I have changed my views on abortion

Stupify

Elliott S wrote: »

My main point, that got derailed, was that three abortions isn't a lot if its spread out over many years. 19,000 women had their third abortions that year. When did they have their first? The longer abortion is legalised, the more women are going to have more than one over an extended number of years. Women are fertile from the early teens up to around 50, depending. That's a long time to be always be on the ball, contraception-wise.

I didn't ignore the rest of your post actually, it only displayed that which I responded to.

Well why don't we have a look at the figures to find out then? Looking at 2013 figures again but this time for women who were on their 2nd or higher abortion as I can't find an age profile for those on 3 abortions or higher. Of the total abortions carried out in 2013 7% of those under 18 had a previous abortion, 18% between 18-19, 34% between 20-24, 44% between 25-29, 47% between 30-34, and 45% for those 35+.

Kev_2012

sup_dude wrote: »

Nope, if they repeal, abortion would still be illegal and would have to have further legislation to make it legal. Given that there's not even a referendum on the cards at the moment, the contents of further legislation is unknown. At the moment, with the 8th in place, no legislation (whether for everyone, or just in the case of FFA or rape) can be put in place.

For what it's worth, legislation would most likely have a time limit for the majority of women, with late term abortions only allowed in medical cases. At least, that is what it seems the majority are calling for.

Thanks for that!

Stupify

Elliott S wrote: »

Ignored the rest of my post. Actually, it IS important to look at how spread out those three abortions are for each woman, considering a woman's fertile period can be over thirty years. Statistics are useful but do not tell everything. Over thirty years of fertility, that's a long old time to always be on the ball re: contraception. And its understandable if a young teen or a forty-something woman does not want to continue with a pregnancy, for different reasons.

Yes it is important, you seem to think I'm arguing some point here when all I'm trying to do is prevent your misleading figures being taken and used elsewhere.

Elliott S

Stupify wrote: »

I didn't ignore the rest of your post actually, it only displayed that which I responded to.

Well why don't we have a look at the figures to find out then? Looking at 2013 figures again but this time for women who were on their 2nd or higher abortion as I can't find an age profile for those on 3 abortions or higher. Of the total abortions carried out in 2013 7% of those under 18 had a previous abortion, 18% between 18-19, 34% between 20-24, 44% between 25-29, 47% between 30-34, and 45% for those 35+.

Yes, so as expected, as the age group increases, so does the number of second abortions occurring. Even in the 20-24 age group, that's a potential for ten years of sexual activity for the upper end of the 20-24 age group. There would be a wide numbers of years between abortion one and abortion two for many of those. And this is two abortions we are talking about. I would not be surprised to see that the numbers having a third abortion moving further towards the upper end of the fertile age period for women. So, for me "OMG, three abortions" is not very illuminating taken just by itself. As for those younger women and teens on their second abortions - well, as piratequeen said, comprehensive sex education is the key here.

Sionnach7

368100 wrote: »

Don't disagree on abortion in some cases but I vehemently disagree on abortion as a form of contraception for casual sex, especially if the father is not consulted.

Happened to me, young and stupid perhaps and had unprotected sex....ended up in a pregnancy where she then travelled for abortion and it was nearly two years later that I found out what had happened. Where is the choice for the man?

This is an excellent point. Sorry women, but some women tend to think that it is only *they* that are affected by the whole thing. There are good guys too who would look after *their* baby. And obviously the baby wouldn't be subjected to the torture of being ripped apart to kill him/her.
I would go insane to think that a child of mine would have been torn apart in the name of convenience or perceived temporary emotional resolution.

Stupify

Elliott S wrote: »

Yes, so as expected, as the age group increases, so does the number of second abortions occurring. Even in the 20-24 age group, that's a potential for ten years of sexual activity for the upper end of the 20-24 age group. There would be a wide numbers of years between abortion one and abortion two for many of those. And this is two abortions we are talking about. I would not be surprised to see that the numbers having a third abortion moving further towards the upper end of the fertile age period for women. So, for me "OMG, three abortions" is not very illuminating taken just by itself. As for those younger women and teens on their second abortions - well, as piratequeen said, comprehensive sex education is the key here.

That's fine, the figures are there for each person to interpret differently. Someone else may find those figures too high, but at least they'll be using the correct figures to come to their conclusion.

Also, this isn't 2 abortions we are talking about, it's 2 or more. The average age in the UK that a girl loses her virginity is 17 so your potential figure of 10 years of sexual activity for the 20-24 group is more likely to be 3-7 years of sexual activity.

Sionnach7

captbarnacles wrote: »

oh FFS what woman thinks "not to worry, if I get pregnant I'll just get an abortion'?? know any? I don't.

I do actually. And like another poster said earlier, due to the base, selfish nature of our society, it really isn't that stretch of the imagination to think that there are far too many who think like this.
This is not 'just' a crude case of women are bad, men are good, as there are far too many men who abandon their responsibilities of child rearing, and who, if they were women, would probably have their child murdered too. We live in quite a selfish society.
The goal should be to put the child first, as is the widely accepted goal, regardless where they are, including, the womb.

Sionnach7

professore wrote: »

I have to vote no on repealing the 8th if that's the vote, because I don't know what will replace it. I would vote in favour of abortion in limited circumstances, but am against abortions after about 10 weeks or so, or for lifestyle reasons. I value all human life, and am very slow to remove any protections for it.

It's the same reason if someone came up with the idea that to allow gay marriage we should remove all references to marriage and families from the constitution and let the politicians decide. I wouldn't vote for that either.

Also the whole I wouldn't do it myself but I can't tell others how to live their lives is such a cop out. That's like seeing your neighbour beating his wife half to death every day and voting to make assault and battery to not be a crime anymore because you can't impose your views on others. The pro choice people have no such hangups. Stand up for what you believe.

I couldn't agree more. Very, very well said in all.

Ave Sodalis

Sionnach7 wrote:

This is an excellent point. Sorry women, but some women tend to think that it is only *they* that are affected by the whole thing. There are good guys too who would look after *their* baby. And obviously the baby wouldn't be subjected to the torture of being ripped apart to kill him/her. I would go insane to think that a child of mine would have been torn apart in the name of convenience or perceived temporary emotional resolution.

A baby is not torturously ripped apart during an abortion. Do you really think such hysteria?

nozzferrahhtoo

professore wrote: »

I value all human life, and am very slow to remove any protections for it.

As do I, but my valuing it led me TO a pro-choice position up to around 16 weeks.

And the reason is I did not just stop at saying "I value all human life". I went further to ask myself "Ok what exactly is it I value, how am I defining "Human Life", and what are the pre-requisites for that definition?"

And having done this, I brought the results BACK to the abortion question and I realized that the results of my introspection resulted in something that could not coherently be applied to a <16 week old fetus.

As such while I value "all human life"..... what I am defining as "Human Life" in that context simply does not apply to that fetus.

And I think that is the main water muddying issue on the entire abortion debate. Words like "Human" "Life" "Alive" are thrown around without clarification or coherence or context in the hope the words will do the intellectual work that the user of the words is unwilling or unable to do themselves.

Sionnach7

Deleted User wrote: »

But the 8th amendment and the ban on abortions doesn't actually stop abortions from happening. Would it not be better to legalize it and work on preventing the need for abortion (thereby lowering the abortion rate and 'protecting human life') through proven social measures?

Regardless of what it says in the constitution women are going to have abortions, no point in sticking our heads in the sand any longer

I agree with your this and all your previous points regarding helping a woman *in every possible way* to keep her and her partner's baby. You are absolutely right, and to be fair, this isn't really addressed half enough.
Regarding legalising it, I don't agree as there are doubtless *people* alive today because even the journey to Britain to have their child killed was one bridge too far.
And I'm sorry, but I cannot, cannot, ever, put a person's emotional distress over the whole LIFE of a child, a person.

Peace.

Sionnach7

AnGaelach wrote: »

I've known a woman who had two abortions because she just didn't want the kid, not because she thought she'd be a bad mother or because of some threat to her health - she simply wanted to not have to raise a kid or bring it to term.

I've changed my views on abortion. When I was younger, I was quite the pro-choice advocate. Now, I'm quite reserved, because it's not just about one person's feelings. It's about two lives.

Absolutely.
And on the face of things, if that really was the case, that is a horrendous 'reason' for someone to kill another. Convenience.
"Ah shur I don't like the wife any more. I think I'll have her 'aborted'."

nozzferrahhtoo

Sionnach7 wrote: »

Regarding legalising it, I don't agree as there are doubtless *people* alive today because even the journey to Britain to have their child killed was one bridge too far.

I would be deeply uncomfortable with employing an argument from "There are people alive today who would not be if X". Because I think people apply that argument selectively and in cherry picked scenarios.

When one mediates over potentials one can hit the slippery slope very quickly.

Sure, there are people alive today who might not be if abortion on demand were entirely legal and they did not have to go to the UK.

But where do you stop? There are many people alive today who would not be had contraception been available in Ireland when it was not. There are people alive today who would not be had the rapes that conceived them been prevented at the time.

And the argument can be reversed in the same way. There are people NOT alive today who would be if we had long ago reduced the age limit for the purchase of alcohol. There are people NOT alive today who would be if we removed womens rights to refuse the sexual advances of men. There are people NOT alive today who would be if we had banned contraception entirely. There are people NOT alive today who would be if we policed our borders and simply prevented pregnant women from leaving the country.

So what happens is people employing "Alive who would not be" argument is they are biased and selective as to when and where they apply it. And I am wary of arguments people are only willing to apply when it suits them or their biases and agendas, and willing to themselves deflect when it is inconvenient in another scenario.

Not that I am unaware of the emotional power of the argument. I just do not think emotion should override reason here. If someone was standing before me and they told me their mother WANTED an abortion but could not get one.... that has emotional impact. And seeing past that emotional impact is not an ability every single person has.

grogi

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 protest had very little about abortion per demand. This is a public relations twist of the government that is trying to portrait the protesters as hippies who want to have unprotected sex and terminate soon afterwards. That way the protesters are alienated by the core of the electorate of the current government - the very conservative Catholics.

The real issue was that the proposed regulations would penalise any action that lead to, intentional or not, death of the fetus. As a consequence pregnant women would have very limited options when it comes to medical care - no doctor would perform not only an abortion saving the mother (which was allowed under existing regulations, but doctor might not agree to do it and refer to a different one), but any riskier procedure saving the pregnant woman or saving the unborn one...

Sionnach7

Deleted User wrote: »

"Tbh I don't see the point of forcing a woman to have a child she does not want."
That stance could be easily applied to anyone who wants to get rid of someone else they "don't want" in the world.

"There's enough unwanted children in the world as it is, and while adoption works for some, it doesn't for everyone".
So you would prefer to play God, and not give them the chance?
Not to mind, put the poor little things through horrific torture before they die being dismembered? That's the reality. And if you don't think that's more important than temporary inconvenience, okay a lot of inconvenience, but still-inconvenience, then yes. You *are* heartless.

"If women could give away healthy babies to willing parents without the 9 month pregnancy they would"
No, that would probably be too much trouble too.

"We're not heartless but we have to think about our lives too."
Me first so, is it? With or without the heart is immaterial. It's still "Me first".

nozzferrahhtoo

Sionnach7 wrote: »

Not to mind, put the poor little things through horrific torture before they die being dismembered? That's the reality.

Whether or not that is the "reality" would entirely depend on what you are talking about. Over 90% of abortions occur before 12 weeks of gestation.

And at that period..... and even at 16 or 20 weeks and likely a bit beyond......... there is not just little, but NO REASON AT ALL to suspect that the fetus experiences anything at all. Let alone "horrific torture before they die".

And I say that not just to rebut you, but to helpfully allay any distress you may be under by imagining all that horror and torture.

If you are genuinely under ANY distress AT ALL by the thought of 1000s of pre 12 week fetuses being aborted in pain and agony..... then you should know there is no basis at all for your concern and distress. And I hope this information allays your suffering somewhat.

MeatTwoVeg

I was just thinking we need another abortion thread.
Yeah!!!!

Sionnach7

Sionnach7 wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

"Tbh I don't see the point of forcing a woman to have a child she does not want."
That stance could be easily applied to anyone who wants to get rid of someone else they "don't want" in the world.

"There's enough unwanted children in the world as it is, and while adoption works for some, it doesn't for everyone".
So you would prefer to play God, and not give them the chance?
Not to mind, put the poor little things through horrific torture before they die being dismembered? That's the reality. And if you don't think that's more important than temporary inconvenience, okay a lot of inconvenience, but still-inconvenience, then yes. You *are* heartless.

"If women could give away healthy babies to willing parents without the 9 month pregnancy they would"
No, that would probably be too much trouble too.

"We're not heartless but we have to think about our lives too."
Me first so, is it? With or without the heart is immaterial. It's still "Me first".

I'm not engaging with this hyperbole. Fetuses are not horrifically tortured during abortion. Around 90% of abortions occur before the fetus even has a functional nervous system, and therefore they can't even feel pain. You're acting as if medical professionals who provide abortions intentionally cause as much suffering as they can to the fetus, which is patently untrue

ThinkProgress

I don't personally think an unborn baby has the same rights as a person outside the womb.

Until they leave the womb, their rights should be assumed ultimately by no one else other than the mother...

The state should have no claim over the rights of the unborn. Because in order to do so, they must also remove autonomy from the woman over her own body!

If you tolerate that, then what else are you willing to tolerate? Should the state hold sway over a man's body too? And if you can dictate and control a person's body, why not their mind too?

Samaris

Part of the whole issue on this is that we don't really have the answer to what constitutes a human. And very very few people in here are absolutely on one side or the other.

The most common stances appear to be Roughly Pro-Choice and Roughly Pro-Life; i.e. a lot of pro-lifers seem to be okay with abortion in the case of ffa, rape or incest. Some are also okay with pre-12 weeks/first trimester. A lot of pro-choicers tend to halt their gallop as the foetus gets nearer to delivery date.

So neither side has absolute conviction on their side. If the pro-choicers were absolutely pro-choice, more would be okay with aborting up until the delivery date, which most arenot. If the pro-lifers were absolutely pro-life and totally believed it to be murder, why would they punish the "baby" just because it's got an ffa, or is the product of rape or incest.

There are, as always, extremists, but I'm not addressing the extreme points as neither will be an option in the foreseeable anyway.

Also, because this has been bugging the hell out of me since I saw the relevant post, but you cannot abort an eight-month old baby. Nor can you abort a 1 year old or a teenager (as much as exasperated parents might want to abort them right out of the house until they become livable again). An eight month old baby has been seperate from its mother for eight months. It has been born for eight months. Before it is born, it is a foetus. Before it is a foetus, it's a zygote, etc, etc. I may have missed a stage in the middle, but I hope my point is clear.

Start mixing those terms up for the sake of an emotive argument, and that's where all sorts of straw men come in. Like aborting a one year old!

Additionally I'd like to add that there's pretty much nowhere where abortions are carried out post 24 weeks except for cases of FFA. In the case of a woman's health at risk the baby would be delivered prematurely and given medical care to help it survive. Once the fetus is developed enough to be able to survive outside the womb they are not aborted (or 'horrifically tortured and murdered' as some people would have you believe), they are born. Whether or not you agree with elective abortion being available up to 24 weeks is a different matter, but no one is 'murdering' otherwise healthy babies capable of surviving independent of their mother.

AnGaelach

ThinkProgress wrote:

If you tolerate that, then what else are you willing to tolerate? Should the state hold sway over a man's body too?

Yeah, the thing about your hysteria is that it's not about the woman's body. It's that there is another life involved.

ThinkProgress wrote:

And if you can dictate and control a person's body, why not their mind too?

Because as far as I'm aware, you can't give birth to something with your mind.

ScumLord

Samaris wrote: »

Part of the whole issue on this is that we don't really have the answer to what constitutes a human. And very very few people in here are absolutely on one side or the other.

It could be argued that even a newborn infant isn't fully human because they're still not finished developing. They don't have all the functions that make a complete human until they're much older.

I just don't hold the biological material we're made out of as sacred. As far as I'm concerned humans are just any other animal, I think this whole abortion thing has got wrapped up in ideas of the soul, like the infant inside is a person with a god given life path laid out before them, if life intervenes and kills that baby it was part of god's plan. If we intervene, even to save the life of the mother of an already dead baby, we're murders.

AnGaelach

ScumLord wrote:

It could be argued that even a newborn infant isn't fully human because they're still not finished developing.

Do you really want to even argue that?

ScumLord

AnGaelach wrote: »

Do you really want to even argue that?

Ok,

A newborn infant isn't fully human because they're still not finished developing. They don't have all the functions that make a complete human until they're much older.

The Highwayman

donkeyoaty0099 wrote: »

Arthur.beaker wrote: »

Can they not currently 'choose' to travel to the UK?

Why should they have to

They don't have to, they don't have to travel to the next village if it was available there either.

AnGaelach

ScumLord wrote:

A newborn infant isn't fully human because they're still not finished developing. They don't have all the functions that make a complete human until they're much older.

You're hardly helping convince people to support your abortion-on-demand case by saying newborn aren't human.

ThinkProgress

AnGaelach wrote: »

Yeah, the thing about your hysteria is that it's not about the woman's body. It's that there is another life involved.



Because as far as I'm aware, you can't give birth to something with your mind.

A kernel of potential life, that would be impossible without being incubated in their body...

They created this potential life. It's nobody else's creation, but their's...

Someone else's body is outside our jurisdiction, as a society. We cannot hold claim over a fetus, anymore than we could someone's heart/lungs etc.

It's not a national agenda issue. It's a personal and private issue. I feel embarrassed that a country would even be compelled to vote on such an issue tbh!

ScumLord

AnGaelach wrote: »

You're hardly helping convince people to support your abortion-on-demand case by saying newborn aren't human.

You seem confused, I'm pro life. No abortions ever. I think once women are of childbearing age they should have their passports taken off them once they're in a relationship, flighty girls should have one of their legs tied to something heavy just in case they try to swim to the united kingdom of abortions.

AnGaelach

ThinkProgress wrote:

A kernel of potential life, that would be impossible without being incubated in their body...

Correct.

ThinkProgress wrote:

They created this potential life. It's nobody else's creation, but their's...

Correct. It's also their responsibility.

ThinkProgress wrote:

Someone else's body is outside our jurisdiction, as a society. We cannot hold claim over a fetus, anymore than we could someone's heart/lungs etc.

Yet you purport to reserve the right to claim whether it lives or dies.

ThinkProgress wrote:

It's not a national agenda issue. It's a personal and private issue. I feel embarrassed that a country would even be compelled to vote on such an issue tbh!

Of course it is a national issue, this isn't one of privacy (that's the same argument the US court used to magic up the right to abortion), it's one of right to life.

If it wasn't a public issue, we wouldn't be discussing it. If it was a private issue, you could simply go to the UK.

RDM_83 again

Deleted User wrote: »

Additionally I'd like to add that there's pretty much nowhere where abortions are carried out post 24 weeks except for cases of FFA. In the case of a woman's health at risk the baby would be delivered prematurely and given medical care to help it survive. Once the fetus is developed enough to be able to survive outside the womb they are not aborted (or 'horrifically tortured and murdered' as some people would have you believe), they are born. Whether or not you agree with elective abortion being available up to 24 weeks is a different matter, but no one is 'murdering' otherwise healthy babies capable of surviving independent of their mother.

Couple of points, a lot of the stronger pro choice posters want a UK style regime. Terminations happen there because of fetal abnormalities not just ffa, mostly this means downs etc but there is probable cases relating to things like club foot and cleft palate.
What efforts are made to save the "child's" life after birth, if every method isn't used then it is basically abortion.
If you terminate a birth between 24-28/30 weeks your quite likely to be causing serious long term harm to the child. Morally how do you balance the infliction of a life times worth of issues to (unarguably) a person against the mothers current situation.

On a wider note if somebody favours a UK system they place a major primacy on choice and are ok with industrial levels of abortion (e.g it's something like 20% of pregnancies ending that way). Favouring a German or other European position where there is stricter time limits, a short waiting/assessment period and mandatory pretty abortion counselling is a much more balanced view IMO, it recognises abortion will happen for invulnerable reasons but tries to reduce the rate and it's place in society while not compromising on harm reduction.

JuliusCaesar

Seeing so many people are obsessed with the repeat abortion 'offenders', I had a look at the literature. Alcoholics, drug addicts, women who come from severely dysfunctional, abusive, and impoverished backgrounds seem to figure prominently. People with chaotic lives who don't function well in society, in short.

Samaris

Mind you, if both Ireland and the UK even gave women the right to get their tubes tied if they absolutely don't want children and/or can't use various types of contraception, that might help too. But just try to get it done if you're still of breeding age. Technically it's allowed. In actuality there are about as many hoops to jump through as there is with abortion.

Sucks for someone who can't use various types of contraception, doesn't want children or even it might be dangerous to them to have them, they can't get sterilised and they can't have an abortion.

I'm sure there's someone reading it sniffily thinking "well, they should just keep their legs closed then", ignoring that a sex life is natural to people, even women. Honestly, if various do-gooders* would stay the hell out of other peoples' bedrooms more, they probably wouldn't need to protest so much about what situations people end up in.


*Doesn't apply to all pro-life people, but if one is pro-life and still argues against sex education and preventative methods, a prevalent combination in the US in particular, one needs to take a serious look at oneself.

RDM_83 again

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Couple of points, a lot of the stronger pro choice posters want a UK style regime. Terminations happen there because of fetal abnormalities not just ffa, mostly this means downs etc but there is probable cases relating to things like club foot and cleft palate.
What efforts are made to save the "child's" life after birth, if every method isn't used then it is basically abortion.
If you terminate a birth between 24-28/30 weeks your quite likely to be causing serious long term harm to the child. Morally how do you balance the infliction of a life times worth of issues to (unarguably) a person against the mothers current situation.

On a wider note if somebody favours a UK system they place a major primacy on choice and are ok with industrial levels of abortion (e.g it's something like 20% of pregnancies ending that way). Favouring a German or other European position where there is stricter time limits, a short waiting/assessment period and mandatory pretty abortion counselling is a much more balanced view IMO, it recognises abortion will happen for invulnerable reasons but tries to reduce the rate and it's place in society while not compromising on harm reduction.

I mostly agree. I think 24 weeks is too late for anything other than FFA and health risks to the mother. I would lean more towards the European systems personally. It's hard to pinpoint a specific point at which to 'draw the line' because everyone has differing opinions. Considering 90% of abortions occur before 12 weeks however, and I'd imagine a significant proportion of abortions after that point are due to FFA/health reasons which should be available . That covers most people by the European system, and I think most pro choice people would he happy with that.

Regarding people having abortions for non fatal abnormalities, it is a sad unavoidable feature of elective abortion. I don't want to get into a eugenics debate, but I guess you have to accept that if you give people the choice to end a pregnancy for any reason, they may choose to end pregnancies where the fetus is found to have a genetic disease. If that disease would cause the baby/adult significant suffering, or impose too much financial pressure on a struggling family, I can't tell them it's right or wrong. If you have an early cut off point though (such as 12 weeks), many of these non fatal abnormalities may not be diagnosed before this time. I also think if someone getting an abortion because the fetus has a cosmetic defect such as cleft palate (which is easily fixable!) then that is sad, but the best way to reduce both of these scenarios from occurring is to improve education about abortion and pregnancy and improve supports available to families with children with chronic diseases/disabilities.

130Kph

AnGaelach wrote: »

Yeah, the thing about your hysteria is that it's not about the woman's body. It's that there is another life involved.

Yes, it is life but to be precise this second life you describe is a human embryo or foetus. An embryo or foetus is, as you know developing inside the first human being.

So what gives you, this or any state the right to intervene or interfere with a private citizen who may decide to proceed with an abortion?

Some people say, I don’t want my country to allow ‘abortion on demand’
Translated:- “I want to enforce my irrational, feelings-based version of morality onto every woman (/couple) in the country even those who don’t believe that a dependent foetus has any rights and who believe strongly in bodily autonomy”.

While acknowledging your feelings on the issue, I believe, quite simply: another citizens pregnancy is absolutely none of your business and also it is exceeding the state’s authority to have any laws- let alone constitutional clauses like our obnoxious 8th amendment (indirectly) - controlling what a citizen may or may not do during or with their own pregnancy.

Of course, we are conditioned in Ireland to this ongoing interference in people’s private lives (Canada now is the opposite template for the entire world in this arena).

Most rational, moral people don’t want to live in a country where there are authoritative, backwater medical laws grounded on feelings-based irrationality – making a mockery of the core concept of a modern republic.

It’s telling that there hasn’t been even one strong or compelling argument from the pro-life camp….ever….

AnGaelach

130Kph wrote:

Yes, it is life but to be precise this second life you describe is a human embryo or foetus. An embryo or foetus is, as you know developing inside the first human being.

Which, barring any catastrophe, has the odds in its favour that it will come to be born.

130Kph wrote:

So what gives you, this or any state the right to intervene or interfere with a private citizen who may decide to proceed with an abortion?

The 8th Amendment obviously. This isn't an argument about the State's right to interfere with another's life, it's about why you should be allowed to interfere with another's life. And so far, you haven't provided anything of substance.

130Kph wrote:

Some people say, I don’t want my country to allow ‘abortion on demand’
Translated:- “I want to enforce my irrational, feelings-based version of morality onto every woman (/couple) in the country even those who don’t believe that a dependent foetus has any rights and who believe strongly in bodily autonomy”.

If that's what you got from the translation, I'd strongly suggest you don't use Google Translate any more

It's more "I want to enforce my belief that you don't have the right to take the life of another just because you feel like it".

130Kph wrote:

While acknowledging your feelings on the issue, I believe, quite simply: another citizens pregnancy is absolutely none of your business and also it is exceeding the state’s authority to have any laws- let alone constitutional clauses like our obnoxious 8th amendment (indirectly) - controlling what a citizen may or may not do during or with their own pregnancy.

And I feel another citizen's privacy does not give them the right to terminate the life of another soon-to-be citizen. Our constitution and our courts agree with me.

130Kph wrote:

Of course, we are conditioned in Ireland to this ongoing interference in people’s private lives (Canada now is the opposite template for the entire world in this arena).

Canada, where the abortion rate is 30% of the birth rate... You might think Canada is great, I think Canada isn't. Instead of trying to make Ireland like Canada, why not just go to Canada?

130Kph wrote:

Most rational, moral people don’t want to live in a country where there are authoritative, backwater medical laws grounded on feelings-based irrationality – making a mockery of the core concept of a modern republic.

The majority of people don't want to live in this country with on-demand abortion and the legislature reflects that. That's not a mockery of a Republic, that is a Republic. You can call it antiquated or repressive or whatever name you want to denigrate it because it doesn't do what you want, but that's just being petty.

130Kph wrote:

It’s telling that there hasn’t been even one strong or compelling argument from the pro-life camp….ever….

That's your opinion. For me, there hasn't been a single compelling argument from the pro-choice camp.

130Kph

AnGaelach wrote: »

Which, barring .......from the pro-choice camp.

Given your reply here, I was going to give a point by point response to your post but I decided instead to ask you one question.

It is not a trick question or a ‘gotcha’ question and I would appreciate a considered answer & explanation of rationale since it is never answered in broadcast or other media platforms. By answering this question, you may genuinely help pro-choicers understand this specific point of view of those on the pro-life side (which currently remains incomprehensible to me). The question is……..

Q. Which one of these statements more closely corresponds with your attitude towards a girl or woman in a crisis pregnancy in this country?


a) I support keeping such girls & women as brood mares

b) I do not support keeping such girls & women as brood mares




{ I have just one request:- If you don’t want to answer the question, just say so or don’t respond (which is fine) rather than answering a question I didn’t ask }

AnGaelach

130Kph wrote:

It is not a trick question or a ‘gotcha’ question

No, it's just one intended to disrupt the discussion and a strawman. It's like me saying:

Okay, which describes you better:

a) I support the murder of children
b) I don't support the murder of children

Neither your question nor the rhetorical one above is at all a reasonable thing to ask.

The Rape of Lucretia

AnGaelach wrote: »

No, it's just one intended to disrupt the discussion and a strawman. It's like me saying:

Okay, which describes you better:

a) I support the murder of children
b) I don't support the murder of children

Neither your question nor the rhetorical one above is at all a reasonable thing to ask.

130's question is a reasonable one to ask. And you are dodging it.

Your question is also a reasonable one to ask. And the difference in the answers shows the problem with the pro-no-choice stance.

The answer to your question, will be a unanimous b. So there is no problem,


But the answer to 130's question is 'a' from some, and 'b' from others. But rather than conclude the reasonable outcome to be that 'a' people choose not to abort if faced with the question, and 'b' people choose to do so, 'a' people say that their choice is the superior one, and so everyone must follow their view.

130Kph

Disrupt the discussion…..what? Seriously?

I condemn all murder. I think 30 to 40 years in prison is appropriate for the murder of a child or adult (of course, as is obvious ‘a foetus does not equal a child’. What a mad analogy!!

The almost blanket ban on abortion here effectively makes women who do not want to proceed with a crisis pregnancy into brood mares. That may not be something you or those on the pro-life side want to address. But in fairness to you, it’s easier not to address it. That bears repeating: it’s easier for absolutists not to address the consequences of their absolutism.

Don’t get me wrong- in debates, I’d love not to address the negative side of any socio-political views I expound (however, I have more self-respect therefore I resist that base urge).

I’d really like you to answer this question. It is not a strawman, as I’ve explained and it is not disruptive. It is a genuine chance for you as a pro-lifer to explain your attitude towards women in crises pregnancies. So, here’s the question again:


Q. Which one of these statements more closely corresponds with your attitude towards a girl or woman in a crisis pregnancy in this country?


a) I support keeping such girls & women as brood mares

b) I do not support keeping such girls & women as brood mares

The One Doctor

brickmauser wrote: »

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

So women should have the legal right to kill their child up to the moment before they're born?

Barbaric.

People seem to forget about the urge to kill once a child is actually born, but what's the difference? Answer: Killing a child before birth has much less emotional charge to the average Josephine Soap.

aphex™

Mad to think some people are probably posting on boards right now who could have been aborted before birth if it were legal!

If you're a child of a single mother the question would always be with you, wouldn't it? A tough week for your mother and you could have been put down.
Crazy stuff.

JeffKenna

A repeal of the 8th would seriously hit Ireland's medal haul at the special Olympics.

seenitall

JeffKenna wrote: »

A repeal of the 8th would seriously hit Ireland's medal haul at the special Olympics.

I lol'd. Bad, bad Jeff!

AnGaelach

the Rape of Lucretia wrote:

130's question is a reasonable one to ask. And you are dodging it.

It absolutely is not a reasonable one to ask, it's a strawman.

kumate_champ07

if a woman becomes pregnant and doesnt want to have a baby but her male partner does, can she have an abortion even if the man is willing to bring up the child?

I know its the womans body but I havent seen much mention of the father besides rapists, the whole thing seems to be 'women vrs the bad men running the country'

MadDog76

The whole abortion debate/discussion/issue is turned into a farce by extremists on both sides ......... you have the bat-sh*t crazy anti-abortionists who believe women should be forced, under any circumstances, to carry their baby to full-term on one side then on the other side you have the, in my opinion, even nuttier pro-abortion people who believe that a baby should be aborted even up to the day before due date without the motives of the mother being questioned in any way whatsoever ........... I think the majority of logical reasonable people would be pro-choice ....... with restrictions.

A reasonable time limit should be in place ......... 20 weeks maybe, up to 26 weeks in extreme circumstances.

The motives for the abortion should be considered ......... rape victims, incest, the likely-hood of the baby being so badly de-formed that they would have little or no quality of life and circumstances where the mother's health is at risk should be given priority.
In short, I don't think "Jane" should be able to abort her perfectly healthy baby at 35 weeks just because she has decided that this baby is now an inconvenience to her.

I think the (potential) father's thoughts/feelings should be taken into consideration in some way .......... for example, if the father wants the mother to abort the child but the mother refuses then he should be free of any physical, or financial, responsibility towards the raising of the child.
I'm not sure how it would work if the father wants to keep the child but the mother insists on an abortion but that would need (in some way?) to be taken into account.

It's a difficult situation for any mother (and father) to find themselves in and I don't think there's a one-rule-fits-all that will make everybody happy ........ but there does need to be changes in this country regarding abortion as the current situation is ridiculous and dangerous at the very least.

Just my two-cents worth ..........

kumate_champ07

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

if a woman becomes pregnant and doesnt want to have a baby but her male partner does, can she have an abortion even if the man is willing to bring up the child?

I know its the womans body but I havent seen much mention of the father besides rapists, the whole thing seems to be 'women vrs the bad men running the country'

Depends. Is the father also willing to go through a 9 month pregnancy too?

I really do appreciate that the father's opinion should be taken into account when making these decisions but ultimately women aren't incubators who should produce children for other people, if they don't want to.

MadDog76

MadDog76 wrote: »

The whole abortion debate/discussion/issue is turned into a farce by extremists on both sides ......... you have the bat-sh*t crazy anti-abortionists who believe women should be forced, under any circumstances, to carry their baby to full-term on one side then on the other side you have the, in my opinion, even nuttier pro-abortion people who believe that a baby should be aborted even up to the day before due date without the motives of the mother being questioned in any way whatsoever ........... I think the majority of logical reasonable people would be pro-choice ....... with restrictions.

A reasonable time limit should be in place ......... 20 weeks maybe, up to 26 weeks in extreme circumstances.

The motives for the abortion should be considered ......... rape victims, incest, the likely-hood of the baby being so badly de-formed that they would have little or no quality of life and circumstances where the mother's health is at risk should be given priority.
In short, I don't think "Jane" should be able to abort her perfectly healthy baby at 35 weeks just because she has decided that this baby is now an inconvenience to her.

I think the (potential) father's thoughts/feelings should be taken into consideration in some way .......... for example, if the father wants the mother to abort the child but the mother refuses then he should be free of any physical, or financial, responsibility towards the raising of the child.
I'm not sure how it would work if the father wants to keep the child but the mother insists on an abortion but that would need (in some way?) to be taken into account.

It's a difficult situation for any mother (and father) to find themselves in and I don't think there's a one-rule-fits-all that will make everybody happy ........ but there does need to be changes in this country regarding abortion as the current situation is ridiculous and dangerous at the very least.

Just my two-cents worth ..........

I really don't think anyone on the pro choice is supporting abortion at 35 weeks, except maybe in the case of FFA. If a woman needed to end her pregnancy at 35 weeks the baby would be delivered early, not killed as some people seem to believe.

MadDog76

Deleted User wrote: »

I really don't think anyone on the pro choice is supporting abortion at 35 weeks, except maybe in the case of FFA. If a woman needed to end her pregnancy at 35 weeks the baby would be delivered early, not killed as some people seem to believe.

Come off it, there are extremists in the pro-abortion camp who believe abortion should be allowed right up until birth without the motives of the mother being questioned in any way at all ........... there are extremists on both sides, fact.