Abortion Discussion

mbiking123

Lingua Franca wrote: »

You began the discussion by bringing up a study from Kansas talking about why women have abortions there which said that "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."

...and said that they should just have the child adopted, adoption being completely free, ignoring absolutely every possible financial, emotional and social dilemma faced by women with crisis pregnancies.

I was particularly irked by your ignorance of medical care costs and access to benefits in the USA and correctly guessed that you have no comprehension of the issues faced. The best you could manage is that that 10000 women should ask for charity from the churches, when the churches in Kansas would surely be under pressure to support 10000 unwanted children as well.



How long do you think they could keep that up for if everyone woman with a crisis pregnancy came to them asking for 9 months of support? And how many women do you know who would take charity from the church?



Ah, the babbys.



The point I was making is that adoption is not an easy answer to a crisis pregnancy, especially in the example study you provided. Given that your solution was church charity, we can all agree that your point is dead.

Lingua Franca wrote: »

I was particularly irked by your ignorance of medical care costs and access to benefits in the USA and correctly guessed that you have no comprehension of the issues faced. The best you could manage is that that 10000 women should ask for charity from the churches, when the churches in Kansas would surely be under pressure to support 10000 unwanted children as well.

actually I gave this as an example

'The Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) of 1978 (an amendment to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) prohibits employers with 15 or more employees from discriminating on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions. The basic principle behind PDA is that pregnant women must be treated the same as other applicants and employees on the basis of their ability or inability to work. A woman is therefore protected against such practices as being fired or refused a job or promotion because she is pregnant. She cannot be forced to go on leave as long as she can still work, and if other employees who take disability leave are entitled to get their jobs back, so are women who have been unable to work because of pregnancy. An employer cannot refuse to hire a woman because of her pregnancy as long as she is able to perform the major functions of her job'

http://www.nchealthystart.org/aboutu...te_dec_08.html

and this

'Program Description

Kansas Medicaid is a jointly-funded state and Federal government program that pays for medically necessary services. Medicaid pays for medical services for children and their caretakers, pregnant women, and persons who are disabled, blind or 65 years of age or older.
General Program Requirements

In order to qualify for this benefit program, you must be a resident of the state of Kansas, a U.S. national, citizen, permanent resident, or legal alien, in need of health care/insurance assistance, whose financial situation would be characterized as low income or very low income. You must also be either pregnant, a parent or relative caretaker of a dependent child(ren) under age 19, blind, have a disability or a family member in your household with a disability, or be 65 years of age or older'

This was a reply I got

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Nice googling!

And it went on and on, then the pro choice jumped on the bandwagon once priest/vicar was mentioned, then all of a sudden that was the best I could manage !

Somehow my solution was church charity , I don't know where that one came from

Ok lets take Sweden, and as we can see plenty of provision for the mother unlike Kansas

'Sweden provides working parents with an entitlement of 16 months paid leave per child at 80 percent pay, the cost being shared between employer and the state.[5]

So even if we gave the pregnant women in Kansas lots of unpaid leave would it really have any impact given in Sweden with all their provisions a huge 25% of all pregnancies end up in an abortion

http://www.thelocal.se/20100519/26730

MrPudding

mbiking123 wrote: »

actually I gave this as an example

'The Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) of 1978 (an amendment to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) prohibits employers with 15 or more employees from discriminating on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions. The basic principle behind PDA is that pregnant women must be treated the same as other applicants and employees on the basis of their ability or inability to work. A woman is therefore protected against such practices as being fired or refused a job or promotion because she is pregnant. She cannot be forced to go on leave as long as she can still work, and if other employees who take disability leave are entitled to get their jobs back, so are women who have been unable to work because of pregnancy. An employer cannot refuse to hire a woman because of her pregnancy as long as she is able to perform the major functions of her job'

http://www.nchealthystart.org/aboutu...te_dec_08.html

and this

'Program Description

Kansas Medicaid is a jointly-funded state and Federal government program that pays for medically necessary services. Medicaid pays for medical services for children and their caretakers, pregnant women, and persons who are disabled, blind or 65 years of age or older.
General Program Requirements

In order to qualify for this benefit program, you must be a resident of the state of Kansas, a U.S. national, citizen, permanent resident, or legal alien, in need of health care/insurance assistance, whose financial situation would be characterized as low income or very low income. You must also be either pregnant, a parent or relative caretaker of a dependent child(ren) under age 19, blind, have a disability or a family member in your household with a disability, or be 65 years of age or older'

This was a reply I got



And it went on and on, then the pro choice jumped on the bandwagon once priest/vicar was mentioned, then all of a sudden that was the best I could manage !

Somehow my solution was church charity , I don't know where that one came from

Ok lets take Sweden, and as we can see plenty of provision for the mother unlike Kansas

'Sweden provides working parents with an entitlement of 16 months paid leave per child at 80 percent pay, the cost being shared between employer and the state.[5]

So even if we gave the pregnant women in Kansas lots of unpaid leave would it really have any impact given in Sweden with all their provisions a huge 25% of all pregnancies end up in an abortion

http://www.thelocal.se/20100519/26730

Which part of different women will have different reasons for seeking an abortion? You do realise that because some women seem an abortion for financial reasons does not mean all do. Don't you?

MrP

mbiking123

MrPudding wrote: »

Which part of different women will have different reasons for seeking an abortion? You do realise that because some women seem an abortion for financial reasons does not mean all do. Don't you?

MrP

25% in Sweden, some level of reasons !

fatmammycat

mbiking123 wrote: »

25% in Sweden, some level of reasons !

And their reasons are their own and valid to them.

mbiking123

fatmammycat wrote: »

And their reasons are their own and valid to them.

Almost makes it sound as if its good

Lingua Franca

mbiking123 wrote: »

This was a reply I got

You got more of a reply than that. You were even to elaborate. But then, honesty isn't exactly your strong points, is it?

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Nice googling! Now google "How long does it take to process my medicaid application?" and tell me what you think the woman is meant to do in the meantime.

And you still haven't answered how a woman is to survive with no benefits, no rent allowance etc, and no chance of employment because she is pregnant.

And it went on and on, then the pro choice jumped on the bandwagon once priest/vicar was mentioned, then all of a sudden that was the best I could manage !

Somehow my solution was church charity , I don't know where that one came from

Here's where that one came from:

mbiking123 wrote: »

I don't live in Kansas

But am sure if she contacted her local parish priest, something could be done to help her

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Parish priest?! All women with unwanted pregnancies in Kansas should just contact their parish priest to help them with food, rent, maternity clothes and medical so that they can give babies up for adoption?! Is that really the best you can do?

mbiking123 wrote: »

back to religion, go to the local vicar so

Did you actually forget that you made these posts?

Ok lets take Sweden, and as we can see plenty of provision for the mother unlike Kansas

'Sweden provides working parents with an entitlement of 16 months paid leave per child at 80 percent pay, the cost being shared between employer and the state.[5]

So even if we gave the pregnant women in Kansas lots of unpaid leave would it really have any impact given in Sweden with all their provisions a huge 25% of all pregnancies end up in an abortion

http://www.thelocal.se/20100519/26730

No. Because those women would rather have abortions rather than continue with an unwanted pregnancy. Same as for Kansas women, and any other woman who chooses to have an abortion. But what happens in Sweden has no bearing on your erroneous statement that for women in Kansas "adoption is free".


<SNIP> I am done debating with you.

fatmammycat

mbiking123 wrote: »

Almost makes it sound as if its good

I think it is good, if that's what they want: a safe legal termination of an unwanted pregnancy.

mbiking123

fatmammycat wrote: »

I think it is good, if that's what they want: a safe legal termination of an unwanted pregnancy.

Just as well its not legal here

fatmammycat

mbiking123 wrote: »

Just as well its not legal here

No we export our problem. The Pontius Pilate approach to health care.

mbiking123

fatmammycat wrote: »

No we export our problem. The Pontius Pilate approach to health care.

No, people choose to go somewhere, were they can get what they want. Irish people go to Great Britain for abortions, UK women go to Spain for late abortions. If we did introduce abortion and have the law the same as in the UK I am confident to say that some Irish women would travel to Spain for late abortions as in the UK. As per Irish pro choice campaigners that would advocate after birth abortions. Comes a time when you just have to say 'NO'.

fatmammycat

mbiking123 wrote: »

No, people choose to go somewhere, were they can get what they want. Irish people go to Great Britain for abortions, UK women go to Spain for late abortions. If we did introduce abortion and have the law the same as in the UK I am confident to say that some Irish women would travel to Spain for late abortions as in the UK. As per Irish pro choice campaigners that would advocate after birth abortions. Comes a time when you just have to say 'NO'.

There comes a time when you should lose your arrogance and stop trying to control the uterus of women you neither know nor care one whit about.
Anway, I'm done talking to you, I've football to watch.

mbiking123

fatmammycat wrote: »

There comes a time when you should lose your arrogance and stop trying to control the uterus of women you neither know nor care one whit about.
Anway, I'm done talking to you, I've football to watch.

Ok, that's 2 today

Sarky

mbiking123 wrote: »

Ok, that's 2 today

There's a big difference between winning a debate and everyone realising they're talking to a brick wall and refusing to waste their time with your crap.

I'm not entirely sure you've quite grasped that just yet.

mbiking123

Sarky wrote: »

There's a big difference between winning a debate and everyone realising they're talking to a brick wall and refusing to waste their time with your crap.

I'm not entirely sure you've quite grasped that just yet.

people are tetchy today

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Frito wrote: »

Even though the situations are different, I'm not sure the donation analogy is redundant.

Let's suppose there is a child awaiting an organ and several months ago you joined the donation register. Fifteen people were identified as suitable donors, and fourteen people have since declined donation. Although the buck stops with you, you still have the right to decline.
In essence, the 'unique situation of pregnancy' presents a contradiction where a foetus has more rights to the use of another's organ than a child does, even if the same foetus becomes a child who requires an organ where 15/15 donors decline (as is their right). This is before we address the conflict of competing rights between foetus and woman.
Given this, I believe the contradiction raised by arguing pregnancy as a special case outweighs it's plea to the conflict it poses.

I'm afraid I don't agree. The donation analogy quickly breaks down under scrutiny. In pregnancy, no-one is sick. Physically, everything is as you'd expect it to be. It's just that someone is looking to abort the process. That's quite different to consideration of what rights and obligations exist between citizens in general to extent help in times of trouble.

The foetus isn't a person, yet. It simply has a unique need to stay exactly where it is right at that precise point in time, if it is to achieve its potential. Can I point out, lest this be mistaken by some as some kind of emphatic pro-life statement, I'm only pointing to what seems to be the accepted practice in any country that legalises abortion. Every jurisdiction, no matter how liberal, seems to accept the idea that once a pregnancy has passed a certain threshold - probably at some 20+ week point - any claim based on bodily integrity of the mother can simply be ignored.

Now, once upon a time it was probably popular to believe the world was flat. I'm not claiming majority opinion is right. I'm simply mentioning that the concern I'm voicing isn't outlandish. No legal system seems to include an absolute right to female bodily integrity.

Sarky

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

In pregnancy, no-one is sick.

Uh...

Brian Shanahan

mbiking123 wrote: »

Honestly - its none of your business.

So I'll assume you haven't adopted any then, otherwise you wouldn't be so slow to answer the valid question I posed.

Very big of you not to put into action the plan you want the rest of us to follow isn't it? Do what you say but ignore what you do.

lazygal

I was sick for nine months both times. Only someone who's never been pregnant would dismiss the side effects, some of which are permanent. I've had to have abdominal surgery to deliver my babies, hardly something which can be waived aside as being of no consequence on my health.

Brian Shanahan

kylith wrote: »

Actually, I quite like the sound of that. If religious people want to lessen the number of abortions they could offer to financially support women who are undergoing crisis pregnancies.

There's about as much chance of that happening as me leading Limerick to All Ireland Senior Football glory in 2014.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Sarky wrote: »

Uh...

It will be easier to follow the line of argument when you've mastered sentences. Like Mongo only pawn in game of life.

Sarky

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

It will be easier to follow the line of argument when you've mastered sentences. Like Mongo only pawn in game of life.

That was pretty insulting. It'd be nice if you apologised.

Perhaps you could elaborate on how pregnant people have no sickness to worry them? Because the women here that have mentioned pregnancy, not to mention the various women I know who are or have been pregnant, seem to hold a very different view.

Or you could insult me again. Either's good, I suppose.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

lazygal wrote: »

Only someone who's never been pregnant would dismiss the side effects, some of which are permanent.

If you're suggesting that all women who've experienced pregnancy contend, following their experience, that terminations should be performed at any stage at the request of the woman, you're just wrong.

Plus, it's a simple fact that most, if not all, jurisdictions deny access to abortion once a certain time threshold was passed. It would be nice if people acutally engaged with that kind of reality, instead of trying to wander off the point.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Sarky wrote: »

Perhaps you could elaborate on how pregnant people have no sickness to worry them?

Erm, are you confused on the difference between terminations performed for medical reasons as against the 'bodily integrity' arguments being advanced?

Because I'm not tilting at windmills. Any more than I'm open to playing a game of silly buggers with people who don't want to engage in the topic.

mbiking123

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

So I'll assume you haven't adopted any then, otherwise you wouldn't be so slow to answer the valid question I posed.

Very big of you not to put into action the plan you want the rest of us to follow isn't it? Do what you say but ignore what you do.

Don't assume anything, its simply none of your business

In any case, I could lie, bluff etc etc. if you did not like the answer I gave you would probably suspect it

Best to leave it at nothing, move on

lazygal

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

If you're suggesting that all women who've experienced pregnancy contend, following their experience, that terminations should be performed at any stage at the request of the woman, you're just wrong.

Plus, it's a simple fact that most, if not all, jurisdictions deny access to abortion once a certain time threshold was passed. It would be nice if people acutally engaged with that kind of reality, instead of trying to wander off the point.

Are you contending pregnancy doesn't involve being sick?

Most women I know became more pro choice after pregnancy, because they didn't see why any woman should be forced to remain pregnant and suffer against their wishes. When did I say I believed abortion should be performed at any stage of pregnancy?

Turtwig

lazygal wrote: »

Are you contending pregnancy doesn't involve being sick?

I don't think s/he is. Obviously I'll let them clarify.

There has so far though been a bit of divide of the "bodily integrity" argument. GCU is examining it purely from a 'rights' perspective. S/he has thus far being separating the actual state of the woman from the rights she's entitled to. Basically, the claims that a born subject is entitled to more rights than an unborn subject and that the right to life of a person is less important if it infringes on the bodily autonomy of another person. Lots of you guys have been bringing in health when GCU's discussion intends to discuss the principles of the ethics.

Piliger

mbiking123 wrote: »

No, people choose to go somewhere,

.... which is exactly what he said, we export the problem.

If we did introduce abortion and have the law the same as in the UK I am confident to say that some Irish women would travel to Spain for late abortions as in the UK.

Yes they undoubtedly would. Your point is ?

As per Irish pro choice campaigners that would advocate after birth abortions.

WHo are these and how many of them are there ?

Comes a time when you just have to say 'NO'.

Say no to what exactly ??

Bannasidhe

Jernal wrote: »

I don't think s/he is. Obviously I'll let them clarify.

There has so far though been a bit of divide of the "bodily integrity" argument. GCU is examining it purely from a 'rights' perspective. S/he has thus far being separating the actual state of the woman from the rights she's entitled to. Basically, the claims that a born subject is entitled to more rights than an unborn subject and that the right to life of a person is less important if it infringes on the bodily autonomy of another person. Lots of you guys have been bringing in health when GCU's discussion intends to discuss the principles of the ethics.

GCU continually wishes to discuss the ethics but tends towards the dismissive when others try to interject actuality back into the discussion.

For most women this is personal and political because it is control over our bodies that is being debated and who, exactly, exercises this control. It is not an ethical discussion at the Phil Soc . It is a real life situation every woman knows they could, or already have, found themselves in.

Personally -I think there are some situations where debates on ethics can be shoved where the bishop sticks his cozier. This is one of them. My life and control over my body, and other women's lives and control over their bodies, should not be reduced to one of those 'runaway train - do you save 3 friends or 100 strangers' questions so favoured in Philosophy exams.

I find discussions on pure ethics quickly loose sight that we are talking about women in crises. I find it to be in poor taste tbh.

Piliger

mbiking123 wrote: »

Almost makes it sound as if its good

Who decides if it is good or not ? if it is even true.

Morag

mbiking123 wrote: »

Well in Ireland the p.p. gives out the St V de P money, not really money food vouchers. I know you knew that ! Can always adopt the child.

Nope the parish priest does not give out the vouchers, each branch committee decides themselves and many branches do have have a parish priest involved.