Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

lazygal

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

I don't know, I'm afraid. I will read up on this issue.

If it is what I think it is, then I could probably understand the need to terminate the pregnancy, yes. I do not claim to be an expert on pregnancy or any medical matters. All I've tried to do is explain why I feel the way I do.

I would deliberately steer away from the use of such words as "abhorrent".

Ectopic pregnancy is where an innocent baby implants in a fallopian tube. Is it ok to end the life of such innocent babies?

lazygal

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

I'm afraid that I believe that the unborn child has a right to life. So the decision to abort this child is not just a decision that affects the mother and I would suggest that the ending of this child's life has a serious impact on the child. Who is there to defend the child's rights?

How exactly should the state protect the rights of unborn children? Compulsory pregnancy tests for women every month to ensure those who are pregnant are known and requirements to eat properly and not drink or smoke? Preventing pregnant women from travelling? Detention of pregnant women to ensure they don't try to administer abortions themselves?

Cabaal

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

I'm afraid that I believe that the unborn child has a right to life. So the decision to abort this child is not just a decision that affects the mother and I would suggest that the ending of this child's life has a serious impact on the child. Who is there to defend the child's rights?

You are,
Now, would you like to see pregnant women trying to travel to avail of abortions banned from traveling?

Delirium

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

I'm afraid that I believe that the unborn child has a right to life. So the decision to abort this child is not just a decision that affects the mother and I would suggest that the ending of this child's life has a serious impact on the child. Who is there to defend the child's rights?

What rights does the foetus have? Where are these enumerated?

At what stage of the pregnancy does the foetus receive these rights?

Ragnar Lothbrok

lazygal wrote: »

Ectopic pregnancy is where an innocent baby implants in a fallopian tube. Is it ok to end the life of such innocent babies?

See my previous reply, which you've quoted. I will need to understand the issue much better than I do, and I can't just answer a straight yes or no right now.

I'm not some anti abortion fanatic, sometimes the activities and declarations of those who are strongly opposed to abortion embarrass me, although in general I agree with them on the main issue.

I would never condemn any individual woman for choosing to have an abortion if it is available to her and that's her choice. However, I do believe abortion shouldn't be available (despite my lack of knowledge regarding ectopic pregnancies).

Ragnar Lothbrok

Cabaal wrote: »

You are,
Now, would you like to see pregnant women trying to travel to avail of abortions banned from traveling?

In an ideal world, I would prefer that the woman would not need to travel because either:

a) She would receive all the support necessary to continue with the pregnancy, or
b) There would be nowhere to travel to, as I would like to see abortion not available anywhere.

(I did qualify the above by stating in an "ideal world".)

Real world: A woman will travel for an abortion. I don't like the idea, but I wouldn't criminalise her for doing so.

I would prefer that she had the financial and social support here so that she wouldn't feel the need to travel for an abortion.

eviltwin

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

In an ideal world, I would prefer that the woman would not need to travel because either:

a) She would receive all the support necessary to continue with the pregnancy, or
b) There would be nowhere to travel to, as I would like to see abortion not available anywhere.

(I did qualify the above by stating in an "ideal world".)

Real world: A woman will travel for an abortion. I don't like the idea, but I wouldn't criminalise her for doing so.

I would prefer that she had the financial and social support here so that she wouldn't feel the need to travel for an abortion.

That's very patronising. It's implies abortion happens because it's the only option, that if the woman had the money, support etc she would keep going with the pregnancy. Women have abortions for all sorts of reasons mainly because they don't want to be pregnant. The banning of abortion will not stop it happening, it just means desperate women will take matters into their own hands.

volchitsa

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

lazygal wrote: »

Ectopic pregnancy is where an innocent baby implants in a fallopian tube. Is it ok to end the life of such innocent babies?

See my previous reply, which you've quoted. I will need to understand the issue much better than I do, and I can't just answer a straight yes or no right now.

I'm not some anti abortion fanatic, sometimes the activities and declarations of those who are strongly opposed to abortion embarrass me, although in general I agree with them on the main issue.

I would never condemn any individual woman for choosing to have an abortion if it is available to her and that's her choice. However, I do believe abortion shouldn't be available (despite my lack of knowledge regarding ectopic pregnancies).

Shouldnt this acknowledgment of your own level of ignorance of the issues involved tell you that perhaps you are just not well enough informed to have an opinion on the subject?

What is it about women's bodies that makes every Tom Dick and Harry think he has the right to decide whether or not she should be allowed certain medical treatments?

An untreated ectopic pregnancy is almost certain death for the woman. The only treatment is to end the pregnancy i.e. kill the "baby".

Yet by your reckoning that baby is as entitled to life as any other, I mean, when else are you allowed to kill someone innocent just to save someone else's life? Could I kill you if I needed your heart and lungs? I suspect not.

So if you're going treat a pregnancy as "a baby" right from the word go, then women are going to die. Are you prepared to accept that, and if you aren't, then all you're doing is enforcing your views on when it's acceptable to end the pregnancy on the pregnant woman. Surely she should be the one to decide that?

Delirium

Strange notion of an "ideal world" where you'd compel women to carry a pregnancy against their wishes.

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

In an ideal world, I would prefer that the woman would not need to travel because either:

a) She would receive all the support necessary to continue with the pregnancy, or
b) There would be nowhere to travel to, as I would like to see abortion not available anywhere.

(I did qualify the above by stating in an "ideal world".)

Real world: A woman will travel for an abortion. I don't like the idea, but I wouldn't criminalise her for doing so.

I would prefer that she had the financial and social support here so that she wouldn't feel the need to travel for an abortion.

But you don't support allowing for abortion here

lazygal

There's many circumstances in which I'd have an abortion despite all the "supports" in the world to sway me otherwise.

Mark Hamill

Ragnar, your opinion on abortion seems to be just in relation to otherwise healthy fetuses aborted by otherwise healthy women but what is your opinion on the following:

1) Abortion of brain dead fetus.
2) Abortion in case of microcephaly (condition that can result from zika virus)?
3) Abortion of fetus that will not survive outside the womb.
4) Abortion in the case of rape.
5) Abortion in the case of rape of a young child who would have to have a c-section birth because of their size (case in Paraguay)
6) Otherwise healthy mother/fetus having abortion because mother has many kids already and cannot afford more.

Mark Hamill

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

Real world: A woman will travel for an abortion. I don't like the idea, but I wouldn't criminalise her for doing so.

If all abortion was banned in the way you want, would you want her criminalised for travelling then? What about if she procured the means of abortion without travelling?

oscarBravo

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

I'm afraid that I believe that the unborn child has a right to life.

Again, that's a belief that you're perfectly entitled to have, which isn't the same thing as being entitled to impose the consequences of that belief on someone other than yourself.

You brought up Nazi and ISIS analogies. Young girls are captured by ISIS and given as sex slaves to ISIS fighters, who apparently see it as a holy duty to rape and impregnate them. Their beliefs tell them that this isn't rape; it's a religious obligation. It's unfortunate that these girls become pregnant as a result of this, but that's just a consequence of the men acting on their beliefs.

It doesn't matter how repugnant we think this is: they have a belief, and the fact that someone else is carrying an unwanted pregnancy as a result of that belief is just something they'll have to live with.

Now, I'm not equating your pro-life stance with ISIS either - but I'll reiterate my point that your personal beliefs don't entitle you to deny someone else the right to choose not to be pregnant.

Absolam

lazygal wrote: »

Ectopic pregnancy is where an innocent baby implants in a fallopian tube. Is it ok to end the life of such innocent babies?

Given that such pregnancies almost invariably threaten the life of the mother, whose death will result in the death of the child, there probably aren't many who'd argue two deaths are better than one, wouldn't you think?

lazygal wrote: »

How exactly should the state protect the rights of unborn children? Compulsory pregnancy tests for women every month to ensure those who are pregnant are known and requirements to eat properly and not drink or smoke? Preventing pregnant women from travelling? Detention of pregnant women to ensure they don't try to administer abortions themselves?

I'd say by passing legislation to make an offence to intentionally destroy unborn human life, like the State has.

Cabaal wrote: »

Now, would you like to see pregnant women trying to travel to avail of abortions banned from traveling?

Isn't it amazing that once again it's those who are pro-abortion proposing this? It's like a little mantra

Delirium wrote: »

What rights does the foetus have? Where are these enumerated? At what stage of the pregnancy does the foetus receive these rights?

Just the one which is the right to life, in the Constitution, and on implantation. I bet you know all those answers already though, just from reading this thread. So the purpose of asking is.....?

eviltwin wrote: »

That's very patronising. It's implies abortion happens because it's the only option, that if the woman had the money, support etc she would keep going with the pregnancy. Women have abortions for all sorts of reasons mainly because they don't want to be pregnant. The banning of abortion will not stop it happening, it just means desperate women will take matters into their own hands.

Rather than assuming he's being patronising based on what you think is being implied, you could just take him at his word; after all he certainly has not claimed that banning abortion will stop it happening. Though I don't think it's patronising at all to point out that banning it in Ireland is highly likely to be reducing the amount of abortions that happen in Ireland.

volchitsa wrote: »

Shouldnt this acknowledgment of your own level of ignorance of the issues involved tell you that perhaps you are just not well enough informed to have an opinion on the subject?

Surely people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones? Or have you given up offering opinions on legal actions by the State?

volchitsa wrote: »

What is it about women's bodies that makes every Tom Dick and Harry think he has the right to decide whether or not she should be allowed certain medical treatments?

I'm going to say it's the body of the other person inside their's that will die if they are given certain medical treatments.

volchitsa wrote: »

An untreated ectopic pregnancy is almost certain death for the woman. The only treatment is to end the pregnancy i.e. kill the "baby". Yet by your reckoning that baby is as entitled to life as any other, I mean, when else are you allowed to kill someone innocent just to save someone else's life? Could I kill you if I needed your heart and lungs? I suspect not.

I reckon you won't find anyone who has been convicted of murder for killing someone who was going to die in order to save the life of someone else. Even a conviction for manslaughter would be interesting to see...

volchitsa wrote: »

So if you're going treat a pregnancy as "a baby" right from the word go, then women are going to die. Are you prepared to accept that, and if you aren't, then all you're doing is enforcing your views on when it's acceptable to end the pregnancy on the pregnant woman. Surely she should be the one to decide that?

Women and babies are going to die; I bet you can't produce an iota of evidence that introducing abortion on demand would suddenly result in a massive reduction of maternal deaths in Ireland, so lets not pretend his opinion somehow puts blood on his hands. But I reckon the introduction of abortion on demand would very likely cause the deaths of unborn children in Ireland to increase significantly. Don't you?

Delirium wrote: »

Strange notion of an "ideal world" where you'd compel women to carry a pregnancy against their wishes. But you don't support allowing for abortion here

I could be wrong, but I think his notion of an 'ideal world' is one in which unborn children aren't killed anywhere, and women feel sufficiently supported to continue pregnancies they might otherwise wish to have terminated (by killing the unborn child, for the purpose of avoiding such confusion as some posters like to introduce at the use of that term).

lazygal wrote: »

There's many circumstances in which I'd have an abortion despite all the "supports" in the world to sway me otherwise.

I think that there are probably people who would not support enabling you to do so, even to the degree of preventing you from doing so, in many of those circumstances, if perhaps not all. Like some of the posters on this thread.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

If all abortion was banned in the way you want, would you want her criminalised for travelling then? What about if she procured the means of abortion without travelling?

I think Ragnar said "I would like to see abortion not available anywhere", so if it were banned in the way he wanted there would be no reason to want someone to be criminalised for travelling, would there?

Apologies for butting in, but there does seem to be a barrage of posts directed at just the one poster, and whilst I can't speak for Ragnar Lothbroks opinions, I think it's helpful to address some of the more factual bits to allow him to collect his thoughts so as to provide genuine opinion rather than be distracted trying to address the usual nonsense that has been thrown out so very many times before on this thread

Electric Sex Pants

I dont think that anyone here is really saying that abortion where the mothers life is in danger is wrong. The real issue is abortions because of it being an inconvenience to people who made the conscious decision to have sex and now don't want the unexpected pregnancy. I would vote for abortion to be legal, because the fact that we let women die rather than abort a baby is just moronic. However what I disagree with is that there is a trend going around that abortion is not killing an infant human, because that is very much what it is. If you can live with that decision is between you and your morals but people need to stop this crap of its not alive.

Also women seem to think that it should be 100% your choice and "no uterus no opinion". Well I can promise you that you did not get yourself pregnant and the father makes up just as much of the child as you, dont you think that he deserves a say?

Absolam

oscarBravo wrote: »

Again, that's a belief that you're perfectly entitled to have, which isn't the same thing as being entitled to impose the consequences of that belief on someone other than yourself.

I think that's one of the things about living in a democracy though; we all get a say in things (sort of, one way or another) and majority views tend to carry the day. I don't think many pro-choice advocates would complain if a referendum allowed them to impose the consequences of the belief that an unborn child may be killed at the will of a prospective mother on the country, but it would be a similar imposition. No one would be forced to hold that belief, but the consequences would be imposed on the country; prospective mothers could choose to kill their unborn children.

One eyed Jack

oscarBravo wrote: »

Again, that's a belief that you're perfectly entitled to have, which isn't the same thing as being entitled to impose the consequences of that belief on someone other than yourself.

...

Now, I'm not equating your pro-life stance with ISIS either - but I'll reiterate my point that your personal beliefs don't entitle you to deny someone else the right to choose not to be pregnant.

They're not denying anyone the right not to be pregnant, as no such human right actually exists.

Anyone absolutely can impose the consequences of their belief on anyone other than themselves through the Irish Constitution, and they are perfectly entitled as is anyone else as a citizen of Ireland, to use the Constitution to uphold the right to life of the unborn.

That's not anyone personally denying a woman an abortion, that's refusing to support and facilitate and legislate for abortion in this country, and every citizen who is eligible to vote in Ireland has that right.

oscarBravo

Absolam wrote: »

I don't think many pro-choice advocates would complain if a referendum allowed them to impose the consequences of the belief that an unborn child may be killed at the will of a prospective mother on the country, but it would be a similar imposition.

No, it wouldn't.

Pro-life people are imposing their views on people. There's no debate over the question of whether a pregnant woman is a person. The question of whether or not an implanted embryo is a person is far from one of simple fact.

So no: it's not a similar imposition.

No one would be forced to hold that belief, but the consequences would be imposed on the country; prospective mothers could choose to kill their unborn children.

Or, to put it another way, people could choose whether or not to be pregnant. Isn't it reasonable to think that allowing someone to make a choice is less of an imposition than denying them a choice?

oscarBravo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They're not denying anyone the right not to be pregnant, as no such human right actually exists.

That's a pretty patriarchal attitude. It's also one the UN disagrees with.

eviltwin

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They're not denying anyone the right not to be pregnant, as no such human right actually exists.

Anyone absolutely can impose the consequences of their belief on anyone other than themselves through the Irish Constitution, and they are perfectly entitled as is anyone else as a citizen of Ireland, to use the Constitution to uphold the right to life of the unborn.

That's not anyone personally denying a woman an abortion, that's refusing to support and facilitate and legislate for abortion in this country, and every citizen who is eligible to vote in Ireland has that right.

Unfortunately Jack that's exactly what you are doing. It's all very well for you but think of the people personally affected by this. Abortion exists even where it's illegal. You don't stop it, you just push desperate women into dangerous situations. I don't know anyone who wants to see abortion being needed. It's always the goal that every pregnancy is wanted. I'm a realist though and I'd rather see women having legal abortions in safety than risking their lives and liberty taking matters into their own hands.

One eyed Jack

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's a pretty patriarchal attitude. It's also one the UN disagrees with.

You're going to have to be a bit more specific than that. I can't tell if you're suggesting that a right not to be pregnant exists, or is it that the UN says such a human right exists?

One eyed Jack

eviltwin wrote: »

Unfortunately Jack that's exactly what you are doing. It's all very well for you but think of the people personally affected by this. Abortion exists even where it's illegal. You don't stop it, you just push desperate women into dangerous situations. I don't know anyone who wants to see abortion being needed. It's always the goal that every pregnancy is wanted. I'm a realist though and I'd rather see women having legal abortions in safety than risking their lives and liberty taking matters into their own hands.

I agree with all of the above, but I'm a realist that deals in facts too, and the fact is that every Irish citizen who is eligible to vote in a referendum has a right to impose their beliefs on anyone else.

I might not like the consequences of them enforcing their beliefs, but because they cannot be excluded from the democratic process and are subject to the Irish Constitution themselves, then they get a say, whether I like it or not.

eviltwin

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I agree with all of the above, but I'm a realist that deals in facts too, and the fact is that every Irish citizen who is eligible to vote in a referendum has a right to impose their beliefs on anyone else.

I might not like the consequences of them enforcing their beliefs, but because they cannot be excluded from the democratic process and are subject to the Irish Constitution themselves, then they get a say, whether I like it or not.

I'd give more credit to that of there was an actual referendum on it. I'm nearly 40 and I've never had a chance to have a say. We are working from the opinion of a generation ago which is no longer relevant. Meanwhile at least 12 women a day travel abroad for healthcare while others put their health at risk dealing with it themselves or are forced to stay pregnant. I wonder if you could spare a thought for them.

rainbow kirby

Electric Sex Pants wrote: »

Also women seem to think that it should be 100% your choice and "no uterus no opinion". Well I can promise you that you did not get yourself pregnant and the father makes up just as much of the child as you, dont you think that he deserves a say?

At the end of the day, the simple biological reality is that the one with the uterus is the one that carries it - so at the end of the day it *is* their choice.

One eyed Jack

eviltwin wrote: »

I'd give more credit to that of there was an actual referendum on it. I'm nearly 40 and I've never had a chance to have a say. We are working from the opinion of a generation ago which is no longer relevant. Meanwhile at least 12 women a day travel abroad for healthcare while others put their health at risk dealing with it themselves or are forced to stay pregnant. I wonder if you could spare a thought for them.

Opinions don't become irrelevant due to time, they become irrelevant when people no longer hold those opinions, and the fact of the matter is that there are still plenty of people who are opposed to legislating for widening the scope of abortion limitations in Ireland.

I think you've taken me up wrong though because I've always argued that abortion should be available to all women regardless their circumstances and without limitations. But I still recognise that there are people who exist who would deny women that choice and as you point out they don't spare a thought for women that take matters into their own hands.

(nor do they appear to spare a thought for women who took matters into their own hands who will never appear on any statistics or reports)

eviltwin

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Opinions don't become irrelevant due to time, they become irrelevant when people no longer hold those opinions, and the fact of the matter is that there are still plenty of people who are opposed to legislating for widening the scope of abortion limitations in Ireland.

I think you've taken me up wrong though because I've always argued that abortion should be available to all women regardless their circumstances and without limitations. But I still recognise that there are people who exist who would deny women that choice and as you point out they don't spare a thought for women that take matters into their own hands.

(nor do they appear to spare a thought for women who took matters into their own hands who will never appear on any statistics or reports)

A referendum shows the opinion of a specific group at a specific time. If that opinion is no longer the will of a sizeable group of the population it's worth investigating whether it's time to see if things need to be changed.

Society has changed massively since the last referendum, I personally know two No voters from then who would support abortion today and polls show growing support for a change in the law. Who knows maybe society will say no to abortion in any circumstances but we won't know unless we ask.

Cabaal

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Opinions don't become irrelevant due to time, they become irrelevant when people no longer hold those opinions, and the fact of the matter is that there are still plenty of people who are opposed to legislating for widening the scope of abortion limitations in Ireland.

I'm sure there are people against abortion, just like there were people against marriage equality. A very vocal group but very much not a group that represented the majority as all the polls showed before hand,

At the end of the day we need to put the issue to a vote and society decides as a whole, its the fairest and most democratic way of doing it. There is nothing to fear from vote unless you don't trust people?

One eyed Jack

Cabaal wrote: »

I'm sure there are people against abortion, just like there were people against marriage equality. A very vocal group but very much not a group that represented the majority as all the polls showed before hand,

At the end of the day we need to put the issue to a vote and society decides as a whole, its the fairest and most democratic way of doing it. There is nothing to fear from vote unless you don't trust people?

To be perfectly honest - no, I don't trust people. I don't trust people because I know enough people who go with the popular opinion on social media that gets them plenty of likes and thanks from their peers, and then in private, those same people hold a very different opinion.

I absolutely agree that the issue needs to be put to a vote, but I'd rather people were informed on the issues for their own sake, apart from any vote on the issue, rather than seeing them buying into and believing propaganda being thrown out there by all "sides".

Cabaal

One eyed Jack wrote: »

To be perfectly honest - no, I don't trust people. I don't trust people because I know enough people who go with the popular opinion on social media that gets them plenty of likes and thanks from their peers, and then in private, those same people hold a very different opinion.

Social media and reality are very different things, in the cold hard light of day people don't always do what the type on a keyboard.

If you don't trust people to make decisions that affect their own lives and those of their familys and friends then I'm very sorry to hear that you have such poor faith in our species.

I absolutely agree that the issue needs to be put to a vote, but I'd rather people were informed on the issues for their own sake, apart from any vote on the issue, rather than seeing them buying into and believing propaganda being thrown out there by all "sides".

The referendum commission exists for just that (its independent after all), in addition the two sides get equal media time.

On top of that people can do their own research.

The "sides" can be disappointing at times, after all they throw around an awful lot of fear mongering such as "Bye Bye Daddy", mothers day will be banned and the fear of tornado's (:pac:) and the likes. But people can also use the referendum commission info and their own research to come to a decision.

Ragnar Lothbrok

lazygal wrote: »

Ectopic pregnancy is where an innocent baby implants in a fallopian tube. Is it ok to end the life of such innocent babies?

I have spent some time looking into this subject now, and believe it or not lazygal, I do find myself understanding why abortions would be acceptable in this case. The mother is much more likely to die if she continues with this type of pregnancy, while the chances of the unborn child surviving are extremely low. I don't see the right to life of the unborn child as more important than the mother - in my view they are equally deserving of the right to life, and in this case I accept that where a decision has to be made, then the mother's life is more important.

(Please note that I am still not claiming to be a medical expert or even that I have studied this in depth. I didn't know what an ectopic pregnancy was and now I do.)

Now you might start chipping away with other medical issues, and you may have other such cases. I don't want to get into any more specific medical issues, as I've conceded that certain medical reasons will bring up the question of the right of the mother versus the right of the unborn child, and that a dogmatic "abortion is never acceptable" attitude is not correct.

My problem is with the idea that abortion is somehow a basic human right, and that abortion on demand is perfectly acceptable, regardless of the circumstances of the conception.

The old chestnut of men having no right to opinion on the issue of abortion really makes my blood boil too. I am a human being and abortion affects all human beings - the mother, the father and the unborn child.

As a human being I have the right to an opinion on anything that I choose to - I am not a black South African but I was active in the Anti Apartheid movement many years ago - was I wrong to have an opinion on that too? Should I have kept my mouth shut and offered no opinion on apartheid purely because it didn't directly affect me?