abortion

Annasopra

The Idyll Race wrote: »

That is exactly what is being said, as the hardliners believe such a situation never exists (even if does)

It wasn't clear to me if that was what robman60 was saying and now he's being evasive about it.

tweniebaby

efb wrote: »

how do you know this???

I don't know her personally. A friend mentioned her before in a discussion about abortion. I meant that she seemed very immature, that's all.

Morag

Funny how few pro lifers are pro contraception and sex education.
Seriously you'd think they'd be supporting such measures and helping fund them to
prevent the number of unwanted pregnancies.
An ounce of prevention being better then a pound of cure.

efb

tweniebaby wrote: »

I don't know her personally. A friend mentioned her before in a discussion about abortion. I meant that she seemed very immature, that's all.

So second hand information, and you believe it???

Millicent

Min wrote: »

You fail to say we are like Russia who are in a colour you admire on that map, where 1 in 2 pregnancies ends in abortion and where the government is looking at trying to restrict abortion given how it is used.
You fail to mention China who are also in a colour you like, where they have forced abortions.
You fail to mention the UK, France, the USA and others where one in five pregnancies are.

I'm sorry but where exactly are you getting your statistics from? Because without some decent evidence to back this up, I'm calling BS. One in 2 in Russia? The World Health Organisation disagrees with you. http://www.euro.who.int/en/what-we-do/health-topics/Life-stages/sexual-and-reproductive-health/activities/abortion/facts-and-figures-about-abortion-in-the-european-region If you're talking historically, when Russian women had no access to contraception, you would be more correct but at this period in history, you are wrong. ETA: More statistics showing the rate is still dropping. http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-russia.html

I'm not going to even get started on that one in five figure.

The evidence also flies in the face of all those who say women will use abortion as contraceptive. As the statistics prove, women on the whole are smart enough and sensible enough to take preventative measures against pregnancy, with countries with freely available contravention and quality education showing some of the lowest abortion rates worldwide.

RDM_83 again

Whats wrong with the one in five figure if your going to be dismissive at least back it up!, I can give links to why i think thats the figure in the UK (not peer reviewed studies and from slightly different years but these sort of demographics only change by 1 or 2% a year)

Figures for UK

708,708 live births in 2008
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/668801-uk-birth-rate-at-36-year-high

189,931 abortions in 2011
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-18249026

Incidentally the BBC article reports that 34% of woman having an abortion that year have had one before.

RDM_83 again

Incidentally before some one tries to spin those figures onto the fact that Irish woman travelling to the UK for abortion skew that figure, the number is relatively insignificant ( 4,149) in comparison to the total.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/may/24/abortion-statistics-england-wales

robman60

mango salsa wrote: »

You're actually contradicting yourself saying you are in favour of abortion where the womans life is at risk when a few minutes ago you said the opposite.

Seriously? I said I support it in principle, but I'm opposed to legislation because what determines a threat to the mother's health? If a woman is getting migraines, or is feeling nauseous, it's a threat to her health. A doctor would be obliged to allow her to abort her baby because if anything did happen the mother, however unlikely, the doctor would be liable. Therefore doctors are going to be obliged to allow the mother to abort her baby so as not to leave themselves liable.

Also, you accused me of evading your point because I wasn't online at the same time as you? Childish.


@Millicent: You're dismissing those figures without any basis. Why don't you provide statistics to prove your point? Although abortion has fallen in Russia, there was still approximately 1 million abortions in 2011, with approximately 1.2 million live births.

Funny how few pro lifers are pro contraception and sex education.

What evidence do you have to back that up? None of the pro-life people i know personally are against the use of contraception and I'm certainly pro-contraception and sex education.

RDM_83 again

Honestly I get the feeling Millicent didn;t even read the figures in the links in her own own post.

In this link that she considers refutes the 1 in 2 figure for the Russian Federation

http://www.euro.who.int/en/what-we-do/health-topics/Life-stages/sexual-and-reproductive-health/activities/abortion/facts-and-figures-about-abortion-in-the-european-region

It states that the ratio is "According to HFA-DB, in 2006 the abortion ratio was 95 per 100 live births in the Russian Federation" thats so close to 1 in 2 that its just being pedantic.

I find in these debates that both sides have an extreme tendency to only consider evidence that completely justifies their own moral stance. Though it annoys me more on the Pro-Choice side as they tend to assert their rationality more.

ps I'm Anti-Choice and Pro-Death, I find it allows me to have heated arguments with everybody (apart from the CCP :mad: )

smokedeels

I have no problem with a Church advising their members on how to vote in a referendum. Unions, companies and Private Members Clubs do it too.

If a person is pro-choice then they probably shouldn't be a member of the Catholic Church.

To answer the OPs question, I'm not so sure he would lose, people might be more hostile towards the church after the kid f**king business, but older citizens would likely still agree with them on issues like this.

efb

Its a vote getting for the Church, we love kids, no not that way!, the good way!

Annasopra

robman60 wrote: »

Seriously? I said I support it in principle, but I'm opposed to legislation

Again you are contradicting yourself if you don't support legislation then you don't support the idea at all of protecting the life of the mother.

robman60

mango salsa wrote: »

Again you are contradicting yourself if you don't support legislation then you don't support the idea at all of protecting the life of the mother.

Incorrect once again. I don't support abortion as a procedure in any case. Let's say for argument's sake the woman's uterus is cancerous and has to be removed. Remember, abortion is always the deliberate killing of the unborn. In this case the unborn's death is a side effect of the medical emergency, not an abortion. If the unborn has reached viability, it can be kept alive with an incubator, but this applies to a medical emergency before viability.

This is the only legislation I would support, which would in fact be medical legislation and not abortion legislation. This means the mother's health is protected from any potential threat to her life, without abortion.

Sin City

Abortion thread eh

Im staying well away from this one:D

otto_26

I'm all for abortion if the women's life is at risk. But that is all in terms of rape the morning after pill can be taken so abortion isn't needed.

In terms of abortion because a women or couple just don't want to take responsibility for their actions well tough get a flight to the UK.

Speaking of the pro abortion people and responsibility for your actions if I got a girl pregnant and its within the time frame to have an abortion (I want one but girl doesn't) should I be legally entitled to abort the child in terms of my legal and moral responsibility for that child once its born?

Morag

otto_26 wrote: »

I'm all for abortion if the women's life is at risk. But that is all in terms of rape the morning after pill can be taken so abortion isn't needed.

Really? how is someone who is an abusive and controlling relationship going to manage to get the MAP? or a victim in incest?

krudler

otto_26 wrote: »

I'm all for abortion if the women's life is at risk. But that is all in terms of rape the morning after pill can be taken so abortion isn't needed.

In terms of abortion because a women or couple just don't want to take responsibility for their actions well tough get a flight to the UK.

Speaking of the pro abortion people and responsibility for your actions if I got a girl pregnant and its within the time frame to have an abortion (I want one but girl doesn't) should I be legally entitled to abort the child in terms of my legal and moral responsibility for that child once its born?

Irish solution for an Irish problem.

lazygal

I'm always confused as to the 'abortion only in cases of rape/incest' arguments. How does a woman go about proving she was raped in time to procure an abortion? I had several negative pregnancy tests before my pregnancy was confirmed by a doctor, no signs of pregnancy at all. And the conviction rate for rape is very low, combined with an overall low reporting rape. So how do doctors go about signing off on a rape victim who's become pregnant? What's the burden of proof for a rape-sanctioned abortion? The word of the woman? Signs of physical aggression? How on earth can that even be regulated?


I support abortion for Irish women in Ireland, regardless of what has led to them needing one.

otto_26

krudler wrote: »

Irish solution for an Irish problem.

"Take responsibility for your actions" = Irish solution for an Irish problem.

otto_26

lazygal wrote: »

I'm always confused as to the 'abortion only in cases of rape/incest' arguments. How does a woman go about proving she was raped in time to procure an abortion? I had several negative pregnancy tests before my pregnancy was confirmed by a doctor, no signs of pregnancy at all. And the conviction rate for rape is very low, combined with an overall low reporting rape. So how do doctors go about signing off on a rape victim who's become pregnant? What's the burden of proof for a rape-sanctioned abortion? The word of the woman? Signs of physical aggression? How on earth can that even be regulated?


I support abortion for Irish women in Ireland, regardless of what has led to them needing one.

The morning after pill is freely available in Ireland if a women is raped she can obtain the pill so abortion doesn't come into it

lazygal

otto_26 wrote: »

lazygal wrote: »

I'm always confused as to the 'abortion only in cases of rape/incest' arguments. How does a woman go about proving she was raped in time to procure an abortion? I had several negative pregnancy tests before my pregnancy was confirmed by a doctor, no signs of pregnancy at all. And the conviction rate for rape is very low, combined with an overall low reporting rape. So how do doctors go about signing off on a rape victim who's become pregnant? What's the burden of proof for a rape-sanctioned abortion? The word of the woman? Signs of physical aggression? How on earth can that even be regulated?


I support abortion for Irish women in Ireland, regardless of what has led to them needing one.

The morning after pill is freely available in Ireland if a women is raped she can obtain the pill so abortion doesn't come into it

And if it doesn't work?

otto_26

lazygal wrote: »

And if it doesn't work?

Abortion would be needed then of course. I'm only against abortion if it's because people just don't want to take responsibility for their actions.

The percentage of the morning after pill not working is under 10% and a women within this 10% that took it because she was raped is without doubt extreme circumstances for an abortion.

lazygal

otto_26 wrote: »

lazygal wrote: »

And if it doesn't work?

Abortion would be needed then of course. I'm only against abortion if it's because people just don't want to take responsibility for their actions.

The percentage of the morning after pill not working is under 10% and a women within this 10% that took it because she was raped is without doubt extreme circumstances for an abortion.

And how does she prove she was raped? Why is that fetus ripe for abortion rather than others?

Demonique

crazy cabbage wrote: »

The church basicly say that it is wrong to destroy a sole, as it never gets a chance at life (i think. I dont exatly keep tabs on this)

Lets presume for a min that the sole does indeed exist (not bringing in god here. Just the concept of the sole).

If the sole does indeed exist there has to be a point during pregancy that the sole enters the fetus. This has to be true if the sole exists.

Then the question has to be, at what point does this happen? There has to be a point for the church to have any stance on this issue or to debate there point with reason.

I think buddists believe it is at 40days or something
Doctor strassman believes that a DMT spike during pregancy could be the point at which what some call the sole in 'put' into the body.

From my own view of the churchs point of view if the 'sole' is not yet in the fetus then there is nothing there to kill. So there shouldn't be a problem

So should the focus (to keep church and older generation happy) not be to try and prove this scientificly?

That would make this debate alot easier
1) if before sole enters then abort away
2) if after and scientific proof of sole is found then have the debate
3) if after and no scientific proof is found then abort away


Dont think i believe anything above but trying to see it from churchs point of view.

If the church is against destroying soles why is it for eating fish on Friday?

otto_26

lazygal wrote: »

And how does she prove she was raped? Why is that fetus ripe for abortion rather than others?

Go to the police and doctor tell them and let them do their jobs. Life is not fair and horrible things happen all the time...

The percentage of this happening is so so low the MAP is 91% effective so for the remaining 9% the percentage of them being women that were raped is also low.

I don't think you can use that as an argument for free abortions for everyone in case the MAP doesn't work for a rape victim.

It's a bit different from a women walking into a doctors office were shes told she is 12 weeks pregnant and then goes on to claim she was raped 12 weeks ago but never told the police or doctor...

Educating women on the importance of telling police and doctors of her rape straight away rather than free abortions for all just in case the MAP doesn't work is a far better solution along with a policy put in place for abortions were no rapist was charged.

Either way the answer for the MAP not working on rape victims isn't free abortions for all. Rape centers are available to help rape victims with talking to doctors and police.

jessiejam

Demonique wrote: »

If the church is against destroying soles why is it for eating fish on Friday?

I haven't stopped laughing at how people keep writing soles instead of souls!
I just keep thinking of soles of shoes!

otto_26

lazygal wrote: »

I support abortion for Irish women in Ireland, regardless of what has led to them needing one.

Speaking of the pro abortion people and responsibility for your actions if I got a girl pregnant and its within the time frame to have an abortion (I want one but girl doesn't) should I be legally entitled to abort the child in terms of my legal and moral responsibility for that child once its born?

And what about support for Irish men in Ireland who want an abortion, regardless of what has led to them needing one???

Gongoozler

otto_26 wrote: »

Speaking of the pro abortion people and responsibility for your actions if I got a girl pregnant and its within the time frame to have an abortion (I want one but girl doesn't) should I be legally entitled to abort the child in terms of my legal and moral responsibility for that child once its born?

And what about support for Irish men in Ireland who want an abortion, regardless of what has led to them needing one???

The woman is the one that has to physically go through with the pregnancy / birth, so I doubt it will ever be legal to make a woman abort / keep a child she wants / doesn't want, because the partner wants the opposite. Sucks donkey ass but hey, what can ya do.

Sin City

if anyone is interested there is a good debate about abortion here


http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=80545519#post80545519

Annasopra

robman60 wrote: »

Incorrect once again. I don't support abortion as a procedure in any case. Let's say for argument's sake the woman's uterus is cancerous and has to be removed. Remember, abortion is always the deliberate killing of the unborn. In this case the unborn's death is a side effect of the medical emergency, not an abortion. If the unborn has reached viability, it can be kept alive with an incubator, but this applies to a medical emergency before viability.

This is the only legislation I would support, which would in fact be medical legislation and not abortion legislation. This means the mother's health is protected from any potential threat to her life, without abortion.

So basically you think the woman should die instead of saving her life in a medical emergency!