anyone else fed up hearing about abortion already

jameorahiely

riclad wrote: »

I... .Under the present law doctors
can be sent to jail if they carry out an abortion .The laws we have now are from the 50,s and are a insult to women.
Section 8 should be scrapped , IF any womans health is in danger she should have the choice to go to a doctor get a letter and
get an abortion ...

No doctor who performed a legal abortion in Ireland last year is in jail. What are you on about? If the womans health is in danger she can go to the doctor and get an abortion under yge current leglislation.

Grayson wrote: »

They all give a toss about time limits. ...

No they don't, that's a sweeping generalisation

222233 wrote: »

Does anyone know? What is the purpose of the eight if the unborn doesn't have the exact same rights as every other citizen? Is it literally just there to stop women from accessing safe and legal abortion.

Women can access safe and legal abortion under the current leglislation

222233

jameorahiely wrote: »

Women can access safe and legal abortion under the current leglislation

My apologizes, access safe and legal abortion in their country of residence.

jameorahiely

gctest50 wrote: »

The PM machine must be running flat-out

Quick, quick, "ProLifer " asked for source in After Hours

Divert Divert

Where you dismissed from your position at abortion HQ for advocating people should abstain or use contraceptives? Or is it only African people you advise to take such action? You never did reply the last time.


Btw, I'm not sure why you quoted me here, I wasn't asked for amy source.

jameorahiely

222233 wrote: »

My apologizes, access safe and legal abortion in their country of residence.

Yes, 24 abortions were carried out in Ireland last year, didn't you know?

Billy86

RobertKK wrote: »

No, the mother doesn't decide if she has a miscarriage or not. One can see the unborn tries to live, but sometimes something is wrong and that is nature.
A mother can decide if she wants to end the life in her womb, totally different situations.

And that is the difference between murder and unintentional manslaughter - one is intentional e.g. a decision, the other is not.

gctest50

jameorahiely wrote: »

Where you dismissed from your position at abortion HQ for advocating people should abstain or use contraceptives? Or is it only African people you advise to take such action? You never did reply the last time.


Btw, I'm not sure why you quoted me here, I wasn't asked for amy source.

jameorahiely wrote: »

Where you dismissed from your position at abortion HQ for advocating people should abstain or use contraceptives?

What does this bit mean, please type it out again :

jameorahiely wrote: »

Where you dismissed from your position at abortion HQ

and what pile of nonsense is this supposed to be ?

jameorahiely wrote: »

for advocating people should abstain or use contraceptives?

222233

jameorahiely wrote: »

Yes, 24 abortions were carried out in Ireland last year, didn't you know?

I did indeed, that figure really represents the 3,451 that were carried out in the UK on Irish women in 2015.

infogiver

Billy86 wrote: »

And that is the difference between murder and unintentional manslaughter - one is intentional e.g. a decision, the other is not.

Billy once again please explain exactly how you think a mother having suffered a miscarriage could be accused of manslaughter if we agree that for manslaughter to have occurred, the accused needs to have made a desicion that resulted in another persons death.

Billy86

infogiver wrote: »

I should have been clearer
Manslaughter is when you take a course of action which results in someone's death even though that was not your intention
Agreed?
So, you agree that in saying that suffering a miscarriage could be viewed as involuntary manslaughter implies that the mother took a course of action that resulted in a miscarriage.
In other words that miscarriages are caused by wrong desicions on behalf of the mother.
And that that suggestion can cause pain and hurt?

So if a woman in the early stages of pregnancy goes run a run or cycle or gets into a car crash while driving for example, then that is manslaughter by your own reckoning, correct?

infogiver

Billy86 wrote: »

So if a woman in the early stages of pregnancy goes run a run or cycle or gets into a car crash while driving for example, then that is manslaughter by your own reckoning, correct?

No billy
It is YOU who is equating a miscarriage with manslaughter
I am trying to get YOU to explain your reasoning!?!

gctest50

Another great thread for new signups

infogiver

Billy86 wrote: »

So if a woman in the early stages of pregnancy goes run a run or cycle or gets into a car crash while driving for example, then that is manslaughter by your own reckoning, correct?

This is what YOU said:
If someone considers abortion at any stage of the pregnancy to be murder, then surely they should consider the likes of early stage miscarriages to be involuntary manslaughter.

jameorahiely

gctest50 wrote: »

What does this bit mean, please type it out again :






and what pile of nonsense is this supposed to be ?

Lol, this is from you

gctest50 wrote: »

It's not rocket science

a) stop having sex with the HIV infected
b) use protection

otherwise it's liek saying if we burnt all the cars and other road transport in the country, there would be no road-accidents

Anyway, do you still believe giving birth to a disabled child is the same as beating your healthy child every other month?

gctest50

jameorahiely wrote: »

Lol, this is from you

You seem a bit fixated, try a bit of context - here's the start of the thread,

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057547496


was in reference to making a big deal of preventing spread of AIDS

having sex with people with AIDS ?

1) don't
2) use condoms

It's not that hard to follow

.

Billy86

infogiver wrote: »

This is what YOU said:
If someone considers abortion at any stage of the pregnancy to be murder, then surely they should consider the likes of early stage miscarriages to be involuntary manslaughter.

And a miscarriage can be brought upon by taking a fall while running or cycling, or by being involved in a crash while driving. You're the one who said "Manslaughter is when you take a course of action which results in someone's death even though that was not your intention" - by your definition re abortion/murder and the status of the foetus, those courses of action would have resulted in someone's death even though that was not the mother's intention.

So are we in agreement then that you would consider a woman in the early stages of pregnancy going for a run or cycle and falling, or being involved in a crash while driving, to be guilty of involuntary manslaughter?

Christy42

jameorahiely wrote: »

No doctor who performed a legal abortion in Ireland last year is in jail. What are you on about? If the womans health is in danger she can go to the doctor and get an abortion under yge current leglislation.







No they don't, that's a sweeping generalisation




Women can access safe and legal abortion under the current leglislation

No they need their life to be in danger. Not just their health.


@Billy: even as a pro choice person I agree with them. They would see a miscarriage as a child getting sick or dying in a car crash and dying as opposed to manslaughter. I don't agree that abortion is murder but even if I assumed it was true a miscarriage would not always be manslaughter (I guess there are conditions where it would be).

Edit: If there was heavy drinking or drug use you could consider it manslaughter if you assumed the fetus was a person. The mother is very obviously risking the life of the fetus.

jameorahiely

Billy86 wrote: »

And a miscarriage can be brought upon by taking a fall while running or cycling, or by being involved in a crash while driving. You're the one who said "Manslaughter is when you take a course of action which results in someone's death even though that was not your intention" - by your definition re abortion/murder and the status of the foetus, those courses of action would have resulted in someone's death even though that was not the mother's intention.

So are we in agreement then that you would consider a woman in the early stages of pregnancy going for a run or cycle and falling, or being involved in a crash while driving, to be guilty of involuntary manslaughter?

You're omitting this bit about manslaughter:
that it is an act which an ordinary reasonable person would consider to be dangerous




Would an ordinary reasonable person consider running or cycling dangerous?

.......

This post has been deleted.

ohnonotgmail

infogiver wrote: »

Plenty of lunch time abortions. I would say that's taking it quite lightly.

do you know these women personally?

jameorahiely

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Source. Because what I'm seeing is most ordinary reasonable people think it's fine.


8 pints a week =good/exercise= bad

nozzferrahhtoo

RobertKK wrote: »

Life in the womb exists, it is not whatiffery

Yet read my post again. I very clearly used the word "person". You are talking about "life". I have no doubt it is alive, but "life" alone is not enough to qualify for human rights. Many things in this world are "alive" and we hack them to bits or to death on a whim. Clearly when we afford something moral and ethical concern, we are doing so on more than mere "life".

And for me that is personhood.... sentience and consciousness and the like..... something that is not just slightly but ENTIRELY absent in the majority of aborted fetuses (well over 90% of which generally happen before 12 weeks gestation).

So when you are going on about me being here when I might not be, or me going on about people who are not here who might have been.... we both ARE indeed engaging in whatiffery. You to make a point, and me to show why that point is rubbish.

nozzferrahhtoo

Troll wrote: »

Trollish

I think you have missed the point of my position. The points at which I am ok with abortion are points where we do not equivocate over "how much" sentience the fetus has (as if it is measurable.... what would the unit of measurement even be there....).

Rather my positions on abortion are based around times in the gestation when we know.... as much as we "know" anything in science.... that sentience and consciousness are ENTIRELY absent. Not just absent, but the pre-requisites for it are also absent.

My usual analogy is to radio waves. If radio waves are consciousness.... then the points at which I am ok with abortion are not just points where radio waves are absent..... the broadcasting tower from which they originate is not even built yet EITHER.

90%+ of abortions on demand..... the VAST majority if the word "vast" can mean anything it means this......... are performed before 12 weeks. Before 16 weeks and you are looking at going over 95%.

There simply is no basis I know of, or can even fantasize about outside the realms of Theistic notions of "souls"...... to expect to find anything even remotely related to consciousness, sentience, or subjective experience in a fetus at that point.

So the question is not about measuring (again, units?) sentience at these stages. It is simply absent. It is, in sentience terms at least, the equivalent of a rock. There simply is no "there" there.

So if someone has a 16 week old fetus in an incubator and wants to do everything they can to maintain it's life and development and so do their best to build a person, I am entirely ok with that.

If they want to turn the machine off and cease that endeavor instead..... I am equally fine with that too. And I am certainly not going to be moved by arguments from emotion like "A Little Pony" telling us "Oh but it has facial features!!!".

nozzferrahhtoo

Troll wrote: »

Trollish

Indeed, it does get grayer and grayer after 16 weeks. But since the VAST majority of people seeking abortion on demand do so before 12 weeks.... I genuinely do not see this as an issue myself.

But as a cautionary caveat, many of the reasons to think the fetus feels pain after 16 weeks are emotional only. They are autonomic responses people are imputing more to than they should be. So when you see something following the structure "When we do X, the fetus does Y, therefore it must experience pain/awareness" it pays to parse that very skeptically.

The best example from THIS forum is we have a user who is very emotionally moved by a study that showed that music played intra-vaginally to the fetus results in oral movements in the fetus. The researcher(s) writing the study LIKENED (for comparison and descriptive purposes only) the movements to speech. And this set off every emotional alarm in the users head. It is a prime example of how emotional responses can be triggered in us by viewing entirely autonomic and natural responses.

That is not to discount ALL evidence or anything. Just a cautionary warning on how to parse and treat the evidence openly but skeptically when it lands before you. Even something as simple as a single celled ameoba recoils from a needle. Not because it can "experience" pain, but because it's responses are entirely automatic. Many responses in the MUCH more complex structure of a fetus are too. And we have to be sure which is which before we impute more interpretation than we otherwise should to what we observe.

jameorahiely

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I think you have missed the point of my position. The points at which I am ok with abortion are points where we do not equivocate over "how much" sentience the fetus has (as if it is measurable.... what would the unit of measurement even be there....).

Rather my positions on abortion are based around times in the gestation when we know.... as much as we "know" anything in science.... that sentience and consciousness are ENTIRELY absent. Not just absent, but the pre-requisites for it are also absent.

My usual analogy is to radio waves. If radio waves are consciousness.... then the points at which I am ok with abortion are not just points where radio waves are absent..... the broadcasting tower from which they originate is not even built yet EITHER.

90%+ of abortions on demand..... the VAST majority if the word "vast" can mean anything it means this......... are performed before 12 weeks. Before 16 weeks and you are looking at going over 95%.

There simply is no basis I know of, or can even fantasize about outside the realms of Theistic notions of "souls"...... to expect to find anything even remotely related to consciousness, sentience, or subjective experience in a fetus at that point.

So the question is not about measuring (again, units?) sentience at these stages. It is simply absent. It is, in sentience terms at least, the equivalent of a rock. There simply is no "there" there.

So if someone has a 16 week old fetus in an incubator and wants to do everything they can to maintain it's life and development and so do their best to build a person, I am entirely ok with that.

If they want to turn the machine off and cease that endeavor instead..... I am equally fine with that too. And I am certainly not going to be moved by arguments from emotion like "A Little Pony" telling us "Oh but it has facial features!!!".

Can you provide a source for you 90%+ figures performed before 12 weeks?


I wouldn't like for figures to be misrepresented. 87% of abortions were performed at 12 weeks or less and 1.6% (or 2,914 abortions) occurred after 20 weeks.

Zubeneschamali

jameorahiely wrote: »

Can you provide a source for you 90%+ figures performed before 12 weeks?


I wouldn't like for figures to be misrepresented. 87% of abortions were performed at 12 weeks or less and 1.6% (or 2,914 abortions) occurred after 20 weeks.

FFS, you demand a source from another poster, and then post slightly different but equally unsourced figures yourself?

robbiezero

the_pen_turner wrote: »

im sick of hearing about it and it hasnt even started yet.
its a total waste of time . the subject is so strong that people have their opinions on it and are very unlikely to change them.

why cant we just have one week of facts and then a referendum.

Have you learnt any lesson about starting threads about subjects you find tiresome?

nozzferrahhtoo

jameorahiely wrote: »

Can you provide a source for you 90%+ figures performed before 12 weeks?

Several yes, thanks for asking.

It is not a single citation either. The figures bear out year after year in the places such figures are maintained.

For example here in 2013 "Facts about Abortion" under "WHEN DO ABORTIONS OCCUR?" they tell us that "89-92% of all abortions happen during the first trimester, prior to the 13th week of gestation (AGI/CDC)."

Gutmacher bear this out in 2011 too with 91% happening then.... and actually 66% of them happening before 8 weeks.

We see similar results when we move away from the US into Canada where we are seeing 89.4% done by 12 weeks.

While in the UK we see pretty much the same thing with "(79% took place before 10 weeks gestation) with only one in ten taking place over 13 weeks gestation." leaving us with essentially 90% there too (one in ten after leaving nine in ten before).

And, to go a bit more random, Norway say that "An increasing percentage of all abortions are performed before 9 weeks gestation." with "80.3 % of abortions took place by the end of the 8th week." and that "Terminations after the 12th week of pregnancy have to be approved by a local committee "

So there is small variance from country to country but in general it levels out around the mark of 90% happening in or before the 12 week mark.

rainbow kirby

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

There are plenty of women who run all the way through their pregnancies, I got to 25 weeks myself before it got too uncomfortable. All completely encouraged by my midwife. I also completed two triathlons while pregnant and swam all the way until I was overdue. I have a healthy, happy 9 month old now.

Exercise in pregnancy is not dangerous for low risk women.

.......

This post has been deleted.

jameorahiely

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Several yes, thanks for asking.

It is not a single citation either. The figures bear out year after year in the places such figures are maintained.

For example here in 2013 "Facts about Abortion" under "WHEN DO ABORTIONS OCCUR?" they tell us that "89-92% of all abortions happen during the first trimester, prior to the 13th week of gestation (AGI/CDC)."

Gutmacher bear this out in 2011 too with 91% happening then.... and actually 66% of them happening before 8 weeks.

We see similar results when we move away from the US into Canada where we are seeing 89.4% done by 12 weeks.

While in the UK we see pretty much the same thing with "(79% took place before 10 weeks gestation) with only one in ten taking place over 13 weeks gestation." leaving us with essentially 90% there too (one in ten after leaving nine in ten before).

And, to go a bit more random, Norway say that "An increasing percentage of all abortions are performed before 9 weeks gestation." with "80.3 % of abortions took place by the end of the 8th week." and that "Terminations after the 12th week of pregnancy have to be approved by a local committee "

So there is small variance from country to country but in general it levels out around the mark of 90% happening in or before the 12 week mark.

Would you like to point out the flaws and bias in your statistics?