How do Pro Life campaigners want women who have abortions punished?

PucaMama

Widdershins wrote: »

PucaMama wrote: »

I have never had a vote on abortion in Ireland and recently I found I'm not the most extreme either so I disagree

So you're not against abortions happening in Ireland? You might not personally be preventing it but it seems that your wish is for it to continue to be farmed out to England. Is that incorrect?

I would accept it happening here if it wasn't for just any reason. Like for the sex of the child, or it having a disability, or someone just not wanting a child. Those are not reasons for abortion those are reasons for adoption. For cases like very underage mothers, for rape, for a real risk towards the mothers life, for the cases where the child is already dead (having seen a woman pace the halls of a hospital having to carry her dead child to term) these are the times to say yes.

Decent Skin

Read back. I said I wouldn't be comfortable with anything beyond 10 or 12 weeks because that's when the process of becoming a person starts (I think the accepted average is 16 weeks but development rates vary and I have no desire to kill off anything close to a person.

AbusesToilets

And we're Godwined. You are conflating two separate things.

Morally, the woman's right to choose outweighs that of the fetus. A person doesn't become a citizen until they're born. The state doesn't issue birth certs or passports at the point of conception.

Decent Skin

PucaMama wrote: »

I would accept it happening here if it wasn't for just any reason. Like for the sex of the child, or it having a disability, or someone just not wanting a child. Those are not reasons for abortion those are reasons for adoption. For cases like very underage mothers, for rape, for a real risk towards the mothers life, for the cases where the child is already dead (having seen a woman pace the halls of a hospital having to carry her dead child to term) these are the times to say yes.

Then - believe it or not - you and I are VERY closely aligned, even though it would not have even remotely seemed that way earlier.

PucaMama

Tony Grumpy Mandible wrote: »

PucaMama wrote: »

Widdershins wrote: »

PucaMama wrote: »

The reasons behind it are what matters not the where. Aborting a child for having a disability is wrong in my opinion for example.

But you can't stop it happening, all you are achieving is making a lot of people either break themselves to pay for it abroad or attempt it in some unsafe way at home.

I'm not making anyone do anything. And break themselves? I've seen people pay more for dental treatment here.

Having the eighth amendment creates the situation where those things happen though. And voting for the eighth amendment to remain is voting for at home and backstreet abortions, it's voting for the couples who choose to have FFA pregnancies aborted to keep having ashes delivered by courier. It's voting for teenagers and asylum seekers to keep making desperate, dangerous decisions. If I vote to maintain a ban on ambulances I don't get off the hook by saying I don't force anyone to break their legs and they should just not do that.

But what are the consequences to voting to appeal? I havnt heard anything to assure me that it won't be to allow all abortion for whatever reason.

Little CuChulainn

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Morally, the woman's right to choose outweighs that of the fetus.

In your opinion

PucaMama

Decent Skin wrote: »

PucaMama wrote: »

I would accept it happening here if it wasn't for just any reason. Like for the sex of the child, or it having a disability, or someone just not wanting a child. Those are not reasons for abortion those are reasons for adoption. For cases like very underage mothers, for rape, for a real risk towards the mothers life, for the cases where the child is already dead (having seen a woman pace the halls of a hospital having to carry her dead child to term) these are the times to say yes.

Then - believe it or not - you and I are VERY closely aligned, even though it would not have even remotely seemed that way earlier.

I'm not the most unreasonable, I also supported the improved availability of the emergency contraception, but I do draw lines and I suppose I'm fairly set on those lines

Little CuChulainn

PucaMama wrote: »

But what are the consequences to voting to appeal? I havnt heard anything to assure me that it won't be to allow all abortion for whatever reason.

Not really any change until new law is passed. So it comes down to wether you trust the government to pass the law you hope for.

The Specialist

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

In your opinion

No it's pretty much fact.

PucaMama

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

PucaMama wrote: »

But what are the consequences to voting to appeal? I havnt heard anything to assure me that it won't be to allow all abortion for whatever reason.

Not really any change until new law is passed. So it comes down to wether you trust the government to pass the law you hope for.

It's a hard thing to trust them with

Decent Skin

PucaMama wrote: »

But what are the consequences to voting to appeal? I havnt heard anything to assure me that it won't be to allow all abortion for whatever reason.

Given the reticence to even allow a vote, I would suspect that the chances of it being "unlimited" would be impossible to push through.

I would even go so far as to say that your full list of scenarios in which to say yes wouldn't be catered for

AbusesToilets

Yes, a child needs care to survive, that isn't what is meant by viability
As you know. It is a question of whether it is biologically capable of surviving.

Pain is a response to external stimulus. Tumors would experience pain, should we force people to leave them to grow too?

feargale

Decent Skin wrote: »

Given the choice I'd play safe and have it 0-10 or maybe 0-12 weeks

So you're partly pro-life then?

The Specialist

Functioning human adult vs collection of cells.

Decent Skin

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Not really any change until new law is passed. So it comes down to wether you trust the government to pass the law you hope for.

Wouldn't trust a government in a million years, but that won't stop me voting the way I believe is right.

Decent Skin

feargale wrote: »

So you're partly pro-life then?

If you like labels then yes. I don't know anyone who's "anti-life" though.

PucaMama

One thing that irritates me is some people thing pro life people don't care what happens to them once they are born. Far from it for me. There needs to be a lot of work done here to improve the life of people with disabilities and other difficulties. And not to forget the huge lack of support for parents. My mother got us to Dublin for every appointment I needed as a child often by herself and we hadn't it near as bad as other families.

AbusesToilets

One is a person, the other is developing fetus.

rainbow kirby

PucaMama wrote: »

There needs to be a lot of work done here to improve the life of people with disabilities and other difficulties. And not to forget the huge lack of support for parents. My mother got us to Dublin for every appointment I needed as a child often by herself and we hadn't it near as bad as other families.

I think everyone, wherever their views lie on other issues, can agree on that one.

Decent Skin

Blue_Bear wrote: »

A 26 week old fetus is more than a collection of cells.

Why the fixation on 26 weeks ? Have you asked anyone else where their comfort zone ends and where they might start to align with your view ? It's the best way to discuss things, as PucaMama and myself found out.

AbusesToilets

A tumor would experience the same reactions to stimuli as any other collection of cells.

PucaMama

Decent Skin wrote: »

Why the fixation on 26 weeks ? Have you asked anyone else where their comfort zone ends and where they might start to align with your view ? It's the best way to discuss things, as PucaMama and myself found out.

I know a couple with a child born earlier than 26 weeks and she's fine now.

AbusesToilets

Life is not person-hood.

feargale

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Citizens have rights. A fetus is not a citizen.

I must remember that the next time I see my two Nigerian non-citizen neighbours. I could do with a pair of slaves.

The Specialist

Because the mother is a LIVING FUNCTIONING ADULT. A fetus is a collection of cells that may or may not reach full term or be born alive. What part of this are you failing to grasp?

Decent Skin

WHAT would the FETU..... (turns down volume - sorry folks) .... What would the foetus choose ?

And show the little lad some respect by spelling him or her properly, will ya ? Not being all grammar nazi but apparently he can't speak for himself and it's up to us living adults to do so :P

thee glitz

Widdershins wrote: »

How did you deduce that? I said nothing of the sort

You said:

wrote:

all you are achieving is making a lot of people either break themselves to pay for it abroad or attempt it in some unsafe way at home.

implying that women must get abortions, which is clearly not true.

AbusesToilets

PucaMama wrote: »

I know a couple with a child born earlier than 26 weeks and she's fine now.

As was stated before, I don't know what the medical standard for fetal viability would be.

The ability to survive independent of a mother that would not want it, seems a fairly obvious place to put the cut off point.

Decent Skin

That 25 week old one is going to be really pissed off with you for excluding him.

The 10 or 12 week old one should be grand though - no consciousness or feelings there yet.

The Specialist

I think your overblown emotionalism is getting the better of your logical thinking.

AbusesToilets

feargale wrote: »

I must remember that the next time I see my two Nigerian non-citizen neighbours. I could do with a pair of slaves.

The rights of citizens are defined by the state. Non-citizens have less rights.

Your point is intentionally specious, as slavery is crime.

AbusesToilets

No, I don't feel that it is morally just to force a woman to carry to term a baby she does not want.

A fetus is not a person nor a citizen. It should not have rights ascribed to it that place it's importance ahead of it's mother.

Grayson

So what about 10 weeks or 5 weeks? You'll find few pro choice people here that want it up to 26 weeks. How about 5 weeks? And what should the punishment be for the woman if she takes an abortion pill at that stage?

feargale

Decent Skin wrote: »

If you like labels then yes. I don't know anyone who's "anti-life" though.

I'll rephrase it. You're against abortion in some circumstances?

P.S. Thanks for answering my original question btw. I'm sorry others didn't

AbusesToilets

People have rights, cells do not. Should a tumor have rights? It is alive, self replicating and reacts to stimuli.

The Specialist

Because to apply human rights you kind of need to be a human person.

eviltwin

What's your fixation on 26 weeks?

The Specialist

What is this 26 weeks emotive bull**** you keep going on about? The debate is around FFA and early term unwanted pregnancies. Nobody i know in favour of this would agree with near full term abortion and thats not what this topic is even about. Typical over emotive bull**** from the pro life side.

thee glitz

AbusesToilets wrote: »

No, I don't feel that it is morally just to force a woman to carry to term a baby she does not want.

Do you have any concept of responsibility?

AbusesToilets

Repeating yourself doesn't make your post any less silly.

The actions of the Nazis has no bearing on a discussion about abortion in Ireland and the rights afforded to a woman therein.

Grayson

People have rights, human cells don't. I have a right to vote, my arm if it gets chopped off doesn't even though it's a collection of cells. Likewise if I become brain dead the machines can be switched off because technically I am dead and not a person. If I was in a coma and not brain dead I would still have rights and the machines keeping me alive would not be switched off.

eviltwin

What are the specifics of this case? Why did the woman wait until 26 weeks

AbusesToilets

thee glitz wrote: »

Do you have any concept of responsibility?

You find it to be more responsible to force mothers to bring unwanted children into society. Children who would possibly then go on to become burdens upon society in one fashion or another?

Grayson

why? What's your deciding factor. For me it's brain activity. A functioning brain is what makes us human. You can replace every other organ without destroying the person. Replace my brain with say yours and I'm effectively you.

eviltwin

Oh really? After 26 weeks she just decided out of the blue she didn't want to be pregnant?

Decent Skin

Because only people can have human rights ?

Little CuChulainn

The Specialist wrote: »

No it's pretty much fact.

It's quite clearly an opinion.

Decent Skin wrote: »

Wouldn't trust a government in a million years, but that won't stop me voting the way I believe is right.

And if they introduce something more restrictive then you would have wanted?

Decent Skin

Hence the need for proper support services beforehand where such things are clearly outlined.

Throwing them in as if someone was so immature as to change their mind on a life-changing decision overnight on a whim is disingenuous.

Be it keeping it or carrying it or giving it for adoption aborting it NEITHER decision should be taken lightly or without proper support.

Decent Skin

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

It's quite clearly an opinion.



And if they introduce something more restrictive then you would have wanted?

Anything is an improvement on what we have at present, so I'd take it.

feargale

AbusesToilets wrote: »

The rights of citizens are defined by the state. Non-citizens have less rights.

Your point is intentionally specious, as slavery is crime.

It is, but no more than your original post which implied that the unborn have no rights - wrong in law, and wrong in morality.

I'm p1ssed off posters shouting about human rights every time they want to shout down those they disagree with. Too many here don't seem to comprehend the concept of conflicting rights, something any pair of neighbouring sheep or goat farmers on the Kerry Mountains could educate them about.