woman refused abortion - Mod Note in first post.

Grayson

Its Only Ray Parlour wrote: »

Ignoring the problem isn't going to make it go away. We are running out of natural resources. Why do you think America wants to invade nearly every country in the Middle East?

Obama was an anti-war liberal when he first campaigned for Presidency, now he's an oil-hungry warmonger. America knows they need to control the oil fields to remain a superpower.

If we reduce the planet's population, we'll reduce our dependency on natural resources. It will also reduce pollution and its effects on climate change.

You need to put your ignorant morals aside and look at the bigger picture.

Ignoring your bit about Obama. family planning is important for the future of the planet.
And you don't even need abortion to do it. Iran implemented a policy to reduce child births. they made it mandatory that people attend family planning classes before they got married so they know what every contraception option was.

the catholic church on the other hand makes people go on on a marriage preparation course where as far as I'm aware they are told not to use any contraception and have as many babies as possible.

mrsbyrne

Its Only Ray Parlour wrote: »

Ignoring the problem isn't going to make it go away. We are running out of natural resources. Why do you think America wants to invade nearly every country in the Middle East?

Obama was an anti-war liberal when he first campaigned for Presidency, now he's an oil-hungry warmonger. America knows they need to control the oil fields to remain a superpower.

If we reduce the planet's population, we'll reduce our dependency on natural resources. It will also reduce pollution and its effects on climate change.

You need to put your ignorant morals aside and look at the bigger picture.

Ok. How do you propose to reduce the world population?

Mountainsandh

Piliger wrote: »

Reference?

Sorry Piliger just back now

http://www.ecouteivg.org/news/12/15/La-moitie-des-IVG-sont-aujourd-hui-medicamenteuses.html

La moitié des IVG sont aujourd'hui médicamenteuses !
20 novembre 2013
« Si le nombre d'IVG reste stable en France depuis le début des années 2000, la proportion d'IVG médicamenteuses a fortement progressé et représente à présent la moitié des IVG pratiquées",
indique la Drees (Direction de la recherche, des études, de l'évaluation et des statistiques, ministère de la Santé)....
En 2007, le nombre d'IVG réalisées en France métropolitaine s'élevait à 213 380. Neuf sur dix ont eu lieu à l'hôpital, le reste en cabinet libéral. 49 % d'entre elles étaient des IVG médicamenteuses, contre seulement 16 % en 1998.

Half of abortions are now medicated !
November 20, 2013
"If the number of abortions remained stable in France since the early 2000s, the proportion of medicated/drug abortions grew strongly and now represents half of induced abortions"
indicates the Drees (Directorate of Research, Studies, Evaluation and Statistics, Ministry of Health) ....
In 2007, the number of abortions performed in France amounted to 213 380 Nine out of ten were in the hospital, the rest in private practice. 49% of them were drug induced abortion, against only 16% in 1998.


Yes a lot of the abortions seem to take place very early : I guess if it's something you have already thought about and you know for a fact you do not want to be pregnant, you can act quick.
Change overs in contraceptives, malfunction of contraceptives, rape, these situations really do happen.

from the same site :

Un rapport réalisé par l'inspection générale des affaires sociales (Igas) du 2 février 2010 indiquait que 72 % des femmes qui ont recours à l'IVG étaient sous contraception.
Les femmes se retrouvent ainsi devant une grossesse imprévue et la question de l’IVG se pose souvent.

A report by the General Inspectorate of Social Affairs (IGAS) 2 February 2010 showed that 72% of women who had an abortion were using contraception.
Women find themselves facing an unplanned pregnancy and the issue of abortion often arises.

Its Only Ray Parlour

mrsbyrne wrote: »

Ok. How do you propose to reduce the world population?

- Every country legalise abortion on demand.
- Every country legalise euthanasia.
- Every country legalise assisted suicide (with counseling).
- Improve women's right in every country so women can have careers instead of sitting at home all day and being baby factories.
- Improve gay rights so men aren't forced to be straight by religions.

Ireland doesn't have a problem with over-population because of famines and emigration but we should lead by example by legalising abortion and euthanasia.

I also think the West should issue sanctions on countries like India for not doing anything to control their population.

Grayson

Its Only Ray Parlour wrote: »

- Every country legalise abortion on demand.
- Every country legalise euthanasia.
- Every country legalise assisted suicide (with counseling).
- Improve women's right in every country so women can have careers instead of sitting at home all day and being baby factories.
- Improve gay rights so men aren't forced to be straight by religions.

Ireland doesn't have a problem with over-population because of famines and emigration but we should lead by example by legalising abortion and euthanasia.

I also think the West should issue sanctions on countries like India for not doing anything to control their population.

Euthanasia isn't something needed for population control. Only very small numbers of terminally ill people would be affected by it.

I would say that reducing tax incentives for mulktiple children and implementing a p family planning /sex ed classes would work better.

I'm pro choice but I don't want women to have i would prefer to prevent unwanted pregnancies through education rather than having to terminate them afterwards.

Godge

The Purveyor of Truth wrote: »

Nope. I did no such thing. I merely pointed out the obvious.



As do I, to a certain degree, as stated previously.

Look, you can dress it up anyway you wish but it makes no odds. All you want to do is remove the word abortion from the label you wish to identify as. With regards to the abortion debate, you are indeed Pro Abortion, whether you like it or not. Of course you would wish there were no abortions, ever, we all would, but in the context of the debate on abortion, you are Pro Abortion, quit trying to run away from that fact.

It would be like if Dental extractions were illegal in this country and I wished they were not and called my self Pro Choice and then semantically objected when people aptly referred to me as being Pro Extractions.

'Excuse me but I am not Pro Extractions' as I would prefer if extractions never had to happen'.

It's a cop out. When you are called Pro Abortion, it does not mean that you are a fan of them, and that the more that happen, the happier you would be, it just means that you are supportive of the availability of them. The desire to avoid using the word in what you, and others, choose to label yourselves is just PR, which was the charge you ironically leveled at the 'Pro Life' side and I would agree with you on that, but the point of my post was that both sides indulge in it, not just one.

You are missing the point.

I hate reality television.

I respect peoples' rights to choose to watch reality television and the rights of television stations to show the programmes their viewers want to see.

That does not make me pro-reality television.

Now substituting abortion into the above.

I hate abortions.

I respect women's rights to have abortions and the rights of medical facilties to offer abortion services that their female patients want.


Now do you see why pro-choice is the appropriate label.

Little CuChulainn

Grayson wrote: »

Or of you completely misrepresent what I said. No-one is pro abortion. no-one wants women to have an abortion. Just like no-one wants people to have a colonoscopy

There are pro choice advocates. they wish people to have the option there if they need it. But no-one at all is pro abortion.

How did I misrepresent what you said? I quoted your post in it's entirety. Your put abortion on par with a simple medical procedure which is only one dimension of it.

irishpancake

Godge wrote: »

You are missing the point.

I hate reality television.

I respect peoples' rights to choose to watch reality television and the rights of television stations to show the programmes their viewers want to see.

That does not make me pro-reality television.

Now substituting abortion into the above.

I hate abortions.

I respect women's rights to have abortions and the rights of medical facilties to offer abortion services that their female patients want.


Now do you see why pro-choice is the appropriate label.

Exactly....

Virtually no-one is Pro-abortion.....

particularly the women who agonise over and eventually decide to go ahead with a termination.

They are not advocating for abortion, they are simply availing of a service which is available in most civilised countries, generally with appropriate regulation and term limits.

If I can use one of the tortuous equivalents which have been quoted here.

If I am Pro-dentistry, and pro the choice of everyone to have access to and be able to avail of that service, it doesn't mean I am Pro-extraction....

I hate extractions, I don't advocate for extractions, per se, I simply accept that they are one tool in the Dentists tool-kit, which are sometimes necessary to preserve my dental health and overall well being.

Also, IMO, most sane people are Pro Life.......

some of those are Pro Choice in relation to abortion availability, usually within limitations, which are legislated for in laws enacted by elected Parliaments.....

some are Anti Choice in relation to abortion availability, under any circumstances........

even the restricted form which has evolved here, in the teeth of opposition form these Anti Choice fundamentalists, who attempted to enshrine their dogma and "double effect" speak into our Basic Law.........

and when their plan blew up in their faces, with "X" have attempted, unsuccessfully, when put to the people, to modify their clause in our Constitution to restore their stated aim of ensuring Abortion will never be an option for Irish women in Ireland.

Little CuChulainn

irishpancake wrote: »

Exactly....no-one is Pro-abortion.....particularly the women who agonise over and eventually decide to go ahead with a termination.

They are not advocating for abortion, they are simply availing of a service which is available in most civilised countries, generally with appropriate regulation and term limits.

If I can use one of the tortuous equivalents which have been quoted here.

If I am Pro-dentistry, and pro the choice of everyone to have access to and be able to avail of that service, it doesn't mean I am Pro-extraction....

I hate extractions, I don't advocate for extractions, per se, I simply accept that they are one tool in the Dentists tool-kit, which are sometimes necessary to preserve my over-all dental health and overall well being.

Also, IMO, most sane people are Pro Life.......

some of those are Pro Choice in relation to abortion availability, usually within limitations, which are legislated for in laws enacted by elected Parliaments.....

some are Anti Choice in relation to abortion availability, under any circumstances........

even the restricted form which has evolved here, in the teeth of opposition form these Anti Choice fundamentalists, who attempted to enshrine their dogma and "double effect" speak into our Basic Law.........

and when their plan blew up in their faces, with "X" have attempted, unsuccessfully, when put to the people, to modify their clause in our Constitution to restore their stated aim of ensuring Abortion will never be an option for Irish women in Ireland.

It's interesting how you put down the idea of a pro-abortion label and then resort to anti choice when you refer to people who oppose your opinion. Ironically while using the phrase doublespeak in your post. They are all just pointless labels.

Personally I would consider myself pro-life as I believe there should be an advocate for the life who's choice is not taken into account. On the other hand, I don't believe a sentient life exists until about the 10th week of pregnancy. So my view is that it's up to the woman before a certain stage of development but after that it's no longer her choice to make alone. Do you have a label for me?

AlexisM

Everyone is pro-life. On the abortion issue, the range is probably: extreme anti-abortion (no morning after pill), anti-abortion, conservative pro-choice (nothing after 10/12 weeks), moderate pro-choice (demand to 10/12 weeks, reason to maybe 18 weeks), liberal pro-choice (reason to viability 24/25 weeks) and extreme pro-choice. I think most Irish pro-choice people would be conservative or moderate.

Mountainsandh

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

It's interesting how you put down the idea of a pro-abortion label and then resort to anti choice when you refer to people who oppose your opinion. Ironically while using the phrase doublespeak in your post. They are all just pointless labels.

Personally I would consider myself pro-life as I believe there should be an advocate for the life who's choice is not taken into account. On the other hand, I don't believe a sentient life exists until about the 10th week of pregnancy. So my view is that it's up to the woman before a certain stage of development but after that it's no longer her choice to make alone. Do you have a label for me?

That's pro choice LCC, you are ok with the woman having a choice. You could maybe say pro choice with conditions, which most of us here agree there should be, to different degrees.

Anti choice is the appropriate label for people who do not think the woman should have a choice to abort at any stage in any circumstances. It's not complicated, it's not using semantics for a purpose, choice/lack thereof are the central points so it's only natural to use them.

I want women to have a choice, up to a certain point when I think they should not. (12 weeks IMO, beyond that in extremely limited circumstances with doctors input)

I am pro life as I tend to prefer live people to dead people. :pac:
In fact I'm very anti death

I have no problem saying that and it is not intended to sound callous, as in my mind abortion is an option before the process of life has completed. Life has been started physiologically, but the organism/embryo is simply a prototype for what could be a living human being. It is snuffing out a spark before it becomes fire.

It's wonderful that most of,the time, women choose to nurture the spark until it does become fire.

jill_valentine

It's interesting how you put down the idea of a pro-abortion label and then resort to anti choice when you refer to people who oppose your opinion.

Not really. It's just factually accurate.

I am pro choice, because I think people should have the choice. I'm not pro abortion, since that term and idea makes no sense.

Somebody against abortion isn't pro life, but they are anti choice. They generally aren't terribly interested in the preservation or enhancement of "life" as a concept, particularly that of the mother, and this is not a requirement of the position - indeed "pro life" death penalty advocates aren't uncommon - and therefore "pro life" is a misnomer. It would only make some sense if their opponents were "anti life", which, again, they're not.

So the difference between the two sides here hangs on that choice - "pro choice" campaigns aren't looking to force their idea about what the woman should do onto the woman. They want a situation where either option is available. Anti choice people do, and this is the idea common to their cause. Which means that, despite the characterisation of the debate as "polarised", pro choice is actually the moderate position.

Grayson

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

How did I misrepresent what you said? I quoted your post in it's entirety. Your put abortion on par with a simple medical procedure which is only one dimension of it.

I said that no-one is pro-abortion. Calling someone pro abortion is like calling someone pro colonoscopy. It's a huge misrepresentation. Then again, you don't appear to have difficulty misrepresenting.

Grayson

AlexisM wrote: »

Everyone is pro-life. On the abortion issue, the range is probably: extreme anti-abortion (no morning after pill), anti-abortion, conservative pro-choice (nothing after 10/12 weeks), moderate pro-choice (demand to 10/12 weeks, reason to maybe 18 weeks), liberal pro-choice (reason to viability 24/25 weeks) and extreme pro-choice. I think most Irish pro-choice people would be conservative or moderate.

I've tried saying that but pro lifers hate it. They seem to think that pro choice people think there's a baby and actually want to kill it. That's why they so often refer to it as murder.

Everyone is pro life, it's just that there are differing opinions on what constitutes a baby.

irishpancake

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

It's interesting how you put down the idea of a pro-abortion label and then resort to anti choice when you refer to people who oppose your opinion. Ironically while using the phrase doublespeak in your post. They are all just pointless labels.

Personally I would consider myself pro-life as I believe there should be an advocate for the life who's choice is not taken into account. On the other hand, I don't believe a sentient life exists until about the 10th week of pregnancy. So my view is that it's up to the woman before a certain stage of development but after that it's no longer her choice to make alone. Do you have a label for me?

Of course I did not just "put down" the idea of a pro abortion label, I gave reasons why it's simply not true to label people who support the right to choice as "pro abortion".

I amended my post before you put yours up, for clarity, thus:

Exactly....

Virtually no-one is Pro-abortion.....

You have quoted the un-amended version, sorry about that.....

but it recognises there may indeed be some "pro-abortion" people, but, in my view, virtually no one is pro abortion save those few.

The IMO reference was a statement of my opinion...

Also, IMO, most sane people are Pro Life.......

I would include you and me in that, if you think it appropriate to include you, you have said so.

I would call you Pro choice, not to stick a label on you, but it is your position, and it accords with what I stated here:

some of those are Pro Choice in relation to abortion availability, usually within limitations, which are legislated for in laws enacted by elected Parliaments.....

Would you have any objection to that?

It seems to me to accord with and be a recognition of your position, in relation to limitations, and the law.

We don't appear to have a difference of opinion at all.

The Purveyor of Truth

Grayson wrote: »

Or of you completely misrepresent what I said. No-one is pro abortion. no-one wants women to have an abortion. Just like no-one wants people to have a colonoscopy

There are pro choice advocates. they wish people to have the option there if they need it. But no-one at all is pro abortion.

If you are for something happening, the you are Pro it in the context of debates discussing legalizing it.

Godge wrote: »

You are missing the point.

No, you are those in agreement with you are.

I hate reality television.

I respect peoples' rights to choose to watch reality television and the rights of television stations to show the programmes their viewers want to see.

That does not make me pro-reality television.

If Reality TV was illegal to make and for television companies to air, in the context of a debate on whether or not it should be legalized, you would be Pro Reality TV given that you would support the making and viewing of it. Of course you would.

Now substituting abortion into the above.

I hate abortions.

I respect women's rights to have abortions and the rights of medical facilties to offer abortion services that their female patients want.

Now do you see why pro-choice is the appropriate label.

You are still Pro Abortion, in the context of a debate on whether or not abortions should be legally available. You, and others, are assigning meaning and weight to the word Pro just so that others cannot refer to you as being 'Pro Abortion', which to me is indicative that you all aren't quite so comfortable which abortions as you pretend to be. The fact that you all want to run from the label tells it's own story.

I have no problem with being called Pro Abortion, as I agree with them being made available to women in the early stages of pregnancy

Little CuChulainn

irishpancake wrote: »

Of course I did not just "put down" the idea of a pro abortion label, I gave reasons why it's simply not true to label people who support the right to choice as "pro abortion".

I amended my post before you put yours up, for clarity, thus:



You have quoted the un-amended version, sorry about that.....

but it recognises there may indeed be some "pro-abortion" people, but, in my view, virtually no one is pro abortion save those few.

The IMO reference was a statement of my opinion...



I would include you and me in that, if you think it appropriate to include you, you have said so.

I would call you Pro choice, not to stick a label on you, but it is your position, and it accords with what I stated here:



Would you have any objection to that?

It seems to me to accord with and be a recognition of your position, in relation to limitations, and the law.

We don't appear to have a difference of opinion at all.

We do. I don't believe anyone is particularly anti-choice, I just think they put their limit at a different stage. I put it at 10 weeks, others put it at the point of conception. I chose my point based on my understanding of anatomy and my concept of sentience, they have likely done the same. Granted there are many who are probably guided by religion but many are simply motivated by the same thing I am, the urge to preserve life. They just believe it starts earlier than I do. They might be right.

volchitsa

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

We do. I don't believe anyone is particularly anti-choice, I just think they put their limit at a different stage. I put it at 10 weeks, others put it at the point of conception. I chose my point based on my understanding of anatomy and my concept of sentience, they have likely done the same. Granted there are many who are probably guided by religion but many are simply motivated by the same thing I am, the urge to preserve life. They just believe it starts earlier than I do. They might be right.

At what point did "choice" come into it for a woman who has been raped? Or do you agree that those who refuse the availability of abortion in that case are indeed anti-choice?

Little CuChulainn

volchitsa wrote: »

At what point did "choice" come into it for a woman who has been raped? Or do you agree that those who refuse the availability of abortion in that case are indeed anti-choice?

Not really. They aren't the ones who took away the choice. Like I said, they are most likely motivated solely by the urge to preserve life. The same question could be asked in a situation where a woman is raped and held captive for a number of months. Like I said, I believe a life is created at around 10 weeks and an abortion after that date is no different than euthanasia. Am I taking away her choice because the pregnancy has gone beyond a certain stage even though she didn't wish it?

bodice ripper

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Not really. They aren't the ones who took away the choice. Like I said, they are most likely motivated solely by the urge to preserve life. The same question could be asked in a situation where a woman is raped and held captive for a number of months. Like I said, I believe a life is created at around 10 months and an abortion after that date is no different than euthanasia. Am I taking away her choice because the pregnancy has gone beyond a certain stage even though she didn't wish it?

Ten months? Jesus, that is late.

Little CuChulainn

bodice ripper wrote: »

Ten months? Jesus, that is late.

Thanks for the correction

volchitsa

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Not really. They aren't the ones who took away the choice. Like I said, they are most likely motivated solely by the urge to preserve life. The same question could be asked in a situation where a woman is raped and held captive for a number of months. Like I said, I believe a life is created at around 10 weeks and an abortion after that date is no different than euthanasia. Am I taking away her choice because the pregnancy has gone beyond a certain stage even though she didn't wish it?

Well yes you definitely are taking away her choice.

You believe that a life is created around 10 weeks - what if she believes it is created at viability? Do you have proof that you are right and she is wrong?

(BTW, I can't find bold/italics etc on this forum - can anyone tell me how to do that please?)

Little CuChulainn

volchitsa wrote: »

Well yes you definitely are.

You believe that a life is created around 10 weeks - what if she believes it is created at viability? Do you have proof that you are right and she is wrong?

I have evidence to justify my opinion, same as anyone else in the debate. If there was a proof of anything there would not need to be a debate.

swampgas

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Not really. They aren't the ones who took away the choice. Like I said, they are most likely motivated solely by the urge to preserve life. The same question could be asked in a situation where a woman is raped and held captive for a number of months. Like I said, I believe a life is created at around 10 weeks and an abortion after that date is no different than euthanasia. Am I taking away her choice because the pregnancy has gone beyond a certain stage even though she didn't wish it?

Yes, you are taking away her choice. Basically you are saying "here is my own personal definition of when a foetus should be treated like a fully grown adult, and I'm imposing it on you". If you wanted to decline an abortion for yourself on those grounds, fine, but imposing that on someone else - that's the problem right there.

Mountainsandh

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

We do. I don't believe anyone is particularly anti-choice, I just think they put their limit at a different stage. I put it at 10 weeks, others put it at the point of conception. I chose my point based on my understanding of anatomy and my concept of sentience, they have likely done the same. Granted there are many who are probably guided by religion but many are simply motivated by the same thing I am, the urge to preserve life. They just believe it starts earlier than I do. They might be right.

But it is evident that if you set your limit at "not ever" then, you are anti choice, you do not think the woman should have a choice at any stage.

If you think the woman should have a choice at some stage, along a time limit, then you are pro choice.

Woman has choice up to 10 weeks = pro choice
Woman has no choice and should carry all pregnancies to term = anti choice.

volchitsa

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

I have evidence to justify my opinion, same as anyone else in the debate. If there was a proof of anything there would not need to be a debate.

Yes that is what I'm saying, but actually my question was really about your definition of pro-choice as including people for whom life begins at conception, not so much if one were to arrive at a compromise of a certain number of weeks, what ever that might be. There would be some choice in that case.

But you said (unless I misunderstood) that anyone could be considered pro-choice, even if they refused all abortions, because the woman had and the choice not to become pregnant.
I don't see how that can be the case, that's all.

Little CuChulainn

swampgas wrote: »

Yes, you are taking away her choice. Basically you are saying "here is my own personal definition of when a foetus should be treated like a fully grown adult, and I'm imposing it on you". If you wanted to decline an abortion for yourself on those grounds, fine, but imposing that on someone else - that's the problem right there.

Then I would be standing by and allowing an innocent life to be extinguished because someone didn't want it around. I would find that an abhorrent position to just accept. So I would fight it.

Mountainsandh wrote: »

But it is evident that if you set your limit at "not ever" then, you are anti choice, you do not think the woman should have a choice at any stage.

If you think the woman should have a choice at some stage, along a time limit, then you are pro choice.

Woman has choice up to 10 weeks = pro choice
Woman has no choice and should carry all pregnancies to term = anti choice.

No you are simply putting the choice at the choice to engage in intercourse. It's just a different point along the line.

Little CuChulainn

volchitsa wrote: »

I don't see how that can be the case, that's all.

Why?

conorh91

swampgas wrote: »

Yes, you are taking away her choice.

I wish people would stop using the word "choice" as though "choice" is sacrosanct in life.

Personal freedoms, including freedom over the use of our own bodies, is commonly regulated in law. Usually for good reasons, too.

If you oppose sexual acts in public you are "anti-choice"
If you oppose consensual cannibalism you are "anti-choice"
If you oppose non consensual feeding of lucid anorexics, you are "anti-choice".

Screaming "you are taking her choice away!!" is not an argument in itself.

Restricting human choices is a practical reality in advanced human societies.

This is not an argument against abortion by the way; it's an argument against silly arguments.

swampgas

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Then I would be standing by and allowing an innocent life to be extinguished because someone didn't want it around. I would find that an abhorrent position to just accept. So I would fight it.

Really? Have you thought that through? How far are you prepared to go? Barred from travel to the UK? Strapped to a bed and force fed?