Abortion

seamus

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I am aware there are some cases where abortion is required (very young, rape victims, indirect abortions as a result of medical treatment for the mother) but the problem in this country (and it's one that goes across the board) is legalisation without legislation. Legalising abortion (for those who need it) will lead to abuse of the system. Eventually, all women will have to do is go to their GP and say,"If I cannot have an abortion I will throw myself of the nearest bridge" and she will be allowed to have one. Anyone who thinks that this proposed system will not be exploited is living in la la land.

Slippery slope fallacy.

It's fairly insulting to the entire medical profession to think that they will sign off on an abortion because someone makes a vague claim about being suicidal.

You can put double and triple checks in place to ensure that the abuses which take place are practically nil.

The primary issue is that for me thousands of Irish women are forced to travel across the water to obtain medically necessary, ethically sound and emotionally devastating procedures, without being able to avail of the support of their family and friends or the simple dignity of being able to go straight home.

Elective abortions are slightly different issue which there is no need to even legislate for at the moment, never mind have a debate about.

Stupify

OldNotWIse wrote: »

It's not about making things "black and white" - nothing is. But I detest verbal gymnastics in order to get across a point. If an argument can be so stong as to support itself then it shouldn't require taking one scenario and trying to merge it with a completely different scenario and tell other people that the two are exactly the same when they are clearly not. In fact I would challenge you to tell any woman who tragically lost her baby through no fault of her own that she is standing on the same moral ground as one who intentionally killed her baby. You'd want to have the door open

Re women skipping from an abortion clinic, I think we all know this is not the case, any more than the image painted of pro-lifers is that of an angry mob impregnating a woman against her will and holding her down for nine months, forcing her to gestate a non-human.

I am aware there are some cases where abortion is required (very young, rape victims, indirect abortions as a result of medical treatment for the mother) but the problem in this country (and it's one that goes across the board) is legalisation without legislation. Legalising abortion (for those who need it) will lead to abuse of the system. Eventually, all women will have to do is go to their GP and say,"If I cannot have an abortion I will throw myself of the nearest bridge" and she will be allowed to have one. Anyone who thinks that this proposed system will not be exploited is living in la la land.

Why is it ok to you to have an abortion in these cases?

OldNotWIse

seamus wrote: »

Slippery slope fallacy.

It's fairly insulting to the entire medical profession to think that they will sign off on an abortion because someone makes a vague claim about being suicidal.

You can put double and triple checks in place to ensure that the abuses which take place are practically nil.

The primary issue is that for me thousands of Irish women are forced to travel across the water to obtain medically necessary, ethically sound and emotionally devastating procedures, without being able to avail of the support of their family and friends or the simple dignity of being able to go straight home.

Elective abortions are slightly different issue which there is no need to even legislate for at the moment, never mind have a debate about.

What double and triple checks? Would she have to tell 2 or 3 more medical professionals? How do they prove she's not?

"thousands of Irish women are forced to travel across the water to obtain medically necessary, ethically sound and emotionally devastating procedures"

I think I've made it clear that medically necessary abortions are not an issue for me. As for the procedure being "emotionally devastating" is this not another case for prevention?

Seachmall

OldNotWIse wrote: »

It's not about making things "black and white" - nothing is. But I detest verbal gymnastics in order to get across a point. If an argument can be so stong as to support itself then it shouldn't require taking one scenario and trying to merge it with a completely different scenario and tell other people that the two are exactly the same when they are clearly not. In fact I would challenge you to tell any woman who tragically lost her baby through no fault of her own that she is standing on the same moral ground as one who intentionally killed her babe. You'd want to have the door open

You're missing the point of it.

The point is not to compare the two as if they're like-with-like. The point is to define exactly how comparable the rights of the unborn child are to a born person.

If we can not apply the same laws to protect the unborn child then there is a discrepency there.

We have manslaughter laws to protect people from the negligible acts of others. Should they not apply to an unborn child?

It's not "verbal gymnastics", it's a fairly basic question of Law, Rights, and Ethics.

seamus

OldNotWIse wrote: »

What double and triple checks? Would she have to tell 2 or 3 more medical professionals? How do they prove she's not?

Assessment by qualified mental health professionals.

In some very rare cases you will get an exceptionally wiley and intelligent person who can jump through the hoops.

But you know what the smart women will do? They'll go to the UK, because that takes two days, rather than spending a week trying to lie to psychologists and doctors convincingly that you're suicidal.

As for the procedure being "emotionally devastating" is this not another case for prevention?

No
Why do we need to protect people from the outcome of their own decisions?

hattoncracker

OldNotWIse wrote: »

hattoncracker wrote: »

You cant speak truthfully about something if you've never been in the situation. Then it's not truth, just an opinion.

I am sure whoever took the photos was there. Photographs are not capable of having opinions, and they certainly cannot lie, much as we'd like them to.

Ive had an abortion, so I think I would trust myself rather than anyone else when they try and tell me how I should feel, the worst part of my situation was having to travel and lie.

I think it should be legalised because women will do it anyway, either by travelling or ordering stuff over the internet, or other more dangerous ways.. And if they resort to illegal measures not only are they liable to be arrested but theyre putting themselves in harms way, and the only time the law acknowledges them is when they are being arrested.

OldNotWIse

Stupify wrote: »

Why is it ok to you to have an abortion in these cases?

I didnt say "ok" I said "required". I see what you're doing here. If I say "its ok for one group but not another" you will tell me the unborn baby is the same in both circumstances. Of course you are right and in a perfect world we could afford the same rights across the board but are you really going to tell me that a woman in her 30's who has had consensual sex, already has 2 children and would like another one in a couple of years and travels abroad for an abortion because the timing is just not perfect, is the same as a 13 year old child who has been raped and whose body and mind are not capable of seeing a pregnancy through? If you are willing to class both these females the same, at least we know what page we are both on.

OldNotWIse

hattoncracker wrote: »

Ive had an abortion, so I think I would trust myself rather than anyone else when they try and tell me how I should feel, the worst part of my situation was having to travel and lie.

I think it should be legalised because women will do it anyway, either by travelling or ordering stuff over the internet, or other more dangerous ways.. And if they resort to illegal measures not only are they liable to be arrested but theyre putting themselves in harms way, and the only time the law acknowledges them is when they are being arrested.

That doesn't negate the reality of the photos presented though. Just because you have been there doesn't mean that photographic evidence from other procedures are false. Also, saying "it will happen anyway so you should legalise it" is a ridiculous argument.

OldNotWIse

seamus wrote: »

Assessment by qualified mental health professionals.

In some very rare cases you will get an exceptionally wiley and intelligent person who can jump through the hoops.

But you know what the smart women will do? They'll go to the UK, because that takes two days, rather than spending a week trying to lie to psychologists and doctors convincingly that you're suicidal.
No
Why do we need to protect people from the outcome of their own decisions?

I'm not saying we need to protect them from the outcome but I am making the point that pro-choicers are always using the "emotional devastation" card as a reason FOR abortion, I am simply suggesting that it could also be used as a reason against...

I see what you say re the medical assessment but I would still worry that the system will be abused.

OldNotWIse

Can someone explain how the multiquote function works? thanks

nozzferrahhtoo

OldNotWIse wrote: »

pro-choicers are always using the "emotional devastation" card as a reason FOR abortion

A little pedantic of me perhaps but I would point out: Not "always".

I for one have never used that argument nor would I. I have also never used the rape argument, nor would I.

My entire argument for allowing abortion by choice is predicated on the fact I am aware of no useful arguments for assigning human rights to a zygote at certain stages of development.

Seachmall

OldNotWIse wrote: »

That doesn't negate the reality of the photos presented though.

But the photos presented add nothing. Yes, they're the reality but they don't address any of the legal or moral aspects of the debate. They intend to shock people into submission, they're not arguments.

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Can someone explain how the multiquote function works? thanks

Beside the "Quote" button there is a button with quotation marks and a plus sign. Hit that button to add the post to a list of posts you want to quote, then when you press the normal "Quote" button on the last post you want to quote all the marked posts will be quoted.

Stupify

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I didnt say "ok" I said "required". I see what you're doing here. If I say "its ok for one group but not another" you will tell me the unborn baby is the same in both circumstances. Of course you are right and in a perfect world we could afford the same rights across the board but are you really going to tell me that a woman in her 30's who has had consensual sex, already has 2 children and would like another one in a couple of years and travels abroad for an abortion because the timing is just not perfect, is the same as a 13 year old child who has been raped and whose body and mind are not capable of seeing a pregnancy through? If you are willing to class both these females the same, at least we know what page we are both on.

I wouldn't be willing to class both women in the same bracket but surely a child is a child and they all have equal rights.

And when you said required I took it to mean you were OK with it as that is what it read like, so I apologize for saying that you were OK with it.

Also, you are right, we don't live in a perfect world. The woman you speak of with the two children but getting an abortion on the third because the timing isn't right probably happens but I would say it’s a rare occurrence, that doesn't make it OK either tough.

seamus

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I'm not saying we need to protect them from the outcome but I am making the point that pro-choicers are always using the "emotional devastation" card as a reason FOR abortion, I am simply suggesting that it could also be used as a reason against...

Yes, but the argument is on pro-choicers side, because in many cases this emotional devastation is being forced on women by their lack of rights.
Giving them the ability to choose to be emotionally devastated is not the reverse of the same argument.

I see what you say re the medical assessment but I would still worry that the system will be abused.

How though? Logically it would make no sense to abuse the system in this way to procure an elective abortion when there's a much easier way of doing it.

Just because it's conceivable that a woman could pretend to be suicidal, or pretend to have been raped, doesn't mean that they would go through with the insane level of hassle that it would require.

My worry would in fact be the exact opposite - that the system would be so difficult that suicidal or raped women would be functionally forced to continue going to the UK simply because it's easier than dealing with the Irish health system.

OldNotWIse

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I'm not saying we need to protect them from the outcome but I am making the point that pro-choicers are always using the "emotional devastation" card as a reason FOR abortion, I am simply suggesting that it could also be used as a reason against...

I see what you say re the medical assessment but I would still worry that the system will be abused.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

A little pedantic of me perhaps but I would point out: Not "always".

I for one have never used that argument nor would I. I have also never used the rape argument, nor would I.

My entire argument for allowing abortion by choice is predicated on the fact I am aware of no useful arguments for assigning human rights to a zygote at certain stages of development.

Not pedantic at all, I'm thinking of giving up the sweeping statements next lent lol I have heard it an awful lot though. I don't doubt that it is an emotionally devastating decision and procedure, but I just thought maybe that could be a reason for lookign at other options. At what point would you assign rights? I'm not being smart I am just curious.

OldNotWIse

Seachmall wrote: »

But the photos presented add nothing. Yes, they're the reality but they don't address any of the legal or moral aspects of the debate. They intend to shock people into submission, they're not arguments.


Beside the "Quote" button there is a button with quotation marks and a plus sign. Hit that button to add the post to a list of posts you want to quote, then when you press the normal "Quote" button on the last post you want to quote all the marked posts will be quoted.

Thanks for at least admiting they are real. I dont think they add anything (in fact I didn't look at them as I know the horrors involved and don't need to compound the issue by looking at disturbing imagery). I often see pro-lifers campaigning in town and I think it is sad (and takes from their argument) when they have to resort to shock tactics to get their point across. That said, some people are under the illusion that abortions (even late term ones) do not remove anything resembling a baby when in fact they do. Anyone who has seen a little preemie hooked up to machines at 5 and a half or 6 months, the size of a palm yet perfectly formed will realise this, I agree shock tactics are somewhat infantile and un-called for.

Seachmall

OldNotWIse wrote: »

That said, some people are under the illusion that abortions (even late term ones) do not remove anything resembling a baby when in fact they do.

But it doesn't matter what it looks like. An early term abortion would result in removing something that resembles a lizard more than a baby, tail and all.

prinz

seamus wrote: »

It's fairly insulting to the entire medical profession to think that they will sign off on an abortion because someone makes a vague claim about being suicidal. You can put double and triple checks in place to ensure that the abuses which take place are practically nil.

An investigation into clinics in the UK found about 20% were breaking the laws on abortion itself (accepting gender as a valid reason and approving abortions), and regulations surrounding best practice (accepting and encouraging fake addresses from women, using pre-signed forms for second opinions). Insulting? Hardly. Fact? Yes.

seamus

prinz wrote: »

An investigation into clinics in the UK found about 20% were breaking the laws on abortion itself, and regulations surrounding best practice. Insulting? Hardly. Fact? Yes.

Citation?

On the face of it, that's not really comparable since elective abortion is legal in the UK, so breach of some minor protocol and regulation isn't the same thing as serious clinical and ethical malpractice.

But give me a link and I'll have a look.

nozzferrahhtoo

OldNotWIse wrote: »

At what point would you assign rights? I'm not being smart I am just curious.

The link in my post links to my entire argument on the topic which is long and rather detailed. In summary though I certainly could find no reason to assign any before 20 weeks development and in fact stats show that 88% of abortions happen much earlier than that.

So if abortion were to be put back on the debate table in Ireland I would certainly be ok with them suggesting a figure in the 12 to 20 weeks area. Certainly 16 would be a strong ideal.

prinz

seamus wrote: »

Citation?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9161735/One-in-five-abortion-clinics-breaks-law.html

seamus wrote: »

On the face of it, that's not really comparable since elective abortion is legal in the UK, so breach of some minor protocol and regulation isn't the same thing as serious clinical and ethical malpractice.....

Yes, minor protocol. Or you know, the actual law on abortion itself. It's interesting to note though that staff in clinics encouraging people to give false information is just "some breach of minor protocol".

Doctors were regularly falsifying consent forms and patients were not receiving acceptable levels of advice and counselling in many clinics, the Care Quality Commission (CQC) discovered

Ah sure, not a bother.

Morag

OldNotWIse wrote: »

So because there are not as many prosecutions as there should be, the law is, in fact, negated? What law school taught you that?

Try ANY.

There have not been any prosecutions of women who have illegal /backstreet abortions in this country. Even when they present themselves for emergency medical treatment at any of the maternity hospital due to things going wrong. Not one.

What that tells me is that the state has no interest in apply that law one of those 'irish' solutions to the problem.

And no abortionist has been prosecuted in the last 50 years the last one was
Nurse Mamie Cadden.

http://www.rte.ie/tv/scannal/nursecadden.html

But it is known that the rate of back street abortions is on the rise esp among the immigrant population who can't travel.

http://www.irishabroad.com/news/irishpost/news/Backstreetabortionsputimmigrantsatrisk.asp

Backstreet abortions put immigrants at risk

BACKSTREET abortions are posing a growing danger to immigrant women in Ireland who are afraid to travel to Britain because of visa restrictions.

The Women’s Health Council (WHC) has written to the Irish Health Service Executive (HSE) expressing their concerns that the health needs of immigrant women are not being met.

The organisation said a policy which recognises the increased diversity of users and employers of the healthcare system is needed as a matter of urgency.

It expressed particular concern over maternity services for ethnic minorities.

“Anecdotal evidence points to migrant women accessing unsafe ‘backstreet’ abortions due to the legislative ban on abortions in Ireland and the fact that, because of their precarious residence status, many women are afraid to travel,” it read.

catthinkin

prinz wrote: »

seamus wrote: »

Citation?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9161735/One-in-five-abortion-clinics-breaks-law.html

seamus wrote: »

On the face of it, that's not really comparable since elective abortion is legal in the UK, so breach of some minor protocol and regulation isn't the same thing as serious clinical and ethical malpractice.....

Yes, minor protocol. Or you know, the actual law on abortion itself. It's interesting to note though that staff in clinics encouraging people to give false information is just "some breach of minor protocol".

Doctors were regularly falsifying consent forms and patients were not receiving acceptable levels of advice and counselling in many clinics, the Care Quality Commission (CQC) discovered

Ah sure, not a bother.

So woman arnt receiving proper care or attention wow shocker !

OldNotWIse

prinz wrote: »

An investigation into clinics in the UK found about 20% were breaking the laws on abortion itself (accepting gender as a valid reason and approving abortions), and regulations surrounding best practice (accepting and encouraging fake addresses from women, using pre-signed forms for second opinions). Insulting? Hardly. Fact? Yes.

Yes I remember there was a feature abut this in the media recently...about 3 months ago I think... shocking

OldNotWIse

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The link in my post links to my entire argument on the topic which is long and rather detailed. In summary though I certainly could find no reason to assign any before 20 weeks development and in fact stats show that 88% of abortions happen much earlier than that.

So if abortion were to be put back on the debate table in Ireland I would certainly be ok with them suggesting a figure in the 12 to 20 weeks area. Certainly 16 would be a strong ideal.

I wonder why though, someone would take up to 5 months to decide that an abortion is right for them? For me, 20 weeks is far too late. My mother miscarried at 20 weeks and I know she thinks of him as the baby she lost. She did not mourn a clump of cells. In an ideal world there would be no abortion. In a somewhat ideal world there would only be abortion for very specific cases and these would be carried out very early on. If you asked me to put a time limit on it (if I had to), I would say the point at which the fetus can feel pain/discomfort. I am not sure when the hypothalmus develops but I think its fairly early? Couldn't be 100% sure.

OldNotWIse

Sharrow wrote: »

Try ANY.

There have not been any prosecutions of women who have illegal /backstreet abortions in this country. Even when they present themselves for emergency medical treatment at any of the maternity hospital due to things going wrong. Not one.

What that tells me is that the state has no interest in apply that law one of those 'irish' solutions to the problem.

And no abortionist has been prosecuted in the last 50 years the last one was
Nurse Mamie Cadden.

http://www.rte.ie/tv/scannal/nursecadden.html

But it is known that the rate of back street abortions is on the rise esp among the immigrant population who can't travel.

http://www.irishabroad.com/news/irishpost/news/Backstreetabortionsputimmigrantsatrisk.asp

I'm not really sure what your point is? I dont agree that someone who breaks the law should not have to deal with the consequences. I dont see how this makes a case for abortion?

nozzferrahhtoo

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I wonder why though, someone would take up to 5 months to decide that an abortion is right for them?

Well as I said it is documented that 88% of abortions happen before 12 weeks. 58% of all women also say they wished they had done it earlier. So if you take 58% of the remaining 12% you find that an abortion cut off of 12 weeks would actually be enough for 95% of women.

I would not presume to list all the reasons possible for why some people would wait longer. Maybe some of the reasons, such as medical diagnosis of faults with the fetus, only come later in the pregnancy. Some people also can go quite some time without even knowing they are pregnant and you would be surprised just how high that can go on average.... even when you ignore extreme and unusual stories such as people who go to hospital complaining of pain who find out not only are they pregnant, but are in labour. I doubt there is enough time left in 2012 for me to think up and list all the reasons why some people have them later than others. Suffice to say however, the reasons are clearly there, though with a figure like 12% they are clearly rarer.

OldNotWIse wrote: »

My mother miscarried at 20 weeks and I know she thinks of him as the baby she lost.

My condolences, but while I have some sympathy for the experience we should be aware of the human ability to become emotionally invested in things. Just because she THINKS of it emotionally as a "baby she lost" this in no way makes it so. The user who was flooding the thread only a couple of days ago was also beating herself up over this. She lost a baby at around 12 weeks and says that no amount of scientific data will ever convince her that that baby did not suffer horribly.

Aside from the clearly poor position of saying that no amount of evidence will ever change ones mind, that user is essentially beating herself up emotionally over something that simply is not true. The human ability to become emotionally invested known few bounds it seems.

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I would say the point at which the fetus can feel pain/discomfort. I am not sure when the hypothalmus develops but I think its fairly early? Couldn't be 100% sure.

I posted on this earlier in the thread and cited not one but... I think.... five sources showing that there is little to no reason to think that the fetus feels pain before 25 weeks at all. Feel free to go back and find the post and if you can not I can do so for you on request.

Seachmall

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I'm not really sure what your point is? I dont agree that someone who breaks the law should not have to deal with the consequences. I dont see how this makes a case for abortion?

If a law isn't being enforced having it on the books is just a technicality to appease the masses.

And if enough people are breaking that law, and enough people are fine with that, it would suggest the law isn't accurately representing the people it's supposed to be (only a referendum could decide this).


In saying that I think whether or not it should be law is beside the point, it would invariably stem from the question "is it morally justifiable?" which is (obviously) the main cause of controversy.

steddyeddy

Whatever about abortion an embryo is not anything like a tumor as some have suggested. Does a tumor contain the dna and cellular machinery to become human? Abortion is a very devisive issue but you cant change the nature of the foetus to suit whatever side you might be on.

nozzferrahhtoo

steddyeddy wrote: »

Does a tumor contain the dna and cellular machinery to become human?

Yes actually I believe it does. Given advances in modern technology there is likely not a cell in your body that potentially useable to create a human if it was manipulated in the right way.

The fact is that every cell in your body for the most part has the same DNA and machinery in it. There have been some small differences found such as in 2009 when scientists working in Montreal found differences between blood and tissue cells. However generally the rule of thumb is that most cells are the same, they just take on different roles.

So while the answer to your question is not 100% "Yes", it is as near as makes no difference. From a human rights issue I certainly see no more reason to offer a zygote any more or less rights than a tumor.

Focus on words you use like "become human" in your post. Given something can not BE and be BECOMING something at the same time (You are either X or becoming X but not both) even your own use of "become human" shows you acknowledge it is NOT human.