I have changed my views on abortion

sullivlo

aphex™ wrote: »

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.

Yep. That's me. I'm the child of a single mother. I have never met my dad. Would I be here if mum could have afforded to travel? 100% no. Would I judge her for it? Absolutely not.

When I was born it caused some serious health problems for mum. Problems that still exist now, and I'm 30. Problems that could have been avoided had she been able to abort me. Instead, she had the pregnancy and had her life turned upside down. The stigma attached to her being a single mother back then too - from the same people who would have been against abortion. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

I know that I wouldn't be here. It's a thought that has crossed my mind many times. However I absolutely respect a woman's right to choose.

I'm pro life. I would not have an abortion. But I say that now not knowing what the future holds. If I were to become pregnant and the foetus had FFA, I don't think I would be strong enough to carry a pregnancy for 9 months to watch my baby die in my arms.

But why should my personal views on abortion influence anyone else's life? Don't want an abortion? Don't have one. But don't let your opinions impact the life of women who don't have a say over their own bodies.

sullivlo

MadDog76 wrote: »

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.

The thing is though. A foetus can survive past 26 weeks. It's not called an abortion then. It's called inducing labour.

Sure look at that poor asylum seeker who was denied a visa to travel to abort her rapists foetus. She was detained against her will and force fed until the baby was delivered by c section at 26 weeks. Not only did the woman have to endure a rape and a pregnancy, she was subjected to an operation that is bordering on an assault as it was imposed on her.

MadDog76

sullivlo wrote: »

The thing is though. A foetus can survive past 26 weeks. It's not called an abortion then. It's called inducing labour.

Sure look at that poor asylum seeker who was denied a visa to travel to abort her rapists foetus. She was detained against her will and force fed until the baby was delivered by c section at 26 weeks. Not only did the woman have to endure a rape and a pregnancy, she was subjected to an operation that is bordering on an assault as it was imposed on her.

And that's why the current situation regarding abortions in this country needs to change, as I said in my post ........... and there should be a 26 week time limit, as I also said in my post.

MadDog76

MadDog76 wrote: »

And that's why the current situation regarding abortions in this country needs to change, as I said in my post ........... and there should be a 26 week time limit, as I also said in my post.

But you also said that there are pro choice people who want there to be abortions after 26 weeks which is untrue. If a woman needed to end her pregnancy after 26 weeks ago the baby would be delivered, not killed.

MadDog76

Deleted User wrote: »

But you also said that there are pro choice people who want there to be abortions after 26 weeks which is untrue. If a woman needed to end her pregnancy after 26 weeks ago the baby would be delivered, not killed.

There is a difference, in procedure and intent, between abortion and inducing labour from 26 weeks onwards and there are pro-abortion people who do support abortion, not induced labour, right up until full-term .......... you, as a pro-abortion individual, may not support that and I applaud you but don't pretend there aren't other pro-abortion extremists who do support termination of a baby at any stage in the pregnancy.

Elliott S

MadDog76 wrote: »

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.

How can you talk about extremists and then come out with a statement like this? This never happens. Or so very rarely that it would be statistically insignificant. And at 35 weeks, it's a birth.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

tonycascarino wrote: »

If a woman can have the option of keeping a child or not then the fathers should also have the option of whether to pay child maintenance or not too. You can guarantee this sort of thinking will also come into play...

The problem with this is, nobody should the right to force a woman to put her body through pregnancy if she's not ready or if that's not what she wants. Equally it's barbaric to think if a man doesn't want to be a father that he should be able to force her to have an abortion.

when two people create a baby, and a child is born, it has two parents. Both parents should be financially providing for a child.

Plenty of men do walk away from kids that are born, they choose that they don't want to be a father. And they shouldn't be forced into taking the child or being the child's dad. That would screw up a child a lot id imagine. Having to spend time with a parent who doesn't want them. But, it's your offspring so you support the kid until they're old enough to support themselves.

MadDog76

Elliott S wrote: »

How can you talk about extremists and then come out with a statement like this? This never happens. Or so very rarely that it would be statistically insignificant. And at 35 weeks, it's a birth.

You missed the point ...........

Ave Sodalis

sullivlo wrote:

Yep. That's me. I'm the child of a single mother. I have never met my dad. Would I be here if mum could have afforded to travel? 100% no. Would I judge her for it? Absolutely not.

I'm also a child of a single parent. I would also not be here if mum could afford to travel. I also would not judge her one bit for it.

As I said in the other thread, my birth caused a lot of problem for my mother. She was too young, she had zero support, and she could not afford me. She had fallen out with her parents and was living on her own. She worked for a tiny wage which meant that she was left to starve for the last few days of the week in order to feed me. At the time, single parents were shunned and still get heavily judged for it. Even adoption agencies were knocking on the door, telling her to give up the child and that she would be an awful mother etc.
Now, she didn't abort me and she didn't give me up for her own reasons. It even somewhat worked out in the end. But how could I ever ask anyone I love to suffer like that?

MadDog76

LexieOnRale wrote: »

The problem with this is, nobody should the right to force a woman to put her body through pregnancy if she's not ready or if that's not what she wants. Equally it's barbaric to think if a man doesn't want to be a father that he should be able to force her to have an abortion.

when two people create a baby, and a child is born, it has two parents. Both parents should be financially providing for a child.

Plenty of men do walk away from kids that are born, they choose that they don't want to be a father. And they shouldn't be forced into taking the child or being the child's dad. That would screw up a child a lot id imagine. Having to spend time with a parent who doesn't want them. But, it's your offspring so you support the kid until they're old enough to support themselves.

That's a bit unfair though Lexie, isn't it?

If an unintended pregnancy occurs and both parents decide to keep the child then obviously they can discuss the logistics of raising the child, finances etc. ........ if they both decide they aren't in a position to be parents then they can both discuss the best way, including abortion, of dealing with their circumstances.

But if the father is adamant that he does not want to be a father yet, both physically and financially, then surely he should have the right to step away and leave the responsibility of the child with the mother who does want to raise the child? It can't be all one-sided, ie. the mother has the right to abort the baby if she doesn't want it but also has the right to force the father to raise a child he doesn't want ........ that's totally unfair in my opinion.

It gets more complicated if it's the father who wants to keep the child but the mother doesn't, for obvious reasons .......... there's no easy solution to that problem.

Ave Sodalis

MadDog76 wrote:

It gets more complicated if it's the father who wants to keep the child but the mother doesn't, for obvious reasons .......... there's no easy solution to that problem.

It's not an easy situation and the father should have an input, but the final choice should lie with the woman. She, after all, has to go through the stresses and pain of pregnancy and child birth. She would have to become an incubator.

Then have the child taken from her. Her reasons for abortion may not even be that she doesn't want children. It may even be that she wouldn't have the emotional strength to form an attachment in the womb and then have it taken from her. You don't always know.

Jen44

MadDog76 wrote: »

LexieOnRale wrote: »

The problem with this is, nobody should the right to force a woman to put her body through pregnancy if she's not ready or if that's not what she wants. Equally it's barbaric to think if a man doesn't want to be a father that he should be able to force her to have an abortion.

when two people create a baby, and a child is born, it has two parents. Both parents should be financially providing for a child.

Plenty of men do walk away from kids that are born, they choose that they don't want to be a father. And they shouldn't be forced into taking the child or being the child's dad. That would screw up a child a lot id imagine. Having to spend time with a parent who doesn't want them. But, it's your offspring so you support the kid until they're old enough to support themselves.

That's a bit unfair though Lexie, isn't it?

If an unintended pregnancy occurs and both parents decide to keep the child then obviously they can discuss the logistics of raising the child, finances etc. ........ if they both decide they aren't in a position to be parents then they can both discuss the best way, including abortion, of dealing with their circumstances.

But if the father is adamant that he does not want to be a father yet, both physically and financially, then surely he should have the right to step away and leave the responsibility of the child with the mother who does want to raise the child? It can't be all one-sided, ie. the mother has the right to abort the baby if she doesn't want it but also has the right to force the father to raise a child he doesn't want ........ that's totally unfair in my opinion.

It gets more complicated if it's the father who wants to keep the child but the mother doesn't, for obvious reasons .......... there's no easy solution to that problem.

Those rational thoughts should take place at conception stage and perhaps the proper use of contraception will avoid those kinds of thoughts and discussions later on!

Elliott S

MadDog76 wrote: »

You missed the point ...........

It's so rare as to be academic. Very few people who are pro-choice support the idea of full term abortions. There are a tiny handful of extremists... and?

MadDog76

Jen44 wrote: »

Those rational thoughts should take place at conception stage and perhaps the proper use of contraception will avoid those kinds of thoughts and discussions later on!

Problem solved!!! Everybody should only ever have sex when they are ready to be parents ....... we no longer need abortion or to even discuss it!!!

Well done you ......... :rolleyes:

MadDog76

Elliott S wrote: »

It's so rare as to be academic. Very few people who are pro-choice support the idea of full term abortions. There are a tiny handful of extremists... and?

And ........ that was my point, there are extremists (on both sides!) who muddy the waters.

I actually do, if he makes his position clear as early as possible during the pregnancy. Then at least the woman has a choice whether or not she can/wants to raise a child on her own. If decides he wants to walk after the child is born that's a different story.

MadDog76

Deleted User wrote: »

I actually do, if he makes his position clear as early as possible during the pregnancy. Then at least the woman has a choice whether or not she can/wants to raise a child on her own. If decides he wants to walk after the child is born that's a different story.

How early though?

MadDog76

MadDog76 wrote: »

How early though?

While abortion is still permissible in that country?

MadDog76

Deleted User wrote: »

While abortion is still permissible in that country?

I would agree .......... if abortion is permissible up to say 25 weeks then it's only fair that the potential father would also have the right to decide if he wants to be involved with the child, or not, up to the 25 week cut-off point.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

I do. He should absolutely have a choice in regards to whether or not he wants to be a dad to the child. However, if a child is actually born then the child is a living breathing human being, who doesn't live on fresh air, and needs to be dressed, and live somewhere safe and warm with food to eat.
You don't have to collect the child from school, or spend all your free time with the child. But you've created a living breathing person and that comes with some responsibility.

Elliott S

The idea of legal abortion has come recently in various abortion-related threads here. I'd be for it, with strict rules. Early stage pregnancy limits just like with abortion. No deciding you don't want to be a father seven months into the pregnancy.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

But it's not living or breathing though, is it? I think once a foetus is viable outside of the womb then it should be delivered alive. And if the father is taking sole custody then the mother should be paying her share, even if she doesn't want to be the child's mother.

I wouldn't think you should be carved open and be made give your child your kidney and a bit of your liver, I don't think you owe anyone the right to live off your body if you didn't want to be part of it. It should not be mandatory that your body should suffer to keep another body alive.

You can equally say that to men who don't want to have to raise their kids either.

I'm sure both men and women will be happy to revert to having sex only for procreation.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

It's a woman's body, first and foremost, and if she is unable or unwilling to put her body through the physical and emotional hurdles of a pregnancy, that does not make her selfish childish or self centred. Do you have complete control over what happens to your body? Yes or no?

It's not living or breathing.
It's parasidic & can only live off the mother.
Once it is capable of living outside the womb, then things change.

MadDog76

MadDog76 wrote: »

That's a bit unfair though Lexie, isn't it?

If an unintended pregnancy occurs and both parents decide to keep the child then obviously they can discuss the logistics of raising the child, finances etc. ........ if they both decide they aren't in a position to be parents then they can both discuss the best way, including abortion, of dealing with their circumstances.

But if the father is adamant that he does not want to be a father yet, both physically and financially, then surely he should have the right to step away and leave the responsibility of the child with the mother who does want to raise the child? It can't be all one-sided, ie. the mother has the right to abort the baby if she doesn't want it but also has the right to force the father to raise a child he doesn't want ........ that's totally unfair in my opinion.

It gets more complicated if it's the father who wants to keep the child but the mother doesn't, for obvious reasons .......... there's no easy solution to that problem.

I think in a case like his, it really depends on whether there was contraception used.
If not, then both are equally responsible.
If there was contraception used but it failed, then either parent should have the right early in to say they don't want a child.
Unfortunately for the man, there is absolutely no way around the point that women HAVE to carry the baby, so should he want it & the mother doesn't, then his wishes do indeed come second.
Until such a time as science can transplant embryos or feotuses between women. Which in itself raises other questions

AnGaelach

LexieOnRale wrote:

It's a woman's body, first and foremost, and if she is unable or unwilling to put her body through the physical and emotional hurdles of a pregnancy, that does not make her selfish childish or self centred.

It absolutely does if she's getting an abortion just to not have to deal with the inconvenience of being pregnant.

LexieOnRale wrote:

Do you have complete control over what happens to your body? Yes or no?

Can men get pregnant and bring another life into this world? Yes or no?

feargale

Anyone interested in this subject should read Ann McElhinney's article in yesterday's Irish Times. It's online.

"Ireland should vote knowing all that happens in a country where abortion is legal."

sullivlo

feargale wrote: »

Anyone interested in this subject should read Ann McElhinney's article in yesterday's Irish Times. It's online.

"Ireland should vote knowing all that happens in a country where abortion is legal."

That article is very one sided I think. No balance in it.

A couple with three kids not wanting a fourth - there's nothing wrong with that.

A couple wanting kids but not wanting twins - perfectly okay.

A woman changing her mind mid procedure after a nurse broke the rules? The provisions for counselling were obviously missing as the woman should not have been put in that position.

The article needs more stories. Stories of the rape victim who was too afraid to seek help after the rape. Stories of the families who crave children but become pregnant with a child that is incompatible with life when born. Stories of women who abort because it causes a significant risk to the woman's life. Stories of people who made a mistake - accidents happen. Pills fail. Condoms split.

What is wrong with someone CHOOSING to make a decision that impacts only them? Rather than forcing them to travel, or give birth to and raise a child that they don't want?

And don't mention adoption. It's much harder to give a child up for adoption and going through the birth, than it is to have an early stage abortion.

Elliott S

sullivlo wrote: »

And don't mention adoption. It's much harder to give a child up for adoption and going through the birth, than it is to have an early stage abortion.

Yes, there are many reasons why women don't chose adoption, so it's pointless saying that there's no need for abortion when adoption exists.

130Kph

AnGaelach wrote: »

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

I think I realise now how this strawman accusation has arisen. Maybe, in the question, when I implied 'forcing' a woman to remain pregnant against her will – you thought I meant physical restraints, like handcuffs or straight-jackets or 4 burly hospital janitors holding her down on a bed for 7 or 8 months.

No, no, no - I didn’t mean that kind of force at all;

To clarify: by force, I meant that Ireland’s wholly outdated 150 year old abortion law, the 8th amendment, 14 year prison sentences for a doctor who carries out an abortion etc:- all these together create an environment where a woman, if she remains in Ireland is forced by the system to remain pregnant against her will.

This in effect makes girls or women in these circumstances into brood mares – which, due to your pro-life beliefs, you seem to think is right and proper (maybe I'm mistaken?).

Now that I’ve clarified this misunderstanding, would you mind answering the question? Thanks.

A or B?

Jayop

Tbf I'm pro choice and I think that's a loaded question that's entirely unreasonable. You don't need to use terms like brood mare to get the answer you need. Using terms like that prevent any meaningful debate in the same way calling pro life people child murderers does.

Mary63

I read the Ann Mc Elhinny article yesterday and it bothered me.

I read elsewhere though that the abortion procedures she described are totally inaccurate and the methods used to abort foetuses now are much more humane.

I don't know what to think,I know channel 4 did produce a programme showing what abortion involves a few years ago but I can't find it on their player.

Does anyone know how abortions are carried out particularly the ones past sixteen weeks or so.I would like the full facts before I vote if there is a referendum.

feargale

sullivlo wrote: »

That article is very one sided I think. No balance in it.

Can you direct me please? Where should I go for balance?

Jayop

feargale wrote: »

Can you direct me please? Where should I go for balance?

Very difficult to get a balanced article on abortion. Either the author is very pro or anti and that will be reflected in the writing. I think the best you can do is try to read both sides and then make your mind up.

130Kph

Jayop wrote: »

Tbf I'm pro choice and I think that's a loaded question that's entirely unreasonable. You don't need to use terms like brood mare to get the answer you need.

"Have you stopped beating your wife?" is a loaded question.

This is not a loaded question. I am not presupposing anything.

The fact is – at the current time, a woman cannot have an abortion except in the case where she is going to die. A person either agrees with this regime or they don’t.

And sorry, but this regime DOES make women who don’t want to remain pregnant into brood mares. It's inarguable.

There’s no trick, fallacy or pre-supposition in the question.
If there is a fallacy, please point it out.

Jayop wrote: »

Using terms like that prevent any meaningful debate in the same way calling pro life (choice?) people child murderers does.

No, that’s dishonestly playing with the meaning of words whereas this is bleeding obvious.

Jayop

Yeah got my life and choice mixed up. I disagree with the brood mare line personally. I think it's pointless language to use and I'll not be for changing on that.

brickmauser

Abortion should be available to any woman who wants one at any time or any reason.

End of

I think that any referendum on the 8th will probably be lost as the pro life movement will convince many that it will open the floodgates.

Many people are in favour abortion in cases of rape incest and fatal problems with the baby.

Most people have a problem with abortion on demand.

feargale

brickmauser wrote: »

Abortion should available to any woman who wants one at any time or any reason.

End of

There you have it now. Abortion is ok three minutes before birth. And brickmauser has now closed this discussion.

Jayop

feargale wrote: »

There you have it now. Abortion is ok three minutes before birth. And brickmauser has now closed this discussion.

That poster is a pro life poster who is taking a deliberately extreme position for a reason only that know.

mzungu

Mary63 wrote: »

I read the Ann Mc Elhinny article yesterday and it bothered me.

I read elsewhere though that the abortion procedures she described are totally inaccurate and the methods used to abort foetuses now are much more humane.

I don't know what to think,I know channel 4 did produce a programme showing what abortion involves a few years ago but I can't find it on their player.

Does anyone know how abortions are carried out particularly the ones past sixteen weeks or so.I would like the full facts before I vote if there is a referendum.

The pro life crew have attempted to muddy the waters with complete falsehoods surrounding what happens during process of abortion (eg. Ronan Mullen last weekend). However, medical professionals have been active in the media this week calling them out on their BS. I haven't read the Ann McElhenny article so I can't comment on any claims made there.

noaddedsugar

AnGaelach wrote: »

It absolutely does if she's getting an abortion just to not have to deal with the inconvenience of being pregnant.

Have you ever been pregnant? I have twice, it wasn't just an inconvenience, 6 years after my last pregnancy my body is still not the same. I developed carpal tunnel in my pregnancies, my wrists have been painful and weak ever since, I struggle to sleep at night because of the pain that radiates up my arms. My hips have also been affected, again I have pain on a daily basis. I know women who have been left doubly incontinent, women whose clitorises have torn in two in child birth leaving them unable to enjoy sex, women who have been left with depression, hormonal changes, not to mention things like stretch marks, breast changes, even feet changing size. Calling it an inconvenience is belittling and insulting, it can be life changing and that should be recognised.

ceadaoin.

feargale wrote: »

There you have it now. Abortion is ok three minutes before birth. And brickmauser has now closed this discussion.

Why do you have to resort to hyperbole like this? Late abortions (after 20 weeks gestation) account for a miniscule amount of the total performed and are usually because of foetal abnormalities. Can you cite any cases of an abortion carried out in the 9 month of pregnancy? Or when the foetus was close to being delivered?

Son Of A Vidic

brickmauser wrote: »

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

I'm not swallowing that and mainly because your suspiciously recent registration, suggests to me that an agenda is at play.

feargale

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Why do you have to resort to hyperbole like this? Late abortions (after 20 weeks gestation) account for a miniscule amount of the total performed and are usually because of foetal abnormalities. Can you cite any cases of an abortion carried out in the 9 month of pregnancy? Or when the foetus was close to being delivered?

You seem to be missing the point. Even if brickmauser is tongue in cheek there are others here who are serious and who are saying abortion is ok at anytime. It's immaterial whether I can or can't cite examples of it happening. When these people get their way it will be legal to abort at anytime.

Ave Sodalis

feargale wrote:

You seem to be missing the point. Even if brickmauser is tongue in cheek there are others here who are serious and who are saying abortion is ok at anytime. It's immaterial whether I can or can't cite examples of it happening. When these people get their way it will be legal to abort at anytime.

No there is not others here who are saying all abortions are okay at any time. I think you needed to reread the thread... but given that your last sentence is verging on tinfoil hat territory, would you even believe what you read? Those saying at any time are for extreme medical cases such as FFA.

AnGaelach

bubblypop wrote:

It's not living or breathing.
It's parasidic & can only live off the mother.
Once it is capable of living outside the womb, then things change.

If the mother picks up an injury, it usually helps repair any injury. It's symbiotic, not parasitic.

ceadaoin.

AnGaelach wrote: »

If the mother picks up an injury, it usually helps repair any injury. It's symbiotic, not parasitic.

how does a foetus help to repair an injury? source?

Jen44

MadDog76 wrote: »

Jen44 wrote: »

Those rational thoughts should take place at conception stage and perhaps the proper use of contraception will avoid those kinds of thoughts and discussions later on!

Problem solved!!! Everybody should only ever have sex when they are ready to be parents ....... we no longer need abortion or to even discuss it!!!

Well done you ......... :rolleyes:

You obviously never heard of contraception either then!

kumate_champ07

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

so ultimately women have the last word on this? it shouldnt be about gender, it should be about life.

Ive no issue with someone having an abortion for medical reasons

men arent just sperm donor machines. what if the 'incubator' told the man she was on the pill but lied and got pregnant, does the man have any rights here? what if he doesnt want his sperm/genes being used without his consent?