Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Abortion in Ireland: 2 years on

Options
1…1112141617…30

Comments

  • Options
    #392
    elainers
    Registered Users Posts: 113 ✭✭elainers


    downinbigsmoke wrote: »
    I disagree with you there. The vast majority of people aren't thieves but we have strict laws and a very sophisticated law enforcement infrastructure aimed at preventing theft. Most laws are aimed precisely a tiny minority of people. Likewise most women aren't going to abort a child without good reason, but some people are. And there are definitely bad reasons to abort a child, as anybody rational will admit (for example, on the basis of gender).

    As for the bodily autonomy and organs argument- I've heard it before and think it's the only pro-choice argument without any redeeming features whatsoever. Dead people lack human rights. Not just some of them, all of them. Any we do accord them come purely out of respect for their living relatives. Their "bodily autonomy" should never trump somebody's right to life. The fact we don't have an opt-out organ donation system is a disgrace (though I'm told it's partially a logistic issue).

    When someone steals, there’s rarely a competition of rights between the thief and the owner. The thief has no rights to the object; the owner does. A woman does have a right to her bodily autonomy. She is not like a thief.

    And I wasn’t referring to kidney donation from a deceased donor. If you needed a kidney in the morning to live and I was your only match and had one spare, you still couldn’t force me to donate my kidney to you. Your right to life would not trump my right to bodily autonomy.

    And that’s the right way to have that law because there are risks to being a kidney donor just like there are risks from being pregnant.


  • Options
    #393
    elainers
    Registered Users Posts: 113 ✭✭elainers


    cournioni wrote: »
    Out of 6666 abortions 144 happened as there was a risk to child or woman.

    6522 healthy unborn babies dying unnecessarily isn't something to celebrate, regardless of location.

    Again, just because that number of terminations occurred under the 12 week rule does not mean there wasn’t a medical reason for the termination.

    You’re saying it was unnecessary but the fact is nobody knows that bar those women and their doctors.


  • Options
    #394
    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,474 ✭✭✭Obvious Desperate Breakfasts


    chosen1 wrote: »
    I was a No voter was would still vote no if there was another referendum in the morning.

    However, I feel that I had very little in common with the No campaign and I would think they were partly responsible for the high Yes vote. The yes campaign did very well in persuading people on the fence by focusing on the rape, FFA and mothers health endangerment side of things. I have no issue with abortion in these cases and would favour legislation for this and a change to the constitution. The numbers yesterday show that at least the health aspect of the abortion numbers are a tiny minority of cases.

    The No side had no connection with me or others I've spoken to who also voted no. They were heavily influenced by religious affiliations and only focused on the abortion is murder in all circumstances line. The connection to Iona and Gemma O'D was enough to throw anyone off.

    chosen1, it’s interesting that you say that. My father felt exactly the same. He was a No voter but felt very alienated by the prominent No campaigners and came close to abstention from voting. He found the ones he encountered in person to be pious and patronising. I think you’re right that the No campaign played it all wrong.


  • Options
    #395
    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,474 ✭✭✭Obvious Desperate Breakfasts


    Better Than Christ wrote: »
    I remember all the tone policing that happened during the referendum. Mainly from 'sensible' pro-choice men like the late Noel Whelan telling young women that using angry language while talking about the state's denial of their bodily autonomy risked losing them the support of moderates. If anyone could've done with a bit of tone policing, it was the No side - throwing ludicrous and inaccurate terms like 'murdered' and 'slaughtered' around made them sound like a shower of nutters and fundamentalists and only served to drown out any reasoned arguments against repealing the Eighth.

    One of my friends lives in Wales. She came home to Ireland to attend a funeral during the referendum campaign and her conservative husband was absolutely shocked at the state of the No campaign posters he saw whilst driving through Ireland. The No campaign’s shock tactics disgusted a lot of people.


  • Options
    #396
    CoBo55
    Registered Users Posts: 9,151 ✭✭✭CoBo55


    I voted yes and would see absolutely no reason to change that. That figure from 2017 is ridiculous, many went to europe for abortions and also gave U.K addresses to the clinic, thankfully those days are gone forever.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #397
    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,474 ✭✭✭Obvious Desperate Breakfasts


    cournioni wrote: »
    Ah yeah but sure at least it stopped people from having to travel to have the healthy unborn killed. That makes it all okay.

    It does indeed. Now those women can get aftercare if they have complications without fear of prosecution.


  • Options
    #398
    keybordWarrior
    Closed Accounts Posts: 65 ✭✭keybordWarrior


    Voted no, would have no hesitation in voting no again.


  • Options
    #399
    cournioni
    Moderators, Regional North East Moderators Posts: 12,739 Mod ✭✭✭✭cournioni


    elainers wrote: »
    Again, just because that number of terminations occurred under the 12 week rule does not mean there wasn’t a medical reason for the termination.

    You’re saying it was unnecessary but the fact is nobody knows that bar those women and their doctors.
    144 was the figure given for abortions carried out where there was risk to the life of the baby or the mother. Those figures released by the government and is the information that we must go by.

    6522 is a huge number of healthy unborn being killed, for what good reason?


  • Options
    #400
    MontgomeryClift
    Registered Users Posts: 1,061 ✭✭✭MontgomeryClift


    elainers wrote: »
    When someone steals, there’s rarely a competition of rights between the thief and the owner. The thief has no rights to the object; the owner does. A woman does have a right to her bodily autonomy. She is not like a thief.
    There are no rights in either case. The "right" to ownership and the "right" to bodily autonomy are points of legal discrimination. They might seem like rights because we are used to them but they are secured, like all laws, by force, and like all laws are subject to change.
    And I wasn’t referring to kidney donation from a deceased donor. If you needed a kidney in the morning to live and I was your only match and had one spare, you still couldn’t force me to donate my kidney to you. Your right to life would not trump my right to bodily autonomy.

    And that’s the right way to have that law because there are risks to being a kidney donor just like there are risks from being pregnant.

    And here we are comparing the unborn child to a kidney. And they say the No side is loony!


  • Options
    #401
    cournioni
    Moderators, Regional North East Moderators Posts: 12,739 Mod ✭✭✭✭cournioni


    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »
    One of my friends lives in Wales. She came home to Ireland to attend a funeral during the referendum campaign and her conservative husband was absolutely shocked at the state of the No campaign posters he saw whilst driving through Ireland. The No campaign’s shock tactics disgusted a lot of people.
    Same can be said for both sides. The part that I found most disgusting was the gleeful cheers and carnival atmosphere among the crowd in Dublin Castle following the referendum result. Taking a life away through choice shouldn’t be a cause to cheer.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #402
    elainers
    Registered Users Posts: 113 ✭✭elainers


    cournioni wrote: »
    144 was the figure given for abortions carried out where there was risk to the life of the baby or the mother. Those figures released by the government and is the information that we must go by.

    6522 is a huge number of healthy unborn being killed, for what good reason?

    The 6522 were terminations under the part of the law that allows terminations in up to 12 weeks. That does not mean some of those did not involve medical or health issues which came into play before the 12th week of pregnancy.

    The 144 were terminations over 12 weeks where there was risk to the life or health of the mother or fatal foetal abnormalities.

    Included in the under 12 weeks terminations would be ectopic pregnancies which are a risk to life and pregnancies in the course of a miscarriage where not hurrying up the process via a termination would have resulted in a health risk to the mother. The latter being what Savita was refused.


  • Options
    #403
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    cournioni wrote: »
    144 was the figure given for abortions carried out where there was risk to the life of the baby or the mother. Those figures released by the government and is the information that we must go by.

    6522 is a huge number of healthy unborn being killed, for what good reason?

    A private, valid reason that doesn’t have to be justified to anyone.
    You haven’t lived their lives, you won’t have to life with the consequences, that’s why you get no say in what qualifies their choice to be a good enough one or not.


  • Options
    #404
    Rodin
    Registered Users Posts: 3,130 ✭✭✭Rodin


    6522?
    That's an awful lot of rape/incest...

    Isn't that what we were told?

    A shameful stain on the country that number


  • Options
    #405
    Better Than Christ
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭Better Than Christ


    Rodin wrote: »
    6522?
    That's an awful lot of rape/incest...

    Isn't that what we were told?

    A shameful stain on the country that number

    No, we were told that other people's bodies are none of our business. Thankfully enough people listened.


  • Options
    #406
    elainers
    Registered Users Posts: 113 ✭✭elainers


    MontgomeryClift wrote: »
    There are no rights in either case. The "right" to ownership and the "right" to bodily autonomy are points of legal discrimination. They might seem like rights because we are used to them but they are secured, like all laws, by force, and like all laws are subject to change.



    And here we are comparing the unborn child to a kidney. And they say the No side is loony!

    Suggest you read back to yesterday’s posts. The poster I was replying to equated abortion legislation to criminal laws designed to protect people from untrustworthy individuals. I don’t see those as the same because abortion is a difficult topic because a pregnancy involves one life and one potential life. And I do believe there are two sets of rights in conflict.

    The live donor is the only other situation I can think of where the right to bodily autonomy comes into conflict with a right to life. I did not compare a foetus to a kidney. Just the two situations because there is similarity in the conflict of rights involved.


  • Options
    #407
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    "MontgomeryClift wrote: »
    And here we are comparing the unborn child to a kidney. And they say the No side is loony!

    Nope, you completely missed the point.

    If you were going to die unless I donated my kidney to you there is no way I could be legally or morally forced to do it if I didn’t want to.
    If we don’t force it for living, breathing people to do this to save each other I don’t see why we should force a woman to allow a pre 12 week gestated fetus the use of her body in order to survive.

    Individual bodily autonomy trumps the other persons right to life every single time.


  • Options
    #408
    dartboardio
    Registered Users Posts: 2,436 ✭✭✭dartboardio


    I voted yes.

    My body, my choice.

    Was 19 when I unfortunately fell pregnant, in a relationship, not a penny to my name, and living in my mother's house.

    Why would I bring a child into this world, unsure if I could provide for them? Depending on the state? If me and my boyfriend broke up, I'd be a single mother living in my mums house on the breadline?

    This country has too many unplanned / unwanted children and that's a problem. Women never had a choice. Now they do

    I am 22 now, still with my boyfriend Best decision I've/We have ever made.

    Living our lives before we settle down and have children!

    I'd laugh at someone if they ever told me I was a murderer or I was evil, for terminating a fetus.

    Why don't you go adopt all the children without parents first, rather than getting down people's necks for terminating a pregnancy.


  • Options
    #409
    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,474 ✭✭✭Obvious Desperate Breakfasts


    cournioni wrote: »
    Same can be said for both sides. The part that I found most disgusting was the gleeful cheers and carnival atmosphere among the crowd in Dublin Castle following the referendum result. Taking a life away through choice shouldn’t be a cause to cheer.

    Not to my friend’s husband. This was an outsider and somebody who would probably more likely have voted no in this referendum if he lived here. He is politically very much a conservative. He made no comment about the Yes campaign posters. They got the ferry and crossed the country so he saw a lot of posters. He was sickened by the more graphic No campaign posters and the shock tactics employed. The No campaign messed up by not finding more moderate voices.

    It’s not up to you to say what reasons people should have for celebrating.


  • Options
    #410
    Leg End Reject
    Registered Users Posts: 17,126 ✭✭✭✭Leg End Reject


    cournioni wrote: »
    144 was the figure given for abortions carried out where there was risk to the life of the baby or the mother. Those figures released by the government and is the information that we must go by.

    6522 is a huge number of healthy unborn being killed, for what good reason?
    The 6522 abortions might have been unwanted pregnancies and the women concerned chose not to continue with the pregnancy.

    We voted for unlimited abortion up to 12 weeks, why women chose it is irrelevant regardless of your own personal opinion and feelings on the matter.

    Nobody should have a right to force a woman to gestate and deliver a baby against her will.
    https://forumofgames.com/index.php




  • Options
    #411
    Rodin
    Registered Users Posts: 3,130 ✭✭✭Rodin


    Better Than Christ wrote: »
    No, we were told that other people's bodies are none of our business. Thankfully enough people listened.

    Murder is everybody's business


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #412
    Leg End Reject
    Registered Users Posts: 17,126 ✭✭✭✭Leg End Reject


    Rodin wrote: »
    Murder is everybody's business

    Does a miscarried foetus get a birth and death certificate?
    https://forumofgames.com/index.php




  • Options
    #413
    Better Than Christ
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭Better Than Christ


    Rodin wrote: »
    Murder is everybody's business

    It certainly is, but it isn't relevant to this topic. Yours is exactly the kind of histrionic language that saw the No side lose so badly. If they'd toned it down a bit and found some sensible spokespeople, they might have stood half a chance.


  • Options
    #414
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    Better Than Christ wrote: »
    It certainly is, but it isn't relevant to this topic. Yours is exactly the kind of histrionic language that saw the No side lose so badly. If they'd toned it down a bit and found some sensible spokespeople, they might have stood half a chance.

    Exactly. I guarantee, the majority of people in Ireland know someone who knows someone who has had one. Over the years thousands of women have had abortions, these are people we know.
    It just isn’t discussed because those women were shamed by society for so long.

    So when they throw around words like slaughter and murder and baby killing, they aren’t endearing anyone to their cause. They are offending someone’s mother, or wife, or sister, or daughter.
    And that’s exactly what lost them support and respect during their campaign.

    If they left out the emotionally charged manipulative language, more people would have been open to hearing what they had to say.


  • Options
    #415
    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,474 ✭✭✭Obvious Desperate Breakfasts


    SusieBlue wrote: »
    Exactly. I guarantee, the majority of people in Ireland know someone who knows someone who has had one. Over the years thousands of women have had abortions, these are people we know.
    It just isn’t discussed because those women were shamed by society for so long.

    So when they throw around words like slaughter and murder and baby killing, they aren’t endearing anyone to their cause. They are offending someone’s mother, or wife, or sister, or daughter.
    And that’s exactly what lost them support and respect during their campaign.

    If they left out the emotionally charged manipulative language, more people would have been open to hearing what they had to say.

    Yes, I wryly smile when somebody declares that they have never known anyone who has had an abortion. How can they possibly know that?


  • Options
    #416
    Leg End Reject
    Registered Users Posts: 17,126 ✭✭✭✭Leg End Reject


    I get that pregnancy is an emotive topic. Many people are desperate to have children and it doesn't happen for them. Many will go the agony of miscarriage and stillbirth.

    But some people don't want children, or pregnancy might happen when their family is complete. Contraception isn't perfect even if used correctly.

    Abortion has to be an option for those who have an unwanted pregnancy, the reported numbers prove it's necessary.
    https://forumofgames.com/index.php




  • Options
    #417
    keybordWarrior
    Closed Accounts Posts: 65 ✭✭keybordWarrior


    Better Than Christ wrote: »
    No, we were told that other people's bodies are none of our business. Thankfully enough people listened.

    People killing unborn children is our business. Unless you're an irresponsible person.


  • Options
    #418
    KiKi III
    Registered Users Posts: 2,653 ✭✭✭KiKi III


    keybordWarrior wrote: »
    People killing unborn children is our business. Unless you're an irresponsible person.

    Explain to me logically how having a baby you’re not adequately able to care for is more responsible than having a termination.


  • Options
    #419
    ldy4mxonucwsq6
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,537 ✭✭✭ldy4mxonucwsq6


    keybordWarrior wrote: »
    People killing unborn children is our business. Unless you're an irresponsible person.

    Killing unborn children?

    No, it's a legal termination of a pregnancy.


  • Options
    #420
    KiKi III
    Registered Users Posts: 2,653 ✭✭✭KiKi III


    Rodin wrote: »
    Murder is everybody's business

    Murder is unlawful killing of a person. Abortion is the lawful termination of a pregnancy. Just so ya know.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #421
    keybordWarrior
    Closed Accounts Posts: 65 ✭✭keybordWarrior


    Brenda Slow Ink wrote: »
    Killing unborn children?

    No, it's a legal termination of a pregnancy.

    Yes, that's one way of dressing it up to make yourself feel better about it.

    Legality has nothing to do with it. It was illegal a few years ago, was it wrong then? It must be convenient for you to just believe what's legal is acceptable.


Advertisement