Abortions for 3,735, minature flags for nobody

seenitall

Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013.

I'm afraid it's almost certain more women will have to die needlessly before the political will is summoned to change things for the better.

lazygal

As someone who's had two children in Ireland the abortion laws here are a major factor in deciding whether to have more children. I don't want to be kept alive while brain dead and have my children watch me rot because I'm pregnant.

Pumpkinseeds

UCDVet wrote: »

If I'm understanding you correctly, you disagree with the idea that someone (or at least a woman) should be forced to continue with something they don't want?

Let's say my wife and I have a child. But afterwards, we decide it's too much of a commitment. Is it okay for us to just leave that child somewhere? Or do you think the law should force us to take care of it until we can reasonably make other arrangements to ensure it's safety?

The posters previous posts say that women who terminate a pregnancy are murderers. He feels that all women should be forced to keep their babies, that's a point of view he's entitled to. Where not talking about giving a child up for adoption, we're discussing abortion. Adoption and fostering exist for a variety of reasons, not least of which is parents giving up a child they no longer want to care for. That's a whole other debate. I believe in a woman's right not to be forced to continue with pregnancy or raise a child she doesn't right. I'm not sure where your difficulty with a woman's right to choose lies.

Not a NSA agent

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

I'm pretty sure nox pointed out that he/she said he did think people should be able to have an abortion in the case of FFA. And no one said they thought that anyone had an abortion "because they wanted to kill a child". Really that sort of hysterical misrepresenting of other people's views serves no one.

With views like

Yadiel Nutritious Apartment wrote: »

If they gave enough of a damn about the baby to want to bring it back in a box and bury it they wouldn't be killing it in the first place.

Throwing it in the bin on their way out of the clinic would be a more fitting conclusion to the scenario.

The Golden Miller wrote: »

I'm in college, have a part time job, pay rent etc. I'm broke basically, and have another 3 years of college ahead of me. Got my girlfriend pregnant and she's in a similar situation. Abortion wasn't an option. If someone conceives a baby (and unless they are raped or fatal foetal abnormality etc), they are as good as murderers in my eye's. It's functioning to some degree from the minute it's conceived, hence alive. You made your bed, so go and lie in it, instead of taking the cowards way out and trying to convince yourself it's "not alive" because it's not outside the womb. All your doing is fooling yourself, trying to justify murder to yourself, so you don't feel bad for killing it

and the "why not adopt?" crowd it shows there is a severe lack of understanding around abortion from those who are most against it. A pregnancy is a minor thing to go through so why would you kill children instead?

The main group of people who would be bringing something back in the boot of their car would be people who had an abortion for reasons like FFA, although knowing that would require others to have some form of understanding which is clearly lacking.

RDM_83 again

I think one of the problems with these threads is that posters who support the avail availability choice based late term abortions will constantly reference situations which are very different e.g fetal abnormalities, juvenile rape etc, these posts get a load of thanks but all they do is mean the more extreme pro-lifers have a figure to argue against.

Even the thread title is like this compared to the discussion going on, if its about the 3,800 woman going abroad its not about the most extreme cases otherwise that figure is meaningless.

The pro-life side also need to pick their battles and have a bit of empathy, you can still empathise with someone you disagree with. Hell if your coming from a Christian point of view it should be about hating the sin not the sinner.

Pumpkinseeds

RDM_83 again wrote: »

I think one of the problems with these threads is that posters who support the avail availability choice based late term abortions will constantly reference situations which are very different e.g fetal abnormalities, juvenile rape etc, these posts get a load of thanks but all they do is mean the more extreme pro-lifers have a figure to argue against.

Even the thread title is like this compared to the discussion going on, if its about the 3,800 woman going abroad its not about the most extreme cases otherwise that figure is meaningless.

The pro-life side also need to pick their battles and have a bit of empathy, you can still empathise with someone you disagree with. Hell if your coming from a Christian point of view it should be about hating the sin not the sinner.

I think that most pro choice posters wouldn't be supportive of late term abortions, unless it was medically advised. For most of us abortion is a case of a woman having a choice to terminate a pregnancy. What it comes down to is that if a woman wants an abortion she should be able to have one, whatever her reasons and obviously any woman who is pro life is not going to have an abortion. Pro lifers want to control other women's bodies and that is wrong.

Pro lifers often loose sight of the fact that for many women abortion is an extremely traumatic and difficult decision and is something that the woman will have to deal with for life.

RDM_83 again

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

I think that most pro choice posters wouldn't be supportive of late term abortions, unless it was medically advised. For most of us abortion is a case of a woman having a choice to terminate a pregnancy. What it comes down to is that if a woman wants an abortion she should be able to have one, whatever her reasons and obviously any woman who is pro life is not going to have an abortion. Pro lifers want to control other women's bodies and that is wrong.

Pro lifers often loose sight of the fact that for many women abortion is an extremely traumatic and difficult decision and is something that the woman will have to deal with for life.

I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding by pro-choicers to pro-lifers though as you post illustrates, its not about controlling women for pro-lifers its about saving what they believe to be lives.

If it was about controlling women why would some islamic countries have more liberal law than Ireland, in some of these countries woman are actually controlled, the debate is when the fetus gains a soul and could change depending on what opinion is reached there (4 months for some).

K4t

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

Pro lifers often loose sight of the fact that for many women abortion is an extremely traumatic and difficult decision and is something that the woman will have to deal with for life.

It's what they don't lose sight of that is telling; that is that for many women abortion is neither an extremely traumatic nor a difficult decision. And many pro lifers simply hate to see women have that power.

seenitall

K4t wrote: »

It's what they don't lose sight of that is telling; that is that for many women abortion is neither an extremely traumatic nor a difficult decision. And many pro lifers simply hate to see women have that power.

Of course. It's about control, it always has been and always will be. Control over women's wombs. So far it's 1:0 on that for the RCC indoctrinated mentality. But it won't always be like that, times they are a changin...

seenitall

RDM_83 again wrote: »

I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding by pro-choicers to pro-lifers though as you post illustrates, its not about controlling women for pro-lifers its about saving what they believe to be lives.

If it was about controlling women why would some islamic countries have more liberal law than Ireland, in some of these countries woman are actually controlled, the debate is when the fetus gains a soul and could change depending on what opinion is reached there (4 months for some).

Ah pull the other one. If they wanted to save lives, they can start at the IVF clinics where unused embryos (Babies! potential lives!) are being flushed away.

But no; the whole thing starts and ends with a woman's uterus and who gets the final word over growing anything in it.

A pro-lifer up-thread freely admits to it, even; until the embryo is implanted, not a worry on him for the unborn.

eviltwin

seenitall wrote: »

Of course. It's about control, it always has been and always will be. Control over women's wombs. So far it's 1:0 on that for the RCC indoctrinated mentality. But it won't always be like that, times they are a changin...

Control pure and simple. If it was about saving the unborn they would campaign to change the laws on assisted reproduction. They don't seem to have the same outrage over embryos being destroyed, being created knowing the surplus will be destroyed.

lazygal

eviltwin wrote: »

Control pure and simple. If it was about saving the unborn they would campaign to change the laws on assisted reproduction. They don't seem to have the same outrage over embryos being destroyed, being created knowing the surplus will be destroyed.

Maybe they could answer this: there's a new born baby and a Petri dish of embryos in a burning building. Who do you save first? Who do you go back into to save?

Eta there are no laws on assisted human reproduction in Ireland. It's a complete legal vacuum.

RDM_83 again

seenitall wrote: »

Ah pull the other one. If they wanted to save lives, they can start at the IVF clinics where unused embryos (Babies! potential lives!) are being flushed away.

But no; the whole thing starts and ends with a woman's uterus and who gets the final word over growing anything in it.

A pro-lifer up-thread freely admits to it, even; until the embryo is implanted, not a worry on him for the unborn.

I presume some mental gymnastics are used to justify this positions e.g something like that while many potentials are wasted one actuality is created.

Your argument is incorrect anyway since if somebody is coming from a strict Catholic point of view they oppose IVF too!

Your just avoiding how I can give real life examples of societies where woman are actually controlled where a different religious definition on "life/ensoulment" can result in more liberal abortion law.

The replies to this post just indicate how its just a circle jerk really, I genuinely think some of the more aggressively pro-choice posters understand why but it doesn't sound so good to talk about.

Why do the the stats for prolife vs prochoice tend to be so similar between genders if its about controlling women

seenitall

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Your argument is incorrect anyway since if somebody is coming from a strict Catholic point of view they oppose IVF too!

LOL. Sure sure, they might oppose "IVF too", just curiously not enough to make it known anywhere I've ever seen or heard how disgusting and odious the practice of flushing away lives in that manner is. While they're all over abortion at the same time, can't get enough of boasting their pro-life credentials then... spare me.

The hypocrisy is transparent here, and it is your argument that is, er, incorrect. It's not about babies, it's about wombs.

seenitall

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Why do the the stats for prolife vs prochoice tend to be so similar between genders if its about controlling women

Never heard of anti-semitic Jews? Homophobic gay people?

Indoctrination is your answer.

Electric Sheep

RDM_83 again wrote: »

I presume some mental gymnastics are used to justify this positions e.g something like that while many potentials are wasted one actuality is created.

Your argument is incorrect anyway since if somebody is coming from a strict Catholic point of view they oppose IVF too!

Your just avoiding how I can give real life examples of societies where woman are actually controlled where a different religious definition on "life/ensoulment" can result in more liberal abortion law.

The replies to this post just indicate how its just a circle jerk really, I genuinely think some of the more aggressively pro-choice posters understand why but it doesn't sound so good to talk about.

Why do the the stats for prolife vs prochoice tend to be so similar between genders if its about controlling women

Plenty of women think women should be controlled - in many ways they were the big enforcers of the Catholic church's policy. Much in the way it was the mothers of young girls that took them to the footbinder in China.

Pumpkinseeds

K4t wrote: »

It's what they don't lose sight of that is telling; that is that for many women abortion is neither an extremely traumatic nor a difficult decision. And many pro lifers simply hate to see women have that power.

Really, can you provide statistical evidence for this, I'd be interested to read it?

seenitall

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Your just avoiding how I can give real life examples of societies where woman are actually controlled where a different religious definition on "life/ensoulment" can result in more liberal abortion law.

There are different types of control, for different types of reasons. Looking elsewhere to show me it's worse there for women, but better in a different way is, dunno, pointless? Unless I equally point to the majority of the first world and say that comparatively, almost anything over there looks like a good model for women's reproductive rights...

Pumpkinseeds

RDM_83 again wrote: »

I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding by pro-choicers to pro-lifers though as you post illustrates, its not about controlling women for pro-lifers its about saving what they believe to be lives.

If it was about controlling women why would some islamic countries have more liberal law than Ireland, in some of these countries woman are actually controlled, the debate is when the fetus gains a soul and could change depending on what opinion is reached there (4 months for some).

Ah, and there's the crux of the problem, religion, which is where one persons idea of morality is imposed on another person. By that logic we could argue that we don't need Courts, that we could just 'hang em all and let God sort it out'.

RDM_83 again

seenitall wrote: »

LOL. Sure sure, they might oppose "IVF too", just curiously not enough to make it known anywhere I've ever seen or heard how disgusting and odious the practice of flushing away lives in that manner is. While they're all over abortion at the same time, can't get enough of boasting their pro-life credentials then... spare me.

The hypocrisy is transparent here, and it is your argument that is, er, incorrect. It's not about babies, it's about wombs.

Explain the changeable Islamic position then?

seenitall wrote: »

Never heard of anti-semitic Jews? Homophobic gay people?

Indoctrination is your answer.

They are tiny minorities in those communities - have you ever actually met one? (yes you might meet homosexuals that dislike some aspects of Gay culture, thats the same as me disliking some aspects of straight culture it doesn't make me hetrophobic! )

These posts are a perfect example of why I think for a view point that there is a subset of the pro-choice wing that are very hypocritical, you pat yourself on the back that your rejecting outdated religious superstitions and reactionary traditionalist culture from a point of logic yet its all about easy point scoring that only appeals to those who already agree with you.

Electric Sheep wrote: »

Plenty of women think women should be controlled - in many ways they were the big enforcers of the Catholic church's policy. Much in the way it was the mothers of young girls that took them to the footbinder in China.

Thats actually an interesting subject, have read a bit about foot binding (because it was a remarkably stable cultural phenomenon for such a long time), ironically much of that motivation was about social betterment - if you didn't bind your daughters feet she had no possibility of a "good" marraige.

eviltwin

RDM_83 again wrote: »

I presume some mental gymnastics are used to justify this positions e.g something like that while many potentials are wasted one actuality is created.

Your argument is incorrect anyway since if somebody is coming from a strict Catholic point of view they oppose IVF too!

Your just avoiding how I can give real life examples of societies where woman are actually controlled where a different religious definition on "life/ensoulment" can result in more liberal abortion law.

The replies to this post just indicate how its just a circle jerk really, I genuinely think some of the more aggressively pro-choice posters understand why but it doesn't sound so good to talk about.

Why do the the stats for prolife vs prochoice tend to be so similar between genders if its about controlling women

What are the laws regarding abortion in these countries? Can a woman make her own decision to end a pregnancy? I would be surprised if the law was established to allow husbands to control their wives fertility.

I wouldn't read too much into women being pro life, if you look at the church in Ireland often it's the generation of women most damaged by it that is most devout.

The Golden Miller

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

I think that most pro choice posters wouldn't be supportive of late term abortions, unless it was medically advised. For most of us abortion is a case of a woman having a choice to terminate a pregnancy. What it comes down to is that if a woman wants an abortion she should be able to have one, whatever her reasons and obviously any woman who is pro life is not going to have an abortion. Pro lifers want to control other women's bodies and that is wrong.

Pro lifers often loose sight of the fact that for many women abortion is an extremely traumatic and difficult decision and is something that the woman will have to deal with for life.

And why is it so difficult and traumatic? Because it's morally wrong and it eats away at their conscience?

Hope your joking bringing "control" into it

eviltwin

The Golden Miller wrote: »

And why is it so difficult and traumatic? Because it's morally wrong and it eats away at their conscience?

Hope your joking bringing "control" into it

Because any life changing decision requires a lot of soul searching. But you would know with your alleged pregnant girlfriend right?

The Golden Miller

I think there should be new laws brought into the UK, akin to China (I think it's China), that if a woman wants an abortion that then the father has to also consent to it.

Balmed Out

I hate how when it comes to abortion there's a complete lack of empathy from so many anti choice and pro death campaigners.

Really looking at either viewpoint in isolation its a slam dunk case but if we want to progress we could at least try to see both signs of view. Too often one side seems to think the others opinion stems from a hating women etc and the other are all religious zealots etc.

eviltwin

The Golden Miller wrote: »

I think there should be new laws brought into the UK akin to China (I think it's China), that if a woman wants an abortion that then the father has to also consent to it.

So the final decision is in his hands?

The Golden Miller

eviltwin wrote: »

Because any life changing decision requires a lot of soul searching. But you would know with your alleged pregnant girlfriend right?

Yes I would know as it happens. And yes it is life changing, but that's not what gnaws away at you

The Golden Miller

eviltwin wrote: »

So the final decision is in his hands?

Nope, it's 50/50

eviltwin

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Nope, it's 50/50

How is it 50/50 if he has the final say?

The Golden Miller

eviltwin wrote: »

How is it 50/50 if he has the final say?

As opposed to her having to only AND final say?

eviltwin

The Golden Miller wrote: »

As opposed to her having to only AND final say?

It's her body. Of course she should have the final say.

volchitsa

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

Really, can you provide statistical evidence for this, I'd be interested to read it?

It's a major life decision, I guess it depends what you mean by difficult. For some women they can envisage no other alternative right from the minute they're pregnant (think of Miss Y, but also probably any young girl who just can't see herself as a mother at that stage of her life) So is that a difficult decision? I don't know, I'd say if you already see yourself as someone who wants a child in the future, then learning that you're pregnant at a time when motherhood is impossible must be a terribly difficult choice to make, either way. It doesn't necessarily mean that continuing the pregnancy was ever an option all the same.

So let's not get hung up on "difficult" - it's one of those "how long is a piece of string" questions. What really matters is whether it needs to be a traumatizing decision, and there I think it's clear that in Ireland the decision is made to be as traumatic as possible. When I had my termination (I wasn't living in Ireland at the time) everyone was so nice and so understanding, and I was terribly sad, for a while. And they told me that was normal, and it would pass. And it does. Part of it is just hormonal, like the Baby Blues. You get over it. I had other kids already and life goes on, rather like after a miscarriage, in some ways. (I had one of those too).

But I feel so terrible thinking about young women in Ireland being led to believe they're such monsters, and also just physically, having to travel abroad, spending money they possibly can't really afford, compared to how much compassion I got. I know pro-lifers want it like that, so they can then use the trauma those women suffer to "prove" what a horrible experience a pregnancy terminatio has to be, but once the decision is taken, it really isn't much worse than, say, a miscarriage where you secretly feel maybe you were actually responsible.

So : difficult? I'd say - definitely. Traumatizing? I'd say : only if other people want it to be. And in Ireland unfortunately some people do want exactly that.

The Golden Miller

eviltwin wrote: »

It's her body. Of course she should have the final say.

It's not only her body anymore

j80ezgvc3p92xu

Let no one fool you - these children deserve to live as much as anybody else, the circumstances of their conception is never their fault. Please do not let anyone tell you that the mother's selfishness can ever come before the life of an innocent child.

https://lifesite-cache.s3.amazonaws.com/images/made/images/news/sculpture2_645_469_55.jpg

I wish someone put this sculpture in the middle of Dublin.

eviltwin

The Golden Miller wrote: »

It's not only her body anymore

Until such time as the baby can survive outside the womb it's her body.

The Golden Miller

eviltwin wrote: »

Until such time as the baby can survive outside the womb it's her body.

How? Does it not exist until it's outside the womb?

NachoBusiness

eviltwin wrote: »

Most people would see it as a good thing that women have a bit of self confidence and are able to make their own decisions these days even if you might not agree with the decisions they make.

A "bit" of self confidence? There is difference between someone having a bit of self confidence and them having a downright narcissistic, arrogant and inconsiderate attitude to babies in the womb. Saying a woman should never feel guilty "whatever" her reason is for having an abortion is nauseating quite frankly. If men could somehow get pregnant and carry a woman's child, I think you might change your attitude very fast. Can you imagine a man being five and half months pregnant with a woman's child and saying it was his business and his business alone. Women's rights groups would be on the streets marching wanting him prosecuted if he had so much had too many sugars in his fcuking tea whilst carrying the child.

I don't know why you are surprise a woman would be pro choice - a lot of us are.

I know many pro-choice women who don't think a woman should just be able to have an abortion after 20 weeks and "whatever" her reasons are, that's fine, she should not feel guilty or need to explain herself.

Not all women get excited and broody at the thought of a pregnancy.

...

If they make a decision to end that pregnancy I don't need to know, I trust that any woman making that decision has made an informed choice just like I do with those who decide to have the baby.

Here you go again speaking about women as if they always make noble choices. I have no issue with accepting that some men are bad bastards, I am not sure why it is that some women seem to take great exception at the notion that some women are vindictive and selfish.

You think that's callous? I think your lack of empathy for women is callous.

I think it's callous in the extreme to have a belief that women should be able to abort unborn children, specifically late term, no matter their reasoning. I find it barbaric quite honestly and I think many pro choice women do too. That's why they hate pro lifers (who I have issues with myself) displaying photos of dissected and dying fetuses. It's too much of reality check for many of them to deal with.

Oh and I am not sure what you mean by my supposedly not having empathy for women means as I have stated that I would vote for abortion given the choice. Like I said earlier in the thread, the abortion as a means for birth control crowd always sanctimoniously use the rare cases of where a women's life is at stake to further their cause and here you are doing just that. I have empathy for any women that has trauma in her life, it's just that I have about zero for those that don't, pretend to and then choose to abort a baby at a stage where it has an excellent chance of life outside of the womb, were it lucky enough to be born premature.

eviltwin wrote: »

I don't think many people expect to hear from women who have had abortions on debates like this, especially people who they might have interacted with on other threads. We seem so normal :eek:

This is cringe worthy in the extreme. You really think people that are anti abortion or anti late term abortions have never interacted with women before, or know women, or have mothers, friends, girlfriends, sisters, female cousins, aunts etc? Women that they know and speak with on these matters and who might have had relevant experiences which have possibly gone on to inform their current beliefs? Is that really too much for you to grasp. Not every guy online who disagrees with you is sitting his parents basement, never having had contact with a human female before you know. That's white knights your thinking of there :P

Seriously though. I have seen similar comments like this before and it's quite odd. People who are anti abortion, or anti late stage abortions, are just as normal as you are and have just as many friends and family members as you also. You don't have the monopoly on that. It's odd that you would think you do.

Pumpkinseeds

The Golden Miller wrote: »

And why is it so difficult and traumatic? Because it's morally wrong and it eats away at their conscience?

Hope your joking bringing "control" into it

You really just don't get it and no amount of discussion will ever persuade you otherwise. So I'm not even going to bother arguing with you. Night night.

The Golden Miller

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

You really just don't get it and no amount of discussion will ever persuade you otherwise. So I'm not even going to bother arguing with you. Night night.

Well I do "get it" as it just so happens.

volchitsa

You're missing the point, Nachobusiness. It's obvious, given the numbers of Irish women who travel to terminate their pregancies, that probably everyone in Ireland knows someone who's had an abortion, they just may not know it themselves. That's not what she was saying, she was making a point about the sort of language that's used on here, about killing babies, or suggesting a poster was "distressed" that the number of abortions had gone down!

The point is that some posters here do demonize women who have had abortions, and personally I very much doubt that they would dare use that language to someone's face. But maybe I'm wrong, and they really would ask someone they know why they bothered bringing their baby's remains home, since they had killed and thus obviously didn't care about it anyway (as posted here earlier).

seenitall

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Explain the changeable Islamic position then?



They are tiny minorities in those communities - have you ever actually met one? (yes you might meet homosexuals that dislike some aspects of Gay culture, thats the same as me disliking some aspects of straight culture it doesn't make me hetrophobic! )

These posts are a perfect example of why I think for a view point that there is a subset of the pro-choice wing that are very hypocritical, you pat yourself on the back that your rejecting outdated religious superstitions and reactionary traditionalist culture from a point of logic yet its all about easy point scoring that only appeals to those who already agree with you.



Thats actually an interesting subject, have read a bit about foot binding (because it was a remarkably stable cultural phenomenon for such a long time), ironically much of that motivation was about social betterment - if you didn't bind your daughters feet she had no possibility of a "good" marraige.

Explain the changeable Islamic position? I don't even know what you are on about. How about you explain the glaring discrepancy in rabid pro-life stance when it comes to an implanted embryo, as opposed to not a peep heard when it's one outside the womb, first?

What does the scale of indoctrination have to do with anything? How long is a piece of string? There are actually loads of self-loathing gay people who have been taught that what they are is abominable and a sin. There are unfortunately many women who have been taught that having autonomy of one's own body once you're pregnant, and daring to make choices for yourself is an unspeakable sin. Wrong wrong wrong. It will take a lot of discussion to change that. A lot. You needn't be worrying that late term abortions on demand are coming to a clinic near you any time soon.

Oh so you think I'm all about easy point scoring? Thanks!

Pumpkinseeds

Madison Hundreds Leprechaun wrote: »

Let no one fool you - these children deserve to live as much as anybody else, the circumstances of their conception is never their fault. Please do not let anyone tell you that the mother's selfishness can ever come before the life of an innocent child.

https://lifesite-cache.s3.amazonaws.com/images/made/images/news/sculpture2_645_469_55.jpg

I wish someone put this sculpture in the middle of Dublin.

Ahh, so sweet maybe we can put a little statue of Jesus up instead with an insricption on suffering little children. Yes, I am being sarcastic.

eviltwin

NachoBusiness wrote: »

A "bit" of self confidence? There is difference between someone having a bit of self confidence and them having a downright narcissistic, arrogant and inconsiderate attitude to babies in the womb. Saying a woman should never feel guilty "whatever" her reason is for having an abortion is nauseating qute frankly. If men could someone get pregnant and carry a woman's child I think you might change your attitude very fast. Can you imagine a man who was five and half months pregnant with a woman's child saying it was his business and his business alone. Women's rights groups would on the streets marching wanting him prosecuted if so much had too many sugars in his fcuking tea whilst carrying the child.



I know many pro-choice women who don't think a woman should have an abortion after 20 weeks and "whatever" her reasons are, she should not feel guilty or need to explain herself.



...



Here you go again speaking about women as if they are always make noble choices. I have no issue with accepting that some men are bad bastards, I am not sure why it is that some women seem to take great exception at the notion that some women a vindictive and selfish.



I think it's callous in the extreme have a belief that women should be able to abort unborn children, specifically late term, no matter their reasoning. I find it barbaric quite honestly and I think pro choice women do to. That's why they hate pro lifers (who I have issues with myself) displaying photos of dissected and dying fetuses.

Oh and I am not sure what you the charge of me supposedly not having empathy for women means as I have stated that I would vote for abortion given the choice. Like I said earlier in the thread, the abortion as a means for birth control crowd always sanctimoniously use the rare cases of where a women's life is at stake to further their cause and here you are doing just that. I have empathy for any women that has trauma in her life, just that I have about zero for those that don't and choose to abort a baby at a stage where it has an excellent chance of life outside of the womb, were it lucky enough to be born premature.



This is cringe worthy in the extreme. You really think people that are anti abortion or anti late term abortions have never interacted with women before, or know women, or have mothers, friends, girlfriends, sisters, female cousins, aunts etc? Women that they know and speak with on these matters and who might have had experiences which have possibly gone on to inform their current beliefs? Is that really too much for you to grasp. Not everyone guy online who disagrees with you is sitting his parents basement, never having had contact with a human female before. That's white knights your thinking of there :P

Seriously though. I have seen similar comments like this before and it's quite odd. People who are anti abortion, or late stage abortions, are just as normal as you are and have just as many friends and family members as you also. You don't have the monopoly on that. It's odd that you would think you do.

You make interesting points there, I don't agree with your view but I respect your position. I know many people who would share your views and I can understand where you are coming from. I take on board what you say about voting for abortion. I'm surprised given your views above that you would but you wouldn't do that if you didn't empathise with people so apologies for my earlier comment.

Electric Sheep

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Explain the changeable Islamic position then?



They are tiny minorities in those communities - have you ever actually met one? (yes you might meet homosexuals that dislike some aspects of Gay culture, thats the same as me disliking some aspects of straight culture it doesn't make me hetrophobic! )

These posts are a perfect example of why I think for a view point that there is a subset of the pro-choice wing that are very hypocritical, you pat yourself on the back that your rejecting outdated religious superstitions and reactionary traditionalist culture from a point of logic yet its all about easy point scoring that only appeals to those who already agree with you.



Thats actually an interesting subject, have read a bit about foot binding (because it was a remarkably stable cultural phenomenon for such a long time), ironically much of that motivation was about social betterment - if you didn't bind your daughters feet she had no possibility of a "good" marraige.

But, as pointed out in the short story ‘A Visit From The Foot Binder’ by Emily Prager, if all the girls were natural footed, the men would have no choice but to marry them anyway.

Electric Sheep

The Golden Miller wrote: »

I think there should be new laws brought into the UK, akin to China (I think it's China), that if a woman wants an abortion that then the father has to also consent to it.

Can a DNA test be performed on a fetus of under 12 weeks' gestation?

The Golden Miller

seenitall wrote: »

Explain the changeable Islamic position? I don't even know what you are on about. How about you explain the glaring discrepancy in rabid pro-life stance when it comes to an implanted embryo, as opposed to not a peep heard when it's one outside the womb, first?

What does the scale of indoctrination have to do with anything? How long is a piece of string? There are actually loads of self-loathing gay people who have been taught that what they are is abominable and a sin. There are unfortunately many women who have been taught that having autonomy of one's own body once you're pregnant, and daring to make choices for yourself is an unspeakable sin. Wrong wrong wrong. It will take a lot of discussion to change that. A lot. You needn't be worrying that late term abortions on demand are coming to a clinic near you any time soon.

Oh so you think I'm all about easy point scoring? Thanks!

When does anybody, in general, try and dispute the autonomy of a woman's body in Ireland? When pregnant, she isn't making a choice for herself, she houses something else, in which 50% also belongs to someone else too. So why should she have the sole decision on getting rid of something that is not her body, and which will have knock on effects to the father who may want to keep it? This nauseating condescending inconsiderate high and mighty selfish "my body" sh!te is what annoys most pro-life campaigners and people in general, and sounds like something a hardcore feminist would come out with. The fact you're trying to compare a pregnancy with woman as second class citizens is pathetic and disingenuous in the extreme

inocybe

Electric Sheep wrote: »

Can a DNA test be performed on a fetus of under 12 weeks' gestation?

It would carry a risk of miscarriage, a bit self-defeating?

Kiwi in IE

The Golden Miller wrote: »

It's not only her body anymore

So who do you think should have the power to make legal/medical decisions about a woman's body while she is pregnant then?

Since it is 'not only her body anymore', do you think that she should have to seek someone else's permission to make other decisions that may affect the foetus? I'm not just talking about abortion here. Should there be legal restrictions put on other things that may affect the foetus, such as food/drink/activities/medical decisions while a woman is pregnant?

Who do you think should make such decisions?

The Golden Miller

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

So who do you think should have the power to make legal/medical decisions about a woman's body while she is pregnant then?

Since it is 'not only her body anymore', do you think that she should have to seek someone else's permission to make other decisions that may affect the foetus? I'm not just talking about abortion here. Should there be legal restrictions put on other things that may affect the foetus, such as food/drink/activities/medical decisions while a woman is pregnant?

Who do you think should make such decisions?

The man and the woman together

Electric Sheep

inocybe wrote: »

It would carry a risk of miscarriage, a bit self-defeating?

But it CAN be done? That is interesting! I thought it could not be done until the fetus or baby was outside the womb, whether through birth or miscarriage.