Would Ireland follow Europe's Lead in Aborting the Huge Majority of Down Syndrome Pos

.......

This post has been deleted.

Neyite

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

When a woman suffers a miscarriage why is it described as a miscarriage of a baby & not a miscarriage of a fetus ?

Nope. It's referred to as 'products of conception' or 'foetal tissue' by clinicians who have to refer to refer to the actual foetus, if they don't need to be specific, then it's just 'miscarrying' or 'miscarried'.

Its people who may refer to it as a miscarried baby. And that likely depends on their personal stance. Many are like me and just refer to it as a miscarriage.

If the pro-life folk really want to preserve the baby they claim is there since conception, maybe they can lobby our hospitals to provide ante-natal care and treatment that actively helps a woman prevent miscarrying:

Why do we have to wait until we miscarry three pregnancies before they will give us an appointment to see if they can help prevent it? If human life is so important from the moment of conception, as enshrined in our constitution why don't women get prescribed the likes of Progesterone after the first miscarriage like they do in Poland and other European countries as standard?

Why is it standard hospital policy to interpret the constitutional right to life of the unborn as only applying to the fourth and subsequent pregnancies?

The bottom line is that hospitals don't care. Politicians don't care. Even the pro-life people don't care about the unborn. Pro-lifer's don't care about them a jot. It's all about the comeuppance of the woman, that by forcing a woman who is unable to travel to continue an unwanted pregnancy, they can take translate their hatred of women into a lifelong punishment for them.

We've even got a pro-lifer on this thread who would prevent every woman from aborting, except his girlfriend of course. 'cause, you know, she's not a slut a special case. Abortions for None. Except me. Lol.

CerebralCortex

Hooks Golf Handicap wrote: »

Your retort seems to focus on my thread title being alarmist & misleading.
I will concede it was a little red top which served to draw the punters in.

Perhaps if I had the power to amend it I would but this message board software wont allow me to do that.

If a mod could do the necessary I suggest a title change to "Would Ireland follow Europe's Lead in Aborting the Huge Majority of Down Syndrome Positive fetus's ".

Say for the sake of a thought experiment, tomorrow people had the choice to screen their fetus for DS and other developmental problems with the fetus and then made a decision to abort. What would be the impact for what you care about most?

In other words why is this such an important issue for you specifically?

henryporter

In another few years this will all be a moot point - advanced medical practices at the moment allow for embryo testing before transplantation to determine birth defects and other anomalies. This will become the norm as human reproductivity through the natural method continues to decline due to declining sperm counts and other environmental threats.

In any event there's moral issues on all sides of the equation - is it right to allow a couple who are now elderly to have to care for a severely disabled adult when the alternative is to have given them a choice, is it right to force women to buy spurious drugs on-line in order to carry out an abortion at home when the alternative is to give them access to proper medical care (both physical and mental), do medical advances only work to a certain point in morality - ie it's ok for people to have DS children because we have the science there to let the children be born and live, but we can't go further than that and test whether the foetus (or per my first point embryo) is likely to become DS.

Ultimately it boils down to choice - people can choose to have normal children, DS children, whatever, but in this country that's all they can do - there's no choice not to, according to the Church, Iona and their biased followers and that's ultimately down to their desire to control rather than contribute to a fair and progressive society.

Hooks Golf Handicap

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

If you keep abusing & overusing that word "troll" it beings to loose all power.

See also:
SJW
Cuck
Snowflake
Beta

Hooks Golf Handicap

CerebralCortex wrote: »

In other words why is this such an important issue for you specifically?

I have no skin in this game.

I picked up on the Iceland story online, did a bit of research & thought it worthy of discussion, that's all.

.......

This post has been deleted.

.......

This post has been deleted.

MightyMandarin

I think this is another example of a question with no right or wrong answer, essentially the same as the abortion debate as a whole.

My mam has worked with people with disablities for 30-somethhing years, most commonly people with down syndrome but also more difficult cases like autism, and I've essentially grown up with them around me when she brings them up to the house for dinner and stuff. I asked her what she thought and she essentially said that no matter how much a parent loves their disabled child, nobody jumps for joy in the hospital when they find out their kid has a disability.

It's a nasty thought to think that people with down syndrome don't get a chance at life simply because of their disability. I suppose there's an argument somewhere that it's a form of eugenics, even in a diluted sense.

But at the same time, I and my mam don't blame anyone for making a decision like this, because I know how difficult and life-consuming raising a child with mental disabilities can be.

Yes, there's great examples of people who compete in the Special Olympics and I know of one lad who completed a degree in Anthropology and lives in a house a few doors down from me with other down syndrome people. But there's also incredibly difficult cases, like lads who empty the kitchen shelves and smash all the ceramics on the floor in fits of rage, or run down to the village pub and start nicking people's pints until the gards are called, or try to break the locks off kitchen presses so they can drink bleach and windowlene. These are the types of things somebody will have to deal with so long as mental disabilities are a thing, and I think anyone who insists that this is 'genocide' or bedevils someone for choosing to abort a child who will have disabilities, is really looking at this through rose-tinted glasses.

I guess in Ireland the concept is different as abortion is illegal, but with the general concept of this, I don't condemn anyone for choosing to abort a child with a disability, as unfair as it might seem. There's still no right or wrong answer here though.

pickarooney

gctest50 wrote: »

Never heard it described as a miscarriage of a baby

More something like " i had 2 miscarriages"

It's hardly miscarriage of a nissan micra ffs

But by the same token you don't hear people saying "we lost the foetus"

nozzferrahhtoo

Hooks Golf Handicap wrote: »

Apparently women have gone as far as documenting their procurement of the pills & posted the same on social media, the authorities purposely look the other way.

I think that was me on the other thread?

That is what I think I remember too, but as I said in another post I am not sure. So I hope someone comes up with the links (as I do not have them). But I do SEEM to recall something of that nature was done recently enough.

I may have imagined / dreamed the whole thing. I will find time to check later.

Hooks Golf Handicap wrote: »

Your retort seems to focus on my thread title being alarmist & misleading.

Well no, it focuses on the word you used, what the word means, and why the word is not the right one to use. That was the main focus of my "retort".

The rest was more incidental, but yes it was part of it. But that you admit it was essentially click bait at least is honest, and shows you are open to admitting such things, and open to discourse. Which is, itself, commendable. Kudos.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Indeed but as I said to him above that admission is something we should commend him for rather than maybe beat him over the head with. His expression of regret is a lot more honest than many on this topic would be!

I will report his post to the mods, where he has requested his thread title be edited. Perhaps the mods will do it.

GreeBo

MightyMandarin wrote: »

I think this is another example of a question with no right or wrong answer, essentially the same as the abortion debate as a whole.

My mam has worked with people with disablities for 30-somethhing years, most commonly people with down syndrome but also more difficult cases like autism, and I've essentially grown up with them around me when she brings them up to the house for dinner and stuff. I asked her what she thought and she essentially said that no matter how much a parent loves their disabled child, nobody jumps for joy in the hospital when they find out their kid has a disability.

It's a nasty thought to think that people with down syndrome don't get a chance at life simply because of their disability. I suppose there's an argument somewhere that it's a form of eugenics, even in a diluted sense.

But at the same time, I and my mam don't blame anyone for making a decision like this, because I know how difficult and life-consuming raising a child with mental disabilities can be.

Yes, there's great examples of people who compete in the Special Olympics and I know of one lad who completed a degree in Anthropology and lives in a house a few doors down from me with other down syndrome people. But there's also incredibly difficult cases, like lads who empty the kitchen shelves and smash all the ceramics on the floor in fits of rage, or run down to the village pub and start nicking people's pints until the gards are called, or try to break the locks off kitchen presses so they can drink bleach and windowlene. These are the types of things somebody will have to deal with so long as mental disabilities are a thing, and I think anyone who insists that this is 'genocide' or bedevils someone for choosing to abort a child who will have disabilities, is really looking at this through rose-tinted glasses.

I guess in Ireland the concept is different as abortion is illegal, but with the general concept of this, I don't condemn anyone for choosing to abort a child with a disability, as unfair as it might seem. There's still no right or wrong answer here though.

The problem with your post (imo) is that you are comparing abortion with a real, living person no longer existing. Thats not a fair comparison.

Any such debate is ALWAYS going to come out on the answer of "well of course I wouldnt want X to not exist"
Thats whole point of the test, to allow people to make an informed decision without the extra burden of imagining the person their fetus *might* become.

If its fair to compare aborting a DS fetus to a living person,why not bring in the fact that the person might also become a murderer or terrorist? You cant have it both ways and only look at the best possible outcome for a DS person (such as a highly functioning person such as a in the video earlier)

There is no right or wrong answer to "Should we abort if DS is determined?"
However, I strongly believe there is a right answer to "Should the test for DS be freely available?"

mahamageehad

Hooks Golf Handicap wrote: »

I said this too over in the repeal thread but it was pointed out to me that the opposite is true.
Apparently women have gone as far as documenting their procurement of the pills & posted the same on social media, the authorities purposely look the other way.
The customs stop 100's of pills coming in but nobody follows up the person who ordered them.

Ah stop. We're talking about 3 - 5 women a day taking these pills in their house. Over the last two years that's an estimated 1,095 - 1,825 women. Have 1 or 2 come forward about their experiences? Sure. But the majority are too scared, either because they know they've committed an illegal act and are afraid of the consequences, or because they've afraid of the moral judgement others would bestow on them for committing an illegal act. The law has a chilling effect on these women both in terms of admitting they've done it and for seeking help afterwards. Yes, the authorities look the other way, because the alternative is some girl drinking bleach or throwing herself down a flight of stairs because she can't afford to travel.

Hooks Golf Handicap

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Say this conversation was happening in a pub, I think we'd be in opposite corners where you wouldn't have to listen to me & I wouldn't have to listen to you.
In fact, I'd probably be in a different pub.

FishOnABike

January wrote: »

Terminology is so important here. The man in your family has Down Syndrome. He is not a Down Syndrome man.

Both terms are interchangeably / commonly used and understood. It's not as if it's a book or something he has and can give to someone else. It's as much part of his genetic make up as him being a man. I have blue eyes / I am a blue eyed person. Why treat any other genetic characteristic differently?

Neyite

FishOnABike wrote: »

Both terms are interchangeably / commonly used and understood. It's not as if it's a book or something he has and can give to someone else. It's as much part of his genetic make up as him being a man. I have blue eyes / I am a blue eyed person. Why treat any other genetic characteristic differently?

It's considered derogatory these days. You are defining them by their disability rather than recognising they are a person who happens to have that disability. That's why we say "a person with DS" or "a person with ASD" or wheelchair user.

.......

This post has been deleted.

end of the road

Neyite wrote: »

Nope. It's referred to as 'products of conception' or 'foetal tissue' by clinicians who have to refer to refer to the actual foetus, if they don't need to be specific, then it's just 'miscarrying' or 'miscarried'.

Its people who may refer to it as a miscarried baby. And that likely depends on their personal stance. Many are like me and just refer to it as a miscarriage.

If the pro-life folk really want to preserve the baby they claim is there since conception, maybe they can lobby our hospitals to provide ante-natal care and treatment that actively helps a woman prevent miscarrying:

Why do we have to wait until we miscarry three pregnancies before they will give us an appointment to see if they can help prevent it? If human life is so important from the moment of conception, as enshrined in our constitution why don't women get prescribed the likes of Progesterone after the first miscarriage like they do in Poland and other European countries as standard?

Why is it standard hospital policy to interpret the constitutional right to life of the unborn as only applying to the fourth and subsequent pregnancies?

The bottom line is that hospitals don't care. Politicians don't care. Even the pro-life people don't care about the unborn. Pro-lifer's don't care about them a jot. It's all about the comeuppance of the woman, that by forcing a woman who is unable to travel to continue an unwanted pregnancy, they can take translate their hatred of women into a lifelong punishment for them.

We've even got a pro-lifer on this thread who would prevent every woman from aborting, except his girlfriend of course. 'cause, you know, she's not a slut a special case. Abortions for None. Except me. Lol.

sensationalist hysterical mistruths with no basis in fact.

Outlaw Pete

pwurple wrote: »

I wouldn't wish being DS on my worst enemy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOwDfnoek6E

MightyMandarin

GreeBo wrote: »

There is no right or wrong answer to "Should we abort if DS is determined?"
However, I strongly believe there is a right answer to "Should the test for DS be freely available?"

Oh yeah, I don't personally have an issue with a pre-natal test for disabilities being freely available. I think at the very least, it might help parents prepare for having a child with disabilities, which is most relevant in this country anyway.

Now, whether an exception should be given to allow an abortion of a fetus with disabilities is an entirely different matter and one which, given my own personal beliefs on abortion in general, I can't say I really agree with and if I were a parent in that scenario I don't think I would proceed with if it were legal anyway.

I think at the moment, there are far more urgent and serious cases where an exception should be allowed and is not, like fatal fetal abnormality and rape for example, and that's where Art.40.3.3 should be amended, but that's for another thread I think.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Neyite

end of the road wrote: »

sensationalist hysterical mistruths with no basis in fact.

No, based on my personal experience of the hospital system and multiple miscarriages.

Thanks for denigrating my direct first hand experiences of my losses by calling me a hysterical liar.

But it also demonstrates my point beautifully at the way pregnant women are treated by the pro-life people.

circadian

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Now, whether an exception should be given to allow an abortion of a fetus with disabilities is an entirely different matter and one which, given my own personal beliefs on abortion in general, I can't say I really agree with and if I were a parent in that scenario I don't think I would proceed with if it were legal anyway.

So, even if it were available you wouldn't, which you are well within your right to do so. Do you think that option should be available for those who may want to/need to?

weldoninhio

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

Quick question to people who support choice to abort a down syndrome unborn baby,  what are your thoughts on people being put on death row for the death penalty, do you support or disagree with such laws ? I ll explain why I asked this question in this context based on answers I receive .

I agree with abortion and I agree with the death sentence.

seamus

seamus wrote: »

Catholics don't oppose abortion of Down's Syndrome on the basis that they cherish DS children. They oppose it because they see it as a form of "cheating" and "taking the easy way out" rather than embracing and enduring a hardship that God has passed down to test you.

And before people start hopping up and down with, "I'm Catholic and I don't believe that" - your church does. And that's who I'm talking about.

A person who is close to me, had a child with quite severe disabilities in recent years. This person is from a small community of church going Catholics. When they were still trying to come to terms with their child's diagnoses and all the hardship that may come with it, a number of people from their community made a point of letting them know that their child's disability was a punishment from God for engaging in sex outside of marriage. Talk about kicking someone when they're down.

jimmycrackcorm

Deleted User wrote: »

A person who is close to me, had a child with quite severe disabilities in recent years. This person is from a small community of church going Catholics. When they were still trying to come to terms with their child's diagnoses and all the hardship that may come with it, a number of people from their community made a point of letting them know that their child's disability was a punishment from God for engaging in sex outside of marriage. Talk about kicking someone when they're down.

I believe you, thousands wouldn't

jimmycrackcorm

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I believe you, thousands wouldn't

Aw well thank you so much for believing me. That means so much

GreeBo

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Oh yeah, I don't personally have an issue with a pre-natal test for disabilities being freely available. I think at the very least, it might help parents prepare for having a child with disabilities, which is most relevant in this country anyway.

Now, whether an exception should be given to allow an abortion of a fetus with disabilities is an entirely different matter and one which, given my own personal beliefs on abortion in general, I can't say I really agree with and if I were a parent in that scenario I don't think I would proceed with if it were legal anyway.

I think at the moment, there are far more urgent and serious cases where an exception should be allowed and is not, like fatal fetal abnormality and rape for example, and that's where Art.40.3.3 should be amended, but that's for another thread I think.

But that's why we need to separate the two test from the possible actions taken based on the results.

Personally, I think the far more urgent cases are the best reason to give the choice back to people involved rather than try to come up with arbitrary rules which will invariable lead to issues.

nozzferrahhtoo

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

YOwDfnoek6E

A lovely video and all but I am not seeing it's relevance to the post you are replying to. Especially as you pasted in the video without anything from yourself.

Showing someone who has over come their challenges in life is nice, but it does not negate someone saying they would not wish those challenges on anyone.

For example: Maybe I could find a video, if I looked, of someone with AIDS who has achieved something wonderful. That does not negate the fact I would not wish AIDS on anyone.

Which is, you will note, all the user actually said.

nozzferrahhtoo

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Now, whether an exception should be given to allow an abortion of a fetus with disabilities is an entirely different matter

Given there are no moral arguments on offer here as to why there is a problem with abortion at that stage of pregnancy in the first place, I am not sure why you think an "exception" would be required in such cases. It would not be an exception, it would be just another patient in the door.

MightyMandarin wrote: »

like fatal fetal abnormality and rape for example

A lot of people mention rape, who I am sure mean well, but I have yet to meet a person who has thought that one through. Perhaps you have so you can help me with two issues I have with it.

Firstly if there is something wrong with abortion in your mind because a fetus has a right to life, or some such, then why should it LOSE that right because of a rape? Are there many other cases where X loses rights (especially the very right to life) because Y committed a crime on Z? In the mind of someone who is anti abortion choice.... why is the death penalty visited on someone who was neither the victim of, nor the perpetrator of, a crime?

Secondly how would it work functionally? How do you establish rape?

Is a conviction required.... and if so do you realize how many fail or how long they take to secure given abortion is time sensitive?

Or is merely a formal accusation to the police enough? Would this not incentivize false accusations?

Or do we simply take the woman's word for it? If so how is that FUNCTIONALLY different than simply implementing full abortion by choice.... when all a woman would have to do is rock up to the door and claim she was raped?

So I wonder about the rape angle.... it does not seem to be morally, ethically or even functionally coherent to me.

MightyMandarin

circadian wrote: »

So, even if it were available you wouldn't, which you are well within your right to do so. Do you think that option should be available for those who may want to/need to?

I honestly don't really know. Given that my opinions on the abortion debate in general centre around the morality and ethics of denying a being (and I accept people will disagree with even describing a fetus as a living thing, but I believe it deserves that status) the right to life, I find it hard to accept that in society one would be denied the chance to live simply because they have an extra chromosone of their brain won't fully develop.

At the same time though, I know all too well the difficulties and considerable costs (both financial and time) involved in raising a child with disabilities and for that I think there are strong arguments to be made that a mother should be allowed to terminate a pregnancy when she is informed that raising this child will pose considerable challenges, which will not be faced by most other parents.

I have strong objections to the belief that a termination should be allowed out of financial reasons or not wanting to have a child at this particular moment in one's life. But I think when an unborn child, if it lives, will have considerable disabilities in their life, it becomes an entirely different case and for that I don't object as strongly.

I know I'm sitting on the fence here and I deserve to be berated for doing so, but I honestly haven't thought about the issue as much as I have over the debate in general.

Maybe as the more the issue comes in to the media foray, and I hear opinions and accounts which I haven't previously heard or considered, then I'll be able to form a decisive opinion on the issue, but for the moment I think there are other cases which deserve more urgent attention than this re: exceptions to Art.40.3.3.

mahamageehad

@nozz Actually coming into this debate initially I would have been of the same mindset - FFA and rape only. However, based on the many, many conversations I've had, plus my own research as well as reading the CA stuff and watching 8 committee, I've come around to see grounds based access as completely unworkable in reality. In Poland for e.g. where they have access for rape victims, it's been shown to be incredibly difficult for women to access and they even have cases coming up about human rights issues in this regard.

nozzferrahhtoo

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Given that my opinions on the abortion debate in general centre around the morality and ethics of denying a being the right to life

You predicted the response to that. You assert it deserves the status, but other than assertion do not offer any foundation as to why it does. And that is likely to fail to sit well with pro choice people.

Also "denying a being a right to life" is a bit vague. If a man and woman get married tomorrow and decide between them NEVER to get pregnant, then they have denied any number of beings a right to life.

So I assume you mean EXISTING beings, such as something that has formed at conception. Not just any potential being. But when you claim we are "denying" them a right to life, you build into that an assumption that they warranted one in the first place. Again a foundation you have not actually built into your rhetoric here.

Not to mention we "deny beings" life all the time. In our meat industry. In our herbicide industry. In our medical industry. In our paper and wood industry. Our species is very much in the business of denying beings their right to life. So the foundation you need to build is one that explains why a human fetus devoid of any sentience or consciousness, specifically deserves one.... in a world where actual living independent entities up and down the kingdoms of flora and fauna seemingly do not.

I can not speak for any other Pro Choice people but I know... not just suspect but KNOW.... that if you could produce such a foundation I would without reservation or embarrassment become Anti Choice tomorrow.

MightyMandarin wrote: »

At the same time though, I know all too well the difficulties and considerable costs (both financial and time) involved in raising a child with disabilities and for that I think there are strong arguments to be made that a mother should be allowed to terminate a pregnancy when she is informed that raising this child will pose considerable challenges

The issue I see with that line of reasoning is that cost and challenges are relative. So if you were basing arguments on the right to abort such a fetus on these.... you would be making an argument that would not carry across social classes.

And it would not just be limited to Down Syndrome. Because even a 100% NORMAL pregnancy brings with it costs and challenges that are OK with some, but a near or totally insurmountable issue for others. So essentially you would be advocating abortion for the poorer classes and not the richer if you did it on a cost analysis basis.

You could literally have a woman walk in looking to abort a DS fetus being told "Nah, you earn way too much, the costs are nothing to you" and the next woman on the bread line being told "sure come on in, my moral arguments based on cost apply to you!"

And what little I know about you suggests that would be FAR from your intention.

MightyMandarin wrote: »

I know I'm sitting on the fence here and I deserve to be berated for doing so

You are thinking out loud, on issues you are clearly unsure about, and reading with interest the input of others with an open mind? You should be commended, not berated, for that. It is far more than many do on this subject.

January

FishOnABike wrote: »

Both terms are interchangeably / commonly used and understood. It's not as if it's a book or something he has and can give to someone else. It's as much part of his genetic make up as him being a man. I have blue eyes / I am a blue eyed person. Why treat any other genetic characteristic differently?

No actually, if you speak to anyone who has a child with DS or a relative with DS then they will tell you the preferred term these days is 'a person with DS', as Neyite pointed out 'DS person' is derogatory.

.......

This post has been deleted.

MrPudding

Deleted User wrote: »

A person who is close to me, had a child with quite severe disabilities in recent years. This person is from a small community of church going Catholics. When they were still trying to come to terms with their child's diagnoses and all the hardship that may come with it, a number of people from their community made a point of letting them know that their child's disability was a punishment from God for engaging in sex outside of marriage. Talk about kicking someone when they're down.

It is my experience that in order for a person to behave in a completely unchristian and uncharitable way and to be totally devoid of empathy they, ironically enough, need to be christian.

Of course, I am not saying that this is the case with every christian, I happen to know quite a few very pleasant examples. I am merely saying that when I see an example of a truly horrible person, in terms of their views on certain things, they frequently turn out to be christian. Odd that...

MrP

rainbow kirby

Even if you don't plan on terminating in the case of a T21 (or otherwise) diagnosis, it's still a very useful thing to do as much testing and scanning as possible so that plans for the safest possible birth can be made. Outcomes are poorer when such conditions aren't diagnosed prenatally. Anomaly scans and as much screening as possible should be offered to everyone - there is no obligation on anyone to do it if they don't want to.

I'm 26 weeks with #2, both in the UK. We are sent a booklet at around 8-10 weeks detailing the prenatal and postnatal screening tests available to us - my hospital doesn't offer NIPT as standard yet but we do get the nuchal translucency measurement at the 12 week dating scan and bloods taken for the quad test, the results of these tests in conjunction with maternal age for Down's are combined to give risk values for T21, T18 and T13. Thankfully I haven't had anything to worry about either time but a friend had her first baby at 43 a year and a half ago and her age pushes the risk quite high for certain things so she was offered the Panorama test on the NHS straight away. The booklet is quite matter-of-fact about TFMR being an option, but it also details supports that are available and the benefits of having all information available if the choice is to carry to term. Nothing is directive and in the event of something going wrong counselling is provided free of charge, this is as it should be imho.

nice_guy80

medical advances are great

Annasopra

end of the road wrote: »

sensationalist hysterical mistruths with no basis in fact.

Prove it

Akrasia

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So I wonder about the rape angle.... it does not seem to be morally, ethically or even functionally coherent to me.

The rape angle is there to counter the 'personal responsibility' argument against abortion, which in itself is nestled in the unspoken belief that women who have sex deserve to have their lives forever changed if there is a crisis pregnancy.

Army_of_One

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Wonder if its Katie Asscock?

nozzferrahhtoo

Akrasia wrote: »

The rape angle is there to counter the 'personal responsibility' argument against abortion, which in itself is nestled in the unspoken belief that women who have sex deserve to have their lives forever changed if there is a crisis pregnancy.

Oh that angle I understand. I was more referring to the "I am against abortion except in cases of rape" angle which is less coherent for me. Firstly because it goes against the arguments they USUALLY give against abortion.... and secondly because it seems to be an exception that would be entirely unworkable in reality.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Oh that angle I understand. I was more referring to the "I am against abortion except in cases of rape" angle which is less coherent for me. Firstly because it goes against the arguments they USUALLY give against abortion.... and secondly because it seems to be an exception that would be entirely unworkable in reality.

It doesn't tend to be a position that people have even slightly thought through, ime. I've had posters get very cross with me indeed just for asking "walk me through how that would work".

nozzferrahhtoo

Howard Breezy Minibus wrote: »

It doesn't tend to be a position that people have even slightly thought through, ime. I've had posters get very cross with me indeed just for asking "walk me through how that would work".

Yeah that's exactly what I said above. Not one person I have met espousing that position appears to have thought it through. I was hoping today would be the exception but.... alas....

Gbear

Akrasia wrote: »

The rape angle is there to counter the 'personal responsibility' argument against abortion, which in itself is nestled in the unspoken belief that women who have sex deserve to have their lives forever changed if there is a crisis pregnancy.

I would've thought that the counter to that argument would be "don't be a judgemental arse" but I guess I'm just some mad eejit.

I wish people didn't have to feel they had to trick pro-choicers with this kind of logic.

Autochange

Abort if you want. If not then dont.

Irish women are not given the choice in this backward, corrupt sh1tbox of a country we live in.

222233

In 2013, of conceptions in London alone roughly 23% of pregnancies were terminated, if you consider the size of the demographic who screen positive for Downs Syndrome, I'm wondering if a 90% termination rate is actually that high. It's impossible to predict how Irish people would receive this until such time as we revisit reproductive rights, I don't however believe our figures would be as high.

Akrasia

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Oh that angle I understand. I was more referring to the "I am against abortion except in cases of rape" angle which is less coherent for me. Firstly because it goes against the arguments they USUALLY give against abortion.... and secondly because it seems to be an exception that would be entirely unworkable in reality.

It really is the exception that proves the rule.
People who allow abortion for rape but not other circumstances need to question the reason why they oppose abortion in those other circumstances, and whether or not there is an element of blaming women and using the pregnancy as a punishment for perceived irresponsibility

Mousewar

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I'm rather struck by this post, especially as it's so well thanked. Do you really mean this? I mean, it's straight up eugenics.
Pre-natal tests are only going to get better. Soon you'll be able to get a comprehensive guide to all your unborn child's likely health issues. Where would you draw the line? At Down syndrome? Heart disease? Autism? Asthma?

I don't envy anyone having to make this kind of choice when faced with their child having a serious health issue (and, along with my wife, I've made such a decision) and I wouldn't lecture them but the idea of only pursuing a pregnancy that would result in the 'healthiest child possible' seems...well, it's troubling to me.

Also, I can't imagine the difficulty that the woman in that article faced but I would point out that her case is as negatively extreme as those cases championed by DS groups are positively extreme.

Akrasia

Gbear wrote: »

I would've thought that the counter to that argument would be "don't be a judgemental arse" but I guess I'm just some mad eejit.

I wish people didn't have to feel they had to trick pro-choicers with this kind of logic.

Its not an argument to call them names, it is an argument to demonstrate how a position that relies on personal responsibility does not extend to someone who was raped

It is always better to show someone the flaws in their reason than it is to call them names

(By argument i mean in this sense, https://youtu.be/wxrbOVeRonQ