Ireland's abortion laws challenged in Europe

PomBear

fatmammycat wrote: »

Well exactly, that's why hyperbole needs to be removed from the equation.
I am prochoice, I personally believe in a woman's right to bodily sovereignty. I think most women don't make the decision to terminate a pregnancy lightly and should be supported should they do so. I don't believe all women 'suffer' from making an abortion choice, my personal experience supports this. I don't believe in punishing a woman for having sex and I don't believe in enforced pregnancy. I don't believe in exporting our problem and making reproductive healthcare more expensive and difficult.
I would also welcome a pregnancy myself, but I am still pro choice, because what would suit me does not suit every woman and I don't believe their uterus is my business.

What about a baby's right to bodily sovereignty, or right to life?
I think baby's don't have a decision in the matter.
I have seen plenty of women suffer post abortion mentally, also many who cannot conceive suffer.
You don't believe in punishing a women for having sex so you'd see a baby be killed for this, is that justice?
reproductive healthcare is a false team as abortion has nothing to do with healthcare btw.
their uterus ain't anyones business but the foetus' life ain't theirs either

Xiney

PomBear wrote: »

What about a baby's right to bodily sovereignty, or right to life?
I think baby's don't have a decision in the matter.
I have seen plenty of women suffer post abortion mentally, also many who cannot conceive suffer.
You don't believe in punishing a women for having sex so you'd see a baby be killed for this, is that justice?
reproductive healthcare is a false team as abortion has nothing to do with healthcare btw.
their uterus ain't anyones business but the foetus' life ain't theirs either

You believe it's a baby. I don't.

You believe it has rights. I don't.


These are not things that will change via argument alone.

However you seek to impose your view on others, I don't. I seek others to be able to act upon their own views.

Khannie

bronte wrote: »

Oh for heavens sake! What is that supposed to mean?
You said you knew of plenty of methods to ensure one doesn't become pregnant. Last time I checked, no method of contraception is 100%
Can you share them?

To be fair, most people take risks. Combining proper use of the pill + condom would be very very effective (approaching 100%), but most people will stick with one or the other (myself included).

Abstinence is also an option (though not one I'd advocate myself, it's highly effective at preventing pregancy :pac:).

minidazzler

PomBear wrote: »

What about a baby's right to bodily sovereignty, or right to life?
I think baby's don't have a decision in the matter.
I have seen plenty of women suffer post abortion mentally, also many who cannot conceive suffer.
You don't believe in punishing a women for having sex so you'd see a baby be killed for this, is that justice?
reproductive healthcare is a false team as abortion has nothing to do with healthcare btw.
their uterus ain't anyones business but the foetus' life ain't theirs either

The mother can live without the Foetus, the foetus can't live without the mother, therefore the mother is the sovereign being.

If a woman suffers post abortion, tough on them really, it was their decision, but they should still be allowed to make that decision.

Nevyn

Khannie wrote: »

Absolutely and I'm all in favour of a referendum if it looks like the populous want one. I don't see lots of people lobbying their local TD to bring in abortion. If there were, I think we'd probably see a referendum.

There is a grassroot movement for this, there are lobbyist and the majority of those who are 30 and under have a very different take on this issue.

http://www.safeandlegalinireland.ie/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOF938ZWTFU

Politicians do not want to deal with this issue, they know it will loose them the conservative older voters who still go to mass and vote FF and FG and they don't see the value of courting voters who are under the age of 35.

Khannie wrote: »

Yeah, I'm somewhat similar to be honest. My problem is that I just can't convince myself that there's a point in time where it's not ok to abort and that 10 seconds previously it was no problem, you know?

I thought about that aspect of it for a looooong time (years!), couldn't pinpoint any exact crossover point (despite reading the medical definitions, etc.), and therefore had to admit to myself that the logical conclusion (for me, before anyone starts jumping down my throat) is that I really consider the fertilised egg a human (since the crossover from egg and sperm to fertilised egg is an obvious crossover).

I understand that, having had kids myself, I know that if there is not intervention at any stage at the other end of pregnancy you get a baby and interrupting a pregnancy or having an abortion means no baby and there is no magical cut off line we can only point to the number of weeks gestation before which a baby is viable outside of the womb and that the sooner an abortion happens the less impact it it will have on the woman.

Nevyn

Khannie wrote: »

To be fair, most people take risks. Combining proper use of the pill + condom would be very very effective (approaching 100%), but most people will stick with one or the other (myself included).

The pill and condom both used correctly resulted in my first born, thankfully I/we were in a position to be able to start a family.

bronte

Khannie wrote: »

To be fair, most people take risks. Combining proper use of the pill + condom would be very very effective (approaching 100%), but most people will stick with one or the other (myself included).

Abstinence is also an option (though not one I'd advocate myself, it's highly effective at preventing pregancy :pac:).

It's not a guarantee though. I would LOVE to never have to worry about pregnancy ever. I've asked for a hysterectomy on several occasions and have been turned down because of my age and other various things.
Abstinence is all very well on paper, but not particularly realistic.

PomBear

opinion guy wrote: »

Wow. To be honest I'm actually shocked at your attitude here and the lack of understanding you are displaying. And i'm not easily shocked. You've made a whole bunch of ill-informed assumptions based on this one line description of this woman's case. Lets review:


From this you've somehow managed to assume:

1. This woman wanted an abortion. There is absolutely NOTHING in this article to imply this woman wanted an abortion. She may very very well have wanted to keep the baby and it may have been an incredibly hard decision for her.

2. That she didn't access all medical advice available. No doubt she did. It says she could not find a doctor to give her the answers she seeked. By saying 'could not find' it implies she looked. Chemo drugs are extremely toxic to adults nevermind fetus's (fetii ??). Depending on the circumstances it may well have been impossible for any doctor to say what the outcome would be. Likelihood is however that this fetus would not have been 100% healthy.

3. Despite what you seem to think, fetal diagnosis is extremely difficult and notoriously unreliable - and thats in normal cases - it would be even more unreliable in this case.

I suggest you educate yourself on these types of issues if you are going to enter these debates so that you have some chance of justifying your opinion. Hey you might even modify your opinion when you learn a bit more.

As regards this:


Who are you, or anyone else, to tell a sick pregnant woman she is obliged to continue her pregnancy even thou she may die. You can by all means choose that road for yourself, but you have no right to dictate that to anyone else. Furthermore, who are you decide a woman shoudl carry a baby to term if its expected to have deformities ? Do you know how much such a child might suffer after birth ? Do you know how much pain it might be for the family ? Have you ever dealt with these kinds of problems in your life, or are you just holding these opinions from a theoretical standpoint?

I have said in previous posts these were assumptions and we'll wait to see how the case pans out.

1. There's also nothing to say she wanted to keep it and the fact she's no oppsing the fact to make it a means of birth control, that I know of, might be showing her intention.

2. I've already said this is a possibility but i'm open to the belief that if brain damage can be detected, why can't other defects be detected and still that is no reason to kill a foetus. There is also nothing to say that this woman's health was at risk if she had the baby.

3.I've already explained my opinions on this a few times

I'm quite well educated thank you and I have seen the effects of this more in depth than most.

Who are you, or anyone else, to tell a sick pregnant woman she is obliged to continue her pregnancy even thou she may die.

Where does it say she may die from having the baby again?

you have no right to dictate that to anyone else

I'm giving opinions, not dictating.

who are you decide a woman shoudl carry a baby to term if its expected to have deformities ?

I'm not anyone, i'm not deciding. Again, merely giving opinions

Do you know how much such a child might suffer after birth ?Do you know how much pain it might be for the family ?

Do you? Do you know if theres any deformities. For someone who's accusing me of making assumptions. You're not doing such a bad job yourself.

Have you ever dealt with these kinds of problems in your life, or are you just holding these opinions from a theoretical standpoint?

Mostly theoretical but have seen friends experiences from abortions

seamus

PomBear wrote: »

Where does it say she may die from having the baby again?

To be fair, all pregnancies carry a certain mortality risk to the mother. Where the mother is very ill (such as with cancer), the mortality odds increase.
The question here is; What's the cut-off? At what point do the odds of death make it unreasonable for the woman to continue with the pregnancy? 10%? 50%?

If I had the option of two procedures:
One carries a slight risk of death or complications but is illegal
One carries a heavy risk of death or complications but is legal

Which would you insist that I get?

PomBear

minidazzler wrote: »

The mother can live without the Foetus, the foetus can't live without the mother, therefore the mother is the sovereign being.

so if a woman conceives, she has no responsibility to that foetus if she doesn't want to? What about a mother and child should they be treated the same because I don't see a difference.

minidazzler wrote: »

If a woman suffers post abortion, tough on them really, it was their decision, but they should still be allowed to make that decision.

Do you not think there should be more education than 1 day old- cute little baby/ 8months and 30days old-bunch of cells

minidazzler

PomBear wrote: »

so if a woman conceives, she has no responsibility to that foetus if she doesn't want to? What about a mother and child should they be treated the same because I don't see a difference.



Do you not think there should be more education than 1 day old- cute little baby/ 8months and 30days old-bunch of cells

No, I don't think a woman who has conceived has any responsibilities to anyone but herself, until she decides whether to keep the foetus, at which time, she should be totally responsible.

If the foetus could survive without it's mother, it is a Baby IMO. That's about as simple as I can make my views.

PomBear

seamus wrote: »

To be fair, all pregnancies carry a certain mortality risk to the mother. Where the mother is very ill (such as with cancer), the mortality odds increase.
The question here is; What's the cut-off? At what point do the odds of death make it unreasonable for the woman to continue with the pregnancy? 10%? 50%?

If I had the option of two procedures:
One carries a slight risk of death or complications but is illegal
One carries a heavy risk of death or complications but is legal

Which would you insist that I get?

f I had the option of two procedures:
One carries a slight risk of death or complications but is illegal but leads to death of another human being
One carries a heavy risk of death or complications but is legal but no chance of death to another human being

and it should be noted that this woman is in remission from cancer. We should we really stop going assumptions here.

Nevyn

PomBear wrote: »

so if a woman conceives, she has no responsibility to that foetus if she doesn't want to? What about a mother and child should they be treated the same because I don't see a difference.

You don't see a difference lots of people do.
In fact the law does and there are no laws against a woman smoking and drinking heavily during their pregnancy.

PomBear wrote: »

Do you not think there should be more education than 1 day old- cute little baby/ 8months and 30days old-bunch of cells

That is frankly a strawman, late term abortions do NOT happen unless there is a serious medical reasons, the numbers of 3rd trimester abortions are tiny each year and are not on demand abortions.

http://www.bpas.org/bpasknowledge.php?year=2009&npage=0&page=81&news=316

2008 abortion statistics for England and Wales show more abortions happening earlier and a small fall in abortion numbers

Published 20 May 2009
2008’s English and Welsh abortion statistics were released this morning by the Department of Health http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsStatistics/DH_099285

Dr Patricia Lohr, Medical Director of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS), which provides contraception and abortion services, said of the new statistics

‘We are pleased to see statistics showing that more abortions are happening at an earlier stage- there has been a 3% rise in the number of under of 10 weeks’ abortions which are now at 73%. 90% of all abortions were carried out under 13 weeks.

'We also note that the numbers of later abortions remain comparatively tiny at 1% after 20 weeks, reflecting the complex circumstances in which these are requested.

‘Abortion figures have tended to fluctuate slightly year-on-year but the overall background trend remains for a gradual rise in the numbers of abortions. On the back of the unusually large 3.9% rise in 2007, 2008’s fall of 1.6% seems to reflect a stabilisation in abortion numbers along this gently growing upwards trend.

PomBear

minidazzler wrote: »

No, I don't think a woman who has conceived has any responsibilities to anyone but herself, until she decides whether to keep the foetus, at which time, she should be totally responsible.

If the foetus could survive without it's mother, it is a Baby IMO. That's about as simple as I can make my views.

A baby couldn't survive without a mother while it's a baby either. The difference is it's outside the uterus.

So a woman gets pregnant, lets say shes a drug user, she has no responsible on to the foetus, and she can keep using drugs? You wouldn't regard this as illegal?

iguana

Thaedydal wrote: »

As for surgical abortion on demand, I could live with it not being available here if we had the abortion pill (8 weeks or less), free contraception, proper sex and contraception eduction in schools and improved supports for those who may consider giving a child up for adoption.

I would agree with that but also add the option of allowing later-term surgical abortion if it is absolutely known that the foetus is severely ill or disabled. To the point that they would not ever be able to live a normal life. And to allow a certain amount of flexibility in a situation where the woman has been raped and did not know she was pregnant until after 8 weeks, which would be only 6 weeks after the attack.

minidazzler

PomBear wrote: »

A baby couldn't survive without a mother while it's a baby either. The difference is it's outside the uterus.

So a woman gets pregnant, lets say shes a drug user, she has no responsible on to the foetus, and she can keep using drugs? You wouldn't regard this as illegal?

Did you read my post? Once she decideds to keep the foetus she is responsible for it in my opinion.

But yes, she CAN keep using drungs, she just shouldn't do it, but it is very possible to keep at it.

jimmyendless

When you have kids it really makes the topic as emotional as a topic can be.

I find the thought of abortion upsetting. I believe that the system that creates all the human life on our planet should be left take its course. I don't understand how people can look at their other children knowing that they might have terminated their siblings. Once the egg and the sperm meet, its the beginning of life, before that its just raw materials and instructions. Actions have consequences and sex may lead to conception. Your 'punishment' is 9 months of caring a baby. After that you can forget about it the same way you could forget about an abortion. This casual attitude to abortion is worrying. All over society life is protected but then when a foetus is not regarded as life it can be terminated. Through advancement we now know the development of a foetus over nine months. To think of it as a baby that can feel pain and dream etc and to kill it must surely be wrong. Imagine a doctor killing a newborn baby. Its madness. This arrogance and callousness to decide that this thing does not deserve to live is wrong.

Nevyn

PomBear wrote: »

So a woman gets pregnant, lets say shes a drug user, she has no responsible on to the foetus, and she can keep using drugs? You wouldn't regard this as illegal?

Her illegal drug use is illegal the same as a man who is junkie there is not additions because she is pregnant, if she is abusing drugs which are legal like
drink and over the counter medications like codeine that is not illegal even with her being pregnant.

PomBear

Thaedydal wrote: »

You don't see a difference lots of people do.
In fact the law does and there are no laws against a woman smoking and drinking heavily during their pregnancy.

Yet most women find this disgusting or dislike it

Thaedydal wrote: »

That is frankly a strawman, late term abortions do NOT happen unless there is a serious medical reasons, the numbers of 3rd trimester abortions are tiny each year and are not on demand abortions.

http://www.bpas.org/bpasknowledge.php?year=2009&npage=0&page=81&news=316

true but the point i'm trying to get across is you cannot define a human being as something that is born, a foetus has all the characteristics of life and is a living thing and the birth defines nothing

PomBear

minidazzler wrote: »

Did you read my post? Once she decideds to keep the foetus she is responsible for it in my opinion.

But yes, she CAN keep using drungs, she just shouldn't do it, but it is very possible to keep at it.

and what do you think if you found out a pregnant woman is on drugs while pregnant or even smoked 50 fags a day or regularly boozed up

PomBear

Thaedydal wrote: »

Her illegal drug use is illegal the same as a man who is junkie there is not additions because she is pregnant, if she is abusing drugs which are legal like
drink and over the counter medications like codeine that is not illegal even with her being pregnant.

Would you make it illegal, if she was damaging the foetus?

opinion guy

PomBear wrote: »

I have said in previous posts these were assumptions and we'll wait to see how the case pans out.

1. There's also nothing to say she wanted to keep it and the fact she's no oppsing the fact to make it a means of birth control, that I know of, might be showing her intention.

2. I've already said this is a possibility but i'm open to the belief that if brain damage can be detected, why can't other defects be detected and still that is no reason to kill a foetus. There is also nothing to say that this woman's health was at risk if she had the baby.

3.I've already explained my opinions on this a few times

I'm quite well educated thank you and I have seen the effects of this more in depth than most.



Where does it say she may die from having the baby again?



I'm giving opinions, not dictating.



I'm not anyone, i'm not deciding. Again, merely giving opinions


Do you? Do you know if theres any deformities. For someone who's accusing me of making assumptions. You're not doing such a bad job yourself.



Mostly theoretical but have seen friends experiences from abortions

I'm out.
I was only responding to your points with possible counter interpretations. Very clearly you have made and continue to make biased assumptions. I'm not debating with someone who is going to use circular logic and straw man arguments

maryjane007

bronte wrote: »

Oh for heavens sake! What is that supposed to mean?
You said you knew of plenty of methods to ensure one doesn't become pregnant. Last time I checked, no method of contraception is 100%
Can you share them?
I'm educated to Post-graduate level BTW.

well as you said no method is 100% but there are a few which are more than 99% which means that the chances of getting pregnant would be one in 200 surely this combined with a condom would be the sensible approach. i am in my 30s and all my children to date were planned because if i dont want a child, i prevent it from happening. if i were to fall pregnant when i didnt want to be i live with it, it was my choice to have sex knowing the consequences. i have a friend who works on an abortions clinics information in england. she has had people calling from ireland to arrange their 5 or 6th abortions.

i was talking about sex education is this what you did your post grad in or was it an attempt to make yourself feel superior

minidazzler

PomBear wrote: »

and what do you think if you found out a pregnant woman is on drugs while pregnant or even smoked 50 fags a day or regularly boozed up

I would think she is a cnut who should have her ovaries cut out with a rusty scalpel TBH.

But that has no bearing on my views for Abortion.

I am not saying the state should provide or even pay for abortions, but I do think abortions should be legal.

PomBear

minidazzler wrote: »

I would think she is a cnut who should have her ovaries cut out with a rusty scalpel TBH.

But that has no bearing on my views for Abortion.

I am not saying the state should provide or even pay for abortions, but I do think abortions should be legal.

That does because that woman abuses a foetus, abortion goes so far as to kill the foetus!

State payment is irrelevant

shivvyban

minidazzler wrote: »

I would think she is a cnut who should have her ovaries cut out with a rusty scalpel TBH.

But that has no bearing on my views for Abortion.

I am not saying the state should provide or even pay for abortions, but I do think abortions should be legal.

+1

That is all I will say on this matter as I refuse to allow myself to be drawn into debates about this

Nevyn

PomBear wrote: »

Yet most women find this disgusting or dislike it

Most people will but it is still not illegal.
If she were giving a child an new born infact the same ammount of drugs as she is the fetus in side her, she would be doing something illegal and could be charged for it.

PomBear wrote: »

true but the point i'm trying to get across is you cannot define a human being as something that is born, a foetus has all the characteristics of life and is a living thing and the birth defines nothing

Birth defines everything in this country.
You are not a person until you are born and the rights a person/child has bestowed on them via the constitution and body of law are conveyed upon birth.

If there is a miscarriage or a still birth is is only recognized and recorded under certain cirtiea.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/birth-family-relationships/miscarriage-and-stillbirth/registering_stillbirth

All stillbirths occurring in Ireland since 1 January 1995 must be registered, if the baby weighs at least 500 grammes or has a gestational age of at least 24 weeks.

They do not count before that, so really please go educate yourself on the so called 'rights' of the unborn in this country which you are espousing incorrectly.

PomBear

opinion guy wrote: »

I'm out.
I was only responding to your points with possible counter interpretations. Very clearly you have made and continue to make biased assumptions. I'm not debating with someone who is going to use circular logic and straw man arguments

I'm using logic that you cannot answer because you made the polar assum,ption to what I made, atleast I admitted it and was open to being wrong

Nevyn

maryjane007 wrote: »

i have a friend who works on an abortions clinics information in england. she has had people calling from ireland to arrange their 5 or 6th abortions.

Another classic myth trotted out by anti abortionist.
The statics released by BPAS say either you or your friend is a liar.

minidazzler

PomBear wrote: »

That does because that woman abuses a foetus, abortion goes so far as to kill the foetus!

State payment is irrelevant

Since when did this become about a woman on Drugs, I think Abortion should be legal simple as that. I have presented my reasons as a woman should have a right to choose what goes in and out of her body, unless she is mentally ill.