abortion talk in dcu

28064212

AndyWarhol wrote:

28064212 wrote:

Without a doubt, abortion should be legalised in Ireland in some form. Especially in cases of rape and incest, girls under the age of 18 (but not without parental consent) and women in full time education.

Life vs. convenience balance. Doesn't take a DCU degree to see that life wins hands down.

So you would regard the fact that a woman got raped as an 'inconvenience'? What about a 14 year old girl, too young to know what she was doing (due in large part to the Church's stranglehold on education in this country) ending up with a child? Should she essentially give up her own life to allow one more burden on her family?

AndyWarhol wrote:

28064212 wrote:

Neither do I believe that it's necessarily wrong to abort babies who are shown to have major mental and/or physical disabilities.

Who's to say that the child is not perfectly happy in its mother's womb disabled or not. Why not extend your logic then and kill all the disabled and old people as Hitler did? What's the difference? I'd love to see how you justify your position.

Your capacity to be happy is relative to your capacity to understand what is happening to you. "Ignorance is bliss". The one thing that is guaranteed, their parents will almost certainly regret it for the rest of their lives. They may grow used to it, but they will always wish their child was born 'normal'. And to your 'Hitler' argument, yes I would prefer a world with no majorly disabled people (which is why I would advocate abortions to be allowed in that case). With regard to old people, I'd also be an advocate of euthanasia (as a pre-meditated stipulation if necessary).

AndyWarhol wrote:

28064212 wrote:

However, I have heard stories of middle-aged women in America essentially using abortion as a form of birth-control, which is just plain wrong.

Why do you think it is wrong? Some inkling inside you that tells you killing a child is wrong?

It's always wrong, but it just might be the lesser of two evils. Doing it as an alternative to a simple precaution is infinitely worse.

AndyWarhol wrote:

UCDSU and their liberal agenda. They'd be the very ones shouting and roaring about free speech when it comes to issues such as US foreign policy, gay marriage etc., etc., but when an issue that doesn't fit in to their way of thinking, they cry 'extremist', 'intolerance', blah, blah, blah.

Last night's debate was excellent. There were some pro-choicers present who asked the same old cliched questions regarding the rape, the X-case and the church/political system relationship. They were all well dealt with including one young blonde woman who accused Gianna of 'using her illness to promote her pro-life agenda' which attracted a tut or two.

If abortion's the answer, I don't know what the question is.

So now rape is not just an inconvenience, it's a tired old cliche as well? And the church and political system have a long and well established relationship in Ireland. Also, I'll think you'll find UCDSU don't actually have an official position on abortion, and they weren't the ones who cancelled the talk

NeilJ

Whilst I generally dispise the Pro-Life movement (mainly for their sickening, heartless tactics) I did not feel that the volunteers were forcing their beliefs down people's throats. They simply tried to hand out lollipops and leaflets. You weren't forced to take either. Furthermore if you are going to censore the Pro-Lifers than Pro-Choice should equally be banned from the college. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs and opinions at the end of the day.

Neil

AndyWarhol

28064212 wrote:

So you would regard the fact that a woman got raped as an 'inconvenience'? What about a 14 year old girl, too young to know what she was doing (due in large part to the Church's stranglehold on education in this country) ending up with a child? Should she essentially give up her own life to allow one more burden on her family?

I don't know why you're on a church rant. Anyway, I'll play ball in your territory and keep things secular (people like you just refute any religious reasoning that talks about the inherent morality within all human beings and demand that we seperate any such notions from politics. In fact, it is from the human soul and a sense of morality that our whole political system is based on).

Back to the 14 year old girl. And while rape is a terrible tradgedy for any girl to have to undergo, abortion does not reverse a rape. I hear screams of the psychological trauma that such a child would have to go through. Have you ever thought of the psychological trauma a woman has to go through for her entire life having knowingly killed an innocent life? An infinitely worse burden if you ask most sensible people.

The option in this circumstance is to give the child up for adoption and move on, not to kill and 'forget'.

What about all the humans alive that are alive as a result of rape, are they somehow lesser human beings?

28064212 wrote:

Your capacity to be happy is relative to your capacity to understand what is happening to you. "Ignorance is bliss". The one thing that is guaranteed, their parents will almost certainly regret it for the rest of their lives. They may grow used to it, but they will always wish their child was born 'normal'. And to your 'Hitler' argument, yes I would prefer a world with no majorly disabled people (which is why I would advocate abortions to be allowed in that case). With regard to old people, I'd also be an advocate of euthanasia (as a pre-meditated stipulation if necessary).

You are treading on dangerous ground with those opinions. There are thousands of parents of children with disabilities who lead wonderfully happy lives. Whilst many disabled persons may not have as many good days as more abled persons, they are still alive and are entitled to the fruits of life as much as a anybody else. A drug addict would have a pretty miserable existence. Should he be executed becuase his quality of life 'relative' to everyone else's is lower?

You talk about a world with no disabilities. Where do you draw the line? Who decides who should live and who should die? A pathetic way to look at the world where it is reduced to judging a persons abilitity to produce economic output.

28064212 wrote:

It's always wrong, but it just might be the lesser of two evils. Doing it as an alternative to a simple precaution is infinitely worse.

Contradiction city. How is the evil of killing somehow 'lesser' than that of some permiscous 'career-orientated' woman who doesn't want a baby inconveniencing her materialistic ambitions? She can always choose adoption if she feels she incapable of raising a child.

28064212 wrote:

So now rape is not just an inconvenience, it's a tired old cliche as well? And the church and political system have a long and well established relationship in Ireland. Also, I'll think you'll find UCDSU don't actually have an official position on abortion, and they weren't the ones who cancelled the talk

Rape an inconvenience? If you read my post again, I was referring to the pro-choicers and their cliched hypothetical situations such as those you have just outlined above (e.g. abortion in the case of rape). There is no logical (whatever about theological) stance to justify killing of innocent babies.

What is it your point was on church/state relationships?

UCDSU peddle abortion in sheeps clothing. Half of their 'big-wig' officers join up with the USI who openly publish links on their website to various agencies that promote and encourage women into killing their own children.

AndyWarhol

NeilJ wrote:

sickening, heartless tactics

Yeah, vs. sickening, heartless killing. Pro-lifers are informing people as to the reality of what is going on in the world.

D

You have to remember that it is not pro-abortion versus anti-abortion. I am quite sure that if another abortion was never needed both sides of the arguments would be overjoyed. One must realise that there is no way of making someone do what you want them to, if an Irish person want to get an abortion outside of Irish law then one would be hard pressed to stop them.

AARRRGH

charba wrote:

everyone has the right to make up their own mind and to live with any consequences of their actions

Hmmmm. So the woman gets to live with the consequences, and the child gets to die.

I'm a very liberal person, but I just cannot see how abortion can be accepted by our society.

If I make a mistake by getting greedy and rob a bank, can I say it was a mistake, and be let away with it? Life just doesn't work that way.

AndyWarhol

D wrote:

You have to remember that it is not pro-abortion versus anti-abortion. I am quite sure that if another abortion was never needed both sides of the arguments would be overjoyed.

No, not really. Because if 28064212 had their way, anybody with a disability should be aborted and old people should be euthanised.

D wrote:

One must realise that there is no way of making someone do what you want them to, if an Irish person want to get an abortion outside of Irish law then one would be hard pressed to stop them.

We legislate to stop murderers and have prisons and a police force, the same way we can have laws to stop abortion doctors from practicing their filth in this country. Whilst many women do go abroad for abortions and we can't really stop them under freedom of travel arrangements within EU member states. Anyway, think of all the lives that have been saved because of the barrier that is the journey to England.

AARRRGH

AndyWarhol wrote:

Anyway, think of all the lives that have been saved because of the barrier that is the journey to England.

And if people can't be arsed to go to England, what the **** are they doing considering an abortion for in the first place? How can laziness be an overriding factor in wanting to kill the life growing inside them?

ugh.

AndyWarhol

dublindude wrote:

And if people can't be arsed to go to England, what the **** are they doing considering an abortion for in the first place? How can laziness be an overriding factor in wanting to kill the life growing inside them?

ugh.

You brought up laziness, not me. Well you know, some people may not be able to afford a short-notice plane trip plus abortion clinic fees. Have you ever thought about that?

D

AndyWarhol wrote:

Anyway, think of all the lives that have been saved because of the barrier that is the journey to England.

I thought that there were clinics in Northern Ireland.

Andy Warhol, do you see any circumstances where an abortion would be justified?

AARRRGH

AndyWarhol wrote:

You brought up laziness, not me. Well you know, some people may not be able to afford a short-notice plane trip plus abortion clinic fees. Have you ever thought about that?

Unlikely. Most people can get money together when desperate. For example, if a friend came to me and told me she was raped, is now pregnant, wants an abortion, but has no money. I'd have no problem giving her the cash.

the_syco

Meh. I'm pro-choice. For some odd reason the pro-lifers think that all pro-choice people have a "you bake them, we scrape them" policy. In some cases its not right, but I'll defend the womans right to have it. Except for the bitches that see it as "family control", tho.

phantom_lord

dublindude wrote:

And if people can't be arsed to go to England, what the **** are they doing considering an abortion for in the first place? How can laziness be an overriding factor in wanting to kill the life growing inside them?

ugh.

Because just having the baby and looking after it is so much less hassle....

alantc

AndyWarhol wrote:

Last night's debate was excellent. There were some pro-choicers present who asked the same old cliched questions regarding the rape, the X-case and the church/political system relationship. They were all well dealt with including one young blonde woman who accused Gianna of 'using her illness to promote her pro-life agenda' which attracted a tut or two.

It wasn't a debate at all. It was a talk that didn't seem to affect anyone there. Whatever opinion they came with they probably left with.

Gianna totally used her ilness to promote her cause. That's why she was speaking! I don't think anyone in there was under the impression that a baby isn't a life just because it's in the womb. If it had been a perfectly able bodied person in the lecture room telling us they had been aborted nobody would have cared. And she said after that abortions like her one are illegal now!

AndyWarhol

alantc wrote:

It wasn't a debate at all.

It never purported to being a debate.

alantc wrote:

It was a talk that didn't seem to affect anyone there. Whatever opinion they came with they probably left with.

What do you know? If anything, my views have been further solidfied from listening to both speakers and chatting to them afterwards. I was with a few of my friends who 'went for the banter' and were hoping to see a couple of run-ins between the hardcore left and hardcore right - I think what was said hit home to them too even though they might not have had strong opinions on the issue beforehand. Are you trying to suggest that the whole thing was a waste of time?

alantc wrote:

Gianna totally used her ilness to promote her cause.

You should maybe say that to her face, and see what kind of response you would get. She's thankful to be alive and is an extremely humble person who, unlike most people, took the initiative to inform people just really what goes on in the world. She is a model to all people with and without disabilities. This woman ran a marathon last year in 6 hours having being in leg braces all her childhood.

alantc wrote:

That's why she was speaking! I don't think anyone in there was under the impression that a baby isn't a life just because it's in the womb. If it had been a perfectly able bodied person in the lecture room telling us they had been aborted nobody would have cared. And she said after that abortions like her one are illegal now!

They're illegal. Good. Have you ever thought about why they made them illegal? And just because they're 'illegal' now, does not mean that the killing was ever right in the first place.

Abortion is the holocaust of today's world.

alantc

AndyWarhol wrote:

It never purported to being a debate.

You called it a debate. I was clearing things.

What do you know? If anything, my views have been further solidfied from listening to both speakers and chatting to them afterwards. I was with a few of my friends who 'went for the banter' and were hoping to see a couple of run-ins between the hardcore left and hardcore right - I think what was said hit home to them too even though they might not have had strong opinions on the issue beforehand. Are you trying to suggest that the whole thing was a waste of time?

You're telling me your views have been solidified. That's exactly what I meant. Do you mean to say those who were pro choice going in probably came out pro life? There was nothing new in the talk that the pro choice poeple wouldn't have already known beforehand.

You should maybe say that to her face, and see what kind of response you would get. She's thankful to be alive and is an extremely humble person who, unlike most people, took the initiative to inform people just really what goes on in the world. She is a model to all people with and without disabilities. This woman ran a marathon last year in 6 hours having being in leg braces all her childhood.

Wow. Late term abortions are illegal now. A repeat of that situation has been avoided. Of course I'm not going to say that to her face. I do have some emotions and nobody likes a confrontation like that. But again, if she was perfectly healthy, her talk woud have been very boring. It's still a human in the womb, I agree, but I still don't care.

They're illegal. Good. Have you ever thought about why they made them illegal? And just because they're 'illegal' now, does not mean that the killing was ever right in the first place.

There is no God, there is no right or wrong. There are consequences of actions. Period. Like that woman sitting behind you said, it's a philosophical debate and people will form their opinion on abortion not based on arguments put forward during abortion talks but because of their views on the value of human life, is there a god, does any of it really matter.

Abortion is the holocaust of today's world.

Get the hurleys..

alantc

Sory, I missed this the first time...

AndyWarhol wrote:

What do you know? If anything, my views have been further solidfied from listening to both speakers and chatting to them afterwards. I was with a few of my friends who 'went for the banter' and were hoping to see a couple of run-ins between the hardcore left and hardcore right - I think what was said hit home to them too even though they might not have had strong opinions on the issue beforehand. Are you trying to suggest that the whole thing was a waste of time?

What do you know!!!!! I don't think it hit home with who you were sitting with as much as you might think! HAHAHAHAHA.

Seraphina

steveland? wrote:

I'm sorry I don't agree with this at all... Just because someone's in school/college and doesn't have time for a baby doesn't mean the baby should die...

i'm sorry but i've just gotta point out this is totally unfair. you have no idea the kind of strain pregnancy could put on your education.

for example if i found out i was pregnant this week (god forbid!) i would at the height of pregnancy around my final exams in may. FINAL EXAMS.
thats 3 years of my life down the drain. the physical and emotional stress that pregnancy puts on your body is pretty intense, and would seriously hamper my ability to attend classes and study at the culmination of my third level education.
i would definitely have an abortion if it happened. i dont think guys can really understand the kind of strain some women go though during pregnancy, its not just a baby growing inside you, it seriously affects your mental and physical wellbeing.
i saw a program the other night about pregnant women losing their jobs. apparently about 30,000 women lose their jobs in england each year because they get pregnant - imagine losing your job because of a baby you didn't even want? you cant even afford to provide for it.
pregnancy affects womens lives in ways men cant even begin to imagine, tbh i dont believe men should even be able to dictate womens options in their situations, they just cannot understand or empathise with the position women are put in.

Victor

Rather than start another thread, this article throws up some rather disturbing thoughts on late-term abortions. The reference to doctors committing infanticide would appear to be wrong, as I understand it, only a mother can commit infanticide.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1892696,00.html

Fifty babies a year are alive after abortion
Lois Rogers

A GOVERNMENT agency is launching an inquiry into doctors’ reports that up to 50 babies a year are born alive after botched National Health Service abortions.

The investigation, by the Confidential Enquiry into Maternal and Child Health (CEMACH), comes amid growing unease among clinicians over a legal ambiguity that could see them being charged with infanticide.

The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, which regulates methods of abortion, has also mounted its own investigation.

Its guidelines say that babies aborted after more than 21 weeks and six days of gestation should have their hearts stopped by an injection of potassium chloride before being delivered. In practice, few doctors are willing or able to perform the delicate procedure.

For the abortion of younger foetuses, labour is induced by drugs in the expectation that the infant will not survive the birth process. Guidelines say that doctors should ensure that the drugs they use prevent such babies being alive at birth.

In practice, according to Stuart Campbell, former professor of obstetrics and gynaecology at St George’s hospital, London, a number do survive.

“They can be born breathing and crying at 19 weeks’ gestation,” he said. “I am not anti-abortion, but as far as I am concerned this is sub-standard medicine.”

The number of terminations carried out in the 18th week of pregnancy or later has risen from 5,166 in 1994 to 7,432 last year. Prenatal diagnosis for conditions such as Down’s syndrome is increasing and foetuses with the condition are routinely aborted, even though many might be capable of leading fulfilling lives. In the past decade, doctors’ skill in saving the lives of premature babies has improved radically: at least 70%-80% of babies in their 23rd or 24th week of gestation now survive long-term.

Abortion on demand is allowed in Britain up to 24 weeks — more than halfway through a normal pregnancy and the highest legal limit for such terminations in Europe. France and Germany permit “social” abortions only up to the 10th and 12th weeks respectively.

Doctors are increasingly uneasy about aborting babies who could be born alive. “If viability is the basis on which they set the 24-week limit for abortion, then the simplest answer is to change the law and reduce the upper limit to 18 weeks,” said Campbell, who last year published a book showing images of foetuses’ facial expressions and “walking” movements taken with a form of 3-D ultrasound.

The Department of Health was alerted three months ago to the issue of babies surviving failed terminations. In August clinicians in Manchester published an analysis of 31 such babies born in northwest England between 1996 and 2001.

“If a baby is born alive following a failed abortion and then dies (because of lack of care), you could potentially be charged with murder,” said Shantala Vadeyar, a consultant obstetrician at South Manchester University Hospitals NHS Trust, who led the study.

A systematic investigation of data collected through the CEMACH indicated that there are at least 50 cases a year nationwide in which babies survive abortion attempts.

“First sight of our data suggests this is happening,” said Shona Golightly, the agency’s research director. She said official confirmation of the figures would be available next year.

It is not known how many babies who survive attempted abortions go on to live into adulthood.

Paul Clarke, a neonatal intensive care specialist in Norwich, has treated a boy born at 24 weeks after three failed abortion attempts. The mother decided to keep the child, who is now two years old but is suffering what doctors call “significant ongoing medical problems”.
“The survival of this child was not recorded in any official statistics,” Clarke said. “There is nothing at the moment to force abortion practitioners to account for their failures.”

The issue will be highlighted by Gianna Jessen, 28, who survived an attempt to abort her. She is to speak at a parliamentary meeting on December 6 organised by the Alive and Kicking campaign, which is lobbying for a reduction of the abortion limit to 18 weeks.

Jessen, a musician from Nashville, Tennessee, was left with cerebral palsy but is to run in the London marathon next April to raise funds for fellow sufferers.

“If abortion is about women’s rights, then what were my rights?” she asked.

“If people are going to talk about abortion, then it’s important for them to know that these are babies that can be born alive and survive.”

Sangre

FYI the talk in UCD was cancelled because it was booked through a society under the pretense it wast them organising the talk when in fact it was an external company.
The violent protest of that company also probably played a part. UCD isn't capable of coping if anything broke out.

I've never seen the point in abortion, no one is ever going to change their point of view.

Sangre

Victor wrote:

The reference to doctors committing infanticide would appear to be wrong, as I understand it, only a mother can commit infanticide.

Only a mother can commit infantcide and it must be within 12 months of the birth.
Its an outdated notion introdcued in Britain when all murder carried the death penalty. It was felt this was too harsh on a mother perhaps suffering from pre-natal depression so a life sentence was attached to the crime.

lazydaisy

Abortion may be one of those necessary evils. Personally, I cant see how you can call it anything but terminating a human life, but at the same time I also can't see how you can criminalise it. Women have been having them and will continue to find ways to have them. Should they go to prison for it?

I think the laws need to put more pressure on fathers to step up and take more responsibility both financially and in terms of caring for the child then women in crisis pregnancies wont feel so alone and scared. When I was in college there were two pregnancies a week according to our health services. There were no babies around. These were all middle class educated women with good families for whom it just wasnt a good time. I don't know a single woman who hasnt regretted having an abortion nor one who felt like they had a choice. They all felt like they would be shamed by their families and abandoned by the father of the child.

It would be interesting to hear of any research on how abortion affects men/fathers.

Seraphina- an abortion will have far more serious biological effects on you than late term pregnancy. You will hemorrage and be in pain for a while. Then you can expect clotting and a number of profound emotional consequences. After having 6 injections of novacaine in your vagina, [unless you elect general anesthesia-which has its own complications] and your womb invaded by one of several horrific procedures, believe me you wont be able to sit for your exam, which after terminating a pregnancy just wont seem that important.

panda100

As some of you know i have been very vocal on this issue over in the ucd boards-i really wanted to go to this talk and felt I have missed out by not doing so.
However,i still am unsure on whether i am pro or against abortion.I think its one of those situations you just cant decide what you'd do unless you were in that situation. The majority of women feel a huge sense of relief when they have an abortion and the majority of women suffer absolutely no physical or mental damages after the operation.So i know we always talk about the mental physical distress abortion places on women but this really is only an argument in a tiny minority of cases.
The big fact that worries me about abortion not being legal in Ireland is the dire consequence of backstreet abortion clinics.Everyday,we hear of a new case of a women going abroad in order to get cheap plastic surgery and then she either never returns home or the surgeon does a botched job. For a women to go over to England she would first have to pay for flights,then accomodation and then the actual abortive surgery itself.I think then if irish women had to travel to england then to get an abortion they would choose the cheapest option available and end up with dr.Nick from the simpsons.This is dangerous and is a huge factor i believe in making abortion legal over here.
Then we come to the controversial dilemma of if a women is raped she should have the right to terminate her pregnancy.I do not believe abortion is the answer for a rape.After a rape it is a hugely traumatic time for the victim.Her body has been violated in a way we cant imagine.I think to violate her body again just by eradicating the product of her violent attack is an easy answer to this difficult situation.I think having two violent attacks on a womens body(the first being the assault and the second being abortive surgery) within such a short space of time will really cause a lot of physical and mental trauma for years to come.Our bodys can only take so much stress at one time,we are not machines and so i think to use the case of rape in the abortion debate is a weak argument.

Seraphina

lazydaisy wrote:

Seraphina- an abortion will have far more serious biological effects on you than late term pregnancy. You will hemorrage and be in pain for a while. Then you can expect clotting and a number of profound emotional consequences. After having 6 injections of novacaine in your vagina, [unless you elect general anesthesia-which has its own complications] and your womb invaded by one of several horrific procedures, believe me you wont be able to sit for your exam, which after terminating a pregnancy just wont seem that important.

my point was an abortion NOW would be easier than being 6/7 months pregnant when i sit my exams.
plus the added fact of supporting another human being for the next 18/20 years.

Seraphina

panda100 wrote:

I do not believe abortion is the answer for a rape.After a rape it is a hugely traumatic time for the victim.Her body has been violated in a way we cant imagine.I think to violate her body again just by eradicating the product of her violent attack is an easy answer to this difficult situation.I think having two violent attacks on a womens body(the first being the assault and the second being abortive surgery) within such a short space of time will really cause a lot of physical and mental trauma for years to come.Our bodys can only take so much stress at one time,we are not machines and so i think to use the case of rape in the abortion debate is a weak argument.

i dunno, tbh for me, carrying the product of a violent sexual attack to term would be a constant and horrific reminder of what happened.

fly_agaric

Seraphina wrote:

tbh i dont believe men should even be able to dictate womens options in their situations, they just cannot understand or empathise with the position women are put in.

Okay. Fair enough. Perhaps we can have some special women-only referendum on the issue or something? <butts out>

lazydaisy wrote:

I think the laws need to put more pressure on fathers to step up and take more responsibility both financially and in terms of caring for the child then women in crisis pregnancies wont feel so alone and scared...
It would be interesting to hear of any research on how abortion affects men/fathers.

:v: :v: Seems to be a bit of a disagreement here.

I can see a solution! The Japanese are probably working on it already!

pretty*monster

I wonder if anyone's aware that it doesn't matter whether abortions are legal or not. They happen. Women have power over their own bodies even if the law doesn't recognise it.

When I was in school I saw evidence of three self-abortions performed in the bathroom. Pro-lifers can bury their heads in the sand all they like, it won't change reality.

The question is, do they care enough about life to allow women and girls access to sterile facilities and trained professionals.



That aside, the reason I was against the talk in ucd was because it was booked under false pretences (I mean, one has to ask, why they did that), their posters were highly offensive, and because Ultrasound has links with Youth Defence.

AndyWarhol

fly_agaric wrote:

Okay. Fair enough. Perhaps we can have some special women-only referendum on the issue or something? <butts out>

What ever next: gay marriage referenda that only gays can vote in, motoring laws that only motorists can vote in, immigration law that only immigrants can vote in.

A completely unworkable and unfair way to run a society.

And why shouldn't men have a say in abortion? After all, it's their child as much as the mother's (even though many may not acknowlege this). Men were in the womb for 9 months just like every other woman on this planet and are entitled to as much a say with regards to protection of the sanctity of human life (male or female) as women.

So get off it with your neo-feminist 'women only referenda'.

fly_agaric wrote:

:v: :v: Seems to be a bit of a disagreement here.

I can see a solution! The Japanese are probably working on it already!

Yeah, to the trivial matter that is dead babies.

ionapaul

I wonder if anyone's aware that it doesn't matter whether abortions are legal or not. They happen. Women have power over their own bodies even if the law doesn't recognise it.

Another poster mentioned the same above - an easy comparison could be to say that all forms of murder happen, despite being legal. They will never stop happening. Humans have the power to end other humans' lives, despite the prohibition in law against it. Should we then facilitate murder because it happens and always will happen?

Of course not, if the action is morally wrong, we should prohibit it. The most important question that each of us need to examine and answer in this debate is whether or not the foetus is a living human. Is it is, how can killing it be right? In the case that the mother's life is in danger, than if the foetus is a living human, then it should be recognised that the question is more 'one life sacrificed to save another', rather than a simple medical procedure to ensure physical wellbeing.

fly_agaric

AndyWarhol wrote:

So get off it with your neo-feminist 'women only referenda'.

Where did I say that was what I wanted? It's the logical outcome of Seraphina's post: i.e.

"pregnancy affects womens lives in ways men cant even begin to imagine, tbh i dont believe men should even be able to dictate womens options in their situations, they just cannot understand or empathise with the position women are put in."

AndyWarhol wrote:

Yeah, to the trivial matter that is dead babies.

There, there. I wasn't laughing at dead babies (eh, why did the dead baby:D ...nah furgettabourit!).

The "problem" I was speaking of was the contradiction between women wanting men to take a more active role in a crisis pregnancy/wanting men to butt out and let them make their decision. Depends on the woman and the situation I suppose.