Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
woman refused abortion - Mod Note in first post.
Options
Comments
-
-
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.
What about banning homosexual acts? No problem banning those either? After all, it's just another personal freedom that can be regulated by law.
Of course we are not completely free to do what we like, but in the context of abortion I think the definition of "choice" is pretty obvious.0 -
Little CuChulainn wrote: »
No you are simply putting the choice at the choice to engage in intercourse. It's just a different point along the line.
Whoooooaaaaa ! Hold your horses there, that's a completely different kettle of fish.
The initial proposition is "woman is pregnant : a) she should have a choice to end pregnancy b) she has no choice and has to carry pregnancy to term."
The debate is not about abstinence, that's completely transferring the goal posts to another universe.
Women get raped, contraception fails.
What about choice then ?0 -
Little CuChulainn wrote: »Is that how murder is tackled?
If you want to claim that abortion is murder, go ahead, but it's not what most people believe.
So, you do support forced restraint and force-feeding. Would you be comfortable with that happening to your sister, wife, mother, daughter?0 -
Mountainsandh wrote: »Whoooooaaaaa ! Hold your horses there, that's a completely different kettle of fish.
The initial proposition is "woman is pregnant : a) she should have a choice to end pregnancy b) she has no choice and has to carry pregnancy to term."
The debate is not about abstinence, that's completely transferring the goal posts to another universe.
Women get raped, contraception fails.
What about choice then ?
Well if you want to narrow the goalposts then they would fit into anti choice in the parmeters you define.
In the wider view though they are simply putting the choice at a different point. If a woman is raped, then her choice has indeed been taken away. It has been taken away by the person who raped her though. If contraception fails then they have not lost a choice. They made a choice with full knowledge of the potential consequences.Mountainsandh wrote: »Whoooooaaaaa ! Hold your horses there, that's a completely different kettle of fish.
The initial proposition is "woman is pregnant : a) she should have a choice to end pregnancy b) she has no choice and has to carry pregnancy to term."
The debate is not about abstinence, that's completely transferring the goal posts to another universe.
Women get raped, contraception fails.
What about choice then ?If you want to claim that abortion is murder, go ahead, but it's not what most people believe.
So, you do support forced restraint and force-feeding. Would you be comfortable with that happening to your sister, wife, mother, daughter?
You're pretty determined to make dramatic and groundless claims about my views aren't you? I asked you how murder is dealt with. Is it prevented by strapping people down or banning their travel? No. It is dealt with by holding offenders accountable before the courts.
As to whether abortion is murder. I would consider the taking of a life without proper cause to be murder. Before you ask, to me, proper cause includes self defence, mercy and consent (i.e. euthanasia).0 -
Advertisement
-
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. ... They just believe it starts earlier than I do. They might be right.
Here is what you said - that it is possible to consider the moment of conception as being the limit for abortions (ie a complete ban) and still be pro-choice because the woman had the choice to have intercourse.Little CuChulainn wrote: »Why?
I asked you how she had a choice if she was raped. You haven't answered that, just gone on about your own 10-week belief. That wasn't my question.0 -
-
Little CuChulainn wrote: »You're pretty determined to make dramatic and groundless claims about my views aren't you? I asked you how murder is dealt with. Is it prevented by strapping people down or banning their travel? No. It is dealt with by holding offenders accountable before the courts.
I asked you how you would fight an abortion taking place, and you answered with a one-liner about murder. Seriously, you might want to word your answers more carefully to avoid confusion.As to whether abortion is murder. I would consider the taking of a life without proper cause to be murder. Before you ask, to me, proper cause includes self defence, mercy and consent (i.e. euthanasia).
So, it's murder if you say so. Got it.0 -
Here is what you said - that it is possible to consider the moment of conception as being the limit for abortions (ie a complete ban) and still be pro-choice because the woman had the choice to have intercourse.
I asked you how she had a choice if she was raped. You haven't answered that, just gone on about your own 10-week belief. That wasn't my question.
Pretty sure I did answer. I said her choice was taken away by her rapist.I asked you how you would fight an abortion taking place, and you answered with a one-liner about murder. Seriously, you might want to word your answers more carefully to avoid confusion.
I thought it was pretty clear what i was saying. Not my fault if you choose to SJW everything.So, it's murder if you say so. Got it.
You understand that this whole debate is based on opinion right?0 -
Well done on completely misunderstanding that.
saying "personal freedoms are not sacrosanct" ≠"lets abolish all personal freedoms"
I was pointing out that personal freedoms are mostly sacrosanct, and gave an example. There has to be a very very strong reason for autonomy over one's own body to be removed by the state.
Not being allowed to walk naked down a public street is no great intrusion into your personal autonomy, being forced to bear a child you don't want is a huge intrusion. Personal choice is personal freedom.0 -
Advertisement
-
Little CuChulainn wrote: »Pretty sure I did answer. I said her choice was taken away by her rapist.
It wasn't really. Her choice is being taken away by whoever is denying her an abortion.
If she wasn't raped, but has a fatal foetal anomaly, and wants an abortion, it's still the person denying her the abortion that is taking away her choice.You understand that this whole debate is based on opinion right?
It's more about whether your opinion should be the law of the land and applied to everyone regardless of whether they share your opinion or not.0 -
It wasn't really. Her choice is being taken away by whoever is denying her an abortion.
Like Is said, only in the parameters you have defined.If she wasn't raped, but has a fatal foetal anomaly, and wants an abortion, it's still the person denying her the abortion that is taking away her choice.
Agreed.It's more about whether your opinion should be the law of the land and applied to everyone regardless of whether they share your opinion or not.
Yet for some reason that seems to be ok for your opinion. In actual fact, all laws are set based on opinion.0 -
Little CuChulainn wrote: »Pretty sure I did answer. I said her choice was taken away by her rapist.
You understand that this whole debate is based on opinion right?
No, her choice about engaging in sexual intercourse was taken away by the rapist. The choice about an abortion depends on what the citizens of the state choose to legislate for.
And yes, it depends on opinion, which is why it's one thing to have a personal opinion, but quite another to enforce that opinion on others.0 -
No, her choice about engaging in sexual intercourse was taken away by the rapist. The choice about an abortion depends on what the citizens of the state choose to legislate for.
And yes, it depends on opinion, which is why it's one thing to have a personal opinion, but quite another to enforce that opinion on others.
Thats what all laws do.0 -
Little CuChulainn wrote: »Well if you want to narrow the goalposts then they would fit into anti choice in the parmeters you define.
In the wider view though they are simply putting the choice at a different point. If a woman is raped, then her choice has indeed been taken away. It has been taken away by the person who raped her though. If contraception fails then they have not lost a choice. They made a choice with full knowledge of the potential consequences.
.
The rape situation is effectively what happened to start this thread. Is your position then that the choice was taken by the rape attacker, and that the victim has no choice then, and must carry the pregnancy to term ?
After all it's nobody's fault except the attacker, he took the choice away.
And that would fit in with being pro choice then, in your opinion.
What you are saying about intercourse is the old very religious belief that intercourse's only reason for happening is to procreate.
That's fine for people to still think that if they so wish, it's not fine in today's society to impose that view on others imo, and thankfully many others, even in Ireland think the same (go figure! :rolleyes:)0 -
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.
Just to go back to this comment. I think it shows that you have no idea what women go through when they have a crisis pregnancy, and no idea what the process of being pregnant actually entails.
What is your message to a raped woman who doesn't want to be pregnant, and is seeking an abortion? Imagine you are saying it to her face. You cannot have an abortion because ... ?
And if she insists that she is off the the UK right now, would you restrain her? Would you like the law to be changed so that the Gardaí could do the restraining instead?
I would really like to know just how far you are prepared to go in treating a woman as a second-class citizen.0 -
Little CuChulainn wrote: »Thats what all laws do.
They do, to some extent. Is there such a thing as an unjust law then? What about racist laws during segregation in the US?0 -
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.
Of course personal freedoms are restricted in advanced human societies, but only when they are likely to affect others.
For example a nudist may not walk down the street naked because it may affect a child to see a grown up person naked.
Cannibalism affects others if they are being eaten against their will. The pretty recent case in Germany where a man offered himself to be eaten posed a few problems for legislators actually, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/dec/04/germany.lukeharding
I have not found on line whether it is actually illegal to offer yourself up for cannibalism, but there are suggestions that cannibalism itself is not illegal, the act of killing someone is. If I decided to cut off my ear and hand it over to someone to eat, would I be arrested ? I actually don't think so.
Force feeding an anorexic person is a medical procedure taken to save a person's life. It does parallel the case in this thread as the c-section was a medical procedure to save her life, but it doesn't really apply to other abortions, and whether a healthy person should have freedom of choice over their own body. These sort of interventions are often pretty controversial actually because the default is that we are sovereign over our own body.
Really, the only restriction that I can see that restricts people's freedom over their own body and does not affect others is that people are not allowed to take drugs.
Actually I think they kind of are, the law I believe punishes a person for being in possession of drugs, or how they got hold of them, not so much for the act of taking them. (maybe I'm wrong ?)
The law does not punish you for smoking or drinking alcohol unless you are affecting others by doing so.
The law does not punish you for getting a tattoo, a piercing, having cosmetic surgery, getting fatter or getting thinner, dyeing your hair, giving a kidney, or even cutting off your own leg if you were mad enough to do it. As long as what you are doing does not affect others.
The only other person affected when a woman decides to have an abortion are maybe the husband/boy friend who impregnated her, and I think they would have a case in a court of law to try and stop an abortion.
The embryo is not a person, but an organism that totally depends on its host to give it life for at the very least 20/25 weeks of that pregnancy, it is not a person yet, therefore imo it should not have an veto on what the mother wishes to do with her body. It does have an input as most pregnant women obviously give great thought to whether they want to maintain the life that has started or not.
Other people have no say in how a woman may or may not treat her body unless the behaviour will affect them.0 -
Mountainsandh wrote: »The rape situation is effectively what happened to start this thread. Is your position then that the choice was taken by the rape attacker, and that the victim has no choice then, and must carry the pregnancy to term ?
After all it's nobody's fault except the attacker, he took the choice away.
And that would fit in with being pro choice then, in your opinion.
What you are saying about intercourse is the old very religious belief that intercourse's only reason for happening is to procreate.
That's fine for people to still think that if they so wish, it's not fine in today's society to impose that view on others imo, and thankfully many others, even in Ireland think the same (go figure! :rolleyes:)
Its pretty evident that youve not being following my posts. If you had you would know that I was playing devils advocate to prove a point, that is that labels such as anti choice are completely arbitrary and serve only to dismiss anothers opinion without consideration.Just to go back to this comment. I think it shows that you have no idea what women go through when they have a crisis pregnancy, and no idea what the process of being pregnant actually entails.
What is your message to a raped woman who doesn't want to be pregnant, and is seeking an abortion? Imagine you are saying it to her face. You cannot have an abortion because ... ?
And if she insists that she is off the the UK right now, would you restrain her? Would you like the law to be changed so that the Gardaí could do the restraining instead?
I would really like to know just how far you are prepared to go in treating a woman as a second-class citizen.
Once a life exists, which I believe happens around the 10 week period, then that life has a right to live which takes precedence over the right for a medical procedure. If a person were to extinguish that life without good reason then I would consider them to have unlawfully killed it. I cant really put it clearer. And no, I would not consider rape to be a good reason to destroy it, yes I would consider fatal defects to be good reason. Yes this is my opinion, just like you have yours. No I do not believe it makes women some kind of second class citizen, it simply prioritises one right over another.They do, to some extent. Is there such a thing as an unjust law then? What about racist laws during segregation in the US?
Not to some extent. Thats exactly what law is. Racist laws were also based on opinion and changed along with popular opinion0 -
Little CuChulainn wrote: »Once a life exists, which I believe happens around the 10 week period, then that life has a right to live which takes precedence over the right for a medical procedure. If a person were to extinguish that life without good reason then I would consider them to have unlawfully killed it. I cant really put it clearer. And no, I would not consider rape to be a good reason to destroy it, yes I would consider fatal defects to be good reason. Yes this is my opinion, just like you have yours. No I do not believe it makes women some kind of second class citizen, it simply prioritises one right over another.
Unfortunately with abortion, it's an either/or situation. If you prioritise the unborn life, you cannot avoid the fact that you are insisting on overruling any action a woman might take about her own body that will impact on the unborn. That's a massive removal of her right to self-determination.
What I'd like to know in practical terms, is how do you imagine such prioritising of the unborn would be implemented in law? Preventing abortion as a legal medical procedure, obviously. What about travel abroad for an abortion? What about women who do abort, outside the law - should they be prosecuted?0 -
Advertisement
-
My question was whether laws based on racist opinions were ever just, even when they were accepted as part of the natural order by the overwhelming majority of the population?Little CuChulainn wrote: »Not to some extent. Thats exactly what law is. Racist laws were also based on opinion and changed along with popular opinion0 -
Unfortunately with abortion, it's an either/or situation. If you prioritise the unborn life, you cannot avoid the fact that you are insisting on overruling any action a woman might take about her own body that will impact on the unborn. That's a massive removal of her right to self-determination.
What I'd like to know in practical terms, is how do you imagine such prioritising of the unborn would be implemented in law? Preventing abortion as a legal medical procedure, obviously. What about travel abroad for an abortion? What about women who do abort, outside the law - should they be prosecuted?
Most rights come at the expense of others in some way. The charter for human rights has only one absolute right as far as I know. The rest are balanced.
I don't see why the same legal principals that apply to prosecuting murder could also not apply to an illegal abortion. If you genuinely believe a life exists then I don't see how you can really view it differently. Having said that it's worth pointing out that I think our own laws are too restrictive in some aspects, such as euthanasia, which I would put on a par with serious abnormalities in a fetus.My question was whether laws based on racist opinions were ever just, even when they were accepted as part of the natural order by the overwhelming majority of the population?
Of course not. But this is just a strawman. You are trying to equate opposition with abortion to racism when there is no comparison that can be made.0 -
And yet Ireland's position on abortion has it being criticised for not meeting the human rights of pregnant women.Little CuChulainn wrote: »Most rights come at the expense of others in some way. The charter for human rights has only one absolute right as far as I know. The rest are balanced.
I don't think an embryo or foetus has equal rights to a woman. I think a rape victim 8 weeks pregnant has a much greater right to not be pregnant than an 8-week entity which, while "alive" in a technical sense, is much more (IMO) a potential person than an actual one.I don't see why the same legal principals that apply to prosecuting murder could also not apply to an illegal abortion. If you genuinely believe a life exists then I don't see how you can really view it differently. Having said that it's worth pointing out that I think our own laws are too restrictive in some aspects, such as euthanasia, which I would put on a par with serious abnormalities in a fetus.
If you are prepared to take context into account (fatal foetal abnormalities, for example), then you are tacitly accepting that the right to life of the foetus should not be absolute. Perhaps you might consider, as a context for an abortion at 8 weeks, the impact of a continued pregnancy on a vulnerable rape victim?0 -
An anti-rascist who happens to be sexist...good one. She is a bit batty or at least comes across like that. If a pro-lifer gave a speech like that people would be onto it like a fly on $hit.
She doesn't seem to like Ireland much, I find it very irritating to hear visitors to our country giving out about the place like that.0 -
Whether there does or there doesn't, I am in agreement that your statement would be broadly accepted by most people on either side of the abortion debate.There has to be a very very strong reason for autonomy over one's own body to be removed by the state.
My point to you was simply in response to your statements as regards "choice".
You were critical of taking away someone's "choice", as though that were the Maginot Line in the debate that nobody should cross (in any event, we all know what happened the Maginot Line)
For this reason, using emotive words like "pro choice" and "pro life" are just silly. We are all usually in favor of life, and we are all usually in favor of choice, and all of us love Mom and Pop and Apple Pie.
It's meaningless stuff. It doesn't get us anywhere.
If the debate on abortion in Irish law is ever to be resolved, it has to focus on the substantive issue of reconciling women's rights with the rights of the unborn, insofar as either side can exert rights over the other.0 -
Whether there does or there doesn't, I am in agreement that your statement would be broadly accepted by most people on either side of the abortion debate.
My point to you was simply in response to your statements as regards "choice".
You were critical of taking away someone's "choice", as though that were the Maginot Line in the debate that nobody should cross (in any event, we all know what happened the Maginot Line)
For this reason, using emotive words like "pro choice" and "pro life" are just silly. We are all usually in favor of life, and we are all usually in favor of choice, and all of us love Mom and Pop and Apple Pie.
It's meaningless stuff. It doesn't get us anywhere.
I agree that most people are in fact "pro life". And most people are "pro choice", except for abortion, where a significant number of people really are against "choice".
I agree the wording can be confusing, but I would hope that in a discussion about abortion that context is sufficient?
Unless you have some ideas for better terminology, I think we're stuck with what we've got :-/0 -
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.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?
So, just to be clear, saying "it's up to the woman" before a certain stage of development"
is not a statement of your pro-choice disposition?
and further saying "but after that it's no longer her choice to make alone."
Is that not an admission that choice existed and was permitted by you, prior to this arbitrary 10 week sentience argument.
And, of course I'm sure, by what you say, you envision no element of compulsion within that 10 week period, either way, it is the womans choice?
Is that not the plain English meaning of what you have said.
If not, why not, without resorting to linguistic gymnastics
Actually, it's exactly what you have said, is it not?
Here is what I said again, for clarity:
"some of those are Pro Choice in relation to abortion availability, usually within limitations, which are legislated for in laws enacted by elected Parliaments....."
So, again, taking the meaning of your Statement at face value, as meaning what you wrote down, and that's what you mean, what's your problem with my statement above. Point out the difference.
You say: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 cannot point out where the difference is.
Please do, by reference to both statements, without introducing other aspects, so we can be clear.
The rest above is mere Semantics, shifting of goal-posts to the "point of conception" to meet your spurious contention that no-one is particularly "Anti-choice".
Saying stuff like:
"I chose my point based on my understanding of anatomy and my concept of sentience, they have likely done the same."
is such guff, in relation to the concept of limits in relation to the right to choose whether one will or will not avail of abortion services.
Just how is someone, who believes there should be no abortion allowed after the "point of conception", not anti-Choice?
Earlier than you do??
"10 weeks vs The point of Conception"
Give us a break, and be honest.......
your real position is really exposed by your last statement.......
"They might be right."
If you believe that, fair play, I will disagree, but at least I know where you stand.0 -
Although the terminology isn't ideal, it's not so much the terminology I have a problem with, but dwelling on the terminology.Unless you have some ideas for better terminology, I think we're stuck with what we've got :-/
The heart of the matter is whether the unborn is entitled to any rights, and if so, whether he is entitled to assert those rights at the expense of another.
Imagine the following scenario.
A woman is pregnant with twins, at 20 weeks gestation. She and her husband are visiting a hospital for a scan, and are so delighted with the confirmation of the health of their unborn babies, they go for a meal. A car is parked outside the restaurant. The car explodes in a terrorist bomb attack. Both parents survive, but one unborn twin dies. There are no other victims.
Should the unborn twin be regarded as a victim?
Should criminal injuries compensation be paid in respect of the death of the unborn?
Should a charge of murder be brought against the perpetrators, or should a lesser charge be brought?
After the explosion, the pregnant woman is in the hospital. She is distraught, but perfectly lucid. The pregnant woman says that she cannot bear to give birth to the one remaining twin.
She attempts to injure herself to the extent that she will survive, but the remaining twin will be aborted. Her husband intervenes, and in the resulting fracas, he intentionally puts his hands on her and restrains her to the effect that he is, in law, assaulting her.
The mother wishes to make a complaint of assault. Should her husband be prosecuted, and found guilty of assault?0 -
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?)
Are you on a PC?
If yes, do you see this, see below, when you edit a post? [May not last, as I think pics are not allowed]
Editor Pic in my Dropbox
If, not, go to User Control Panel,
then Edit Options on RHS, under
Settings & Options
In Edit Options, scroll down to
Miscellaneous Options
you can choose the Editor to use there, usually 2.Standard is OK, but 1. Basic is "basic".....
you could be on basic, so change to Standard, and hit the Big Blue Save Changes Button....
right there, in that Miscellaneous Box...:)0 -
Advertisement
-
Little CuChulainn wrote: »Of course not. But this is just a strawman. You are trying to equate opposition with abortion to racism when there is no comparison that can be made.
That's not what a strawman argument is.
And in some aspects, it certainly is relevant, such as here, where you are arguing that any law is acceptable so long as it is based on the majority opinion of the people who passed the law. In which case racist laws enforcing segregation in the US were just as acceptable as any other - some your point was that all laws are based on opinion.
How is it a strawman argument to point out that this in itself doesn't make a law fair or just?0
Advertisement