Abortion in Ireland: 2 years on

uptherebels

cournioni wrote: »

Nothing is more troubling and narcissistic than unnecessarily taking the life of a healthy unborn away from them for personal gain. Regardless of what you think of my views.

You opinion of when an abortion is necessary or not is irrelevant, as it should be.
Your opinion that choosing an abortion is troubling and narcissistic is irrelevant as it should be.

cournioni

SusieBlue wrote: »

When you allow abortion up till 12 weeks at a woman’s discretion you remove the need for committees to even need to make a decision in the first place.
The only person who should get a say is the person who is taking the risk and the person who will have to live with the consequences.

Discretion shouldn’t involve the unnecessary killing of a healthy unborn when the mother is healthy.

cournioni

uptherebels wrote: »

You opinion of when an abortion is necessary or not is irrelevant, as it should be.
Your opinion that choosing an abortion is troubling and narcissistic is irrelevant as it should be.

It appears to have been relevant enough to warrant a reply from you.

oyvey

KiKi III wrote: »

I’m fine with anyone holding their own views and applying them in their own personal lives. I’ve said that more than once; if you don’t ever want an abortion, don’t get one.

When you’re trying to present your interpretation of responsibility as the only correct one, that is deeply narcissistic.

But what I mean is that if someone believes that a life is being killed (like say a grown adult for example), it makes sense that they're approach could never be "Well, you have your opinion on it, and I have mine...".

SusieBlue

cournioni wrote: »

Discretion shouldn’t involve the unnecessary killing of a healthy unborn when the mother is healthy.

And again, by doing that you are putting the ‘rights’ of an embryo the size of a cherry before the needs, wants, and wellbeing of a grown woman.
Which is a fine choice when it’s regarding your own womb, but not when you’re pontificating about someone else’s.
We had a vote and the majority agreed that this should be the case. The good news is that you yourself can continue to treat embryos as people if you want to, nothing has to change for you at all.
You just don’t get to interfere with anyone else’s any more.

cournioni

KiKi III wrote: »

My point is you’ll never have to be in the situation where you need to make a decision on a pregnancy so you really have no idea what you’d do.

It’s easy to stick to your principles when it’s all hypothetical.

That’s a nonsense point in all fairness. If my partner was ever in a position where she fell pregnant and both she and the baby were healthy - we would both be part of any decision involving its upbringing. As consensual and responsible adults.

If she fell pregnant and there was a problem with either one of them - we would both be part of any decision as consensual and responsible adults.

For what it’s worth we are both non religious no voters - based on the removal of protection for healthy unborn babies to healthy mothers.

KiKi III

cournioni wrote: »

That’s a nonsense point in all fairness. If my partner was ever in a position where she fell pregnant and both she and the baby were healthy - we would both be part of any decision involving its upbringing. As consensual and responsible adults.

If she fell pregnant and there was a problem with either one of them - we would both be part of any decision as consensual and responsible adults.

For what it’s worth we are both non religious no voters - based on the removal of protection for healthy unborn babies to healthy mothers.

It’s absolutely not a nonsense point. You will never become pregnant, you’ll never face this decision. It’s easy to have a strong opinion on a situation that will never, ever impact your body.

Your partner could change her mind for any number of reasons as could you.

oyvey

uptherebels wrote: »

You opinion of when an abortion is necessary or not is irrelevant, as it should be.
Your opinion that choosing an abortion is troubling and narcissistic is irrelevant as it should be.

Jaysus, that’s you told cournioni.

cournioni

SusieBlue wrote: »

And again, by doing that you are putting the ‘rights’ of an embryo the size of a cherry before the needs, wants, and wellbeing of a grown woman.
Which is a fine choice when it’s regarding your own womb, but not when you’re pontificating about someone else’s.
We had a vote and the majority agreed that this should be the case. The good news is that you yourself can continue to treat embryos as people if you want to, nothing has to change for you at all.
You just don’t get to interfere with anyone else’s any more.

What I’m talking about is a healthy unborn baby, to a healthy woman.

To interfere with a pregnancy in such a circumstance is unnecessary, and selfish. What you are doing in this circumstance is killing the unborn for personal choice. No matter how you try to dress it up, it is taking a healthy life away. This is in no way fine, regardless of its location.

The “new Ireland” of selfishness, no responsibility or accountability is here. 6522 killed so far, close to the number singing and cheering in Dublin Castle that day. Hardly a victory of any kind.

cournioni

KiKi III wrote: »

It’s absolutely not a nonsense point. You will never become pregnant, you’ll never face this decision. It’s easy to have a strong opinion on a situation that will never, ever impact your body.

Your partner could change her mind for any number of reasons as could you.

I’m not sure what your argument is? If the mother and baby are healthy, what decision is there to be made, based on their body...

Again, changing of minds is hardly a sound logical reason to abort a healthy baby. If the reason was a health threat to the mother or baby, fine but when they’re both healthy? That’s the epitome of selfishness.

SusieBlue

cournioni wrote: »

What I’m talking about is a healthy unborn baby, to a healthy woman.

To interfere with a pregnancy in such a circumstance is unnecessary, and selfish. What you are doing in this circumstance is killing the unborn for personal choice. No matter how you try to dress it up, it is taking a healthy life away. This is in no way fine, regardless of its location.

The “new Ireland” of selfishness, no responsibility or accountability is here. 6522 killed so far, close to the number singing and cheering in Dublin Castle that day. Hardly a victory of any kind.

How necessary something is, is a matter of opinion. I must say that it smacks of arrogance that you assume to have the authority to judge which abortions are necessary and which aren’t.
You haven’t walked in the shoes of the women who will have to raise these babies, so you are in no position to be making judgments about whether it was selfish or not.

It’s taking a potential life away. There is a 1/4 risk of miscarriage in the first trimester anyway, remember?
But this also makes you a hypocrite, because how is ‘killing the unborn’ ok in some circumstances (rape, health etc) but not in others?
It’s either murdering an actual person or it isn’t? Bit of a double standard there, no?

Responsibility and accountability are also a matter of opinion, and abortion is not a new concept.
You keep stating things that are subjective as absolutes when they aren’t.

This is a New Ireland though, I’ll give you that.
One where we are no longer a nation of hypocrites, having one law banning abortion and then another legally protecting the right to travel abroad to procure an abortion.
So long as it wasn’t in our back yard, we didn’t care cause we could proudly declare ourselves to be an abortion free country while we shipped off thousands of women each year and let others take pills at home without medical advice or supervision.
Women whose reasons were private and valid, women who could be your wife, mother, daughter, sister, niece, or friend.
Women you know and love, cause everyone knows someone who has had one.

Now we are finally taking responsibility, and we are taking care of them in their own country and treating them with the compassion and dignity that they always deserved.
It was hard fought and hard won and I won’t apologise for celebrating the fact that people like you no longer get to have an opinion on my private business.

ILoveYourVibes

downinbigsmoke wrote: »

Would this have changed your vote?

no

2u2me

pjohnson wrote: »

Foetus removal.
Have you guys still not learned any science since the vote?

What you're doing is called 'distancing'.

Lava and magma are two different words also but they refer to the same thing, the only difference is the whereabouts of that thing.

Igotadose

cournioni wrote: »

Discretion shouldn’t involve the unnecessary killing of a healthy unborn when the mother is healthy.

Define healthy unborn. Are Down's healthy? Spina bifida? And, how do you know the foetus will be healthy when it's forced to be born in your model?

Igotadose

cournioni wrote: »

What I’m talking about is a healthy unborn baby, to a healthy woman.

To interfere with a pregnancy in such a circumstance is unnecessary, and selfish. .

Incest? Rape? Down's? Still 'unnecessary?'

nozzferrahhtoo

Experience_day wrote: »

Wut. A human is a animal now?

Well yes. They/we are. What do you think humans are? Plants?

But that is not what I said is it? The user I was replying to was saying it is never right to take "life". And if they truly believe that, then I wonder if they are a vegetarian or vegan.

Experience_day wrote: »

Only a dullard would compare us to animals. Thank God we don't have direct democracy with idiotic views like that....

Calling something idiotic does not make it idiotic. If you see something wrong with my words or ideas, then try directly rebutting them and discussing it out loud like an adult.

oyvey wrote: »

Why are people always deflecting like this. If cournioni was a vegan would you concede to their argument?

No I would not. Because I have explained clearly already why their argument fails. However it is interesting to see if the user has the courage of their convictions. If they truly believe it is wrong to "ever" take a "life" then it is interesting to see if they extend this to all life.

What I suspect is that many such people only think "human life" is special and worthy of protection. My experience of MANY such people tells me that the reasons they would give for that are EXACTLY the things a fetus at 12 weeks does not have. If you press them to explain the attributes that distinguish us for special moral and ethical protections over animals.... they almost invariably list all the attributes a 12 week fetus simply has not attained yet.

Thus they happily make my argument for me.

oyvey wrote: »

Jaysus, that’s you told cournioni.

Well it kind of is if you look closely.

The users position so far has been to shout at everyone how despicable and disgusting he finds their positions. And to shout about how things "should" be.

What the user has NOT done is actually try to establish a single coherent argument to this effect. He has just soapboxed the same 2 or 3 assertions over and over again.

So a rebuttal consisting of nothing more than pointing out how irrelevant that users opinion is.... is not unwarranted. It is not the rebuttal I have personally chosen to go with. But it is a warranted, coherent, and correct rebuttal all the same.

There is only one way to reverse the pro choice position of me and 1000s like me. And that is to find an argument justifying moral and ethical concern for a 12 week old fetus.

Find that and I, along with many others, would reverse our position on the spot without hesitation, embarrassment, or apology.

Why not try it, since your cohort has failed to?

nozzferrahhtoo

Nice to see you are not ignoring and dodging ALL my posts after all, just cherry picking a few.

cournioni wrote: »

It is plain and sickening to see that you are. Nothing to do with me or others that sees the reality of what’s happening, rather than trying to brush it under the carpet.

Again lording your morality over others and spewing contempt at those who do not share it is not likely to convince anyone of anything. Something that sickens YOU is just that. Something that sickens you. It does not mean there is anything actually wrong with it. And if you were at all interested in establishing anything is actually wrong with it, you would need to formulate an argument as to why that is so. This you have not done. Even a little bit. You just roll in, tell people who sick you think they are, and roll out again.

You do not have the moral pedestal you pretend to. The reason you have not presented an argument as to the ethics and morality of abortion is that you do not have one.

cournioni wrote: »

Your analogy of a heart bypass has nothing to do with taking a life away.

Had I said it does, you would have a point. Since I did not, you do not.

The point of the analogy is again to show that we can celebrate medical options being available, without ever actually wanting it to be exercised. It is a wonderful thing that the options of things like heart bypass and abortion are there. It would be a much more wonderful thing if no one ever actually needed to avail of either.

At this stage I think the only reason you do NOT see this distinction is that either you simply do not want to, or it does not suit your agenda of derision to acknowledge it.

And that alas says much more about you, than it does about the rest of us.

cournioni wrote: »

Same for the vegan/vegetarian analogy, completely missing the point and very odd equating humans to animals.

Firstly as I educated a user above humans ARE animals. It is very odd that you do not know this. I know 4 year old kids who know this fact.

However I did not make that equation, so you are simply making stuff up. It was YOU that claimed "What isn’t acceptable is killing." and moaned that people are "taking away a life.". The meat industry does BOTH of these things. All the time.

So why is killing and ending lives only a problem when it bothers YOU but it is perfectly ok to do both when it suits you? Perhaps the issue here is not abortion but you needing to get over yourself?

The issue for me with people who can do nothing more than shout words like "life" and "killing" is that they perform leaps of intellect to ignore and hide from the fact that an animal is a sentient entity capable of suffering and well being, while a 12 week old fetus is a blob of biological matter with no more sentience (or less) than a rock has.

So regale us with your philosophical, ethical and moral arguments as to why this blob should have MORE moral and ethical concerns for us than a rock has or a cow has. Why is it wrong to kill or terminate it when it is not wrong to off cows, pigs, trees, insects, bacteria and the other multitudes of life our species is in the process of killing every day? Any actual arguments? Or does it essentially come down once again to what personally disgusts YOU?

It reminds me of the homophobes of old who used to rail against homosexuality. Same there. When I asked them what the actual problem was with homosexuals or homosexuality.... it turned out there was nothing except THEY personally found it disgusting or off putting. Other than that, like your good self, they had nothing to offer. At all. even a little bit.

Diddly. Squat.

cournioni wrote: »

Do you disagree with my idea of responsibility?

Yes. I do. YOUR idea of it seems to be that people should do what YOU would do. That is not them taking responsibility. That is YOU taking it vicariously on their behalf.

You also seem to think "taking responsibility" is something that happens before conception. I think it is both. Taking responsibility is an "in the moment" thing at every step of the process. By evaluating your current situation and choosing the best course of action for you and everyone else.

Before conception we should take responsibility with contraception. If this fails however then taking responsibility AFTER the fact can, and should, include the option of abortion.

Further your moral high horsing about contraception ignores.... dishonestly but wilfully I suspect..... the fact that not all abortion is for unplanned pregnancies. Circumstances change. There are pregnancies that were PLANNED that suddenly circumstances changed. A woman pregnant who suddenly loses her partner, her job, or he loses his, or some other change in circumstances..... can realise that creating a human person to care for at that time is now contraindicated in her circumstances. So since the fetus is not yet a person, it is in HER choice the responsible thing to terminate the process and not form that person that she can no longer care well for.

And simply shouting how "disgusting" you find that reality, neither makes it so or makes it go away.

cournioni wrote: »

The option to abort on the other hand in my opinion should be reserved for medical emergencies and non consensual sex.

Why the latter however? You said killing should never be an option? How do you suddenly and magically justify killing someone for a crime A) they did not commit was not committed on them and C) they were in no way party to?

You love to shout at people about how disgusting and immoral you find them. But you might want to look in the mirror before you do that.

Because if you truly believe human right extend to a fetus.... a position you have refused to argue, defend, or substantiate thus far and I find it a ridiculous one...... then the argument that human rights including the right to life should be arbitrarily denied someone for a crime they had nothing to do with..... is a position more disgusting than anything you have been screeching your contempt at.

cournioni wrote: »

It should in no way be something that can be used as a contraceptive measure.

It would be useful if you would learn the meaning of words before debating. Abortion is not and can not be a contraception. Contraception prevents conception. Abortion presupposes conception has occurred. You would do well to learn the difference.

osarusan

To be honest, I think much of the discussion about health issues, rape, incest, Down's Syndrome, and so on, misses the point. Now,that's not to say that these aren't important issues and that the 8th amendment didn't play a role in some real suffering for pregnant women. And some of the abortions in the statistics in the OP will be for those reasons.

But the point of contention here is not those cases, it's the ones in which there are no real health issues for either pregnant woman or foetus; it's just that the woman doesn't want to have a child for whatever other reason.

And once I realised that I didn't have any problem even with those cases up to 12 weeks (I'd go up to 16 even), then it was a simple vote for me.

ronivek

osarusan wrote: »

But the point of contention here is not those cases, it's the ones in which there are no real health issues for either pregnant woman or foetus; it's just that the woman doesn't want to have a child for whatever other reason.

I feel like the important part here is the "doesn't want a child" aspect. I would much rather reduce the likelihood of a child being raised in difficult circumstances by allowing abortion rather than forcing women to carry to term even if the likelihood the child will not be given decent shot in life is high.

I also feel like a lot of the discussions around health reasons do not give mental health issues sufficient weight; both in terms of the mother's mental health during pregnancy and any future mental health issues that a child might encounter due to the mother's circumstances and mental health history.

Pherekydes

cournioni wrote: »

Nothing is more troubling and narcissistic than unnecessarily taking the life of a healthy unborn away from them for personal gain. Regardless of what you think of my views.

Narcissistic is thinking your idea of morals applies to everyone else.

Pherekydes

cournioni wrote: »

You don’t have to be delivering anything from a pulpit to know that killing is wrong...

Is killing right in any circumstance?

Just asking, because you seem to agree with medically required abortions.

So you're pro-abortion when you deem it okay?

Sarcozies

KiKi III wrote: »

My point is you’ll never have to be in the situation where you need to make a decision on a pregnancy so you really have no idea what you’d do.

It’s easy to stick to your principles when it’s all hypothetical.

Can I ask if you'd say the same thing to women who cannot conceive?

uptherebels

cournioni wrote: »

It appears to have been relevant enough to warrant a reply from you.

Having to point something obvious out to you, doesn't lend relevancy to your opinion.🙄

Bonniedog

Pherekydes wrote: »

Is killing right in any circumstance?

If you accept that it is a utilitarian option - as it is in abortion - then killing another is sometimes justifiable. But it is killing, it is the taking of life not some esoteric symbol of autonomy or whatever.

Ironically many of those who support abortion because it is just another box to tick to prove how righteous you are, oppose the death penalty even for the worst scum. This is major cleavage in American politics.

I'd be more inclined to Buddhist view that both state executions and abortion are contrary to how we ought to live.

nozzferrahhtoo

Bonniedog wrote: »

Ironically many of those who support abortion because it is just another box to tick to prove how righteous you are, oppose the death penalty even for the worst scum. This is major cleavage in American politics.

I'd be more inclined to Buddhist view that both state executions and abortion are contrary to how we ought to live.

I myself am open minded on the topic of the death penalty. I have not actually taken the time to form my opinion on it. Mainly because it has never been a topic of much relevance in Ireland. That said though I do not find bringing it up in the same conversation as abortion to be all that useful or informative.

The person being killed in the death penalty is exactly that. A person. A sentient agent. A consciousness. The fetus is not, and never has been. Aside from the fact a generalised use of the word "alive" can be applied to both of them.... no other relevant comparison holds.

I do not see the contradiction you imply therefore, between people who support the availability of abortion who also oppose the death penalty.

But then again I am not someone who supports abortion "to prove how righteous" I am. I support it for deeply held and long argued (without rebuttal) moral and ethical reasons.

LorelaiG

Sarcozies wrote: »

Can I ask if you'd say the same thing to women who cannot conceive?

Why would the same thing be said to a woman who can't conceive?

oyvey

osarusan wrote: »

To be honest, I think much of the discussion about health issues, rape, incest, Down's Syndrome, and so on, misses the point. Now,that's not to say that these aren't important issues and that the 8th amendment didn't play a role in some real suffering for pregnant women. And some of the abortions in the statistics in the OP will be for those reasons.

But the point of contention here is not those cases, it's the ones in which there are no real health issues for either pregnant woman or foetus; it's just that the woman doesn't want to have a child for whatever other reason.

And once I realised that I didn't have any problem even with those cases up to 12 weeks (I'd go up to 16 even), then it was a simple vote for me.

Im on the opposite side with latter point, but well put.

oyvey

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The users position so far has been to shout at everyone how despicable and disgusting he finds their positions. And to shout about how things "should" be.

I don't know why you're saying they've been shouting. What's shouting on a message board? And both sides have shown 'disgust' for the others position. Nobody is better than anyone else in that regard.

oyvey

uptherebels wrote: »

Having to point something obvious out to you, doesn't lend relevancy to your opinion.��

Just because you don't agree doesn't mean it's irrelevant. Your contributions however are irrelevant by the simple fact that you've contributed nothing to the discussion.

KiKi III

oyvey wrote: »

I don't know why you're saying they've been shouting. What's shouting on a message board? And both sides have shown 'disgust' for the others position. Nobody is better than anyone else in that regard.

That’s not true. I have no objection to anyone being pro-life. I only oppose their attempt to force their view on society at large.