Ireland's abortion laws challenged in Europe

bronte

How in the world is abortion equal to pedophilia?

Khannie

bronte wrote: »

How in the world is abortion equal to pedophilia?

They're both illegal here and available through travel to foreign countries. My point is that the laws of other countries should have no bearing on how we frame our own. I keep making it over and over and over and over and nobody has challenged the point directly. They only say "oh well it's available in England, wake up!".

drkpower

bronte wrote: »

How in the world is abortion equal to pedophilia?

Many would say it is far worse.
Dont you see the point? We need to make a judgment on abortion/the unborn etc ourselves, for our own reasons. While the actions of other countries in respect of all sorts of issues are informative and do affect us, the mere fact that other country's have other laws does not mean we should necessarily follow suit.

sparkling sea

Just one other point, althought the right to life of the unborn is recognised, the baby O case in 2002 centered on the deportation of a pregnant woman who claimed her unborn child was a separate person and should be treated as so in Irish law, however it was found that Article 2 did not apply to the unborn. The unborn could not be seen as a separate person or entitled to the full rights that are bestowed on human beings under the law.

bronte

drkpower wrote: »

Many would say it is far worse.
Dont you see the point? We need to make a judgment on abortion/the unborn etc ourselves, for our own reasons. While the actions of other countries in respect of all sorts of issues are informative and do affect us, the mere fact that other country's have other laws does not mean we should necessarily follow suit.

Abortion is far worse than pedophilia? (just clarifying)

Khannie

bronte wrote: »

Abortion is far worse than pedophilia? (just clarifying)

He didn't say that. Only that some people would consider it worse.

The point on not using the laws of other countries stands.

sparkling sea

Khannie wrote: »

I've altered what you said, substituting in the word "pedophilia" to show you how ridiculous your point is.



Again, just because people travel to circumvent our laws does not mean that we should not have them.

You still won't deal with the issue, you can substitute all you like, its a cop out, deal with the issue thats being discussed instead of side stepping it.

Is it possible in reality to stop people having abortions - no.
Should Irish people be able to avail of services they need even it they can't have an abortion here - yes

Khannie

sparkling sea wrote: »

Is it possible in reality to stop people having abortions - no.
Should Irish people be able to avail of services they need even it they can't have an abortion here - yes

I'm not side stepping it at all. I think you're the one who's side stepping my point.

Not being able to stop something does not mean you should not have a law allowing it.

Is it possible in reality to stop anyone doing something they desperately want to? Of course not. Does that mean that we should allow it? Of course not. You judge everything on its own merits, not on whether or not people will continue to do it. I used paedophilia as an example to forcefully illustrate my point. You absolutely CANNOT stop people from doing it. There is no logical step that means that we should support it in any way or form because we can't stop it.

bronte

Khannie wrote: »

He didn't say that. Only that some people would consider it worse.

The point on not using the laws of other countries stands.

I'm not saying he said that, I'm just wondering why some people would consider it worse. Why?

sparkling sea

Khannie wrote: »

They're both illegal here and available through travel to foreign countries. My point is that the laws of other countries should have no bearing on how we frame our own. I keep making it over and over and over and over and nobody has challenged the point directly. They only say "oh well it's available in England, wake up!".

Again skirt around the issue of abortion. No one in Ireland has ever been prosecuted for having an abortion.
Also no one will ever argue that a born child is a clump of cells.

Virtually all our laws are framed on laws of other countries - however no is claiming that we should have the same abortion legislation as other countries including England.
What people are saying is that thousands of Irish women travel to England for an abortion, thats it.

You also put having an abortion on par with paedophilia, don't you think that this is to say the least extremely emotive and very illogical

drkpower

bronte wrote: »

Abortion is far worse than pedophilia? (just clarifying)

While I dont hold this view myself, many people view abortion to be the entirely unjustifiable deliberate killing of a human being. That, on the face of it, is far worse than paedophilia.

I personally believe it to be the deliberate killing of a human being, I just believe it to be justifiable.

Khannie

sparkling sea wrote: »

Again skirt around the issue of abortion. No one in Ireland has ever been prosecuted for having an abortion.
Also no one will ever argue that a born child is a clump of cells.

Again you skirt around the issue.

Nobody in Ireland has ever been prosecuted for any offence under Irish law that they commited lawfully while abroad. There is nothing wrong with that (legally).

sparkling sea wrote: »

Virtually all our laws are framed on laws of other countries - however no is claiming that we should have the same abortion legislation as other countries including England.
What people are saying is that thousands of Irish women travel to England for an abortion, thats it.

And my point is that this has absolutely no relevance to anything.

sparkling sea wrote: »

You also put having an abortion on par with paedophilia, don't you think that this is to say the least extremely emotive and very illogical

No I didn't put them on a par. I said that both are illegal and yet people travel for both. I said that the fact that people travel to circumvent our laws should have no bearing whatseover on how we frame our laws. You have yet to give me one solid reason why we should allow abortion because people are travelling for it, yet deny other things that people travel for.

drkpower

sparkling sea wrote: »

You also put having an abortion on par with paedophilia, don't you think that this is to say the least extremely emotive and very illogical

Again, while I have a different view, it is entirely logical for someone who believes that a foetus has completely equal rights to its mother, to view abortion as worse than paedophilia, far worse. And if you are of that view, you are dead right to get emotional about it.

My own view is that those who do believe that a foetus has completely equal rights to its mother are either completely misguided, are actually lying to themselves or are borderline psychotic;).

Silverfish

drkpower wrote: »

My own view is that those who do believe that a foetus has completely equal rights to its mother are either completely misguided, are actually lying to themselves or are borderline psychotic;).

This isn't civil. Infracted.

sam34

drkpower wrote: »

My own view is that those who do believe that a foetus has completely equal rights to its mother are either completely misguided, are actually lying to themselves or are borderline psychotic.

no need for slurs on the mentally ill, to be fair. i know you prob meant it tongue-in-cheek, but still it's unnecessary

tonsiltickler

My feeling on the issue is that women should have the right to choose. I feel like its something i could never do myself, but I'm a man so i'll never understand what a woman considering an abortion is going through.


It is terrible that some people take the decision to abort healthy foetuses likely. Its even worse that abortions arent available for people like the woman undergoing chemotherapy for instance having gone through so much already.

I also feel disgusted the suspect moral authority that is religion has been allowed to invade crisis pregnancy agencies, putting women through unneccessary anxiety, stress and hurt.

I really hope that i didnt offend anyone, thanks

drkpower

sam34 wrote: »

no need for slurs on the mentally ill, to be fair. i know you prob meant it tongue-in-cheek, but still it's unnecessary

Actually I didnt mean it tongue in cheek.
I was infracted for that comment and dont especially want to get into questioning a mod's decision but what I will say is that I am not attempting to slur anyone with that comment. I think anyone can see from my posts on this thread and on this issue that I do not just throw out gratuitous insults for kicks - I treat this issue seriously but when serious issues are at stake, sometimes that means having to point out the reality of certain people's beliefs (on both sides of the debate).

Again, without wanting to get into questioning a mod's decision, I would point out that it is almost impossible to have this debate without necessarily 'insulting' people. As an example, from a very pro-life point of view, it actually is entirely consistent/logical to call someone who has had an abortion a 'murderer'. Is that personal abuse or is that a fact? Of course, they would genuinely believe it to be a fact.

I genuinely believe (and can elaborate in further detail, if anyone cares;)) that those who have an extreme pro-life position or an extreme pro-choice position are either misguided, have not thought about the issue properly or are uncaring sadists (I will withdraw the term 'psychotic' but in my defence, I use these terms within their colloquial use rather than their clinical contexts).

Again, I hope this isnt seen as an attempt to question a mod's decision, rather it is a genuine attempt to discuss this difficult issue constructively and honestly.

sam34

drkpower wrote: »

Actually I didnt mean it tongue in cheek

well that's you off my christmas card list

drkpower wrote: »

what I will say is that I am not attempting to slur anyone with that comment... sometimes that means having to point out the reality of certain people's beliefs (on both sides of the debate).

Again, without wanting to get into questioning a mod's decision, I would point out that it is almost impossible to have this debate without necessarily 'insulting' people.

I genuinely believe (and can elaborate in further detail, if anyone cares;)) that those who have an extreme pro-life position or an extreme pro-choice position are either misguided, have not thought about the issue properly or are uncaring sadists(I will withdraw the term 'psychotic' but in my defence, I use these terms within their colloquial use rather than their clinical contexts)

i'm not gonna get into my beliefs on abortion one way or another.

insulting people or calling them misguided is one thing.

labelling them as psychotic is another. intentionally or not, you are casting slurs on those with serious mental illness (for thats what psychosis is ) is another entirely.

peopel with strong pro-life or pro-abortion beliefs are not really psychotic. you're a doctor, you know that.

there are other words you could use - zealous being teh first that ocmes to mind.

it's just not on to go calling them psychotic.

even if you say you meant it in the colloquial sense rather than the clinical one, it's still not on.
this misuse of such a word only leads to further misunderstanding of what genuine mental illness is.

drkpower

sam34 wrote: »

peopel with strong pro-life or pro-abortion beliefs are not really psychotic. you're a doctor, you know that.

even if you say you meant it in the colloquial sense rather than the clinical one, it's still not on.
this misuse of such a word only leads to further misunderstanding of what genuine mental illness is.

Fair point; I am often guilty of using psychiatric terms like that in a colloquial sense which I agree is not appropriate. So I completely withdraw it.

johnnyskeleton

The_Minister wrote: »

This won't get much notice with the Budget, but the abortion hearing is on in Europe now.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/1209/abortion.html

Why didn't you post in Legal Discussion, Politics or Humanities. It's not like you are unfamiliar with those fora?

It seems you think abortion is a womens' issue. Why is that?

Xiney

Many people would consider it to be a women's issue, since it regards women's reproductive health and choices.

fatmammycat

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Why didn't you post in Legal Discussion, Politics or Humanities. It's not like you are unfamiliar with those fora?

It seems you think abortion is a womens' issue. Why is that?

How is abortion NOT a womens' issue? Last time I checked women were the only people who could get pregnant.

The Corinthian

fatmammycat wrote: »

How is abortion NOT a womens' issue? Last time I checked women were the only people who could get pregnant.

I don't think anyone would deny that this is a woman's issue, only that it is not exclusively a woman's issue.

To begin with there is the question of the foetus/unborn child/ball of cells. Is this a person? If so does it merit rights and protection that would supersede the woman's rights?

Then of course there is the fact that as a reproductive issue, it can only concern the woman exclusively if she has reproduced asexually. Otherwise the genetic code of what is inside her is not hers alone and whatever choice she makes has a significant impact on the man, long after it has anything to do with "a woman's body".

So ultimately, it's not simply a women's issue.

fatmammycat

The Corinthian wrote: »

I don't think anyone would deny that this is a woman's issue, only that it is not exclusively a woman's issue.

To begin with there is the question of the foetus/unborn child/ball of cells. Is this a person? If so does it merit rights and protection that would supersede the woman's rights?

Then of course there is the fact that as a reproductive issue, it can only concern the woman exclusively if she has reproduced asexually. Otherwise the genetic code of what is inside her is not hers alone and whatever choice she makes has a significant impact on the man, long after it has anything to do with "a woman's body".

So ultimately, it's not simply a women's issue.

I never used the word 'exclusive' in my post.
And also, no, for me no fetus trumps a woman's right to bodily sovereignty.
Also, if I am honest, as long as the female uterus is the grow bag for babies, wanted or unwanted, what men think or feel about abortion does not really interest me terribly. I am 100% for fathers having equal rights for their children, but outside the womb, not inside. Inside woman's body= her business, as unpalatable as they might sound to some. Outside different situation and ethical problem. And before anybody starts wittering on at me, no this doesn't mean that women are going to start 'aborting' their 8 month fetus blah di blah whatever. Jesus, give women some credit.

SarahSassy

fatmammycat wrote: »

And also, no, for me no fetus trumps a woman's right to bodily sovereignty.
Also, if I am honest, as long as the female uterus is the grow bag for babies, wanted or unwanted, what men think or feel about abortion does not really interest me terribly. I am 100% for fathers having equal rights for their children, but outside the womb, not inside. Inside woman's body= her business, as unpalatable as they might sound to some. Outside different situation and ethical problem. And before anybody starts wittering on at me, no this doesn't mean that women are going to start 'aborting' their 8 month fetus blah di blah whatever. Jesus, give women some credit.

This is completely foreign to everything I believe. I believe women were entrusted with the ability to produce another human being and we have no rights to choose who lives and who dies because the pregnancy doesnt suit us. There is always the option to give up a child for adoption but I would never, ever choose to abort (which to me is kill) an innocent baby because the timing wasnt good or it was an accident. I know the 'risks' of having sex and one of them is that a pregnancy can ensue each time.

Fathers should have equal rights once conception has taken place, its 50% their kid too. I think its barbaric to think its ok for a woman to abort a baby when the father is not ok with it. Dont bother telling me about how the girl is often left with the baby etc. There are other options and for me, aborting a child is never one of them. I could not live with the guilt of it.

The Corinthian

fatmammycat wrote: »

I never used the word 'exclusive' in my post.

You responded to a post that questioned why this thread was not started in Legal Discussion, Politics or Humanities, which would have been more inclusive.

And also, no, for me no fetus trumps a woman's right to bodily sovereignty.

Never said it did, however it seems evident that not all agree with you and thus the question is still open, even if we do not have an answer.

Also, if I am honest, as long as the female uterus is the grow bag for babies, wanted or unwanted, what men think or feel about abortion does not really interest me terribly.

Again, it seems evident that not all agree with you and thus the question is still open, even if we do not have an answer.

I am 100% for fathers having equal rights for their children, but outside the womb, not inside. Inside woman's body= her business, as unpalatable as they might sound to some. Outside different situation and ethical problem.

That's really the issue. A foetus is in the womb for nine months, and were the implications of terminating or not a pregnancy limited to those nine months then there would be no argument. But they are not and the consequences affect others for decades after.

So even if it is a woman's issue, it is not simply a woman's issue, which makes this the wrong forum to have this debate.

fatmammycat

The Corinthian wrote: »

You responded to a post that questioned why this thread was not started in Legal Discussion, Politics or Humanities, which would have been more inclusive.

Right , but I never used the word exclusive, ever.

Never said it did, however it seems evident that not all agree with you and thus the question is still open, even if we do not have an answer.

Again, it seems evident that not all agree with you and thus the question is still open, even if we do not have an answer.

At no point did I ask for the argument to be closed down, I'm very aware not everyone agrees with me. Why would everyone agree?

That's really the issue. A foetus is in the womb for nine months, and were the implications of terminating or not a pregnancy limited to those nine months then there would be no argument. But they are not and the consequences affect others for decades after.

So even if it is a woman's issue, it is not simply a woman's issue, which makes this the wrong forum to have this debate.

As far as I know there already is discussion on abortion in the humanities section. And as only a woman can abort a fetus and this is a women's forum it seems relevent that the same discussion would be held here, it's not as if men have been excluded for having an opinion now is it?

fatmammycat

SarahSassy wrote: »

This is completely foreign to everything I believe. I believe women were entrusted with the ability to produce another human being and we have no rights to choose who lives and who dies because the pregnancy doesnt suit us. There is always the option to give up a child for adoption but I would never, ever choose to abort (which to me is kill) an innocent baby because the timing wasnt good or it was an accident. I know the 'risks' of having sex and one of them is that a pregnancy can ensue each time.

Fathers should have equal rights once conception has taken place, its 50% their kid too. I think its barbaric to think its ok for a woman to abort a baby when the father is not ok with it. Dont bother telling me about how the girl is often left with the baby etc. There are other options and for me, aborting a child is never one of them. I could not live with the guilt of it.

Right, so don't have one then. But don't presume every other woman feels the same way.
Your dismissive tone of the why women might have an abortion is grating on my nerves as is the there's always adoption line, as if that was an easy opt out. And as for the 'risks of having sex' whatever, enforced pregnancy is not a stick to beat women if they become pregnant through sex. As I said earlier in this thread, I know the risk of driving a car, but I still dont want to crash. And as for being 'entrusted with the ability' I don't even know what to make of that. Entrusted by whom?
And it may be '50%' a man's kid, but the body the kid resides in is 100% belonging to the woman and that's the bottom line for me.
Off out to enjoy my saturday, have a good one.

The Corinthian

fatmammycat wrote: »

And as only a woman can abort a fetus and this is a women's forum it seems relevent that the same discussion would be held here

Only if you choose to ignore all other considerations and assume it is exclusively a woman's issue.

it's not as if men have been excluded for having an opinion now is it?

That's true, but I think the objection being made is that in putting it here puts out the message that it is exclusively a woman's issue - which it is not.

drkpower

fatmammycat wrote: »

I never used the word 'exclusive' in my post.
And also, no, for me no fetus trumps a woman's right to bodily sovereignty.
Inside woman's body= her business, as unpalatable as they might sound to some. Outside different situation and ethical problem. And before anybody starts wittering on at me, no this doesn't mean that women are going to start 'aborting' their 8 month fetus blah di blah whatever. Jesus, give women some credit.

Of course 'some' women will, if it is permissable in law. I have no doubt it would be very few, but some will.

So, do you still believe that it is entirely a woman's business when she is entitled to have a termination, that the law should never intervene and that you are prepared for it to be legal to allow abortion at 39 or 40 weeks on the basis that, sure, 'women aren't going to do it'?