ABORTION POLL....I know..lets prove we can keep it civilized to the mods

poeticseraphim

Ok

I want a picture of what peoples opinions are on legalizing abortion in the early trimester at the bequest of the woman.

This covers fetal abnormalities, rape , incest , where the 'woman' is under 15, where it is dangerous to her life , where it is dangerous to her health (distinct from her life) , where it is dangerous to her mental health.

It also covers her own choice.....up to 12 weeks...that is at her bequest she could have an abortion on demand up to twelve weeks .

This by the way would not even have covered Savita at 17 weeks.

After week 12 it would be taken on a case by case basis .

Max Power

IBTL

im invisible

tbh

squod

Under a 1992 Supreme Court ruling women in Ireland are legally entitled to an abortion when it is necessary to save the life of the mother.

Saying this first, before the hot headed debate.

Ghost Buster

Personally I am....uncomfortable... with abortion as a means of contraception. But that is not the topic here i think.
Of course early stage abortion should be allowable if there is risk to the mothers health and/or life.

akura

ABORT THREAD

poeticseraphim

N64 wrote: »

why did you not add a poll then?

I just did ..you have to wait....it is a system thing.:)

Ghost Buster

akura wrote: »

ABORT THREAD

Or dont read it if it does not interest you:rolleyes:

poeticseraphim

akura wrote: »

ABORT THREAD

LOL

If we can keep it light we can keep the heat out of the thread:)

Max Power

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Or dont read it if it does not interest you:rolleyes:

But he has to read it to see if it interests him.

frozenfrozen

Abortion is ether fine or its not. Don't limit it. Allow abortions up to 17 years of age

Sparks43

poeticseraphim wrote: »

LOL

If we can keep it light we can keep the heat out of the thread:)

On AH?

Light??????


Good luck with that:eek:

im invisible

i think its fine the way it is, sweep it under the rug, send them to England

GalwayGuy2

Legalize it for any case up to week twelve.

poeticseraphim

I think it is a mute point to say if the mothers health is at risk...and not give her total choice


Pregnancy is a risk...that is a fact...it is dangerous and there is always something that does not go according to plan..


I think early abortion is the woman's choice.

Ghost Buster

frozenfrozen wrote: »

Abortion is ether fine or its not. Don't limit it. Allow abortions up to 17 years of age

No its a complictaed issue.Its only simple if you introduce Gods and religion.

poeticseraphim

frozenfrozen wrote: »

Abortion is ether fine or its not. Don't limit it. Allow abortions up to 17 years of age

Fair enough....:)

Mums accross Ireland get a wicked twinkle......


She who brought ye into the world can send ye out of it:D



Don't you ever be mean to Mama again!

jam_mac_jam

I don't see what the argument if its rape or incest has to do with it. Its murder or its not, and if its not murder then what difference does it make how the child is conceived.

I am pro choice, but to be honest I don't think there is any point to this because nobody is ever going to convince me that its murder and it doesn't bother me. Likewise somebody who does think its murder is never going to have their opinion changed by me.

BBDBB

legalise it up until they can post without censure on boards

before that


its fair game

It should be made legal regardless, but sexual education should be made mandatory across second level and third level. Teach people about correct use of contraceptives and you won't need to worry about abortion being used as one.

Ghost Buster

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

I don't see what the argument if its rape or incest has to do with it. Its murder or its not, and if its not murder then what difference does it make how the child is conceived.

I am pro choice, but to be honest I don't think there is any point to this because nobody is ever going to convince me that its murder and it doesn't bother me. Likewise somebody who does think its murder is never going to have their opinion changed by me.

I dont understand this post?

3ndahalfof6

The choices in the poll are to limited, there are many reason for yes and there are many reasons for no,

you will need to add 50 more options to the poll to give a better overall view,

in the last 2 days I was speaking with someone who was distraught at the possibility if she did not abort she could lose her partner, but by giving her partner another scenario, it was not so black and white for him,

more options required.

Ghost Buster

Deleted User wrote: »

It should be made legal regardless, but sexual education should be made mandatory across second level and third level. Teach people about correct use of contraceptives and you won't need to worry about abortion being used as one.

But the religious have issues with sex ed' and contraception as well. gays cant conceive and they are also frowned upon .

Miss Lockhart

The poll choices are leading and stupid.

You could disagree with legalising abortion "under the below circumstances", but that doesn't mean you disagree with legalising it under any circumstances.

squod

3ndahalfof6 wrote: »

.... if she did not abort she could lose her partner,

How was her partner going to die?

MadsL

How about simply letting people do what their own conscious tells them. So instead of threatening 14 year olds with life imprisonment, just let everyone have reasonable choices. Seems to work in most places in the world.

Immaculate Pasta

That is a shite poll.

Just saying like :cool:

3ndahalfof6

squod wrote: »

How was her partner going to die?

you would get the phone call, then it would be your choice.

frozenfrozen

Ghost Buster wrote: »

No its a complictaed issue.Its only simple if you introduce Gods and religion.

Are you implying that it's a simple issue if you bring Gods and religion in because Gods and religion all suggest that it is 100% completely wrong?

Gods and religion say a lot of things are wrong, and a lot of things are wrong with Gods and religion.
This is a moral problem more than a religious problem. The bible doesn't say thou shall not abort. But it does say that you shouldn't kill, and unfortunately the moralist has to decide whether it is killing or not, and at what time the fetus is a baby etc etc.

There simply can't be a time, say exactly 12 weeks in where the fetus becomes a baby. What happens if it's 11:55 pm, 5 minutes before this magical 12 week date, is the fetus then not a baby and only then after those 5 minutes does it fully become a growing baby? It's an incredibly hard thing to decipher.

If it's okay then it should be okay, right up until the point that the mother is not supporting the child's life directly, right? Because up until then it's a part of the woman's body... right? Probably not right again.

Is it "immoral" to be on the pill? It's effectively killing a could-be child.

What about males masturbating? Ejaculation is serial killing!

You can't take morality out of it, because then you could just kill everyone, at whatever time.

You can't put morality into the equation, because then it's never okay.

There needs to be a medium of the two. I think this medium is that the woman has the choice. No numbers, no weird clauses, no fuss, just the woman has the choice. It's her body, be it at risk or not, it's a huge emotional and physical thing, and it should be her choice.

jam_mac_jam

Ghost Buster wrote: »

I dont understand this post?

ok

Peregrine

As a previous poster said, your vague choices for voting make it look like it's a simple yes or no topic - it isn't.
I want it to be FULLY available to the mother if her life was at risk in anyway, BY CONSTITUTION. Not the confusion we have right now which recently claimed the life of an innocent mother. It shouldn't be fully legalised and eventually used as contraception

Which way do I vote?

Whatsernamex33

It's a woman's body, she should decide whether or not she wants the baby. Alot of the time it's unplanned and she/both parents might not be financially stable to raise a child at that time. Adoption is an option, but the woman has to go through nine months of pregnancy, different symptoms etc., for a child she has no intention of raising herself.
So yep, I would say legalise it. As I said, it's a woman's body. Why should the parents have to suffer the next 18 years after, financially or whatever, for a small mistake that's easily fixed...

c_man

akura wrote: »

ABORT THREAD

Only if it's less than 12 posts.

recyclebin

I just had a look at what a baby looks like at 12 weeks (babycenter.com) and I would never like to see abortion allowed at this point. In fact anything above 5-6 weeks and it would make me very uncomfortable.

The only lawful abortion I would understand is for medical reasons where opinions of two other doctors is taken into account.

poeticseraphim

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

Legalize it for any case up to week twelve.

I agree.

After week 12 only in the case where her life is at risk as in Savitas case in week 17.

Ghost Buster

FionnMcCool87 wrote: »

But he has to read it to see if it interests him.

And if it does not interest you but is obviously of interest to others then just leave the thread rather than this usual shoite of 'Oh here we go again, close the thread etc etc'

3ndahalfof6

Whatsernamex33 wrote: »

It's a woman's body, she should decide whether or not she wants the baby. Alot of the time it's unplanned and she/both parents might not be financially stable to raise a child at that time. Adoption is an option, but the woman has to go through nine months of pregnancy, different symptoms etc., for a child she has no intention of raising herself.
So yep, I would say legalise it. As I said, it's a woman's body. Why should the parents have to suffer the next 18 years after, financially or whatever, for a small mistake that's easily fixed...

It is not what she decides, it is how she came to her decision, pressure from people around her might lead to an abortion, but for her it could be a life time of regret,

to me it seems dogs (pups) get a better deal, we can put them in a shelter and hope someone comes along who love how they look or act,

small mistake? I am guessing when you pinch yourself you do not feel it.

squod

Whatsernamex33 wrote: »

So yep, I would say legalise it. As I said, it's a woman's body. Why should the parents have to suffer the next 18 years after, financially or whatever, for a small mistake that's easily fixed...

This isn't a hole in a pipe or a dent in a car. It's a human life.

philologos

poeticseraphim wrote: »

Ok

I want a picture of what peoples opinions are on legalizing abortion in the early trimester at the bequest of the woman.

This covers fetal abnormalities, rape , incest , where the 'woman' is under 15, where it is dangerous to her life , where it is dangerous to her health (distinct from her life) , where it is dangerous to her mental health.

It also covers her own choice.....up to 12 weeks...that is at her bequest she could have an abortion on demand up to twelve weeks .

This by the way would not even have covered Savita at 17 weeks.

After week 12 it would be taken on a case by case basis .

I'm pro-life. Being pro-life means saving lives. If it is the case that the mothers life is at risk and she is likely to die, then the logical conclusion while being pro-life is to intervene and to save her, and if possible the child.

This is the only circumstance where I would support this.

Syllabus

it should be legal up to 20/22 weeks imo. the 20 week scan is the first time anomalies can be detected - ie downs

now fair play to anyone with a downs child but its not something i want for me or my child thanks very much. nor would i want a child with spina bifita or any condition thats going to shorten their life or impeed it in any way. and from a selfish pov, i dont want the rest of my life affected either.

that all said, im sure if i had a child with a condition mentioned id love it to bits however if i had a choice i wounldnt choose it.





imo

poeticseraphim

recyclebin wrote: »

I just had a look at what a baby looks like at 12 weeks (babycenter.com) and I would never like to see abortion allowed at this point. In fact anything above 5-6 weeks and it would make me very uncomfortable.

The only lawful abortion I would understand is for medical reasons where opinions of two other doctors is taken into account.

Well looking at a BABY at 12 weeks no doubt would ..what about a fetus though???
Would you support abortion by choice at 6 weeks??

In fetal development, most major organs exist in rudimentary form by about 8 to 9 weeks. It takes several months for these organs to grow in size, complexity, and organization to the point they can function. For example, the myelin sheath—the insulating cover on nerve pathways that is required for efficient conduction of pain signals—does not begin forming around nervous system cells (neurons) in the spinal cord until about 24 weeks, and not till after birth in most of the cerebral cortex.

Sporadic brain waves are detected at 21 weeks and regular genuine real brain waves begin at 28 weeks.

Which is long after 12 weeks.

At 13 weeks gestation, the brain stem and thalamus are not functional, anyway. Working connections between the thalamus and the higher cortex do not begin to form until about 20 to 26 weeks, with significant development of neuronal activity continuing after birth.

Bear in mind we are talking 12 weeks still here.

And in the US most abortions (88%) take place in that time....

Promac

Syllabus wrote: »

it should be legal up to 20/22 weeks imo. the 20 week scan is the first time anomalies can be detected - ie downs

now fair play to anyone with a downs child but its not something i want for me or my child thanks very much. nor would i want a child with spina bifita or any condition thats going to shorten their life or impeed it in any way. and from a selfish pov, i dont want the rest of my life affected either.

that all said, im sure if i had a child with a condition mentioned id love it to bits however if i had a choice i wounldnt choose it.


imo

Sure what if you don't like what they look like - god forbid you had to go through life with an ugly child? They might even be ginger! Or a protestant!

A baby at 22 weeks is a fully viable human being. I have a nephew that was born at 23. By your reasoning we could just kill any downs kid we see cause like, who wants 'em eh?

I'm pro-choice but anti-murder.

3ndahalfof6

poeticseraphim wrote: »

Well looking at a BABY at 12 weeks no doubt would ..what about a fetus though???
Would you support abortion by choice at 6 weeks??

In fetal development, most major organs exist in rudimentary form by about 8 to 9 weeks. It takes several months for these organs to grow in size, complexity, and organization to the point they can function. For example, the myelin sheath—the insulating cover on nerve pathways that is required for efficient conduction of pain signals—does not begin forming around nervous system cells (neurons) in the spinal cord until about 24 weeks, and not till after birth in most of the cerebral cortex.

Sporadic brain waves are detected at 21 weeks and regular genuine real brain waves begin at 28 weeks.

Which is long after 12 weeks.

At 13 weeks gestation, the brain stem and thalamus are not functional, anyway. Working connections between the thalamus and the higher cortex do not begin to form until about 20 to 26 weeks, with significant development of neuronal activity continuing after birth.

Bear in mind we are talking 12 weeks still here.

And in the US most abortions (88%) take place in that time....

OK lets not give them the chance to make these connections, just in case.

philologos

poeticseraphim wrote: »

Well looking at a BABY at 12 weeks no doubt would ..what about a fetus though???
Would you support abortion by choice at 6 weeks??

In fetal development, most major organs exist in rudimentary form by about 8 to 9 weeks. It takes several months for these organs to grow in size, complexity, and organization to the point they can function. For example, the myelin sheath—the insulating cover on nerve pathways that is required for efficient conduction of pain signals—does not begin forming around nervous system cells (neurons) in the spinal cord until about 24 weeks, and not till after birth in most of the cerebral cortex.

Sporadic brain waves are detected at 21 weeks and regular genuine real brain waves begin at 28 weeks.

Which is long after 12 weeks.

At 13 weeks gestation, the brain stem and thalamus are not functional, anyway. Working connections between the thalamus and the higher cortex do not begin to form until about 20 to 26 weeks, with significant development of neuronal activity continuing after birth.

Bear in mind we are talking 12 weeks still here.

And in the US most abortions (88%) take place in that time....

Are we discussing abortion as a choice or abortion as a medical necessity? I feel that you could be blurring the boundaries here. The OP says as a medical necessity, not as a choice. I feel if I vote yes in the poll now that my opinion may be misconstrued.

I feel the former is deeply wrong, the latter is saving a life.

poeticseraphim

Nimrod 7 wrote: »

As a previous poster said, your vague choices for voting make it look like it's a simple yes or no topic - it isn't.
I want it to be FULLY available to the mother if her life was at risk in anyway, BY CONSTITUTION. Not the confusion we have right now which recently claimed the life of an innocent mother. It shouldn't be fully legalised and eventually used as contraception

Which way do I vote?

I understand your point.

And thank you for making it.

But any referendum will ask for a yes or no answer too.

That is the issue of making the state responsible for certain aspects of our lives.

These complex issues will be reduced to yes or no questions which as Savitas case shows is complicated.

Which is why i see giving women a choice is the option....it is not yes or no then....she will take things into consideration.

I believe most women intend to honor their bodies by doing the best they can and to try to be responsible.

You are right it is not a yes or no question....which is why we should leave it to the individual ...there is probably no universally right or wrong answer.

But then you have to accept their is no yes or no answer....and then the only way is to leave it to women themselves and trust them and relieve yourself of the responsibility that is not really yours or the states.

It is true...the state cannot seem to decide...maybe because it is not meant to..women are.

poeticseraphim

philologos wrote: »

Are we discussing abortion as a choice or abortion as a medical necessity? I feel that you could be blurring the boundaries here. The OP says as a medical necessity, not as a choice. I feel if I vote yes in the poll now that my opinion may be misconstrued.

I feel the former is deeply wrong, the latter is saving a life.

No the OP is clear abortion for cases of rape incest medical necessity AND BY CHOICE...up to week twelve.
Or no to abortion.
Vote as you see fit to.

philologos

poeticseraphim wrote: »

No the OP is clear abortion for cases of rape incest medical necessity AND BY CHOICE...up to week twelve.
Or no to abortion.
Vote as you see fit to.

Absolutely no to choice.
Absolutely yes to medical necessity.

Your poll leaves me in a difficult position.

philologos

poeticseraphim wrote: »

I understand your point.

And thank you for making it.

But any referendum will ask for a yes or no answer too.

That is the issue of making the state responsible for certain aspects of our lives.

These complex issues will be reduced to yes or no questions which as Savitas case shows is complicated.

Which is why i see giving women a choice is the option....it is not yes or no then....she will take things into consideration.

I believe most women intend to honor their bodies by doing the best they can and to try to be responsible.

You are right it is not a yes or no question....which is why we should leave it to the individual ...there is probably no universally right or wrong answer.

But then you have to accept their is no yes or no answer....and then the only way is to leave it to women themselves and trust them and relieve yourself of the responsibility that is not really yours or the states.

It is true...the state cannot seem to decide...maybe because it is not meant to..women are.

This is a little disingenuous.

It depends on what the referendum is on.

Will it be on abortion as a choice?
Or abortion as a medical necessity only?

I will never support the former, I will always support the latter.

Promac

poeticseraphim wrote: »

It is true...the state cannot seem to decide...maybe because it is not meant to..women are.

What makes women such experts? Is the father allowed a say? It's far too common to ignore the man's role and rights in this situation.

I agree with early-term abortions when it's clear and obvious that the foetus is undeveloped. I don't agree at all with people like Syllabus who'll abort their own kid at 22 weeks for such selfish reasons. It's common these days for kids to survive being born in the mid-20s.

I recently had to deal with the possibility of a down's syndrome kid (nuchal thickening in the scans) and having gone through all the discussions I can't imagine what kind of person would go for an abortion at that stage. You'd have to be a seriously selfish and cold b4stard.

poeticseraphim

The reason we need to trust a woman's choice is because we see medical necessity is never clear from Savitas case.

And i think up to 12 weeks the choice should be a woman's NOT ANOTHER PERSONS SUCH AS A DOCTOR

If she wants to continue a dangerous pregnancy. That is her choice.

I am tired of hearing women tell me how they went through a miscarraige at home giving 'birth' because the hospital does not aid women already going through miscarriage because their lives are not at risk. It is not necessary.

Yet if that is her choice i support it.

It is highly personnal...the reason it gets so heated is because it is so personnal...so lets not force women into situations they don't want to be in.

The state should let women choose up to 12 weeks.



I can't believe we even let the state decide this it seems so odd in society. But there you go.....it wants to dominate my body....

Syllabus

Promac wrote: »

Sure what if you don't like what they look like - god forbid you had to go through life with an ugly child? They might even be ginger! Or a protestant!......................

thats just stupid

i gave my personal opinion. by that very definition it will not be your opinion.

btw, once the egg is fertilised its is alive. just because the fetus looking more like a baby makes you queasy does not change the end result.

you are a hypocrite.

im being honest.

Promac wrote: »

......................................By your reasoning we could just kill any downs kid we see cause like, who wants 'em eh?



I'm pro-choice but anti-murder.

No. by my reasoning there would be no kids walking around(or not as the case may be) with these debilitating, life threathening, life shortening issues.




imo