Do you think a referendum on abortion would be passed?(not how you'd vote)

lazygal

Selene Dry Apartment wrote: »

The right thing is never an abortion, nobody should have the power to end the life of an unborn child with just a stroke of their hand. Its extreme arrogance.

So even if my life is at risk I should never have an abortion?

thattequilagirl

Selene Dry Apartment wrote: »

The right thing is never an abortion, nobody should have the power to end the life of an unborn child with just a stroke of their hand. Its extreme arrogance.

Are you absolutely certain that ending the life of something that isn't yet sentient is worse than being an unwanted, possibly unloved child into this world. No matter what kind of abuse they might be subjected to? No matter how severe the hardship they might have to endure? No matter how life-limiting and chronically painful their lives might be?

How can you know that? That seems arrogant.

lazygal

lazygal wrote: »

So even if my life is at risk I should never have an abortion?

If you are dying on the table and saving you means the baby doesn't make it then I would see that as an acceptable reason.

thattequilagirl wrote: »

Are you absolutely certain that ending the life of something that isn't yet sentient is worse than being an unwanted, possibly unloved child into this world. No matter what kind of abuse they might be subjected to? No matter how severe the hardship they might have to endure? No matter how life-limiting and chronically painful their lives might be?

How can you know that? That seems arrogant.

There are long waiting lists for adoption by families not capable of having children themselves so plenty of loving homes out there with are infinitely better options than abortion.

CaraMay

thattequilagirl wrote: »

Are you absolutely certain that ending the life of something that isn't yet sentient is worse than being an unwanted, possibly unloved child into this world. No matter what kind of abuse they might be subjected to? No matter how severe the hardship they might have to endure? No matter how life-limiting and chronically painful their lives might be?

How can you know that? That seems arrogant.

Well I think a bit of hardship is better than being cut into smithereens or sucked into a Hoover bag.

I don't consider termination of a child with life ending issues to be an abortion. I consider it as a termination. Aborting a healthy child instead of putting them up for adoption is just incomprehensible to me.

lazygal

Selene Dry Apartment wrote: »

If you are dying on the table and saving you means the baby doesn't make it then I would see that as an acceptable reason.


There are long waiting lists for adoption by families not capable of having children themselves so plenty of loving homes out there with are infinitely better options than abortion.

Why should I stay pregnant because other couples want to adopt a child?

lazygal

lazygal wrote: »

Why should I stay pregnant because other couples want to adopt a child?

Because there should be no other option, it shouldn't even be a discussion. If you get pregnant you have the baby simple as that.

thattequilagirl

CaraMay wrote: »

Well I think a bit of hardship is better than being cut into smithereens or sucked into a Hoover bag.

I'm guessing that you know as well as I do that these days, the vast majority of abortions carried out before 9 weeks are medical terminations done by taking a tablet and having something like a heavy period.

L.Jenkins

Arguments for and against abortion http://womensissues.about.com/od/reproductiverights/a/AbortionArgumen.htm

lazygal

CaraMay wrote: »

Well I think a bit of hardship is better than being cut into smithereens or sucked into a Hoover bag.

I don't consider termination of a child with life ending issues to be an abortion. I consider it as a termination. Aborting a healthy child instead of putting them up for adoption is just incomprehensible to me.

Forcing someone to stay pregnant against their wishes and without regard to their health is incomprehensible to me. How far should the state go in terms of enforcement of pregnancy?

CaraMay

But also can be performed until 24 weeks

lazygal

Selene Dry Apartment wrote: »

Because there should be no other option, it shouldn't even be a discussion. If you get pregnant you have the baby simple as that.

Unless you can travel. Should the right to travel to kill the unborn be repealed?

CaraMay

lazygal wrote: »

Forcing someone to stay pregnant against their wishes and without regard to their health is incomprehensible to me. How far should the state go in terms of enforcement of pregnancy?

Have you not noticed I'm ignoring you

lazygal

CaraMay wrote: »

But also can be performed until 24 weeks

Yes. What's this supposed to prove? Abortions can be carried out for myriad reasons at 24 weeks.

Arkady

lazygal wrote: »

So even if my life is at risk I should never have an abortion?

There's already abortion available in Ireland for that.

Tasden

CaraMay wrote: »

Have you not noticed I'm ignoring you

Doing a great job of that

thattequilagirl

Selene Dry Apartment wrote: »

There are long waiting lists for adoption by families not capable of having children themselves so plenty of loving homes out there with are infinitely better options than abortion.

I have personal experience of the pain adoption can bring to both the birth family and the adoptive family. It's easy to trot that line out but it's a far from perfect solution imo.

I don't think I would have an abortion, but I wouldn't presume to know enough to make that decision for others.

I don't think a woman should have to carry on with a pregnancy that will have massive effects on her health, her body, her psychological state, her finances and her relationships (among other things) if she doesn't want to.

CaraMay

Tasden wrote: »

Doing a great job of that

Just reminding her cos she continues to direct comments at me

PhoenixParker

CaraMay wrote: »

But also can be performed until 24 weeks

Far more common to have late abortions for Irish women because it takes time to make the travel arrangements.

Fewer than 1% of abortions are carried out in the third trimester and the vast majority of those cases are the termination of a desired pregnancy due to life limiting conditions and health concerns with respect to the mother.

SEPT 23 1989

Unless the mother is dying or the child can't make it when its born how can people justify killing a healthy baby at 24 weeks

thattequilagirl

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Unless the mother is dying or the child can't make it when its born how can people justify killing a healthy baby at 24 weeks

I would be very much against that except in the case of fatal foetal abnormalities.

anothernight

thattequilagirl wrote: »

I'm guessing that you know as well as I do that these days, the vast majority of abortions carried out before 9 weeks are medical terminations done by taking a tablet and having something like a heavy period.

Oh but that's ok. It's fine as long as you call it "termination" and not "abortion", apparently. :rolleyes:

Galwayguy35

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Hmmm... I can say with certainty that it would be a very nasty campaign for the so called "Pro-lifers". If it were to pass, I suspect it would be by a slim majority.

What do you mean by that?

PhoenixParker

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Unless the mother is dying or the child can't make it when its born how can people justify killing a healthy baby at 24 weeks

Even in country's where abortion is fully legal throughout pregnancy abortions at and after 24 weeks without medical causes are rare.

It's also a situation that can be readily legislated for without the need for something as drastic as a clause in the constitution.

PlainP

Yes I do think (hope) that a referendum will be passed.

I was going to go into a big rant at all the anti-choice crowd here but tbh I don't give a tuppenny FCuk what their blinkered views are.

The 8th needs to go.

CaraMay

PlainP wrote: »

Yes I do think (hope) that a referendum will be passed.

I was going to go into a big rant at all the anti-choice crowd here but tbh I don't give a tuppenny FCuk what their blinkered views are.

The 8th needs to go.

Yeah you see I think the anti abortion people do care about others... That's the whole point

thattequilagirl

thattequilagirl wrote: »

I don't think a woman should have to carry on with a pregnancy that will have massive effects on her health, her body, her psychological state, her finances and her relationships (among other things) if she doesn't want to.

If a woman knows she isn't willing to have a baby if she happened to get pregnant then she should refrain from sex. Everyone knows contraception is never 100% guaranteed and if abortion would be the answer to it failing then no sex at all should be the decision.

PlainP

CaraMay wrote: »

Yeah you see I think the anti abortion people do care about others... That's the whole point

No you don't

Riesen_Meal

I'm flabbergasted at some of the posters on here I thought were generally sane before reading this thread...

Have any of you ever even been in a position where you or a partner may have had to have an abortion?

Or may not been capable of bringing a child into the world due to a bad personal situation?

As you would not be talking like you are now...

Try being in that position before you comment and before you let your religious beliefs get in the way of your thoughts...

Just for one solitary second and try put yourselves in someone else's shoe's...

See can you show some of that good old catholic compassion to those who require abortions, without letting religion auto blur out the thought of what is a horrible action that is needed to be taken...

Arkady

Nothing to do with religion. Theism or Atheism.
I can't see how anyone has the right to take another human life.

CaraMay

I don't believe in God so that argument is out

I do feel sorry for people in that position but it doesn't mean I think they should abort

Huntergonzo

Selene Dry Apartment wrote: »

If a woman knows she isn't willing to have a baby if she happened to get pregnant then she should refrain from sex. Everyone knows contraception is never 100% guaranteed and if abortion would be the answer to it failing then no sex at all should be the decision.

No sex? Are you John Charles McQuaid reincarnated? Come on I think I have you here!

Riesen_Meal

It's a woman's choice what she does with her own body at the end of the day...

PhoenixParker

Arkady wrote: »

Nothing to do with religion. Theism or Atheism.
I can't see how anyone has the right to take another human life.

I don't see it as taking another human life.

Even if it is a life, at best it's a life on life support which is the sole purview of one person who should not be compelled to maintain that life support against their wishes. In every other case where a single individual can through a personal sacrifice save another's life (from blood donation, to organ donation, to jumping into a river to save someone) it is their decision and their decision only. Pregnancy should not be some magical exception.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

CaraMay wrote: »

Yeah you see I think the anti abortion people do care about others... That's the whole point

There are many who are genuinely nasty characters, but by and large yes, I'd agree with you, pro-life people think they're doing the right thing. And that can be something that passionately pro-choice people can lose sight of. Neither side are monsters.

Quite aside from a more general pro-life position though, I don't see how arguing against the repeal of the eighth amendment can be justified by anyone who's spent more than half an hour reading and thinking about it. Certainly not by anyone who's trying to do right by other people.

thattequilagirl

Selene Dry Apartment wrote: »

If a woman knows she isn't willing to have a baby if she happened to get pregnant then she should refrain from sex. Everyone knows contraception is never 100% guaranteed and if abortion would be the answer to it failing then no sex at all should be the decision.

That's exactly the attitude that brought us the Magdalene laundries.

thattequilagirl

Selene Dry Apartment wrote: »

If a woman knows she isn't willing to have a baby if she happened to get pregnant then she should refrain from sex. Everyone knows contraception is never 100% guaranteed and if abortion would be the answer to it failing then no sex at all should be the decision.

I presume you feel just as strongly that a man who isn't willing to stand by a baby he fathered should also completely refrain from sex?

Huntergonzo

thattequilagirl wrote: »

That's exactly the attitude that brought us the Magdalene laundries.

Ah he's only taking the piss, he's probably getting his rocks off as we speak, without wearing a johnny of course :-)

Arkady

thattequilagirl wrote: »

That's exactly the attitude that brought us the Magdalene laundries.

No what brought us the Madeline laundry is the hatred and stigma of unwanted pregnancies.

Doesn't excuse thinking that killing the child is the solution to an unwanted pregnancy.

Fieldog

Fieldog wrote: »

I'm flabbergasted at some of the posters on here I thought were generally sane before reading this thread...

Have any of you ever even been in a position where you or a partner may have had to have an abortion?

As far as I'm concerned there is no "position" where you "may have to have an abortion".

Huntergonzo wrote: »

No sex? Are you John Charles McQuaid reincarnated? Come on I think I have you here!

I never said no sex, I said no sex if you are not willing to deal with the consequences should contraception fail etc.

thattequilagirl wrote: »

I presume you feel just as strongly that a man who isn't willing to stand by a baby he fathered should also completely refrain from sex?

I would actually. A man unwilling to stand by a baby he fathered is not a man at all.

thattequilagirl

Selene Dry Apartment wrote: »

I would actually. A man unwilling to stand by a baby he fathered is not a man at all.

Funny you didn't mention that in the first case

Huntergonzo

Selene Dry Apartment wrote: »

I never said no sex, I said no sex if you are not willing to deal with the consequences should contraception fail etc.



I would actually. A man unwilling to stand by a baby he fathered is not a man at all.

Oh ok, as a matter of interest, honest question now, would you support chastity belts for all women, that can only be unlocked by the priest on their wedding day?

Seems like a reasonable suggestion to me now, what's your thoughts on it?

thattequilagirl

thattequilagirl wrote: »

That's exactly the attitude that brought us the Magdalene laundries.

Ridiculous suggestion.

thattequilagirl wrote: »

Funny you didn't mention that in the first case

A while ago people were saying only women should be allowed to vote in the referendum now I'm getting pulled up on comments as I didn't mentioned scenarios involving men.

Huntergonzo wrote: »

Oh ok, as a matter of interest, honest question now, would you support chastity belts for all women, that can only be unlocked by the priest on their wedding day?

Seems like a reasonable suggestion to me now, what's your thoughts on it?

Such a nonsensical post isn't actually worth a reply to be fair. How you are getting to that point from the things I have said is incomprehensible

Huntergonzo

Selene Dry Apartment wrote: »

Such a nonsensical post isn't actually worth a reply to be fair. How you are getting to that point from the things I have said is incomprehensible

You know what actually I'm embarrassed, you're right, priests unlocking chastity belts is ridiculous......it should be the bishop, he'll keep a proper eye on things!!!

Is that more in line with your thinking?

thattequilagirl

Selene Dry Apartment wrote: »

Ridiculous suggestion

It's not at all ridiculous. The perception that those women should have known better and kept their legs closed contributed to a culture of turning a blind eye to what happened in those places.

Huntergonzo

Huntergonzo wrote: »

You know what actually I'm embarrassed, you're right, priests unlocking chastity belts is ridiculous......it should be the bishop, he'll keep a proper eye on things!!!

Is that more in line with your thinking?

How does telling someone if they are having sex they need to keep in mind the possibility (however small) of a pregnancy occurring (and if it happens then abortion should not be an option) = that drivel you are posting?

thattequilagirl wrote: »

It's not at all ridiculous. The perception that those women should have known better and kept their legs closed contributed to a culture of turning a blind eye to what happened in those places.

How you are arriving at that conclusion is a mystery. I never said they should have known better or kept their legs together. I said if someone gets pregnant they should have the baby and an abortion should not be an option.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Arkady wrote: »

No what brought us the Madeline laundry is the hatred and stigma of unwanted pregnancies.

Doesn't excuse thinking that killing the child is the solution to an unwanted pregnancy.

What brought us the Magdalene laundries was the hatred and stigma of female sexuality, actually. There were hundreds of thousands of unwanted pregnancies in good old contraception free Ireland which happened within the confines of marriage, but those were A-OK.

Not every woman or girl who was committed to a laundry was pregnant. I mean the name of the laundries might give you a bit of a clue as to their ethos?

Huntergonzo

Alora Breezy Newspaperman wrote: »

How does telling someone if they are having sex they need to keep in mind the possibility (however small) of a pregnancy occurring (and if it happens then abortion should not be an option) = that drivel you are posting?

Suppose you're right, some eejit might lose the bloody key before she gets married, now wouldn't that be awkward.

I'm sorry to tell you Alora Breezy Newspaperman, but that chastity belt idea you proposed mightn't work out. Although I suppose they could just go the rest of their lives without sex, sure feck them they're only women anyway, haha silly little things ;-)

Dick phelan

On the issue of term limit what should it be then? I find it hard to support abortion at a stage where babies are know to have survived, find it very hard to justify abortion at a late stage like 20+ weeks. So what limit would abortion be at, would it change as medicine advances, like it's lowered because babies can now potentially survive at this stage? At the moment i don't have an issue with abortions early into pregnancy, as pointed out the majority actually happen at the early stage, 9 weeks ect. Issue i have is when you see what i would consider babies of 20 weeks or thereabouts being aborted, i believe at that stage it's hard to not see it as a baby maybe not fully formed yet but certainly not just a collection of cells.

Huntergonzo

Huntergonzo wrote: »

Suppose you're right, some eejit might lose the bloody key before she gets married, now wouldn't that be awkward.

I'm sorry to tell you Alora Breezy Newspaperman, but that chastity belt idea you proposed mightn't work out. Although I suppose they could just go the rest of their lives without sex, sure feck them they're only women anyway, haha silly little things ;-)

Bizarre stuff completely unrelated to anything I posted.

rainbow kirby

I'm comfortable with the UK limit of 24 weeks tbh - the overwhelming majority of procedures (90+%) are in the first trimester anyway with a high proportion of those being before 10 weeks, and many conditions which often result in a TFMR are only diagnosed at 18-22 weeks at the anatomy scan and after some further testing following that.