I have changed my views on abortion

ScumLord

Wibbs wrote: »

Slight difference between pulling one's pud and removing a baby shaped potential human on the cusp of beyond womb survival at 24 weeks which is the UK limit.

Potential life, is potential life. Why use an arbitrary event like contraception dictate when life begins?

seamus wrote: »

If you did, you'd be out on the streets.

Where the murderers could get you? If they can kill a baby they're capable of anything.

Potatoeman

Lux23 wrote: »

Is it right to force a woman into an abortion she doesn't want?

No. As a man I would face the consequenses of my actions and take responsibility for the result. I just feel like there is a double standard of expectations placed on me. I'm expected to 'do the right thing' which usually means whatever the woman chooses.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

brickmauser wrote: »

In recent days I have changed my view on abortion. Especially when I saw the protests in Poland.

I now believe women should have the right to choose.

Abortion should be available at anytime during pregnancy for any reason.

Who am I to stop a woman or stand in her way?

I want to apologize to anyone upset with previous thread

The part in bold is what many people have a problem with.

"I don't like condoms", "The pill is too expensive" "I don't want to have stretch marks"... etc etc.

I also think that people have an issue with the blanket ban. A compromise is the best solution, and that doesn't mean getting the approval from 5 doctors and only under certain circumstances.

The unborn child should have a voice too.

dont bother

sorry, but abortion is sick. it's horrible to think that so many people in this country are brainwashed into believing it's their "right".

what do women want - in a nutshell - to go around having promiscuous sex, having abortions "until they're ready" and become succesful "businesswomen"?

it's absolute bullsh!t. i'm not religious in any way either, and would normally support a lot of socialist ideals, but i've changed MY mind about it recently.

it's horrible. it's not right. it's just downright selfish.
if you don't want to be in the position, then stop trying to be the "modern woman who "has it all" " cos you cant.

suicide_circus

I'm not convinced this is the most pressing issue facing ireland.

OldNotWIse

Kev_2012 wrote: »

Quick question on this topic.

If they repeal the 8th amendment, does that mean that in any case, regardless of how the pregnancy came about etc. etc. that a woman can just go in and get an abortion?

I honestly don't know the ins and outs so just wondering!

Thanks!

No. They would need to legislate for it. Part of the issue at the moment is that there is not a dicky bird about what that legislation could be. People would be expected to essentially vote in a vacuum. So, on an already inherently divisive issue, the risk is that both "sides" will become more and more polarised in the debate as one side believe abortion denies the unborn the constitutional right to life and another side believe denial of abortion (or at least having to travel to another jurisdiction to avail of it) is denying 50% of the population the constitutional right to bodily integrity. Regardless of where you fall, those are both fairly staunch views, and nobody will budge on either side without sight of what the legislation might actually be.

To be honest the whole thing is so fúcking tiresome already I feel like leaving Ireland until the issue is decided. One side shouting baby killers, the other side shouting misogynists. It'll be like the marriage referendum on speed

HensVassal

kupus wrote: »

How, convenient.

I wonder are you going to advertise repeal the 8th websites next.

And btw Im pro abortion but if people have something against it, they should be heard and not showboated as religious fascist zealots like a lot of you lefties here are fond of doing when somebody argues against you,
usually along the lines of deny, distort, deflect and defame.

Thats how democracy works.


Its too bad some of you dont go to saudi arabia and shout there for womens rights

No, its easier to bully the against vote in good old catholic controled ireland.

:pac:


and your user location.... :pac:

no let's not defame or showboat.

OldNotWIse

HensVassal wrote: »

:pac:

I'm right handed. How should I vote?

Lux23

Potatoeman wrote: »

No. As a man I would face the consequenses of my actions and take responsibility for the result. I just feel like there is a double standard of expectations placed on me. I'm expected to 'do the right thing' which usually means whatever the woman chooses.

Poor you.

lee_baby_simms

ScumLord wrote: »

Potential life, is potential life. Why use an arbitrary event like contraception dictate when life begins?

I'm pretty sure that its along the lines of...

"Conception is when life begins which is the will of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ."

Jesus.

Jen44 wrote: »

Have you ever had to travel following a medical procedure??

Is that what its called these days?

Why did you feel you needed to create another thread when you could have just said you changed your mind in whatever thread the posts that you're talking about are?

You're just being attention seeking.

HensVassal

Jesus. wrote: »

Is that what its called these days?

What would you call it?

Samaris

Jesus. wrote: »

Is that what its called these days?

...Well, yes, it IS a medical procedure. You may agree or disagree on the ethics or necessity of it, but to deny it is a medical procedure is a bit..pointless. And the point which has sailed merrily over is that travelling after pretty much any medical procedure doesn't really help.

seamus

Jesus. wrote: »

Is that what its called these days?

That's what it is. It requires doctors and a process. It's a medical procedure.

Tsipras wrote: »

That'll never get voted in in Ireland, if you abort a 8 month old baby you're a psychopath surely

Thankfully there will never be a public vote about abortion on demand in Ireland.

If the eighth amendment is repealed, nothing will change. Abortion will still be illegal except where the mother's life is in danger.

What it will do is allow politicians to remove the ties around their hands and include provisions which permit domestic abortion in the case of fatal foetal abnormalities and provide freer access to abortion where the mother's life or health is threatened. It will also allow women who've been raped to obtain an abortion and save themselves the horror of having to carry their rapist's child to term.

You know, very simple and basic things that any humane society would allow.

Whether abortion on demand is legalised, all comes down to who you vote for in the future.

Sionnach7

kupus wrote: »

How, convenient.

Firstly, regardless of whatever else we may disagree on, as one human being to another, I appreciate what you said first that people should be heard, "and not showboated".

Obviously there's a 'But'...

Many people here in Ireland are not catholic and still absolutely maintain that an unborn baby, is - 'an unborn baby'. And last I heard, babies are still considered human beings. It really is THAT simple.
That cannot, for love nor money, be altered. It's an undeniable fact. A child could understand that.

Obviously yes, having a baby causes life complications. Many of us non-catholic pro-life believing people completely acknowledge that.
But I just cannot, for the life of me, understand why a woman can't see through the remaining 8 months or so of pregnancy (it's not even 9 months as she's most likely not aware of it before end of month 1). See the baby through, go through the intense but (relatively) extremely short pain of delivery, and just walk away. The baby still has a life, even if it's without the mother. Leave the child "on the church steps" as it were.
For the sake of a WHOLE LIFE, 8 months or less extremely short. Anyone who makes excuses about this, I'm sorry, is just selfish *in this regard*.

Lastly, your point re.
"Its too bad some of you dont go to saudi arabia and shout there for womens rights

No, its easier to bully the against vote in good old catholic controled ireland."

This as you know, is a wide, crude generalisation, and as such is hard to not dismiss off-hand for its generality. For what it's worth, I don't suspect that there would be many pro-abortion women either who travel to Saudi Arabia to "shout for women's rights". So from that point of view, your point really is negated.
In any case, the treatment of women in some countries like this is atrocious. But it or any injustice for that matter, cannot be used as trump over killing an unborn baby. Sorry to remind you, but two wrongs don't make a right.

After all that, I wish you well in everything else in life, peace and happiness.

Riesen_Meal

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Why did you feel you needed to create another thread when you could have just said you changed your mind in whatever thread the posts that you're talking about are?

You're just being attention seeking.

I think fair play if pro choice and repeal campaigns have made some people rethink their views on abortion...

I'm admittedly surprised to see same poster who openly berated a poster last week (for choosing to try an IVF pregnancy) change stance so suddenly and can only be commended for it...

Providing it is not one of the best boards trolls we have seen in a while, which I think it may more lean towards...

Jesus.

KillerShamrock wrote: »

Well you have been reported for that.

I hope this.... poster are shut down asap.

Why on earth did you do that and why did the Moderators act on your instruction? This is After Hours FFS and although people might say some things to your distaste you've got to be an adult and handle it, not go running to teacher.

I can't for the life of me think why somebody would report someone for saying something on an anonymous internet message board.

OldNotWIse

seamus wrote: »

That's what it is. It requires doctors and a process. It's a medical procedure.

Thankfully there will never be a public vote about abortion on demand in Ireland.

If the eighth amendment is repealed, nothing will change. Abortion will still be illegal except where the mother's life is in danger.

What it will do is allow politicians to remove the ties around their hands and include provisions which permit domestic abortion in the case of fatal foetal abnormalities and provide freer access to abortion where the mother's life or health is threatened. It will also allow women who've been raped to obtain an abortion and save themselves the horror of having to carry their rapist's child to term.

You know, very simple and basic things that any humane society would allow.

Whether abortion on demand is legalised, all comes down to who you vote for in the future.

In fairness, nobody knows what they will legislate for.

osarusan

OldNotWIse wrote: »

In fairness, nobody knows what they will legislate for.

The legislation already exists - Protection of Life during Pregnancy Act 2013 - and limits abortions to cases when there is a risk of loss of life (physical health or suicide).

OldNotWIse

osarusan wrote: »

The legislation already exists - Protection of Life during Pregnancy Act 2013 - and limits abortions to cases when there is a risk of loss of life (physical health or suicide).

And you think there wont be further legislation or an amendment of current? How would they shoehorn FFA or rape/incest cases into existing legislation?

Jesus.

HensVassal wrote: »

What would you call it?

Samaris wrote: »

...Well, yes, it IS a medical procedure.

seamus wrote: »

That's what it is. It requires doctors and a process. It's a medical procedure.

So is a Doctor injecting someone with 50mg of Sodium thiopental. You could call executions in the US mere "medical procedures" too because as you say that's technically what they are. But that'd be a bit daft wouldn't it?

Abortion is the word.

ScumLord

ScumLord wrote: »

Yeah, and men who masterbate are genocidal maniacs. All those millions of babies.

Sperm are cells with limited lifespans which are incapable of division, which is one of the most basic features of an individual life form. It is not in any way comparable to a foetus. It is a haploid sex cell incapable of dividing and reproducing itself.

The foetus is a living entity. There really can be no disputing that. It is a fact.

Walter H Price

Why is it so unimaginable that someone could have their views challenged and changeged ? so the OP was posting pro life stuff a few weeks back , if we say his change of mind is just attention seeking then you undermine the entire purpose of rational debate , i.e he put his pro life views out there they were challenged by others who made counter points and ultimately on reflection and having seen the protests in Poland he shifted his position.

My Fiance was very pro life before we got together but over the last few years has changed her views completely and now would fully support repealing the 8th amendment , cases like Savita Halipanivar and others help her to change her views as well as allot of debate with me and our friends where she would have been proabily the only pro lifer, i found as well the further she got away from relgion (not that she was ever perticularly religious) her views became more rational and logial than emotional and judgemental on allot of issues.

Pro and anti choice are not clubs , you don't have to be a card carrying member , its not a Jet and Sharks or IRA style once your in your in for life, its just a point of view a moralistic stand point, open to be challenged and free to be changed

osarusan

OldNotWIse wrote: »

And you think there wont be further legislation or an amendment of current?

I'm sure there will be. But my point is that even if there wasn't, the situation currently is not some never-legislated-for black hole. We would still have extremely restrictive abortion laws.

OldNotWIse

Jesus. wrote: »

So is a Doctor injecting someone with 50mg of Sodium thiopental. You could call executions in the US mere "medical procedures" too because as you say that's technically what they are. But that'd be a bit daft wouldn't it?

Abortion is the word.

It's both no? It's abortion, but abortion IS a medical procedure. Tecnically, it's not incorrect to call it as such. I suppose from a pro-choice stance, it "sanitises" the issue somewhat for the purposes of debate? Semantics though.

OldNotWIse

osarusan wrote: »

I'm sure there will be. But my point is that even if there wasn't, the situation currently is not some never-legislated-for black hole. We would still have extremely restrictive abortion laws.

I'm not saying it's a black hole. I was responding to a post that suggested as a near certainty exactly what will be legislated for, and I (correctly) responded that we don't know what will be legislated for (and we don't know for certainty that the law will continue to be really restrictive).

osarusan

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I'm not saying it's a black hole. I was responding to a post that suggested as a near certainty exactly what will be legislated for, and I (correctly) responded that we don't know what will be legislated for (and we don't know for certainty that the law will continue to be really restrictive).

Ok, I see what you mean.

To be honest, I'm not even sure that the government of the day will be able to offer sample legislation which would be implemented, depending on the result of a referendum. The campaign would take time, and then changing the constitution would take time. The government could well have changed.

Are they not more likely to just let the existing legislation remain for the time being, and then legislative changes would come later?

Even if they did offer some sample legislation, and it was agreeable to you (or whoever), by it's nature it's changeable anyway.

Samaris

Jesus. wrote: »

So is a Doctor injecting someone with 50mg of Sodium thiopental. You could call executions in the US mere "medical procedures" too because as you say that's technically what they are. But that'd be a bit daft wouldn't it?

Abortion is the word.

That might make sense if the debate was directly about whether or not it's a medical procedure, but it's not. The debate is about whether the travel on top of the procedure is adding needless discomfort, pain and even damage.

You're nitpicking the word (and you are incorrect, btw, it is a medical procedure of which there are thousands, this one is more directly called abortion; you may as well insist that an apple isn't a fruit.) to avoid the actual point.

Also, anyone who's been injected with 50mg of sodium thiopental probably has the concept of travelling home afterwards pretty darn far from their minds!

me_right_one

seamus wrote: »

That seems a bit bizarre.

If there was a very large group of people campaigning to have murder or rape legalised and who seemed to have a good chance of succeeding, you can bet your arse I'd be out there trying to get in their way and oppose them.

Could it be, that you don't actually think abortion is as serious as murder? You think it's not nice, but not bad enough for you to actually oppose it?

This is why the "abortion is murder" line is hyperbole. Because you don't actually believe it is. You don't like it, but you don't believe it's anything at all close to murder.

If you did, you'd be out on the streets.

Eh....


https://lifesite-cache.s3.amazonaws.com/images/news/Screen_Shot_2013-06-10_at_3.45.07_PM.png

talking_walnut

Deleted User wrote: »

Sperm are cells with limited lifespans which are incapable of division, which is one of the most basic features of an individual life form. It is not in any way comparable to a foetus. It is a haploid sex cell incapable of dividing and reproducing itself.

The foetus is a living entity. There really can be no disputing that. It is a fact.

Most things are "living entities". Being alive is not reserved for human beings.

me_right_one

talking_walnut wrote: »

Most things are "living entities". Being alive is not reserved for human beings.

Yep. And yet, you need planning permission to cut down a tree. But a human being? Sure lets just make some living humans have less equality than others, based on their age. Nothing wrong with that:rolleyes:

Walter H Price

me_right_one wrote: »

Yep. And yet, you need planning permission to cut down a tree. But a human being? Sure lets just make some living humans have less equality than others, based on their age. Nothing wrong with that:rolleyes:

You dont necesserily need permision to cut down a tree in your own garden though do you , you know if you dont want it or that.

You can legaly detemine a point where a faetus becomes a viable human being , it happens at around the 24 week mark and rightly most contries do not allow abortion beyond this point before that point you are not ending a life you are just stopping the potential for life its a grey area but a dependant faetus should not have equal right to its living mother

me_right_one

Walter H Price wrote: »

You dont necesserily need permision to cut down a tree in your own garden though do you , you know if you dont want it or that.

You can legaly detemine a point where a faetus becomes a viable human being , it happens at around the 24 week mark and rightly most contries do not allow abortion beyond this point before that point you are not ending a life you are just stopping the potential for life its a grey area but a dependant faetus should not have equal right to its living mother

You can also scientifically determine the point where life starts - personally, thats the definition I'd go with - and that is the point where cells spontaneously self-propagate with their own individual DNA. ie, conception.

Did you know that a babys heart starts beating at 21 days? So that means it has a heart, a nervous system, blood, a body etc... Another thing, are you aware that the technology exists for a baby to be conceived and born completely outside a wombb, ie in a petri dish, and that this technology has been around since the 1970's?

Not fully understanding the biology is part of the pro-abortion peoples problem. You kill a person when you have an abortion. End of.

CdeC

The OP should now be known as

Johnny Flip-Flop

Lingua Franca

me_right_one wrote: »

Another thing, are you aware that the technology exists for a baby to be conceived and born completely outside a wombb, ie in a petri dish, and that this technology has been around since the 1970's?

[citation needed]

Blind us with your scientific evidence.

Rezident

brickmauser wrote: »

In recent days I have changed my view on abortion. Especially when I saw the protests in Poland.

I now believe women should have the right to choose.

Abortion should be available at anytime during pregnancy for any reason.

Who am I to stop a woman or stand in her way?

I want to apologize to anyone upset with previous thread

So nine months into a pregnancy the baby can just be terminated for any reason? Like inconvenience? Or cost-saving? You think that's ok? I think human life is more important, but that's obviously a waning view these days. Good luck! You're going to need it.

Wibbs

ScumLord wrote: »

Potential life, is potential life. Why use an arbitrary event like contraception dictate when life begins?

Given medical technology birth has become an "arbitrary event". Tell parents with very premature kids in incubators that. Only someone bereft of sense could compare a single celled sperm cell and a foetus with a brainstem and heartbeat and fingers and toes etc and say the destruction of one is the same as the destruction of another. That's beyond idiotic a position IMH. It's also more than a tad insensitive for women who have gone through abortions to dismiss their experiences as little more than a glorified ****. This debate has gone full retard on a few levels on both sides.

JuliusCaesar

dont bother wrote: »

sorry, but abortion is sick. it's horrible to think that so many people in this country are brainwashed into believing it's their "right".

what do women want - in a nutshell - to go around having promiscuous sex, having abortions "until they're ready" and become succesful "businesswomen"?

Who's saying all the pro-choice women (and men) are going around having "promiscuous sex"? What's your definition of 'promiscuous' anyway? More than 1 partner?

Or do you mean outside of marriage?



Women can find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy because of:
contraceptive failure
irregular cycles (some have extremely irregular cycles, some have gynacological issues, some may be menopausal)
rape/incest

Some are married, some are single, some are in other kinds of stable relationships but
already have a complete family
are in debt/impoverished/struggling financially


How many adults (men or women) are prepared to have a celibate life due to the risk of an unwanted pregnancy? We all have sex drives. Without it, we wouldn't continue the human race. And thank heavens we aren't reproducing at the rate we were, when contraception was illegal here.

dont bother wrote: »

it's absolute bullsh!t. i'm not religious in any way either, and would normally support a lot of socialist ideals, but i've changed MY mind about it recently.

it's horrible. it's not right. it's just downright selfish.
if you don't want to be in the position, then stop trying to be the "modern woman who "has it all" " cos you cant.

While social supports for single parents and people with large families may have increased, it isn't just "modern women" who have sex.

What did women do with unwanted pregnancies in the old days, before we had access to legal abortions abroad?

Well, there were a lot of folk tales about how to bring about a miscarriage. Some were harmless or caused at worst diarrhoea; some were dangerous and potentially fatal.

There were back street abortionists.

And the old favourite - infanticide. As recently as the 1980s - anyone remember the Kerry babies? Infanticide was surprisingly leniently dealt with in Irish courts, probably because they recognised the desperation that led to such deaths.



So the trite "modern women having it all" is just an aul' trope. It means nothing, except maybe jealousy.

The Rape of Lucretia

Rezident wrote: »

So nine months into a pregnancy the baby can just be terminated for any reason? Like inconvenience? Or cost-saving? You think that's ok? I think human life is more important, but that's obviously a waning view these days. Good luck! You're going to need it.

Its a legitimate view. If you are in favour of killing unborn babies, then there is consistency in being in favour of killing unborn babies right up to the nine months.


I certainly dont see any logic in the like of the following :

hairyslug wrote: »

let's just say prior to 12 weeks, FFA, mother's health and well-being

The point has which a baby is able to live independently of the mother possibly has some merit - up to that she can abort it. After that give it for adoption.

I would go for this middle ground myself. Not free for all abortion up to 9 months. But free for all abortion as long as the unborn is dependent on the mother to live, and so the mother has a life and death decision over the child anyway.

Jesus.

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

already have a complete family.

:eek:

JuliusCaesar

Jesus. wrote: »

:eek:

yes, unbelievable as it might seem, older adults might have sex too! They mightn't even stop having sex after their children are born, are teenagers, are adults themselves

Ally Dick

brickmauser wrote: »

In recent days I have changed my view on abortion. Especially when I saw the protests in Poland.

I now believe women should have the right to choose.

Abortion should be available at anytime during pregnancy for any reason.

Who am I to stop a woman or stand in her way?

I want to apologize to anyone upset with previous thread

What brought about this horrific turnaround ? Next you'll start to see the merits in euthanasia

kupus

Modern women having it all.

As far as I can see, modern women cant afford it at all.

As far as I can see, the women having multiple babies are the very ones that should be having abortions.

seamus

OldNotWIse wrote: »

In fairness, nobody knows what they will legislate for.

No, correct. But at least those constraints will be gone.

I used to be pro life too. Then I did some research and realised that making abortion illegal actually doesn't result in fewer abortions (not significantly anyway). You know what does lead to fewer abortions? Providing free contraception, comprehensive sex education in schools, free or heavily subsided childcare, better single parent supports...policies that prevent unwanted pregnancies and help women feel supported and empowered to raise a child on their own or with limited resources.

I rarely, if ever, hear the same people calling for abortions to be banned also campaigning for the above measures to be introduced. Regardless of your personal opinion on abortion, if the law doesn't actually reduce abortions it makes more sense to legalize it and allow women to make decisions they were going to make anyway, and work towards reducing the need for abortions using methods that actually work.

S. Goodspeed

I do get the impression that "pro choice" campaigners use the examples of FFA, rape & risk to a mothers life as their main arguments for repealing when in reality they clearly want abortion to be legal in all cases (although presumably only prior to a certain date). There really needs to be a distinction made. Personally I'm in the middle, I would support abortion in the above cases but against 'abortions for all' as someone nicely put it.

Serious question, in rape cases, are victims not prescribed a morning after pill as standard? I am sure their are circumstances when they do not get to it in time but surely it's a significant minority. What is the actual number of rape victims that have to travel abroad in a year?

Ave Sodalis

S. Goodspeed wrote:

I do get the impression that "pro choice" campaigners use the examples of FFA, rape & risk to a mothers life as their main arguments for repealing when in reality they clearly want abortion to be legal in all cases (although presumably only prior to a certain date). There really needs to be a distinction made. Personally I'm in the middle, I would support abortion in the above cases but against 'abortions for all' as someone nicely put it.

Eh, yes and no. I would imagine many are like you. However, how would you legislate for rape cases?
The 8th prevents all scenarios (except significant risk to mother's life), so even if you believe it should exist for FFA and rape etc, it can't with the 8th in place.

S. Goodspeed wrote:

Serious question, in rape cases, are victims not prescribed a morning after pill as standard? I am sure their are circumstances when they do not get to it in time but surely it's a significant minority. What is the actual number of rape victims that have to travel abroad in a year?

I don't know the numbers for what you ask, but how many rape cases go unreported? How many have the capability to think of taking a pill after on their own? What if the rape is done by a partner and they are denied access to the pill or travel?
I mean, when you think that the vast majority of cases are unreported, is it that odd?

Arthur.beaker

Marleigh Proud Thriller wrote: »

Why should they have to

No one is forcing them to have an abortion, so they don't 'have to' as you put it.

Jen44

What about a woman who has been told her child will not live outside the womb? What about those babies who are carried to full term because of these laws to be born suffering only to die?? What about the rights of those women who have to face agonising labour to watch a poor baby struggle and die??