woman refused abortion - Mod Note in first post.

mikemac1

mrsbyrne wrote: »

She is a foreign national and could not go abroad for an abortion due to her legal status.

Where is she from? Strange that someone can arrive in Ireland and not be allowed to leave

lazygal

mikemac1 wrote: »

Where is she from? Strange that someone can arrive in Ireland and not be allowed to leave

If you're in the refugee or asylum system or have employment and residential status linked to an employer or are on a student visa the right to travel is limited to varying degrees.

Grayson

lazygal wrote: »

If you're in the refugee or asylum system or have employment and residential status linked to an employer or are on a student visa the right to travel is limited to varying degrees.

I'd say she could leave but wouldn't have been allowed back. Remember the Chinese girl here who was on a student visa and was deported after a trip to the north. She'd left the country but once she did so she wasn't allowed back in.

lazygal

Grayson wrote: »

I'd say she could leave but wouldn't have been allowed back. Remember the Chinese girl here who was on a student visa and was deported after a trip to the north. She'd left the country but once she did so she wasn't allowed back in.

There's also the cost of travel and abortion which state agencies aren't allowed to provide funding for. If you have money and the means to travel you can have access to abortion otherwise you must remain pregnant.

mikemac1

The Gardaí pull buses north of Dundalk sometimes

A Filipino couple were going to Dublin airport to fly home, maybe Dublin has more flights then Belfast.

Not good enough for the Gardaí and they were taken off the bus with a few others. To Dundalk to be interviewed I assume

Seemed harsh but rules and rules I suppose

I had no ID, just my bogger accent and that was good enough :pac:

It's all very random. You might not get stopped for months and then they pull the buses two days in a row

Akrasia

hinault wrote: »

But suggesting to kill the unborn baby instead won't cause upset? :rolleyes:

Nobody wants to kill babies.

People who are pro-choice almost universally prefer early term abortions before there is a baby. If there is no baby, there is no baby killing.

So called Pro-Lifers haven't got the intellectual capacity to see the nuances in issues surrounding life and death.

By seeing it in overly simplistic black and white terms, you are condemning people to lives of misery (and the 'pro-life agenda' often extends to refusing people the right to die with dignity at the end of their life)

Life is complicated, ultimately bringing a new human life into this world is a huge responsibility. When women gestate an embryo to term, they create a new human being with needs and feelings and hopes and the capacity to love and feel pain. That is an enormous responsibility. If that baby doesn't have anyone to look after it, what hope does that child have? Sure, when the baby is born, we should all rally around to support it and provide for it and give it the best opportunity we can because that baby has rights (rights that are all to often denied to people born at the margins of society)

But when the pregnancy is at an early term, there is no baby, only a pregnancy, and if the woman feels she doesn't want to have the child, or can not provide for the child, or if the woman has other reasons for not wanting to bring a new life into the world, then the best thing to do, is to terminate the pregnancy as early as possible and then move on. The embryo that didn't know it existed and had no hopes, no dreams, no feelings, no awareness of what it is like to be alive, will cease to be and no harm is done to it.

The evidence for the argument in favour of allowing abortions in the early stages of pregnancy is overwhelmingly.

The only thing that fuels the 'pro-life' side is emotion, and their emotion is not based on anything real, but projections inside their head of images of little newborn babies, and a vague idea that 'human life is precious'

There are 7 billion of us precious humans on planet earth. There are hundreds if millions of children living in extreme poverty who will die before their 5th birthday because the global economic system distributes resources unevenly.

If the pro-life side want to help children, instead of wasting their time fighting for embryos and foetus's without any capacity for suffering (or joy), why don't you focus your attention on global poverty, debt cancellation, aids research, education programs for children in developing countries, campaigning for global justice politics and opposing the neoliberalist economics which is concentrating wealth into a tiny (and shrinking) percentage of the global population.

One of the MAJOR causes of poverty in the world is lack of access to reproductive services in the developing world and the general subjugation of women. If condoms and birth control pills and abortion services were available in the poorest countries of the world, poverty would reduce and fewer children would die. if young girls were given a good education and told they could live lifes as independent people instead of beings subordinate to their husbands and fathers, we would see conditions in the most poverty stricken areas of the world improve rapidly.

The Purveyor of Truth

Akrasia wrote: »

The only thing that fuels the 'pro-life' side is emotion, and their emotion is not based on anything real, but projections inside their head of images of little newborn babies, and a vague idea that 'human life is precious'..

So called Pro-Lifers haven't got the intellectual capacity to see the nuances in issues surrounding life and death.

Not all people who are so called "pro life" agree with one another. We do not all have a hive mind on the issue. In the same way that people who are "pro choice" do not all have a hive mind and so your remark that those that have "pro life" beliefs do not have "the intellectual capacity to see the nuances in issues surrounding life and death" is just an immature and inaccurate attempt at being derogatory about those who don't share your views on the issue.

What "fuels" my so called 'pro life' stance is that I feel if an embryo has reached the fetal stage, when the chance of miscarriage has become very small (compared to the first ten weeks or so of pregnancy at least) abortion should be illegal (barring the obvious exceptional circumstances) as nobody should have the right to halt the progression of life when it has got to that stage. You can claim this is "not based on anything real" as much as you like, but it very much is based on what is real. Watch this video of a couple attending a ten week ultrasound (particularly the last half) and tell me that my not agreeing with abortion beyond this stage is not based on "anything real".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=758cbgJY25k

Akrasia

This is a naturalistic fallacy. Why should 'the progression of life' be a factor in our decision making process?

We interfere in nature all the time for better and for worse. We provide pre-natal care to take steps to avert the course of nature if the outcome for the child can be improved, We recommend supplements in folic acid to pregnant women and those who are trying to conceive in order to minimise the risk of neural tube defects which would be more common if the supplements were not taken. We have post natal interventions to reduce the impact of developmental disorders in newborn babies etc.

When I talk about 'pro-life' i'm primarily talking about the contingent who repeat the mantra that life begins at conception and abortion is always akin to murder. Other views that include access to abortion up to a certain point are much more nuanced and more open to reasoned debate.

The fact is that there is no absolute moment when we can all agree that the foetus becomes a baby with associated human rights, and this point is open for reasoned debate on all sides. But those who insist that abortion is wrong at any point in the pregnancy are simply incapable of or unwilling to approach this topic rationally.

Ralphdejones

jill_valentine wrote: »

Do you understand what "strawman" means?

It seems not, since -

A) I actually answered the question you asked in response to my post.

I realise the problem now; what I did was make the mistake of answering what you'd asked, the sentence you'd actually put to me, under the assumption you'd read a word I'd actually said. What I should have done, I don't know. Though I must say though, it does seems unfair that you won't answer questions directly put to you, while we're expected to furnish answers to ones you haven't even verbalised.

(I suspect "Strawman" isn't the word you're looking for. I have no idea what it might actually be, but it ain't Strawman.)

I actually did provide an example from here regardless?

Buddy, did you just panic and mash the keyboard in a froth when you realised the implications of what you'd said?

You complained about the people on this thread (a common trait it seem instead of dealing with the actual post) and how their biological knowledge was wrong, you were asked for an example, you couldn't find any, so much so, you had to trawl from quotes from quotes from the internet and attack them instead in another strawman. That, by any means is most certainly strawmanning. But nothing new here. Que the next big long strawman speech.

Gatica

The Purveyor of Truth's post is the only post that I can remember by a pro-life person that was by any stretch more thought through, reasoned and not personalised.
I agree with most of the points you make and I've often wondered where one could strike a balance between human rights and parental rights. In vast majority of cases (in my opinion) of abortion, I'm pretty certain the decision is made by couples.
However, since this thread is discussing a particular case, one where rape is involved, it should be safe to say (maybe some will disagree), the father, wherever he is, has no rights to this baby or to in any way insist that she should've carried it, or take part in the decisions that were here involved.

The Purveyor of Truth wrote: »

The developing fetus is created by two people

It is now, maybe someday women won't have to pander to absolutist men: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1431489.stm :rolleyes:

The Purveyor of Truth wrote: »

It's about time society put these women (and any men who happen to agree with their self centered and egoistical attitudes with regards to human reproduction) firmly in their place. It's also about time they realized that the health of growing fetuses is a HUMAN issue and that pretty soon when pregnant they may not be able to smoke or even drink alcohol beyond a certain level without being held accountable for it, let alone abort the unborn child whenever they so choose and so their cries of 'It's a woman's body and our choice what we do' will quite soon be shown to be the farcical empty mantra that it always was. By all means, do what you want with your body when the child is born. Have all the body autonomy you wish at that point, but when you are carrying a child, it's no longer just a question of YOUR body.

It is not black and white. Women damage their fetuses by smoking/drinking, and then sometimes expect others to look after their baby, it's not right. However, I don't agree that the solution is to force women to eat/drink, or not, something in particular.
Let's go a step further with this ridiculousness, if some woman wants to conceive she should be able to avail of sperm. If none were donated, can a man be forced to do so?

Godge wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Handmaid's_Tale

Great book. Definitely shows how society can get rotten based on such views.

By all means if you have the medical or scientific capability to support a blastocyst/zygote/embryo/fetus outside a woman's body and mature it, go ahead.

kylith

The Purveyor of Truth wrote: »

Not all people who are so called "pro life" agree with one another. We do not all have a hive mind on the issue. In the same way that people who are "pro choice" do not all have a hive mind and so your remark that those that have "pro life" beliefs do not have "the intellectual capacity to see the nuances in issues surrounding life and death" is just an immature and inaccurate attempt at being derogatory about those who don't share your views on the issue.

What "fuels" my so called 'pro life' stance is that I feel if an embryo has reached the fetal stage, when the chance of miscarriage has become very small (compared to the first ten weeks or so of pregnancy at least) abortion should be illegal (barring the obvious exceptional circumstances) as nobody should have the right to halt the progression of life when it has got to that stage. You can claim this is "not based on anything real" as much as you like, but it very much is based on what is real. Watch this video of a couple attending a ten week ultrasound (particularly the last half) and tell me that my not agreeing with abortion beyond this stage is not based on "anything real".

So you are actually pro-choice, and believe in placing a time limit on the availability of terminations?

conorhal

mikemac1 wrote: »

The Gardaí pull buses north of Dundalk sometimes

A Filipino couple were going to Dublin airport to fly home, maybe Dublin has more flights then Belfast.

Not good enough for the Gardaí and they were taken off the bus with a few others. To Dundalk to be interviewed I assume

Seemed harsh but rules and rules I suppose

I had no ID, just my bogger accent and that was good enough :pac:

It's all very random. You might not get stopped for months and then they pull the buses two days in a row

At the end of the day they still crossed a border into another country for which they had no visa or permission to travel to. If anything such checks need to be greatly stepped up at the boarder to NI because that is the route through which the vast majority of asylum seekers arrive via the UK, it's not as if we have direct flights to Dublin from Mogadishu or Lagos.

Gatica

Ralphdejones wrote: »

No where have I said abortion is a crime or murder, so you must be mixing me up again with your strawman. I don't agree with abortion, I think it's wrong and medieval for any modern society to kill defenseless unborn children, when there are lots of other options available. To refuse to crimilise travel for criminal activity abroad is in effect to condone it? You better get a lot of new laws introduced then.

The word kill in itself implies a crime. I don't recall ever hearing in the news anyone referring to someone killing someone else and it not being a crime. I cannot kill a person and then say it's not a crime. If you believe that a fetus is a child and killing it is wrong, then I don't understand how you can't see the link between that killing and it being a crime.

To be honest, I have far more respect for people who are up-front, consistent and honest in their beliefs. If you believe that life is formed upon fertilisation of an egg (if you believe in god, maybe that it suddenly has a god-given soul), then once that happens any destruction of it is should be considered a crime - that would make morning after pill a crime, any abortion at any stage of pregnancy, even if a woman's life is at stake, a crime, knowingly aiding and exporting women to commit this "crime" means everyone else is complicit with a crime, and the creation of an embryo in IVF cases which is not going to be used/implanted a crime.
Why are people so selective?

There has to be a reason for why it's a life to you, other than it's a potential life... is it a life at conception, at 2 days, at 4 weeks? and why?
Is morning after pill wrong or not? If not then at what stage does it become not ok to terminate the fertilized and split egg cells?

Most people have a limit after which they agree that termination should not be done. It is usually based on things such as, does it have a functioning nervous system, does it have developed brain or particular lobe, is the brain connected to the spine/nervous system, can it feel pain, is it aware, etc....

Gatica

jill_valentine wrote: »

Anyway. Have fun at your march, bring us back some flyers. I'd love to catch up on the latest developments in foetus-to-adult testicle transplant tech.

I know the topic isn't funny, but my goodness that was a hilarious read....

PS: does anyone actually believe that tripe?

Mountainsandh

Mental stuff. Some people do though I'd say, conspiracy theory fashion.

takamichinoku

The Purveyor of Truth wrote: »

What "fuels" my so called 'pro life' stance is that I feel if an embryo has reached the fetal stage, when the chance of miscarriage has become very small (compared to the first ten weeks or so of pregnancy at least) abortion should be illegal (barring the obvious exceptional circumstances)

Hey man, was just wondering whether you've expressed these opinions to other people who would label themselves as pro-life? I feel like it's something a lot of them would consider the other side entirely, definitely sounds more like a moderate pro-choice stance to me.

While I imagine/hope a lot of pro-lifers support termination in exceptional circumstances, the open window of even the first ten weeks surely still falls into the pro-choice camp?

irishpancake

Godge wrote: »

It is complicated.

We have a history of complicating it. Back in the 1970s, you could only get condoms with a prescription.

And the Oral Contraceptive "Pill" was for cycle regulation fro married women on prescription for those who could afford to go to a Doctor and pay for the "cycle regulator"......Middle-class married Irish women had the highest incidence of irregular periods in the whole world, apparently!!!!

then we had Charlie Haughey's infamous "Irish Solution for an Irish problem", which also applied only to married individuals, who needed a prescription, to get condoms.....

and then, the real biggie, the cause of all the problems relating to abortion rights for Irish women in Ireland, the Pro-Life Amendment, in 1983.......by which the Catholic Fundamentalists bullied a weak Government into inserting something unprecedented into our Constitution, in the hope of halting the possibility of a Legislature ever introducing Abortion into Ireland.....etc, etc

X came next, 10 years later, and put the cat among those pidgeons, and the ISC, faced with the prospect of a dead, raped, pregnant child, allowed abortion in Ireland under that very Amendment, 40.3.3

when is the Movie going to be made!!!!

gctest50

Gatica wrote: »

I know the topic isn't funny, but my goodness that was a hilarious read....

PS: does anyone actually believe that tripe?

for sure - and "worse"

they probably saw this and thought it teh truuuuuuuth :


http://southpark.cc.com/full-episodes/s05e13-kenny-dies

Piliger

Sarky wrote: »

I misread your post, jank. Sorry. It happens sometimes. Will you now apologise for the sneering jab at the end of your post?

No, there's nothing sexist about what she said. Abortion is an issue primarily affecting women, men can lend all the support they want, and that's great and she loves anyone who will do so, just don't go around speaking over or for the women involved. Treat them as the equals they are, their experiences are valid, and crucial to the issue, and assuming otherwise helps nobody. That was her message. That's equality, jank. Sexism would be saying men had no part in the debate. Or an all-male panel discussing womens' rights. Just because you were offended by what she said doesn't make it sexist. Women have heard "know your place" for so damn long, I think they're allowed to use the same phrase to make their point about being taken seriously.

Nothing more than sickening bigoted sexist misandry. Pure and simple.

The Purveyor of Truth

takamichinoku wrote: »

Hey man, was just wondering whether you've expressed these opinions to other people who would label themselves as pro-life? I feel like it's something a lot of them would consider the other side entirely, definitely sounds more like a moderate pro-choice stance to me.

While I imagine/hope a lot of pro-lifers support termination in exceptional circumstances, the open window of even the first ten weeks surely still falls into the pro-choice camp?

Sure, it could be considered 'moderate pro-choice' but I'm sure there are many 'pro choice' that wouldn't dream of endorsing abortions past thirty weeks and so should we label them 'moderate pro life'?

Seems to me there are at least a dozen or so points along the spectrum of opinions people can have with regards to the abortion debate and so the two most bandied terms (Pro-life and Pro-choice) are wholly inadequate.

Of the two I would call myself pro-life as I am against abortion more than for it. I think a quarter of a million abortions annually in the UK is disgusting and I don't buy for one second that this amount could anyway be justified. I have looked at the reasons that women have given the vast vast majority of them, and it almost always boils down to inconvenience. Granted, 25% or so are for girls aged 19 or under but it's still a number which is a sad reflection on society. 97% paid by the tax payer over there also. Only 1% were carried out down to risk of the child's health.

In saying all that, I would support abortion in Ireland below 12 weeks (assuming it's okay with Amanda that men are allowed to vote in any future referendum) as I feel it would lead to less women traveling for later term abortions in the UK. Early abortions would also mean less men would have to suffer the trauma of having their girlfriend's or wives decide to abort against their wishes when between three to five months pregnant. Early stage abortions seem to solve or alleviate more problems than they could cause.

rbox12

I'm not on either side but it does kill me to hear someone had an abortion especially at the later stages if there is no health risks I just feel bad for the unborn child but it's her body her choice

I'm pro choice. I believe that people should have the choice available.

I also would wish that the number that exercise that option is extraordinarily low.

Would you consider me pro choice or pro life?

Is the "pro-life" side as it's so called actually "anti-choice"?

Godge

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm pro choice. I believe that people should have the choice available.

I also would wish that the number that exercise that option is extraordinarily low.

Would you consider me pro choice or pro life?

Is the "pro-life" side as it's so called actually "anti-choice"?

In essence, you are both "pro-life" and "pro-choice". The silent majority fall into that category. It is the mislabelling that does it.

The two sides should be named "pro-choice" and "anti-choice" as a pro-lifer can be in either.

Riskymove

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm pro choice. I believe that people should have the choice available.

I also would wish that the number that exercise that option is extraordinarily low.

I am the same and I'd say the majority of pro-choice are

too often "pro-choice" is viewed as "pro-abortion"

I believe the option should be there but would not be for "unlimited" abortions or the development of a situation often referenced in the UK where it is viewed as emergency contraception

Abortion is a tragic event, whatever the circumstances

Gatica

tbh, I would prefer the term pro-life for myself (rather than them) because in Savita's case I would have rather saved her life and let her dying embryo die quickly on termination than have let her suffer and die a long agonising death along with the embryo (which if it could feel would be suffering too), which is what they allowed in this case because the dying embryo still had a heart-beat and her slow-death mattered not a jot. These are issues often side-stepped by many so-called "pro-life" people...

rainbow kirby

The majority of pro-choice people would wish that every pregnancy was a happy, healthy, wanted one, but we acknowledge that life is not that simple and believe that the full range of options should be available. Abortion is only one possible option there.

Awkward Badger

Is "pro life" not anti choice in that they think it shouldn't be a choice to terminate a pregnancy, that the foetus has a right to life ?

As in if you think there should be a choice you are pro choice. And if you think the foetus has a right to life then I'd struggle to see how that can be compatible with also thinking the mother has a right to terminate the pregnancy because its her body not another life.

kylith

Awkward Badger wrote: »

Is "pro life" not anti choice in that they think it shouldn't be a choice to terminate a pregnancy, that the foetus has a right to life ?

As in if you think there should be a choice you are pro choice. And if you think the foetus has a right to life then I'd struggle to see how that can be compatible with also thinking the mother has a right to terminate the pregnancy because its her body not another life.

Yes, but saying you're "Pro-Life", sounds good. Saying you're "Anti-Choice" sounds bad. It's about PR.

Piliger

Awkward Badger wrote: »

Is "pro life" not anti choice in that they think it shouldn't be a choice to terminate a pregnancy, that the foetus has a right to life ?

As in if you think there should be a choice you are pro choice. And if you think the foetus has a right to life then I'd struggle to see how that can be compatible with also thinking the mother has a right to terminate the pregnancy because its her body not another life.

Pro-Life is just a bigoted jingoistic slogan, that tried to smear Pro-Choice people by saying that we are 'anti-life'. Nothing more nothing less.

People who oppose abortion are by definition Anti-Choice and almost all of them oppose comprehensive sex education and availability of contraception to young people - the very causes of most unwanted pregnancies and abortions.

Therefore the very people who oppose abortion are the ones causing most of them.

People who are Pro Choice, in the other hand, are almost exclusively made up of people who want the least number of abortions to happen through sex education and availability of contraception to all young and poor people.

takamichinoku

The Purveyor of Truth wrote: »

Seems to me there are at least a dozen or so points along the spectrum of opinions people can have with regards to the abortion debate and so the two most bandied terms (Pro-life and Pro-choice) are wholly inadequate.

Agreed, thanks for the detailed response.

rbox12 wrote: »

I'm not on either side but it does kill me to hear someone had an abortion especially at the later stages if there is no health risks I just feel bad for the unborn child but it's her body her choice

The numbers having a late-term abortion at the later stages when there are no health risks involved are surely astronomically low? It's not an easy process on the woman either and the long term effects of it both physically and mentally would likely be hugely increased once it gets that far on.