an abortion after week 20 if there was no regulation at all?

    Listen you're just inventing arguments here and ignoring my previous post, like I've said (which apparently you agree with), I'm pro-choice up until the fetus can survive independent of the mother, after that I believe abortions by choice should be illegal.

    However if there's any serious risk to the mother's life, or if the fetus has no chance of surviving or a combination of the 2 then I believe doctors should be free to abort the baby.


  • Options
    #8329
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    SW wrote: »
    do you mean that the State should ban abortion? or do you mean something else?
    I'm asking the question, at what point should the State start looking out for the interests of this individual, if the biological mother is not willing to?


  • Options
    #8330
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,779 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    recedite wrote: »
    I'm asking the question, at what point should the State start looking out for the interests of this individual, if the biological mother is not willing to?

    After birth. Prior to that, it's up to the woman and doctors to decide best treatment for woman and foetus.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #8331
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    SW wrote: »
    After birth.
    Well this goes back to Dan Solo's point that the moment of birth is not some magic moment when all human rights kick in. That is just as ridiculous as the extreme pro-life position that all human rights kick in at the moment a human egg is fertilised.

    IMO the State should look out for the welfare of the unborn on a graded scale, from "very little" at the moment of implantaion to "a lot" close to the time of birth.
    "Looking out" for them includes providing free ante-natal hospital care, and asking the mother to take iron and folic acid instead of vodka. As well as the most obvious one of "discouraging" some other person from intentionally killing them.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #8332
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    SW wrote: »
    After birth. Prior to that, it's up to the woman and doctors to decide best treatment for woman and foetus.
    That's dodging the question again. So if the woman requests an abortion for no specific medical reason, at what point do you think this should be permitted? Up to the possible independent viability of the foetus? Up to the delivery day?
    This whole argument is about on request abortions. I don't see anybody contesting medical necessity terminations (well not in the last few pages anyway).


  • Options
    #8333
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,779 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    recedite wrote: »
    Well this goes back to Dan Solo's point that the moment of birth is not some magic moment when all human rights kick in. That is just as ridiculous as the extreme pro-life position that all human rights kick in at the moment a human egg is fertilised.

    IMO the State should look out for the welfare of the unborn on a graded scale, from "very little" at the moment of implantaion to "a lot" close to the time of birth.
    "Looking out" for them includes providing free ante-natal hospital care, and asking the mother to take iron and folic acid instead of vodka. As well as the most obvious one of "discouraging" some other person from intentionally killing them.

    And this is why I asked you to try elaborate on what you mean.

    Based on your revised line of questioning, I wouldn't have any issue at all with the general idea outlined above.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #8334
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,779 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    That's dodging the question again. So if the woman requests an abortion for no specific medical reason, at what point do you think this should be permitted? Up to the possible independent viability of the foetus? Up to the delivery day?
    This whole argument is about on request abortions. I don't see anybody contesting medical necessity terminations (well not in the last few pages anyway).

    Personally, I'd allow for abortion on request up to 20 weeks.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #8335
    Huntergonzo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,160 ✭✭✭Huntergonzo


    SW wrote: »
    Personally, I'd allow for abortion on request up to 20 weeks.

    I'd allow up to 24 weeks on request, but again I think women should really be encouraged to have them within the first trimester if they're serious about having an abortion. As a man it's hard to say but I'd imagine there's less emotional attachment at that stage as well, but I could be wrong on that.


  • Options
    #8336
    Frito
    Registered Users Posts: 769 ✭✭✭Frito


    I'm in favour of termination on request at any point, on the basis of the right to bodily autonomy of the woman and qualifying that termination can result in a live birth from viability.
    This begs the question that if the foetus could survive the termination, should it survive the termination? I'm not so sure about this. I'm referring specifically to terminations at the point of viability where the outcome for the foetus is poorer (re quality of life issues) than we would expect if the termination occurred later. That said, I'm not comfortable with insisting the foetus should not survive in every instance. I accept that I can't give an absolute position on what right the foetus has regarding the circumstances and outcome of it's gestation.


  • Options
    #8337
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    LexieOnRale wrote: »
    While it was refreshing to read the opposing arguement made in a clear and consise manner, I most definitely disagree. Nobody else's right should trump the right somebody has over their own body. That is what is so wrong with this law.
    How so? I can't imagine you think a mans right over his penis means a womans right not to be raped shouldn't trump it, so I suspect you're cherry picking when someone else's right should trump the right somebody has over their own body to suit yourself....

    By the way, I don't think there is 'an' opposing argument; I think there are lots of differing opinions on the subject, and most are more nuanced than the pigeon holes 'pro life' and 'pro choice' that some people are intent on using.
    LexieOnRale wrote: »
    As a woman, I am responsible for my body and I will do with it whatever I wish.
    I have to disagree; you may well be responsible, but you may only do with your body what society permits you do. You can choose to ignore the rules, but then you have to face the consequences.
    LexieOnRale wrote: »
    It is wrong to force a woman to put such an enormous toll on her physical and mental wellbeing if it's not what she wants. In fact, forcing a woman to continue with a pregnancy that she doesn't want is just as horrific as forcing a pregnant woman, who really wants that baby, to have an abortion. Why is one acceptable and one not?
    It's wrong to kill someone too. But you seem to be asking for absolutes, when really all that's required is to say it's a greater wrong to kill someone than to force someone to do something they don't want; it's not that one is acceptable and one is not, it's that one is more unacceptable than the other.
    LexieOnRale wrote: »
    If the foetus is not viable outside of the woman's body, it dies. If it is viable outside the woman's body then it will be taken care of until it's strong enough to be taken into the care of someone who wants it.
    A newborn child is no more 'viable' (allowing for the fact that 'viable' is a rather nebulous term) than a foetus, in that both will die without someone to take care of it. The only difference is that (currently) a foetus up to a certain point can only depend on its mother, whereas a newborn can rely on pretty much any well provisioned and reasonably capable child or adult. The fact that one relies more on just one person than the other does seems a pretty arbitrary way to decide it's ok to kill it?
    LexieOnRale wrote: »
    Whether or not it's genetically half the males material is irrelevant. That does not mean it has more rights over another's body than they have over their own.
    What's relevant is that is distinct from the mother; it's not a part of the mothers body, so you can't really extend the notion of 'her body her choice' (nonsensical as it is) to it. As to how much rights it has over anothers body, I think you're misleading yourself. What 'right' does a foetus have over anothers body? What rights does it have over it's own?
    You could spend a substantial portion of the page enumerating the rights a woman has in Ireland, but you only need one word to emunerate the rights a foetus has; life. It's pretty ridiculous to claim it has 'more' rights than anyone.....
    LexieOnRale wrote: »
    By all means, if abortion is not for you, don't have an abortion. But if Mary down the street gets pregnant and doesn't want to keep her baby, she owes you or society no explanation or is under no obligation to continue with the pregnancy. It's nobody else's business, except the would be fathers and mothers.
    That's the thing though; Mary does have an obligation in this society. By all means, if that's not for you, don't live in such a society. But there's no point in pretending society doesn't get a say in what Mary does, because we do.


  • Options
    #8338
    qo2cj1dsne8y4k
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,646 ✭✭✭✭qo2cj1dsne8y4k


    If something is causing me to be sick, and causing my body to change in a way I don't want, causing me pain and prohibiting me from leading my life as normal I would have every right to remove the cause of it, as its my body and it's affecting me. That has nothing got to do with society, it's simply none of their business.

    Your comparison between rape and abortion is outrageous. A man has control over his penis. If there is something growing on it he can have it removed. He has also a responsibility not to put his penis into another persons body.


  • Options
    #8339
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    LexieOnRale wrote: »
    Your comparison between rape and abortion is outrageous.
    But now when I point out it wasn't him/her that originally made the comparison, all your outrage will miraculously evaporate won't it? Yeah, we know it will...
    Frito wrote: »
    Your argument is slightly different, but for argument's sake a man could have all of his genetic material within a woman's body (maybe not as far up as the uterus, I'll concede) and said woman is within her rights to insist upon it's removal as she chooses.
    BTW you even thanked that post that first brought it up... oops!


  • Options
    #8340
    Frito
    Registered Users Posts: 769 ✭✭✭Frito


    You quote me a lot Dan without actually addressing my points.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #8341
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Frito wrote: »
    You quote me a lot Dan without actually addressing my points.
    Your comparison between rape and abortion had a point? Go on then... people are outraged by it. Or not I suppose now they know you brought it up.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement