Abortion Discussion

mbiking123

koth wrote: »

yesterday you posted claiming women who had abortions cited their job as a reason for wanting an abortion. Are you now rolling back on that claim?

Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives The research into U.S. women’s reasons for having abortions has been limited. In a 1985 study of 500 women in Kansas, unreadiness to parent was the reason most often given for having an abortion, followed by lack of financial resources and absence of a partner.

In 1987, a survey of 1900 women at large abortion providers across the country found that women’s most common reasons for having an abortion were that having a baby would interfere with school, work or other responsibilities, and that they could not afford a child

No claim these are the facts presented to us all

Delirium

mbiking123 wrote: »

Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives The research into U.S. women’s reasons for having abortions has been limited. In a 1985 study of 500 women in Kansas, unreadiness to parent was the reason most often given for having an abortion, followed by lack of financial resources and absence of a partner.

In 1987, a survey of 1900 women at large abortion providers across the country found that women’s most common reasons for having an abortion were that having a baby would interfere with school, work or other responsibilities, and that they could not afford a child

No claim these are the facts presented to us all

but you're posting contradicting claims/links.

Bannasidhe

mbiking123 wrote: »

Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives The research into U.S. women’s reasons for having abortions has been limited. In a 1985 study of 500 women in Kansas, unreadiness to parent was the reason most often given for having an abortion, followed by lack of financial resources and absence of a partner.

In 1987, a survey of 1900 women at large abortion providers across the country found that women’s most common reasons for having an abortion were that having a baby would interfere with school, work or other responsibilities, and that they could not afford a child

No claim these are the facts presented to us all

One cannot claim that a decades old study which looked at one state in the US is 'proof' of anything other than the situation in that state in the mid to late 1980s.

mbiking123

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Abortion is related to whether or not a woman wants to be pregnant. There are many, many , many different reasons why a woman may not want to be pregnant. It is her body - her choice.

Well I disagree, the unborn also has rights

It is as simple as that.

Any chance you could explain to me how what you called an inconvenience can be classified as a temporary disability by the State of Kansas?

When it come to Kansas, I cannot explain why the don't just have a law for maternity leave etc. I don't know why it has to go under the guise of some other law. Perhaps it is to ensure that a woman gets all the medical, leave entitlements enjoyed by her male counterparts. I don't know, if there is someone here from Kansas that is versed in legal law they may be able to explain why.

Kansas was the only place I could find a report on why women had abortions, I would prefer to find one for an EU country but I cant. perhaps someone else can find one

mbiking123

Bannasidhe wrote: »

One cannot claim that a decades old study which looked at one state in the US is 'proof' of anything other than the situation in that state in the mid to late 1980s.

Agree, its out of date. Perhaps you can locate one on the Internet for us to look at ?

Bannasidhe

mbiking123 wrote: »

Well I disagree, the unborn also has rights

It is as simple as that.

Do the 'unborn' have 'rights' that supersede those of the already born?

When it come to Kansas, I cannot explain why the don't just have a law for maternity leave etc. I don't know why it has to go under the guise of some other law. Perhaps it is to ensure that a woman gets all the medical, leave entitlements enjoyed by her male counterparts. I don't know, if there is someone here from Kansas that is versed in legal law they may be able to explain why.

Kansas was the only place I could find a report on why women had abortions, I would prefer to find one for an EU country but I cant. perhaps someone else can find one

Not an answer to my question. You described pregnancy as an 'inconvenience' - yet you posted a link which states that in certain circumstances pregnancy can be classified as a temporary disability.

Do you continue to maintain that it is nothing more than an 'inconvenience'?

Bannasidhe

mbiking123 wrote: »

Agree, its out of date. Perhaps you can locate one on the Internet for us to look at ?

This is your line of argument mate - do your own research.

As I believe a woman has the right to choose I don't see what business it is of mine what process led to the decisions individual women make.

fatmammycat

mbiking123 wrote: »

Well I disagree, the unborn also has rights

It is as simple as that.

You use the word 'also', yet seem to refuse to accept the woman has an actual right to bodily integrity. The rights of the unborn- what ever 'rights' they might be, do not overturn or trump the right of a woman to decide what to do with her own body, I don't know what is so difficult to understand here.

mbiking123

Bannasidhe wrote: »

mate

mate !

Bannasidhe

mbiking123 wrote: »

mate !

Yes, it is a figure of speech.

Would you prefer the more formal

Dear mbiking123.

Re: Your request.

I fail to see why I should conduct research, as per your request.
I am unsure exactly what points you are making given that your previous links have contradicted each other. Furthermore, as I have previously stated, I personally am not interested in the reasons women choose to have abortions but in the fact that they have the same right to the bodily integrity as men.

Yours

Bannasidhe.

Lingua Franca

mbiking, do you believe that women in Kansas should forgo medical check ups, scans, vitamins, food, rent and maternity clothes and should give birth on their own unassisted to provide babies for childless couples? This is a simple yes/no question.

mbiking123

Lingua Franca wrote: »

mbiking, do you believe that women in Kansas should forgo medical check ups, scans, vitamins, food, rent and maternity clothes and should give birth on their own unassisted to provide babies for childless couples? This is a simple yes/no question.

Ok I will answer the question that you have posted, given only the argument you have given

No

There should be no abortion, but not for the reasons you gave

GCU Flexible Demeanour

fatmammycat wrote: »

The rights of the unborn- what ever 'rights' they might be, do not overturn or trump the right of a woman to decide what to do with her own body, I don't know what is so difficult to understand here.

I think the missing element is providing the basis for deciding what happens when rights conflict, because that's the core point. Generally, rights have some limit. For the sake of argument, you've a right to private property, but that doesn't mean you can build a nuclear reactor in your back garden.

Women have a right to bodily integrity. That doesn't necessarily mean that, in all circumstances, a woman can have access to abortion. Wouldn't most (and possibly all) jurisdictions place some limit on access to abortion. So, for the sake of argument, if a women is 26 weeks pregnant, she'll be told her right to bodily integrity no longer entitles her to an abortion.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

<...>they have the same right to the bodily integrity as men.

In fairness, that's just not possible. I'm afraid, it raises all Stan's issues around his right to have babies.

Bannasidhe

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I think the missing element is providing the basis for deciding what happens when rights conflict, because that's the core point. Generally, rights have some limit. For the sake of argument, you've a right to private property, but that doesn't mean you can build a nuclear reactor in your back garden.

Women have a right to bodily integrity. That doesn't necessarily mean that, in all circumstances, a woman can have access to abortion. Wouldn't most (and possibly all) jurisdictions place some limit on access to abortion. So, for the sake of argument, if a women is 26 weeks pregnant, she'll be told her right to bodily integrity no longer entitles her to an abortion.In fairness, that's just not possible. I'm afraid, it raises all Stan's issues around his right to have babies.

So because biology has determined Stan cannot have babies women do not have the same right to bodily integrity as men?

kylith

mbiking123 wrote: »

rainbow kirby wrote: »

Pregnant people are not broodmares for the infertile. QUOTE]

There are infertile couples who would love to adopt a child, and have no intention of using anyone as a broodmare. Surrogacy is with the permission of all parties. Very harsh statement and insensitive to couples who go through a lot trying to have a child which may or may not happen

kylith

mbiking123 wrote: »

rainbow kirby wrote: »

Pregnant people are not broodmares for the infertile. QUOTE]

There are infertile couples who would love to adopt a child, and have no intention of using anyone as a broodmare. Surrogacy is with the permission of all parties. Very harsh statement and insensitive to couples who go through a lot trying to have a child which may or may not happen

Surrogacy is not the same as an unwanted pregnancy. A surrogate is employed to become pregnant on behalf of the couple, and may even be implanted with fertilised eggs from the donor so the surrogate may not even be related to the foetus. Unwanted pregnancy, abortion, and surrogacy are not related.

Brian Shanahan

mbiking123 wrote: »

'Comment on the post not the poster.' http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/faq.php?faq=bie_faq

It's a relevant question, and answering it will show your personal willingness to implement the "solution" you propose. I find that most of the people who propose this "solution" expect others to carry it out, they're too grand in themselves to associate with the hoi polloi, and adopt babies from (what they consider) the lower classes

So, tell me, how many children who would have otherwise been aborted foetuses have you adopted?

Brian Shanahan

MrPudding wrote: »

Really? So why does Ireland have thousands of children in foster care? Don't have time for detailed research, but here are some 2011 figures:

http://www.dcya.gov.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=2585&ad=1#Stats

Where are all these couples that would like to adopt?

MrP

I already pointed out this fact to mbiking, here, and his response was "Wah, wah, wah, why are you picking on me, you big bully"

mbiking123

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

I already pointed out this fact to mbiking, here, and his response was "Wah, wah, wah, why are you picking on me, you big bully"

At it again !

You just cant help yourself

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Bannasidhe wrote: »

So because biology has determined Stan cannot have babies women do not have the same right to bodily integrity as men?

Yup, it means that Stan's experience is completely different to a pregnant woman, so it's simply meaningless to say they've the same right to bodily integrity. Stan is immune to any possible conflict of interest between his bodily integrity and whatever status might be granted to a foetus.

Stan never has to worry about being refused an abortion on grounds that his pregnancy has reached 26 weeks (or whatever period might have been deemed to be too late.) It is simply meaningless to state that Stan has a right to abortion (say) where continuing with a pregnancy puts his life or health at risk, because its just not going to happen.

So it is absolutely senseless to contend that men and women have the same right to bodily integrity. Consideration of a woman's right to bodily integrity in the context of pregnancy is intrinsically more complex.

Bannasidhe

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Yup, it means that Stan's experience is completely different to a pregnant woman, so it's simply meaningless to say they've the same right to bodily integrity. Stan is immune to any possible conflict of interest between his bodily integrity and whatever status might be granted to a foetus.

Stan never has to worry about being refused an abortion on grounds that his pregnancy has reached 26 weeks (or whatever period might have been deemed to be too late.) It is simply meaningless to state that Stan has a right to abortion (say) where continuing with a pregnancy puts his life or health at risk, because its just not going to happen.

So it is absolutely senseless to contend that men and women have the same right to bodily integrity. Consideration of a woman's right to bodily integrity in the context of pregnancy is intrinsically more complex.

Which leads many to conclude that Stan should mind his own business as Stan will never face a crises pregnancy. :P

No. It is not as different as you wish to paint it. A woman should have to right to decide whether or not she wished to be pregnant in the same way as Stan has the right to deny donating an organ to one of his children even if it would save it's life.

Brian Shanahan

mbiking123 wrote: »

At it again !

You just cant help yourself

Am I being too rough on you?

Pity about you, man up and answer the question relevant to the discussion I posed to you.

MrPudding

mbiking123 wrote: »

At it again !

You just cant help yourself

So. How come there are thousands of children on the foster system if there are loads of infertile couples wanting to adopt?

MrP

mbiking123

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Am I being too rough on you?

Pity about you, man up and answer the question relevant to the discussion I posed to you.

I want to be as honest as possible

We all know what happened the last time, lets be honest people can be more than sharp here

So to keep everything calm, I will not engage. perhaps then others might relax rather than everyone getting themselves all worked up SHOUTING, name calling and making all kinds of threats etc. So we can all go to bed tonight nice and calm. We are not going to change the world here

Sarky

Instead of copping out like that, would you mind telling us why there are so many children in the foster system when there are apparently so many infertile couples looking to adopt?

Brian Shanahan

mbiking123 wrote: »

I want to be as honest as possible

So be honest here then, either say that you've adopted kids in order to ensure their mothers didn't have abortions, or admit that you've not actually done anything to forward the "solution" you propose.

Stop being so dishonest as to dodge the question, and accusing me of attacking you.

mbiking123

Sarky wrote: »

Instead of copping out like that, would you mind telling us why there are so many children in the foster system when there are apparently so many infertile couples looking to adopt?

http://www.ifca.ie/index.php/about1

'The Irish Foster Care Association works in partnership with the Health Service Executive (HSE) to promote foster care as the best alternative for children who cannot live with their own families'

Big difference between foster and adoption

Many people foster children, due to the fact they have come from a family with some problem. Fostering is very different from adoption as a fostered child may return to his/her family

mbiking123

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

So be honest here then, either say that you've adopted kids in order to ensure their mothers didn't have abortions, or admit that you've not actually done anything to forward the "solution" you propose.

Stop being so dishonest as to dodge the question, and accusing me of attacking you.

Honestly - its none of your business.

MrPudding

mbiking123 wrote: »

http://www.ifca.ie/index.php/about1

'The Irish Foster Care Association works in partnership with the Health Service Executive (HSE) to promote foster care as the best alternative for children who cannot live with their own families'

Big difference between foster and adoption

Many people foster children, due to the fact they have come from a family with some problem. Fostering is very different from adoption as a fostered child may return to his/her family

Where do adopted children come from?

MrP

Bannasidhe

mbiking123 wrote: »

Big difference between foster and adoption

It is my understanding, and the legal eagles here will be able to say if this was/is so and if law has been changed yet or not - but used to be (and possibly still may be) that 'legitimate' children could not be adopted but only fostered.

There is a huge difference right there as my friends who were adopted can testify. Growing up adopted in Ireland meant being taunted as a 'bastard' but growing up as an orphaned child of married parents meant never getting the security of a legal adoption.


Given Ireland's sordid history around adoptions,( babies to rich, unvetted, Catholic Americans in return for deals on sugar for example) I am amazed anyone would put this forward as any kind of solution.