Abortion should be legalised in Ireland

C B

I know its an emotive issue but I'm just wondering where people stand on this issue.

Hellrazer

I agree that abortion should be legalised here in Ireland.If it was then we could offer Irish women the chance to seek this procedeure here(surrounded by friends/family) rather than go abroad to a clinic where they know no-one, the procedeure is upsetting and due to legislation here information is not widely available.If abortion was available here then maybe with proper counselling/information then abortion may become less widely used..By this I mean that other options could be recommended to the person.But in the end it has to be ultimately the decision of the woman to do what she wants!!
I know that this post may stir some things up here on these boards and I may be accused of being"Pro abortion" but Im not Im Pro choice.
We`ll probably get a few Pro life campaigners here pushing their beliefs on everyone,but lets not make this a Pro life versus Pro choice debate.Every one should have their opinion on this.
BUT LETS ALL KEEP IT CLEAN.

Bard

Isn't this more of a Humanities issue than a Politics issue...?

Anyway, I voted No and I'm now having second thoughts. In the referendum a few years ago I voted Yes. If there was a referendum on it tomorrow, I wouldn't vote.

Hussy

Originally posted by richie18
I agree that abortion should be legalised here in Ireland.If it was then we could offer Irish women the chance to seek this procedeure here(surrounded by friends/family) rather than go abroad to a clinic where they know no-one, the procedeure is upsetting and due to legislation here information is not widely available.If abortion was available here then maybe with proper counselling/information then abortion may become less widely used..By this I mean that other options could be recommended to the person.But in the end it has to be ultimately the decision of the woman to do what she wants!!
I know that this post may stir some things up here on these boards and I may be accused of being"Pro abortion" but Im not Im Pro choice.
We`ll probably get a few Pro life campaigners here pushing their beliefs on everyone,but lets not make this a Pro life versus Pro choice debate.Every one should have their opinion on this.
BUT LETS ALL KEEP IT CLEAN.

I agree that abortion should be legalised in Ireland,Women should have the choice as to what happens to them.No matter what precautions are taken,accidents still happen.Some women may not be ready for children and should have the choice,its not an easy decision for anyone to make but again the facilities should be available here in Ireland to make that decision...

Hobbes

Only reason I can see for having it in Ireland is it will make it cheaper and more convienent, neither of which are good excuses for it.

If people aren't ready for kids prehaps they should actually behave themselves a bit more.

About the only thing going for the yes vote is in the issue of rape.

Hussy

Originally posted by Hobbes
Only reason I can see for having it in Ireland is it will make it cheaper and more convienent, neither of which are good excuses for it.

If people aren't ready for kids prehaps they should actually behave themselves a bit more.

About the only thing going for the yes vote is in the issue of rape.

people do behave themselves but as I said Accidents do happen no matter how much you try to prevent them.

bonkey

The legal stance in Ireland is simple, but widely misinterpreted.

The unborn is considered to have a right to life. Therefore, terminating it within the state is considered unacceptable.

However, the state has also recognised that it cannot enforce its laws on actions carried outside the state. You cannot forbid someone from going abroad to carry out actions which are legal in their destination country. I mean - would you support the government banning anyone flying to (say) Amsterdam if they had credible evidence that the person in question would consume drugs over there which are illegal in Ireland?

Therefore, the argument that "they can go abroad and do it anyway" is moot - this argument could be used to argue the legitimisation of *anything* which is legal *somewhere* in the world. This is a ridiculous argument, and should be sidelined. The current law is correct in this regard - you are not breaking Irish Law if you leave the country to perform an act which is legal in the country you are going to.

So - it boils down to the older, and more simple argument. Pro-Life or Pro-Choice. Both sides have chosen these names very carefully, and my take on this is going to really piss some people off, but here goes.

Pro-Life, implies that they consider the unbron to be a human life, and therefore that abortion is murder (the willful taking of another human life), and this cannot be condoned under any circumstances except where there is a credible risk to the mothers life (in which case a tough choice must be made as to which life to preserve).

Pro-Choice implies that the individual may or may not condone abortion, but will allow others to make up their own mind on the issue.

Personally, I think this is a cop-out.

Pro-choice is, at best, a way of saying "I cannot be sure if the unborn is a human life or not, and so will not pass judgement". But, again, by not passing judgement, you are in effect saying that you are erring on the side which if ever shown to be wrong will have resulted in largescale taking of life. In most issues, where doubt is an issue, we assume the more humane side until shown otherwise.

On the other hand, if you are saying that pro-choice is "its not a life, the mother/parent should have full choice", then at what point *does* it become life? Where is that line crossed, and can we draw it with certainty? Unless we can draw it with certainty, then what right do we have to draw it arbitrarily?

I'm not sure if the unborn should be classified as life or not, or at what point we can draw the line, but that uncertainty makes me reject abortion, rather than be pro-choice. I'd rather err on the side of caution, personally.

Therefore, I'd vote no.

jc

p.s. I'm interested in hearing anyone successfully explain what pro-abortion is, and why pro-choice is not the same thing.

Bard

Originally posted by bonkey

p.s. I'm interested in hearing anyone successfully explain what pro-abortion is, and why pro-choice is not the same thing.

Pro-choice means you're in favour of letting the mother choose whether to have an abortion or not. It doesn't necessarily mean you're in favour of abortion (or not).

Hellrazer

With regards to bonkeys comments I dont think that being pro-choice is a cop out.I believe that every person should have the decision to do whatever they want with their own body/life.If this means that they want to have an abortion then so be it.No one can tell anyone else what to do!!!!
As for pro life all these seem to do is sit on O connell street and push their opinions in other peoples faces whether these people are pro life or pro choice.They even hand these leaflets out to parents with children.Children who should not be subjected to this at there innocent time in life.I have had this experience with my own daughter who is three.I got arrested for my actions when this happened/
As for the opinion when a foetus becomes a person I believe that abortion should be legal up to a certain week of pregnancy.Namely around 16 weeks when it could not be sustained outside a parents body.
My daughter was born at 25 weeks and survived on her own and it is this experience has given me this opinion.
In the U k abortion is legal up to 20weeks? and a baby born at this age can survive with special care.So an earlier time in my opinion is a safer time for this procedeure to take place.

seamus

I don't think people will ever agree on this issue. For as long as humans exist. They way I look at it, it's very very difficult to decide at what point a child in the womb becomes 'alive'. I mean, ffs, we can't even prove that we are alive, but obviously it must be decided in terms of what we understand as alive. Basically I look at it in terms of 'who am I to decide whether someone must keep their baby or not?'. OK, it can be argued the other way, 'Who is the mother to decide whether that child lives or dies?'. But I think the mother has more jurisdiction than me, the state, or the population at whole, so the way I look at it, it defaults to giving the mother the choice. I can't really explain that logic, but it makes sense to me And don't bother quoting me and saying 'that's bull****', blah blah blah, because all abortions arguments are based on opinion, not fact.

However, I'm not gonna vote in this election because I'm not registered (D'oh! :rolleyes: ) and if I did, I would vote no. Gasp! Why? Despite what I said above, education should always come before introducing something like this. Children should be taught the dangers of abortion, even before they start sex education. I don't think many people realise how massive a decision it is, because it may prevent you having further children, it can leave serious emotional scarring, regret, anger, suicide sometimes, it can put some people's lives at risk.....the list goes on and on. Yet plenty of people think it's easy just to whip kids out of ya whenever you want. I'm sure the doctor goes through all of this, but if someone's determined, no matter what you say won't make them think twice.

As they say, knowledge is power. If we educate people that life can go on after mistaken pregnancy, that the whole issue of sex is at least something to consider before you dive in, and that abortion is only a valid option when you have absolutely no other options whatsoever, then maybe we could reduce the need for abortion so much that it would be safe to introduce it. The sex ed I got in school was pathetic. You were told how it works, and you come out armed with the knowledge of how to do it, but not how to respect it......kind of like American gun laws....:) Basically I would like for people to consider abortion as they would amputation....you wouldn't cut off your leg if it was hurting a bit.........(unless you're dysmorphic, but that's a different story )

Lemming

Originally posted by seamus
Basically I look at it in terms of 'who am I to decide whether someone must keep their baby or not?'. OK, it can be argued the other way, 'Who is the mother to decide whether that child lives or dies?'. But I think the mother has more jurisdiction than me, the state, or the population at whole, so the way I look at it, it defaults to giving the mother the choice. I can't really explain that logic, but it makes sense to me And don't bother quoting me and saying 'that's bull****', blah blah blah, because all abortions arguments are based on opinion, not fact.

makes sense to me seamus , and that is, incidentally, how I view the whole abortion debate. I am not pro-life, and I guess I fall under pro-choice. I am also of the opinion that unless someone has been faced with abortion themselves, they have no right to speak with authority, like so many of those right-wing facists on O'Connell St. (who's tactics are also despicable)

I will be honest and say that until I am faced with the prospect of losing a child of MINE to abortion, I cannot speak about the rights or wrongs of it.

Hellrazer

One more thing I cant figure out is "Why are so many Pro Life activists Male?"What right has any man to tell a woman what to do with her body?

Maybe it goes back to the forties and fifties where men could buy a "fine thing" of a wife for 2 cows and a chicken and had control of them because they had in fact given them a "home!" etc.

I believe that with male pro-life activists they are trying to exert their control and dominance over women by hassling them outside the Gpo,family planning clinics etc.They probably think that women should not even have the right to vote!

Because this control happened 50 years ago and now women can stand up for themselves these people are afraid of losing their status as "men" with women.

I hope that if there are any male pro-lifers out there could someone answer the above for me.

Hobbes

But they already have a choice? They can choose to fly to England? If they want to be surrounded by friends and family as they are getting scraped they can bring them too!

One more thing I cant figure out is "Why are so many Pro Life activists Male?"What right has any man to tell a woman what to do with her body?

Because technically the child may be part of the womans body but it is made up of the mans too. If a man has to be part of the childs upbringing why not before it's born?

Of course the argument is at what point does it stop being part of the womans body and self aware to be classed as a child?

Lemming

Originally posted by Hobbes
But they already have a choice? They can choose to fly to England? If they want to be surrounded by friends and family as they are getting scraped they can bring them too!

That's a very cynical statement Hobbes. The point is that they shouldnt' HAVE to go to unfamiliar surroundings and an unfamiliar country, in addition to being in a great deal of distress (which no doubt, many of them are).

JustHalf

A child can't be shown to be self aware until quite a while after it is born. Check the mirror-dot test.

I've never heard a single argument with any substance to it that shows that abortion is ever the best option. If people think murder is justified on the grounds of the convenience of the mother- (and possibly father-) to-be I'd like to hear why, and for those that do because no-one's shown that abortion isn't killing a seperate and distinct human being. I'm not going to back up this opinion.

But of course, a women should be able to do anything she likes with her body. I'm not going to back up this opinion either.

I'd like to ask you all to not be muppets on this thread, but I know fine well it can't be avoided.

bonkey

Originally posted by richie18
"What right has any man to tell a woman what to do with her body?

By this logic, it is perfectly reasonable for a woman to have an abortion up uintil the moment the umbilical is cut.

Also, you could argue that a man is capable of viewing the situation more objectively. It is not "her body", it is "her body, and the body of the child growing inside of her".

A woman might disagree, but personally, I disbelieve that there is some unique act in cutting an uimbilical cord which suddenly makes this child a living entity. I'm guessing that most medical experts would agree with me - the cutting of an umbilical chord does not constitute the giving of life.

However, up until that point, the argument of "its her body" applies equally to every moment since conception. So, either we accept that a child is not alive until the umbilical chord is cut, or the "its her body" argument is not valid.

Current abortion restrictions in most countries are set at a point in the pregnancy which is some reasonable amount before the earliest survived delivery. However, given that this figure can almost certainly be pushed back, we can see that its simply a stop-gap measure - a best-case appeasement of allowing the right to choice up until a point where the child could demonstrably survive if removed from the womb. How can we say that before this point, it is not a life, if that point can be pushed back by medical advances. Does our ability to maintain life define what life is?

Like many of the posts here, I do fully agree that we cannot base our decisions on anything more than interpretation or opinion, as there is no such thing as a "fact" about what constitutes life. However, in the absence of such facts, surely the pro-choice argument is erring on the side of recklessness - "it may be a life, but until shown otherwise, I dont accept that it is", as opposed to "it may be a life, and until shown otherwise, I must assume that it is".

As for the mirror-dot test....a blind man would fail that as well JustHalf. Yes, I know that this is somewhat facetious, but it is a valid point.

There is no test, or series of tests which can guarantee with 100% accuracy to determine self-awareness - a concept which experts cannot even fully agree on the definition of to begin with.

Our tests of self-awareness are based on adult humans. There is raging debate about whether or not animals are self aware. They can pass certain tests, and not others. Is it our testing method or the subject which is at fault when we fail to classify
something as self-aware.

've never heard a single argument with any substance to it that shows that abortion is ever the best option

Here, I agree fully. However, I dont think abortion is about the best option. Its about the easiest option.

jc

scipio_major

This is a question which always come to my mind when I listen or read people discussing abortion.

Pro-abortion lobbists say that it is the right of a woman to do what ever she want to her own body.

Since an unborn child as a distinct genetic code, how can they call it part of the woman's body?

That has always puzzled me.

Second since it takes two lives to create a child, a mother and a father. Why does the decision rest entirely on the mother wheather she can abort? The creation of a child should ideally be like a partnership neither side can back out unless both partners agree.

As afar as my opinions go the deciding factor an abortion is the quality of life of the child after it is born. I don't think I could live with myself if I was the child of a rapist, knowing that everytime my mother saw me he saw the rapist. Anyone who can be spared that kind of grief should be IMHO.

Fade to Credits
Scipio_major

bonkey

Originally posted by scipio_major
As afar as my opinions go the deciding factor an abortion is the quality of life of the child after it is born. I don't think I could live with myself if I was the child of a rapist, knowing that everytime my mother saw me he saw the rapist. Anyone who can be spared that kind of grief should be IMHO.

While genuine unwanted pregnancies (i.e. from non-consentual sex) are a difficult case, your argument above is flawed.

You might find a small "invention" called adoption would actually remove the issue of how the mother looks at the child, and how this effects the child's future.

jc

Boston

Originally posted by richie18
One more thing I cant figure out is "Why are so many Pro Life activists Male?"What right has any man to tell a woman what to do with her body?

you know it strange, why so few weman have kids and then go on to abort them,

Insane argument, yes, but no less then yours.

Maybe its because in ireland men are still treated like the strangers when it comes to kids in the states eyes,
anybody that supports "her choice" must support a woman decision to abort her child, even if she was aware the father did want it, Or infact without having to inform the father at all about the child.

WhiteWashMan

pro-choice

Victor

Originally posted by scipio_major
As afar as my opinions go the deciding factor an abortion is the quality of life of the child after it is born. I don't think I could live with myself if I was the child of a rapist, knowing that everytime my mother saw me he saw the rapist. Anyone who can be spared that kind of grief should be IMHO.

While this might be a problem in a small number of cases, mothers also love their children and that love generally supercedes any other emotions.

Also on the point of the position of men in the debate, I think that men are perfectly entitled to an opinion. Just because men can't have babies (and I don't necessarily want to invoke the JPF on this) doesn't mean they (a) don't care about reproduction (b) don't care about the child (_and_ mother) and (c) have no reproductive rights themselves. Just because I have never shot someone or been shot, doesn't mean I don't know it's effects.

At work last year one of the women pointed out how hard it is to be a woman, in particular in relation to childbirth and the like. However, to look at it from the reverse, a woman can (health aside) have a baby anytime she wants, a man cannot.

I also don't necessarily subscribe to the John Waters book of parenting nor to the excesses that men subject women to, but I do recognise that men are discriminated against, by the State, by society and the constitution when it comes to the family.

Oeneus

I think it's stupid. It's the reason why there are several teenaged girls pushing prams around Rathdrum!

And is an unborn child more important then the already living Mother?

I mean at the end of the day, both mother and child will most likely live miserable lives.

I heard they won't even let you have an abortion if you were raped!

Boston

i have a question, how many of those pro chosers here would be happy having an abortion, or their child or their wife.

I not trying to catch anybody out with morality and that stuff. just im wonder ho0w you see it.

I mean, im not pro life because i feel the overwhiling need to tell people how to live their life, in fact ill argue about anything with anybody expect this subject generaly. it just i find abortion, so replusive and desturbing, i could imagine anybody i cared about going through with it, and if they did id never be the same to them again

Oeneus

I would feel that my wife is more important than a fetus the size of my eyelash, that is unborn!

mike65

I voted Pro-choice.

Mike

Typedef

My issue with Pro-Choice is that I think the question of abortion is fundamentally a human rights issue not a gender rights issue.

I'll qualify that statement. Every single human in the vast majority of countries in the world had an implicit right to the protection of their right to be a human and their right to have a life and ostensibly persue constructive things with that life.

An unborn person, is just that, a person, right from the moment of conception, maybe that person is not easily identafiable as a person because they are young and undeveloped, but at a genetic level it is a living human being, simply a person who needs to mature physically.

Who is endowed with the adequate tools to draw a line in the Sand and say at day 23 the zygote X is not a human life but, day 24, that's when it is alive. There is a fallacy in that logic that espouses such a position as 'usually' the criteria laid out to qualify life/non-life is one of when a person/small child can permissably survive outside of the womb. Essentially the better treatment available to a permature neonate will dictate the cut-off point by that logic and therefore if one assumes that money buys better treatement the logic you essentially espouse is that the richer the person the more of a right of state protection of that life the state should afford.

On a moral note I would say that a zygote from the moment of conception has the ability to develop into another citizen, the next pol-pot or the next ghandi. Oh and excuse me, some person doesn't want to be inconvienced for nine months, well excuse me for political incorrectness, if you kill that foetus someone won't have the opportunity to be alive and live in this world. For me there is no comparison. It sickens me the thought of people being put to death because society deems women as a gender so oppressed that is must compensate by allowing the death of the most vunerable section of society the most defenceless, the people without a voice.

Here is an argument I find incredable. A girl becomes pregnant via rape, therefore it's ok to abort the foetus. Or two wrongs make a right, thats the maxim. Yes of course no-one wants to force the girl to gestate the foetus, but at what cost or price will society bend in it's ascription and sensitivity to the mindset of the girl? Far enough to condone the ending of the smallest most unheard and indefensable life that exists in human society, namely unborn life? Not by any moral ethos or remit that qualifies my superego thanks very much.

Again I would say this is not a matter of gender rights, I await and will applaud the day a black man or woman get to be US president. I will applaud the day Ireland has it's first woman Taoiseach(not Mary Harney though), by the same token I will applaud anymove that seeks to protect the rights of the unborn. People get mad ideas all the time and in my opinion one of those mad ideas is that in equalising gender rights in human society that the woman has a right to choose if it is ok to kill another person because that person encroaches on her life.

I find ludicrousness in the concept that puts the comfort of the progenitor or mother over the life of the prodeny or the foetus, for me there is no issue, the foetus has more right be live and breath and go about life as most of 'us' do than the mother has right not to want to gestate the foetus. Maybe that is a little black and white but there it is.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a religious nut, I support Euthanasia, I support sex-change operations and any number of things you may list off, but I like to think that stems from liberalism, and for me that liberalism means humanism and humanism means respecting other people's views and rights even if you don't really agree. Therefore, a person has a right be be born and be alive even if you don't find that person's life expeditious.

JustHalf

No-one knows when a child becomes alive. Therefore, if you have an abortion you are risking killing a person.

Abortion is all about convenience. Even if a girl gets raped, to allow the unborn-child to be (potentially) murdered because a girl doesn't want to carry it is kind of missing the point. The kid did nothing. If she doesn't want to see it again after birth, it can be adopted. ADOPTION MAKES SENSE PEOPLE!!!

I don't condone the murder of any person for matters of convenience. You can't really justified abortion with any reasonable argument. As far as I'm concerned, it's killing a person. I could be wrong, but if I'm not then any effort I make against the legalisation of abortion is doing something to save a person's life. If I am wrong, then these efforts merely inconvenience people for nine-months.

chernobyl

Originally posted by JustHalf
Even if a girl gets raped, to allow the unborn-child to be (potentially) murdered because a girl doesn't want to carry it is kind of missing the point. The kid did nothing. If she doesn't want to see it again after birth, it can be adopted.

Thats over simplfying rape and the emotional consequences of it.

Sand

I think were going down the wrong road. Those who disagree with abortion have every right to disagree with it. They dont have a right in my opinion to force their view on someone else. And Im sure they wouldnt want to either. So lets pour money into medical research.

Oh and excuse me, some person doesn't want to be inconvienced for nine months, well excuse me for political incorrectness

So then we can transfer the "unborn person" to a person (a child prodigy perhaps?) whose against abortion and they can be "inconvenienced" for 9 months.

At the end of the day we can argue as long as we like about whether abortion is "right" or "wrong". We can argue whether we should be in favour of choice or whether the rights of the "unborn person" are more important than the rights of the person. Argue for weeks and weeks and month after month. It makes absolutely no difference. Vote *whatever* way you want in the referendumn. It will make *no* difference. Thousands of women will still go to the United Kingdom and get an abortion there whatever laws are brought into play here. As they always have done. And as they always will do.

Biffa Bacon

I think were going down the wrong road. Those who disagree with abortion have every right to disagree with it. They dont have a right in my opinion to force their view on someone else.

Of course they do, if you believe that abortion is a gross violation of another human being's rights.

So lets pour money into medical research.

Eh?

At the end of the day we can argue as long as we like about whether abortion is "right" or "wrong". We can argue whether we should be in favour of choice or whether the rights of the "unborn person" are more important than the rights of the person. Argue for weeks and weeks and month after month. It makes absolutely no difference. Vote *whatever* way you want in the referendumn. It will make *no* difference. Thousands of women will still go to the United Kingdom and get an abortion there whatever laws are brought into play here. As they always have done. And as they always will do.

The difference is that no one can have an abortion here.

(No btw)

mike65

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon

The difference is that no one can have an abortion here.

(No btw)

And that is the farce of Irish solutions to Irish problems...Still it could be worse, the public could have voted not to allow pregnant women the right to travel outside the state in the last referendum. The Stalinist implications of that are to frightening to consider.

Mike.