Abortions for 3,735, minature flags for nobody

Penny Tration

ChristianBale wrote: »

I think your over the top defensiveness reveals that deep down you know it's wrong and selfish to abort a fetus during the 2nd or 3rd trimester.

Lol, I know it's wrong? Nope.

I disagree with abortions past 24 weeks, except in FFA cases, and I personally would not have one past 16 weeks.

I still don't agree with it being called a child in this instance.

Those who call it a baby or a child when pregnant are those who WANT the end product of the pregnancy, so leave them to it.

lazygal

ChristianBale wrote: »

For a start the longer the pregnancy goes on the closer the fetus gets to feeling pain and suffering. it is selfish and immoral because you are essentially placing more value on your own convenience than the life of the unborn child. A life form which you had control over creating. A lifeforms which had no say in the matter, it didn't ask to be created. The mother had a choice, the unborn child did not.

So, just to be clear, you've no problem calling women who kill the unborn selfish and immoral but only if they have an abortion for reason of normal circumstance.after 12 weeks. Nice to hear a pro choice view. And what is the relevance of convenience? Have you been pregnant and had a baby? It's nine months of major inconvenience and afterward isn't a walk in the park either. But at least women who.might die or get to abort before 12 weeks aren't being selfish and immoral.

traprunner

ChristianBale wrote: »

Convenience is relevant to the moral question being debated.

I'm male, therefore I haven't been pregnant.

The unborn child should not be a disposable entity in my opinion, it is immoral.

How would you feel if you couldn't get the snip, circumcision, piercing, tattoo or even an arm amputated if needed or wanted because a woman said you can't?

It still seems to be a lot of men trying to control women. Every where I meet people who are pro-whatMayBePotentialLife the vast majority are men.

Penny Tration

ChristianBale wrote: »

Why is it men saying women can't have abortions? It's not, it's law.

It's law that was decided upon by people who, at this point in time, will never have to face an unwanted pregnancy.

People who DO risk facing one at this present time, should get a say.

lazygal

ChristianBale wrote: »

Convenience is relevant to the moral question being debated.

I'm male, therefore I haven't been pregnant.

The unborn child should not be a disposable entity in my opinion, it is immoral.

But it's ok to.dispose of the unborn before 12 weeks gestation, where there's a ffa or where the woman might die.

Penny Tration

ChristianBale wrote: »

The people who made murder illegal will never have to face being murdered either.

Yes, but that has nothing to do with abortion.

traprunner

ChristianBale wrote: »

Why is it men saying women can't have abortions? It's not, it's law.

Most of the people against the 8th amendment appear to be men. That was my point. However you didn't answer my question about if women tried to control you and how you would feel!

NI24

traprunner wrote: »

How would you feel if you couldn't get the snip, circumcision, piercing, tattoo or even an arm amputated if needed or wanted because a woman said you can't?

It still seems to be a lot of men trying to control women. Every where I meet people who are pro-whatMayBePotentialLife the vast majority are men.

With all due respect Trap, I don't think this is an accurate comparison. As far as I know, women are allowed to get their tubes tied, or their private parts "rejuvenated" without male consent. When a fetus, or unborn child is involved, however, things get a little trickier.

Furthermore, are you really sure it's a majority of men who are pro-Life? Whenever I see demonstrations on TV, there are just as many women in the crowds as men.

eviltwin

NI24 wrote: »

With all due respect Trap, I don't think this is an accurate comparison. As far as I know, women are allowed to get their tubes tied, or their private parts "rejuvenated" without male consent. When a fetus, or unborn child is involved, however, things get a little trickier.

Furthermore, are you really sure it's a majority of men who are pro-Life? Whenever I see demonstrations on TV, there are just as many women in the crowds as men.

Most of the worst aspects of the pro life movement are female.

NachoBusiness

traprunner wrote: »

How would you feel if you couldn't get the snip, circumcision, piercing, tattoo or even an arm amputated if needed or wanted because a woman said you can't?

It still seems to be a lot of men trying to control women. Every where I meet people who are pro-whatMayBePotentialLife the vast majority are men.

What an absurd analogy. Quit playing the martyr. Men are not trying to control women. Stop listening to feminists. Were women banned from voting in the last referendum or something? This attitude just shows how out of touch many women are on this issue with regards to why people have an problem with abortions taking place and no doubt the next time we have a referendum on the issue we will have to put up with nonsense arguments like the above on an hourly basis.

Bubbaclaus

A "pro-lifer" came up to me before asking me to sign some petition of some sort. I asked her who's life was she pro. She didn't appreciate the question.

NachoBusiness

lazygal wrote: »

Have you been pregnant and had a baby? It's nine months of major inconvenience and afterward isn't a walk in the park either.]

Nothing in life is a walk in the park. It's life, but at least you have one and someone didn't abort you. It's a major inconvenience to have your life ended when you are two thirds way through your development. When you can move your arms, legs and respond to outside stimuli. It's a major inconvenience to have your heartbeat stopped.

Were I living in the UK with my 22 week gone pregnant girlfriend, and we both wanted to end the pregnancy and on the way to the abortion clinic she goes into labour and the baby gets hooked up to an incubator, we could not get the doctors to let that baby die. If I took the baby out of incubator, I would be done for murder. Yet, the abortionist who would take life from that baby at the very stage had my g/f not gone into labour, would not. Why? Why is the life of developing human babies only recognized if and when they are lucky enough to be born premature and if not, to hell with them. It's wrong. It's sickening and late term abortions should be illegal.

Again, I am speaking only of nontherapeutic abortions.

rainbow kirby

^ No hospital will resuscitate at 19 weeks, considering that the earliest known surving premature baby was born at 21 weeks, and survival at 23 weeks or earlier is very rare.

K-9

traprunner wrote: »

How would you feel if you couldn't get the snip, circumcision, piercing, tattoo or even an arm amputated if needed or wanted because a woman said you can't?

It still seems to be a lot of men trying to control women. Every where I meet people who are pro-whatMayBePotentialLife the vast majority are men.

It isn't a subject that comes up often with me, can't remember getting asked recently, like in the last 20 years anyway.


Often people will just agree, or say nothing in particular to the more ardent people on both sides of the debate. The polite and safest thing to do!

volchitsa

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Nothing in life is a walk in the park. It's life, but at least you have one and someone didn't abort you. It's a major inconvenience to have your life ended when you are two thirds way through your development. When you can move your arms, legs and respond to outside stimuli. It's a major inconvenience to have your heartbeat stopped.

Were I living in the UK with my 19 week gone pregnant girlfriend, and we both wanted to end the pregnancy and on the way to the abortion clinic she goes into labour and the baby gets hooked up to an incubator, we could not get the doctors to let that baby die. If I took the baby out of incubator, I would be done for murder. Yet, the abortionist who would take life from that baby at the very stage had my g/f not gone into labour, would not. Why? Why is the life of developing human babies only recognized if and when they are lucky enough to be born premature and if not, to hell with them. It's wrong. It's sickening and late term abortions should be illegal.

Again, I am speaking only of nontherapeutic abortions.

This is complete nonsense. First. A newborn baby is far from fully developed, so a 15 or even 19 week fetus is nowhere near 1/2 way to full development, never mind 2/3 as you claim.

Second, even in Ireland, babies born below 23 weeks are not usually resuscitated against the will of their parents, precisely because of the very poor outlook such babies face. And afaik there are no confirmed cases of 19 week babies surviving for very long anywhere. Many of the very premature babies who do survive (generally with some degree of disability) are often ones whose term was unsure, because the mother got little or no prenatal care.

Pumpkinseeds

NachoBusiness wrote: »

It's the body that would be growing inside you that would concern me and others. What's with all this my body nonsense. Don't you get that yet? Nobody would care what you chose to do with *your body* once it didn't endanger the life of the one growing inside you. A woman is not her child. It's also a bit rich for some women to say "it's my body, I get to choose" when at the very same time they are considering making a life or death choice to destroy the body of their child living within them.

There you go again, that kind of logic may need some kind of professional counselling. It's creepy that you believe that women should be forced to take second place to a foetus. Typical of pro life people that they don't give a crap about the suffering of a woman so long as she's forced to have a baby she doesn't want. Of course the flip side of that is that most pro lifers don't actually give a fcuk what kind of life that child will have once it's born. But hey, every life matters right.

Penny Tration

ChristianBale wrote: »

I'm already being put under control by your definitions, the state won't allow me to kill myself.

There isn't a single government body who could stop you if you chose to kill yourself right now.

It is illegal to travel for the purposes of euthanasia.

It is not illegal to take a blade to your wrists, put a noose around your neck, take 50 paracetamol washed down with whiskey, etc.

NachoBusiness

volchitsa wrote: »

This is complete nonsense. First. A newborn baby is far from fully developed, so a 15 or even 19 week fetus is nowhere near 1/2 way to full development, never mind 2/3 as you claim.

24 weeks is the legal limit in the UK. That's pretty damn close to two thirds in anyone's book.

Second, even in Ireland, babies born below 23 weeks are not usually resuscitated against the will of their parents, precisely because of the very poor outlook such babies face. And afaik there are no confirmed cases of 19 week babies surviving for very long anywhere. Many of the very premature babies who do survive (generally with some degree of disability) are often ones whose term was unsure, because the mother got little or no prenatal care.

You have totally avoided the point I was making, so I will make it again.

Babies have survived in the UK at 22 weeks and so I'll will make my point again, maybe you could address it:

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Were I living in the UK with my 22 week gone pregnant girlfriend, and we both wanted to end the pregnancy and on the way to the abortion clinic she goes into labour and the baby gets hooked up to an incubator, we could not get the doctors to let that baby die. If I took the baby out of incubator, I would be done for murder. Yet, the abortionist who would take life from that baby at the very same stage, would not. Why? Why is the life of developing human babies only recognized if and when they are lucky enough to be born premature and if not, to hell with them.

NachoBusiness

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

There you go again, that kind of logic may need some kind of professional counselling. It's creepy that you believe that women should be forced to take second place to a foetus.

I have stated many times now that I believe in, and would vote for, therapeutic abortions and so can you please point out where I have said a woman should take "second place to a fetus". Her lifestyle, sure but not her.

Typical of pro life people that they don't give a crap about the suffering of a woman so long as she's forced to have a baby she doesn't want. Of course the flip side of that is that most pro lifers don't actually give a fcuk what kind of life that child will have once it's born. But hey, every life matters right.

So, I don't care about the life of living children now?

Oh and I don't think pro lifers would appreciate you referring to me one, as I support first trimester abortions.

Penny Tration

ChristianBale wrote: »

There isn't a single government body who could stop a woman from hitting herself repeatedly in the stomach until the fetus dies or ingesting enough chemicals to kill the fetus.

Which has what exactly to do with you claiming the government stop you from committing suicide?

Samaris

Just to raise a minor point here, but I think most people in this current conversation are actually fairly close in their gut beliefs as regards early trimester abortions, which, realistically, is by far the most likely form of abortion to be carried out. In Ireland, it is also the absolute most liberal outcome also even remotely likely.

Either way, I think most of us can get together on the current confused state of affairs being less than helpful to anyone, particularly the draconian rules laid down regarding circumstances for current abortions (technically if the life of the mother is in danger, in practical terms, sometimes not even then, as so tragically shown in the case of Mrs. Halappanavar, and mere danger of morbidity or long-term damage is not considered a strong enough reason. I think we can generally get behind that being a bit of a glaring hole in our legal system?)

There is no absolute right and absolute wrong in this case. Both pro-life and pro-choice -do- have very valid arguments under the general reasonings of how laws work (rights to individuals), however we choose to consider fetuses and zygotes and where life begins.

Overall, it is probably unfair to say that pro-lifers don't care about the lives and well-being of women OR that pro-choicers don't care about the lives and well-being of babies or children. One -can- argue these things if one wishes, but I don't see it being particularly helpful to a strongly emotive topic.

volchitsa

NachoBusiness wrote: »

24 weeks is the legal limit in the UK. That's pretty damn close to two thirds in anyone's book.

You have totally avoided the point I was making, so I will make it again.

Babies have survived in the UK at 22 weeks and so I'll will make my point again, maybe you could address it:

It's two thirds of a pregnancy, not 2/3 of a child's development which was what you claimed. The confusion you make between the fetus and the baby is the cause not only of your glaring errors in embryology and pregnancy but also of your misunderstanding of the issues surrounding pregnancy termination.

Again, you've rather dishonestly modified your original point (dishonestly because you went back and changed a material point without acknowledging that) - you said 19 weeks and my reply was to that.

You can't expect me to reply to a post you haven't yet made - so again, pretty dishonest of you.

So let's take your new point, about 22 weeks, and even there you are still at least partly wrong. It's true that you can't unilaterally decide to kill the child, but in reality a 22 week fetus will not be resuscitated without parents and doctors agreeing that this is the best decision.

As for why you (or your girlfriend, since she is the only one who could theoretically decide to abort at that stage) can't kill the child you were about to abort, the reason is that the law has to fix time limits, and these are somewhat arbitrary.

A boy of 17yrs 11 months and 28 days can't vote, but one who is a week older can. So what does that prove? Nothing.

The official age of a premature child isn't counted according to its time since conception, but its time since birth, even if that was only 22 weeks. The fact of being born changes the child's rights. So your point is still entirely nonsensical, despite your sneaky attempt at rewriting it without admitting you'd done so.

Penny Tration

ChristianBale wrote: »

It's a counter argument to the point that women don't have control over their bodies because they can't get an abortion. Women do have complete control over their bodies, at least to the same extent that men do.

When it comes to pregnancy and birth, no they do not.

Men can walk away once they've shot their load - we all know of plenty of deadbeat fathers who pay no maintenance, even when court ordered.

Men can turn their back on the result of the intercourse - women cannot.

NachoBusiness

volchitsa wrote: »

It's two thirds of a pregnancy, not 2/3 of a child's development which was what you claimed. The confusion you make between the fetus and the baby is the cause not only of your glaring errors in embryology and pregnancy but also of your misunderstanding of the issues surrounding pregnancy termination.

Okay, two thirds way through pregnancy.

Again, you've rather dishonestly modified your original point (dishonestly because you went back and changed a material point without acknowledging that) - you said 19 weeks and my reply was to that.

Ha. You know damn well that my point was regrading the fact that you could freely abort an unborn child at an age where it could survive were they lucky enough to be born premature and you could easily have addressed that point (while still saying what you wanted to) rather than semantically dragging it out for nit picking sake. As for being dishonest, would you get up the garden, I said I was going to make the point again and that is what I did. I was hardly going to use the same number of bloody number of weeks again. What would be the point in that. I also even edited the original post and put 'clarity' as the reason for editing.

You can't expect me to reply to a post you haven't yet made - so again, pretty dishonest of you.

Eh, I didn't..

So let's take your new point, about 22 weeks, and even there you are still at least partly wrong. It's true that you can't unilaterally decide to kill the child, but in reality a 22 week fetus will not be resuscitated without parents and doctors agreeing that this is the best decision.

I never said anyone could but it makes no difference to the point being made in any case. Zero.

As for why you (or your girlfriend, since she is the only one who could theoretically decide to abort at that stage) can't kill the child you were about to abort, the reason is that the law has to fix time limits, and these are somewhat arbitrary.

A boy of 17yrs 11 months and 28 days can't vote, but one who is a week older can. So what does that prove? Nothing.

The official age of a premature child isn't counted according to its time since conception, but its time since birth, even if that was only 22 weeks. The fact of being born changes the child's rights. So your point is still entirely nonsensical, despite your sneaky attempt at rewriting it without admitting you'd done so.

What unadulterated waffle. Yet again you have totally avoided dealing with the central point yet again. You are indulging in deliberate semantics here and you know well you are, and all to avoid having to deal with my point which of course is that: if a man (or woman) killed their child which was hooked up to an incubator, after having been born earlier that day while on the way to abortion clinic, they would be charged with murder.

You see, you are defining the worth of an unborn child's life based on whether or not it is still attached to the umbilical cord and that is absurd. An unborn child should mean far more than that.

volchitsa

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Okay, two thirds way through pregnancy.

Ha. You know damn well that my point was regrading the fact that you could freely abort an unborn child at an age where it could survive were they lucky enough to be born premature and you could easily have addressed that point rather (while still saying what you wanted to) rather than semantically dragging it out for nit picking sake. As for being dishonest, would you get up the garden, I said I was going to make the point again and that is what I did. I was hardly going to make it again with the same number bloody number of weeks. I even edited the original post and put 'clarity' as the reason for editing.

Eh, I didn't..

I never said you anyone could but it makes no difference to the point being made in any case. Zero.

What unadulterated waffle. Yet again you have totally avoided dealing with the central point yet again. You are indulging in deliberate semantics here and you know well you are, and all to avoid having to deal with my point which of course is that: if a man (or woman) killed their child which was hooked up to an incubator, after having been born earlier that day while on the way to abortion clinic, they would be charged with murder.

You see, you are defining the worth of an unborn child's life based on whether or not it is still attached to the umbilical cord and that is absurd. An unborn child should mean far more than that.

You complained that I hadn't replied to your point about 22 weeks, while quoting the post where I replied to the only post I had seen about that, which said 19 weeks. That's dishonest.

When I went back to look, you'd edited it so say 22 and not admitted that you'd got a material fact wrong, because that isn't "clarity", that's changing the content. Dishonest to do so while trying to make it look as though that had been your original point, and then to accuse me of not replying to the modified post which I never saw!

And you've ignored the point that birth, like the fact of reaching 18, changes legal rights. It may be odd to you, but that's how it is. It doesn't invalidate the fact that adults should and do have different rights and obligations to children, it just means there is an element of arbitrariness to the point at which these rights are applied. But birth is a far less arbitrary point than reaching 18, as is evidenced by the fact that a premature child's age is always from the moment he/she was born, never from when they should have been born.

I'm repeating myself and you're still ignoring this in favour of your own misrepresentation of both your and my posts.

If you can't respond to these points, then fine. I'm not going to repeat them again. But next time you make a howler about gestational age or whatever, best just to hold your hands up, eh? Or post a second post while pointing this out to those who replied first time around, so we can reply to the new point.

It saves a lot of aggro.

Samaris

*raises a hand* Sorry Nacho, but you're caught. I saw that 19 weeks too.

Anyway, just to throw a major spoke into this whole thing. Not that many places would give an abortion where the fetus can survive outside the womb. It's a lot more dangerous for everyone involved. I mean, I'm sorry if I'm destroying ideas of babies being ripped from stomachs, their little mouths gasping for breath and all that, but most of those posters you see of graphic "partial birth abortions" are actually of miscarriages or carried out under serious necessity. These are tragedies, and should not be made into a political handbag for the whackings.

Under UK law, an abortion can usually only be carried out during the first 24 weeks of pregnancy as long as certain criteria are met (see below).
The Abortion Act 1967 covers England, Scotland and Wales but not Northern Ireland, and states:
abortions must be carried out in a hospital or a specialist licensed clinic
two doctors must agree that an abortion would cause less damage to a woman's physical or mental health than continuing with the pregnancy

3 - 9 weeks- 77%

10 - 12 weeks - 14%

13 - 19 weeks - 7%

20 weeks and over - 2%

Abortions subsequent to the first trimester or just into the second trimester are pretty unusual, and, by that point, generally are for more serious reasons than changing one's mind.


Anyway, carry on.

Penny Tration

ChristianBale wrote: »

Women can choose to use contraception or not have sex or punch themselves in the stomach to abort a baby. They have as much control over their body as a man. No one stops women having control over their bodies

What has "turning your back on the result of intercourse" have to do with control over one's body?

Men go bald, does that mean they don't have control over their bodies?

Newsflash, women get pregnant, men don't, get over it.

You mean the same way men can choose to use contraception or abstain from sex?

Contraception fails.

Punching oneself in the stomach is self harm. It also does not necessarily end the pregnancy by causing a miscarriage.

Men going bald has absolutely nothing to do with the law preventing a woman from having bodily autonomy.

Seriously, your arguments and strawmen are just ridiculous now.

NachoBusiness

volchitsa wrote: »

You complained that I hadn't replied to your point about 22 weeks, while quoting the post where I replied to the only post I had seen about that, which said 19 weeks. That's dishonest.

When I went back to look, you'd edited it so say 22 and not admitted that you'd got a material point wrong, because that isn't "clarity", that's changing the content. Dishonest to do so while trying to make it look as though that had been your original point, and then to accuse me of not replying to the modified which I never saw!

What are you raving about? You complained about my use of 19 weeks in this post and failed to address my point as you did so. I then replied here and put the point to again changing 19 to 22 and edited my post for clarity. End of story.

And you've ignored the point that birth, like the fact of reaching 18, changes legal rights.

How could my ignoring something which I am, very evidently, complaining about?

It may be odd to you, but that's how it is. It doesn't invalidate the fact that adults should and do have different rights and obligations to children, it just means there is an element of arbitrariness to the point at which these rights are applied. But birth is a far less arbitrary point than reaching 18, as is evidenced by the fact that a premature child's age is always from the moment he/she was born, never from when they should have been born.

I'm repeating myself and you're still ignoring this in favour of your own misrepresent Ailton of both your and my posts.

Far from ignoring your (paper thin) points, I am.. quite specifically addressing them. You suggest birth should be the moment a baby is seen as being an individual worthy of having rights, fine so. I take then that you don't believe Anthony Ruiz should have been charged with the murder of his unborn child and disagree with the jury who found Scott Peterson guilty of second degree murder of his unborn son Conner. Can I ask why?

NachoBusiness

Samaris wrote: »

*raises a hand* Sorry Nacho, but you're caught. I saw that 19 weeks too.

Facepalm.jpg

Do pay attention. I have not said I didn't say 19 weeks, sure the post was quoted here.

I changed 19 to 22 and made it was clear I was doing so.. but sure lets pretend I tried to do it without anyone knowing if it makes you all happy.

Anyway, just to throw a major spoke into this whole thing.

Nothing you posted hasn't already been posted earlier in the thread.

Sorry to disappoint you.

Not a NSA agent

ChristianBale wrote: »

Your have argued that women don't have control over their bodies, I have quite clearly shown that they have as much control over their bodies as men.

Just as gay people had the same right to marry someone of the opposite gender :rolleyes:

Samaris

Sweet how you ignore the incubators that were also killed. That pair of assholes were going down for murder anyway, but in both cases, that the women were pregnant actually seems to have been a motivating factor in their murders.

In the second case, the infant's premature body was actually found a day before the decapitated body of his mother.

In the first case, that is indeed more dubious, but under Roe vs Wade, it is the mother's choice to decide whether or not to keep the foetus for a period of months before the fetus is considered to have a certain "right to life". She had decided to bring it to term, which means the foetus has this right that was not the gunman's to take away. This is American law, and not applicable to Ireland, but alright. Thus, since he committed a crime against the mother, who was sixteen years old, by the way, when she was shot five times having been lured outside by her ex-partner, also resulting in the end of her pregnancy (and her life, but hey to that), he is guilty twice.

This is just one of those rare cases under law where the ending of a life or a potential life is down to a specific set of circumstances.

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Nothing you posted hasn't already been posted earlier in the thread.

Sorry to disappoint you.

Seems to bear repeating then.

As regards the 19-22 thing, your argument was a bit disingenuous, particularly changing the damn post and then making a fuss, but I accept that the specific number wasn't actually the point of your argument.

Samaris

ChristianBale wrote: »

You'll have to elaborate.

For the love of God and little fishes, don't elaborate on it. If we get gay rights into this debate, we may as well just nuke the thread from orbit. The ones who got the joke got it.

Penny Tration

ChristianBale wrote: »

Women have as much control over their bodies as men, to think otherwise is delusional.

Their are some biological differences between men and women, get over it.

Keep going. I'm enjoying this.

NachoBusiness

Samaris wrote: »

Sweet how you ignore the incubators that were also killed. That pair of assholes were going down for murder anyway, but in both cases, that the women were pregnant actually seems to have been a motivating factor in their murders.

In the second case, the infant's premature body was actually found a day before the decapitated body of his mother.

In the first case, that is indeed more dubious, but under Roe vs Wade, it is the mother's choice to decide whether or not to keep the foetus for a period of months before the fetus is considered to have a certain "right to life". She had decided to bring it to term, which means the foetus has this right that was not the gunman's to take away. This is American law, and not applicable to Ireland, but alright. Thus, since he committed a crime against the mother, who was sixteen years old, by the way, when she was shot five times having been lured outside by her ex-partner, also resulting in the end of her pregnancy (and her life, but hey to that), he is guilty twice.

This is just one of those rare cases under law where the ending of a life or a potential life is down to a specific set of circumstances.

What has any of the above got to do with the point being made.

You do relaise I was retorting the notion that suggested that the unborn should not be considered a child until they are born, right? None of what you point out with the above matters a jot in that regard.

I accept that the specific number wasn't actually the point of your argument.

Well that's something I guess. Thank you.

Not a NSA agent

ChristianBale wrote: »

Women have as much control over their bodies as men, to think otherwise is delusional.

Their are some biological differences between men and women, get over it.

Would love to see you deal with a disabled person. Cant get up the stairs because youre in a wheelchair? Get over it.

Thankfully most people are able to realize differences and how to deal with them with something a bit more helpful than telling them "get over it"

Samaris

NachoBusiness wrote: »

What has any of the above got to do with the point being made.

You do relaise I was retorting the notion that suggested that the unborn should not be considered a child until they are born, right? None of what you point out with the above matters a jot in that regard.

Well, absolutely none of it is related in any way to Irish outlook. UK is about the closest we can come to, hence my own mention of abortion figures earlier was about. My point regarding Roe vs Wade was entirely relevant, as it gives you an idea of why the LAW ruled that way. It is certainly a murky ethical point, so we can argue personal opinions until the cows come home, or we can have a look at what the guys that made the relevant laws that occasioned those rulings had to say.

Penny Tration

ChristianBale wrote: »

The fact of the matter is just because you believe abortion of whatever variety is immoral does not mean you don't value womens lives. When weighing up moral decisions some people also choose to value the life of the unborn.

Over the life of the woman.

Not a NSA agent

ChristianBale wrote: »

I never told anyone in a wheelchair to get over it. I'm telling women who can't handle being women to get over it. Don't be a plonker.

maybe you should get over what women do?

Penny Tration

Not a NSA agent wrote: »

maybe you should get over what women do?

It's my fault for not being able to handle being a woman.

Clearly I should either abstain from sex, or just deal with having lots of unwanted babies.

Samaris

Let's not polarise this more than it has to be. IN GENERAL pro-lifers value the lives of women and the unborn, and so far most people in this thread seem to be willing to accept a certain compromise in the first trimester.

IN GENERAL pro-choice value the lives of women and the unborn once they are at a certain stage - most of us don't seem to really want late-term abortions either.

IN GENERAL UK abortion numbers are, in the vast majority, in the first nine weeks, with a steady drop-off after twelve. Later abortions tend to be for fairly serious reasons.

The Irish system is really somewhat buggered and could do with sorting out.

Yeah, I'm repeating myself, but tbh, so is this thread.

YurOK2

It's the same old shíte everytime this debate comes up.
It's very simple, every woman in the world should be able to access abortion services without any terms and conditions attached to same, without having to leave their home country, without needing access to excessive amounts of money.

Right now, there may well be a woman travelling home to Ireland after travelling to the UK to access abortion services. In fact, after reading recent reports and studies on the matter, I'd go so far as to say that right now there is a woman travelling home to Ireland after travelling to the UK to access abortion services.
Put yourself in her shoes.
She is in a relationship. They use contraception and she is so careful with her pill but you always hear it's only 99% effective and they feel so unlucky to be in that 1%.
She is working but her boyfriend is in college, they're renting a tiny flat, and they just can't afford to have a baby right now. She and her boyfriend want to do things right, wait until they can afford to give a good life to a baby so they decide that they want to have an abortion.
They have NO SUPPORT while they come to their decision. They have NO SUPPORT while they research how to go about arranging to have an abortion. They do some research and even though it's very difficult to find all the information they need, they eventually manage to organise everything.
They want to have the abortion as early as possible because she doesn't want to start showing but it's expensive travelling over to England and money is tight as only one of them is working so they end up having to wait a few weeks while they get the money together.
In the meantime, their lives are in emotional turmoil and they have NO SUPPORT to deal with what they are going through.
They are afraid to tell family and friends because they don't want to face the judgment of people who may not agree with their choice.
She has to arrange time off work and deflect questions about it being a break away with her boyfriend, where are they staying, what sightseeing they're going to do and all the inevitable questions workmates ask. She has to hold everything in and it's difficult.
Her boyfriend can't go with her because it would mean missing an important exam in college so she makes the arrangements to travel over on her own.
She arranges to travel over on a Ryanair flight on a Friday afternoon. She sits in the airport surrounded by jubilant travellers, hen parties, couples going on romantic weekends away and families.
She feels dead inside but tries to keep her head together, she has a long weekend ahead of her. Travelling is difficult even on a good day and she's tired and feeling very raw.
She's never been to the destination city before, in all her life, she never thought her first visit to it would be to have an abortion.
She uses public transport while she is there because she doesn't want to get into small talk with a taxi driver, afraid that her secret will spill out.
She attends the clinic and that evening returns to her hotel room, alone. She speaks to her boyfriend on the phone, they cry a lot. He regrets not going with her, tells her he couldn't concentrate during the exam anyway but it's too late for that now. Neither of them sleep that night.
The next morning she wakes up and there's been a complication, she's in a lot of pain and thinks something has gone wrong. She has to reattend the clinic, feeling panicked and so isolated with nobody who can come with her to the clinic for support.
She books into the hotel for a second night and changes her flight, which costs more money but she has no choice. The money is the least of her worries though, she's terrified and so alone.
The staff at the clinic are so nice but there's only so much they can do for her. After a few hours they send her back to her hotel. Another long tearful phone call with her boyfriend, another sleepless night.
The following day she goes back to the clinic, she is examined and they confirm the procedure is complete. She goes back to her hotel to check out and go to the airport.
It's a Sunday evening, the airport is really busy. She sees some of the same people who were on the same flight as her on the way over. She sees a flicker of recognition in some of their eyes and silently hopes that they don't speak to her.
The couple who were sitting in the seats beside her on the way over sit down next to her while they wait for the flight. They start chatting to her, asking her did she see this and that, where did she stay, she lies and lies and lies, hoping she is convincing and then repeatedly tells them that she's really tired, hoping that puts them off trying to talk to her on the plane. Thankfully they take the hint and when she sits down on the plane she puts in her earphones and closes her eyes, if only to keep in the tears.
When she arrives back in Ireland, after the longest weekend of her life, her boyfriend is waiting for her at the gate. They escape from the airport as quickly as they can and go to their car, where they cry for what feels like forever.
The next day, Monday, she has to get up at 7am, get ready for work and get back to life acting like everything is normal.
While she and her boyfriend get over what they have been through they have NO SUPPORT.
Do people think that this is fair?

This is just an example of LOADS of reasons why women get abortions. Nobody else should get to decide what constitutes the right reason for an abortion.
There are so many people who seem to think that only slutty women, who can't keep their legs closed and are too stupid to understand contraception, have abortions.
No matter what the reason, it is not easy, it is not easy to make the decision, it is not easy to go through the procedure and it is not easy to deal with the aftermath and this is made all the more difficult by having to travel out of your home country to access abortion services and receiving NO SUPPORT while you go through this life changing event.

NachoBusiness

Samaris wrote: »

It is certainly a murky ethical point, so we can argue personal opinions until the cows come home, or we can have a look at what the guys that made the relevant laws that occasioned those rulings had to say.

What difference does it make why they made their laws. If it was for a reason which you agree with, make that point here on the thread yourself. I am arguing from my standpoint, not endorsing someone else's.

Look, the user (and many people) seem to be of the opinion that the life of the unborn should not legally be protected as much as the life of a child that has been born. To them there is zero moral contradiction between someone legally being able to destroy an unborn child at 9am and someone getting charged with killing that same child (now in incubation) at 2pm. To me that is absurd. The cutting of an umbilical cord should not define when the life of the unborn begins. If it is morally reprehensible to kill a child in incubation, then it should be morally reprehensible to destroy the unborn child also. Particularly late stage second trimester. The need for therapeutic abortions aside.

YurOK2

YurOK2 wrote: »

Do people think that this is fair?
.

No it's extremely unfair. Extremely unfair on the child that was denied a chance at life because it's parents deduced their lives would be better without it.

If she wanted support do the right thing, keep her baby and avail of all the support available to pregnant woman along with the support of family and friends.

Lifestyle choice abortions are disgusting.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Fred Swanson

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It is very much to do with you and me what is allowed to happen in our country.

Maybe we should legalise murder, sure what effect do random people killing each other have on me or you.

Samaris

Edit: Actually, never mind.

hynesie08

Yadiel Nutritious Apartment wrote: »

It is very much to do with you and me what is allowed to happen in our country.

It's none of your business, and unless someone has told you they've had one, it'll never be your business.

Maybe we should legalise murder, sure what effect do random people killing each other have on me or you.

If a dozen people a day were travelling to the UK to legally kill someone, that might be an argument, as it is these women are having abortions anyway, your opinion isn't gonna change that.

hynesie08

Rioja55 wrote: »

How the morals of our country is legislated is very much everyone's business. Do you think it isn't your business if theft is made legal?

Laws and morals aren't the same thing, if theft was made legal tomorrow most people still wouldn't steal because they have decided that it's not appropriate. Similarly if abortion is made legal the women having them will continue to and the women who don't believe In them won't.

Just because you would be incapable of making decisions without law doesn't mean everyone would.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Penny Tration

Yadiel Nutritious Apartment wrote: »

It is very much to do with you and me what is allowed to happen in our country.

It has absolutely nothing to do with you, it has no effect on you and it's none of your business unless your girlfriend decides she wants an abortion.