Risk to life, including suicide?

HellFireClub

Piliger wrote: »

Indeed. Me me me me sums up what Human Rights are all about, and why we need to give Women their Human Rights in Ireland.

On the other hand the Anti Choice only want THEIR morality adhered to, only THEIR values adhered to ....... it's all about them them them ....... ironic really.

When you say you are pro-choice, do you believe in giving a woman a right to access to an abortion up to the point of pregnancy? If not, why not?

Emeraldy Pebbles

HellFireClub wrote: »

The vast majority of women (that I know), are not going around harbouring these fairly unusual views on motherhood, yet we are being told that this is what we have to legislate for now.

If the "vast majority" don't feel the same as her, then what does it matter if it's legislated for? They're not suddenly going to change their viewpoint of legislation changes.

HellFireClub

Emeraldy Pebbles wrote: »

If the "vast majority" don't feel the same as her, then what does it matter if it's legislated for? They're not suddenly going to change their viewpoint of legislation changes.

Well the "vast majority" of Irish people are not heroin users, but yet we don't legislate for the availability of heroin in shops because we believe it is wrong and harmful to have it available, regardless of relatively small number of people who may wish to use it.

Either we believe something is right or wrong to have available, and that's usually the basis for legislating for or against it, not the relatively small number of people who might not agree with the law and go and do it anyway, regardless of what the law says. Same with murder, a relatively small number of people commit murder every year, yeah we don't just legislate for murder to be legal because a small number of people decide to commit murder every year, do we? :rolleyes:

Emeraldy Pebbles

HellFireClub wrote: »

Well the "vast majority" of Irish people are not heroin users, but yet we don't legislate for the availability of heroin in shops because we believe it is wrong and harmful to have it available, regardless of relatively small number of people who may wish to use it.

Either we believe something is right or wrong to have available, and that's usually the basis for legislating for or against it, not the relatively small number of people who might not agree with the law and go and do it anyway, regardless of what the law says. Same with murder, a relatively small number of people commit murder every year, yeah we don't just legislate for murder to be legal because a small number of people decide to commit murder every year, do we? :rolleyes:

Well, the women who are determined to have an abortion can do so, by leaving the country. You can't shoot up or murder anyone legally many other places, now can you? Daft hyperbolic comparison.

As for illegal drugs, well, just because you might think they'd be as well to be legal doesn't mean you want to use them.

HellFireClub

Emeraldy Pebbles wrote: »

Well, the women who are determined to have an abortion can do so, by leaving the country. You can't shoot up or murder anyone legally many other places, now can you? Daft hyperbolic comparison.

As for illegal drugs, well, just because you might think they'd be as well to be legal doesn't mean you want to use them.

Where did I say I think illegal drugs should be legalised?

Emeraldy Pebbles

HellFireClub wrote: »

Where did I say I think illegal drugs should be legalised?

Discussion about abortion being legalised. Bring up that heroin shouldn't be legalised because a small minority want to use it. Heroin = illegal drug.

HellFireClub wrote: »

Well the "vast majority" of Irish people are not heroin users, but yet we don't legislate for the availability of heroin in shops because we believe it is wrong and harmful to have it available, regardless of relatively small number of people who may wish to use it.

Oi vey.

Piliger

HellFireClub wrote: »

When you say you are pro-choice, do you believe in giving a woman a right to access to an abortion up to the point of pregnancy? If not, why not?

If you bothered to read this thread discussion you would have read my statement on this a couple of days ago here.

Piliger

HellFireClub wrote: »

I don't care if we have abortion on demand in this country, even though I completely disagree with it, I will only care if it ever were to directly affect me, in terms of how I could get left with having an emotional shít hemorrhage to deal with if a girl I was with, decided to abort a child I had conceived.

The avoidance of that scenario for me, to my mind, rests with me & the choices I make in life, particularly with regard to who I have a relationship with, not with someone else.

That's all well and good - but what comes across from you is a person severely lacking in compassion and imagination - who has zero tolerance of mistakes by other people who do not reach your personal standards of control.

You do not seem to live in the world where not everyone is super smart and in total control of their lives. Women, including married women, become pregnant as a result of human error with their contraceptives. NO contraceptive is 100% efficient. Some people are not that bright. Some people are not that clever. Some people have bad memories. But you lump them all in to your simplistic vision of how people should exert total control over their lives without ever making a mistake - and if they do make a mistake then you damn them to suffering the life long consequences. And those consequences are not just having a child and bringing it up. If you brushed up against real life you would encounter many women who are pressured to have sex by their boy friends or husbands and if they get pregnant they can suffer physical and other abuse that can continue for a very very long time and ruin their lives.
The world is not the neat and tidy little package that you seem to believe it to be.

Piliger

HellFireClub wrote: »

Well the "vast majority" of Irish people are not heroin users, but yet we don't legislate for the availability of heroin in shops because we believe it is wrong and harmful to have it available, regardless of relatively small number of people who may wish to use it.

Either we believe something is right or wrong to have available, and that's usually the basis for legislating for or against it, not the relatively small number of people who might not agree with the law and go and do it anyway, regardless of what the law says. Same with murder, a relatively small number of people commit murder every year, yeah we don't just legislate for murder to be legal because a small number of people decide to commit murder every year, do we? :rolleyes:

Except a foetus is not a human life.

A woman has a right to control her own body and what grows in it. She has a right to have anything inside it removed if she wishes. Otherwise she has no rights over her own body - one of the most fundamental human right possible.

eviltwin

HellFireClub wrote: »

I don't care if we have abortion on demand in this country, even though I completely disagree with it, I will only care if it ever were to directly affect me, in terms of how I could get left with having an emotional shít hemorrhage to deal with if a girl I was with, decided to abort a child I had conceived.

The avoidance of that scenario for me, to my mind, rests with me & the choices I make in life, particularly with regard to who I have a relationship with, not with someone else.

She still can. She just has to travel to England. Not having abortion here doesn't stop that possibilty happening. And it is happening and where do men go if they need help and support? They have nowhere. What does a man do if he feels guilty for wanting an abortion his partner regrets? Nowhere. The woman has nowhere to go either.

I would like to see abortion here but with a requirement for counselling beforehand so both mother and father are sure its the right decision and with decent, easy to access post abortion counselling for all who need it.

Right now there is nothing, you come home and you are on your own and that has to change.

Piliger

eviltwin wrote: »

I would like to see abortion here but with a requirement for counselling beforehand so both mother and father are sure its the right decision and with decent, easy to access post abortion counselling for all who need it.

Right now there is nothing, you come home and you are on your own and that has to change.

This is the fall out that results from the fundamentalist regime imposed on us by the Catholic Church and the Anti Women's Choice people. They have no compassion. They have no care for women and their rights. They only have their dogma and their fundamentalist attitudes. A bundle of 100 cells is more important to them than a real live woman.

Pro Choice people support comprehensive counselling both before and after any abortion decision. Women need choices. The State should support women in these situations and make sure that they are supported in their decision. Should they be persuaded to carry to term and offer the child for adoption, then there should be positive and financial support. But where a woman is in a situation where is is simply not possible, for reasons she ultimately decides, then an abortion and post abortion counselling should be in place.

iptba

Honey-ec wrote: »

I'm speaking specifically about the current "concerns" about legislating specifically for the X case, under the auspices of which, it wouldn't really matter if the man is suicidal, because he's not the one seeking and potentially being denied an abortion that could save his life. Basically, taking the X case on its own, the man's life doesn't even come into it.

Moving away from X, in general terms, I've no doubt that a man could feel suicidal at the thoughts of becoming a father. But I have absolutely no idea how you could legislate for that. Allowing him to legally abdicate all legal responsibility for the child seems like the obvious answer, but how would it work in practice? How long does he have to decide? 25 weeks, same as the cut-off for abortion? Can he change his mind at a later date? And how would the situation work in reverse? What if he's threatening suicide because his partner wants a termination and he wants to have the baby? How do you legislate for that? Force her to carry the baby to term and then hand it over to him? Because then we're back to forcing women to act as incubators for babies that they don't want, and frankly, the thought of that frightens the living sh*t out of me.

I don't see why the reverse should come in to it. One can have the first rule without having the second rule.

eviltwin

Honestly can't see how it would ever work in practice. What if the blokes parents want to be involved, can they see the child? Will he be obliged to tell a future partner he has fathered a child or his future kids? What about when the child grows up and wants to know about his or her father, will the mother be allowed to give his name? Will his name be on the birth cert?

iptba

eviltwin wrote: »

Honestly can't see how it would ever work in practice. What if the blokes parents want to be involved, can they see the child?

If a man wanted it to work well, he wouldn't tell his parents. If somebody gives their child up for adoption, their parents can't see the child. Do you think people shouldn't be allowed give their children up for adoption?

eviltwin wrote: »

Will he be obliged to tell a future partner he has fathered a child or his future kids?

We don't expect it of people who give their children up for adoption. Do you think people who have given a child up for adoption should be expected to tell future partners?

eviltwin wrote: »

What about when the child grows up and wants to know about his or her father, will the mother be allowed to give his name? Will his name be on the birth cert?

It could be a similar situation to adoption.

eviltwin

Its not adoption. Its nothing like adoption. Anyone putting their child up for adoption is putting their trust in the state to get the best people to raise that child. Often they get to meet the people. A man or woman who just walks away from a child could be leaving them in any situation. Adoption is often done out of a sense of deep love for the child, walking away is the action of an asshole.

iptba

eviltwin wrote: »

Its not adoption. Its nothing like adoption.

I was dealing with the specific questions you mentioned about how it might work in practice.

eviltwin wrote: »

Anyone putting their child up for adoption is putting their trust in the state to get the best people to raise that child. Often they get to meet the people. A man or woman who just walks away from a child could be leaving them in any situation. Adoption is often done out of a sense of deep love for the child, walking away is the action of an asshole.

How do you know the circumstances? What if he's suicidal, to give the example in the OP. Are women who have abortions, to use your language, "assholes"? Or are only men able to be assholes?

YumCha

HellFireClub wrote: »

Surprise surprise, if you have sex you "could" get pregnant.

Well of course, but I wasn't the one who said this (bolded for emphasis):

HellFireClub wrote: »

There's a very simple practical solution to all of this. Just don't get into any sexual activity that would have the potential to end in pregnancy or a termination thereof, with someone who clearly doesn't have the same view of you, whether you be for or against abortion.

That would mean no sex right? Doesn't seem simple or practical to me.

eviltwin

iptba wrote: »

I was dealing with the specific questions you mentioned about how it might work in practice.

How do you know the circumstances? What if he's suicidal, to give the example in the OP.

I don't and I have no doubt for some men it would be a genuine issue and I would have nothing but compassion for them. But I am a great believer in counselling. I wouldn't want to see a woman make a life changing decision without it so the same would go for a man, living with regret is not something I would wish on anyone.


Its hard not to be cynical though. The problem is for every genuine case you will have the arseholes who just can't be bothered. Would we be expected to be okay with it in the case of a man who is feeling suicidal for the 4th or 5th time?

iptba

eviltwin wrote: »

Its hard not to be cynical though. The problem is for every genuine case you will have the arseholes who just can't be bothered. Would we be expected to be okay with it in the case of a man who is feeling suicidal for the 4th or 5th time?

Do you think there should be similar restrictions if people are saying, for more than one time, they want an abortion because they're suicidal?

eviltwin

iptba wrote: »

Do you think there should be similar restrictions if people are saying, for more than one time, they want an abortion because they're suicidal?

I would think after the first time people would learn! But if the worst happens no of course not, but then that doesn't result in a child that needs support for 18+ years. I don't want to end up paying for some feckless man or woman who can walk away from a child by saying that its too much. At some stage personal responsibilty has to come into it.

iptba

eviltwin wrote: »

I would think after the first time people would learn! But if the worst happens no of course not, but then that doesn't result in a child that needs support for 18+ years. I don't want to end up paying for some feckless man or woman who can walk away from a child by saying that its too much. At some stage personal responsibilty has to come into it.

So if two people, either the father or mother, are suicidal when there is pregnancy, the option of allowing a woman have an abortion is ok because that doesn't cost much money while allowing the man to cut off ties with the child isn't because that costs more money? It's useful to get at the heart of issues.

HellFireClub

Piliger wrote: »

That's all well and good - but what comes across from you is a person severely lacking in compassion and imagination - who has zero tolerance of mistakes by other people who do not reach your personal standards of control.

You do not seem to live in the world where not everyone is super smart and in total control of their lives. Women, including married women, become pregnant as a result of human error with their contraceptives. NO contraceptive is 100% efficient. Some people are not that bright. Some people are not that clever. Some people have bad memories. But you lump them all in to your simplistic vision of how people should exert total control over their lives without ever making a mistake - and if they do make a mistake then you damn them to suffering the life long consequences. And those consequences are not just having a child and bringing it up. If you brushed up against real life you would encounter many women who are pressured to have sex by their boy friends or husbands and if they get pregnant they can suffer physical and other abuse that can continue for a very very long time and ruin their lives.
The world is not the neat and tidy little package that you seem to believe it to be.

That's just rubbish. First of all, unplanned pregnancies happen, I've been in situations where they could have happened to me, but I don't see any reason why a "get out of jail card" should be made available to me if it did happen because I've been brought up to understand and accept that with actions come consequences. I'm a stranger to this mentality you subscribe to, where we can have our actions, no matter how reckless, but we can then just brush the consequences under the carpet. The least I've done in my life with regard to avoiding unplanned pregnancies, was to first of all, be in some sort of a stable relationship if I was in a sexual relationship with a girl, and secondly be very careful with contraception. Surprise surprise, I'm 36 and never had a pregnancy scare and if I did, I'd have been man enough to face up to the consequences of what can happen when two people have sex. I didn't expect a solution to be legislated for on my doorstep that involves an absolutely horrific medical procedure to be undertaken that will clean up my mess for me.

Contrary to me being cold & heartless, I fail to see how any person who advocates cutting up a human form with arms, legs, a head and a pulse, as is the norm when abortions are performed, can keep a straight face when telling someone else they are cold, cruel or heartless,, that's just taking the complete píss altogether with that line of reasoning.

HellFireClub

Piliger wrote: »

It all reminds me of the hype that the anti Divorce Campaign created when they made a huge effort to scare the bejaysus out of women in the country, saying that their men will abandon them straight after the referendum. It was absolutely appalling and immoral. Thankfully they failed.

It seems to surprise you that a guy would judge a girls worthiness in terms of a potential partner, on something as serious as her view on abortion, which I find to be breathtakingly naive. Who would want to go out with a girl who could be minded to bolt for an abortion if she gets pregnant in a relationship with you, if you were the kind of guy who loves kids and wants to have kids??? Why on earth is it a shock to you that a guy who respects life and who wants kids some day, would run a mile from a girl who has pro-abortion ideologies in her head? No more than I have to ask why you would be surprised if a girl who was pro-abortion would run a mile from a guy with my stated ideologies on the subject matter?

eviltwin

iptba wrote: »

So if two people, either the father or mother, are suicidal when there is pregnancy, the option of allowing a woman have an abortion is ok because that doesn't cost much money while allowing the man to cut off ties with the child isn't because that costs more money? It's useful to get at the heart of issues.

So your happy to provide people with a get out clause if they decide they can't be bothered to pay for their own offspring and pick up the tab yourself? Sorry that doesn't sit well with me.

Mistakes happen I get that, I admire anyone who can put that child up for adoption, I think that is an amazing thing to do. I also don't judge anyone who choose to have an abortion, I know how hard that is.

Bringing a child into the world and raising it yourself is a massive responsibility, that kid will need food, clothes, an education, health care etc. Someone has to pay. Its nearly impossible for a single person to pay for all that on their own.

I can just about live with paying for the people who are at least raising the child and doing the hard work that involves but when I have to sacrifice something for my own children so I can pay for the scumbag down the street who walks away becasue he or she can't be arsed then I get angry.

eviltwin

HellFireClub wrote: »

It seems to surprise you that a guy would judge a girls worthiness in terms of a potential partner, on something as serious as her view on abortion, which I find to be breathtakingly naive. Who would want to go out with a girl who could be minded to bolt for an abortion if she gets pregnant in a relationship with you, if you were the kind of guy who loves kids and wants to have kids??? Why on earth is it a shock to you that a guy who respects life and who wants kids some day, would run a mile from a girl who has pro-abortion ideologies in her head? No more than I have to ask why you would be surprised if a girl who was pro-abortion would run a mile from a guy with my stated ideologies on the subject matter?

Nothing wrong with that, I'm sure we all have things that would be deal breakers when it comes to relationships but don't make out women who have abortions just do it on a whim or don't take their partners concerns into it. Often there are men who are as in favour of the decision as the women is.

HellFireClub

Piliger wrote: »

As a Pro Choice man, I do not believe in any way shape or form that life begins at conception. I believe strongly that there is no difference between those cells and the cells I scrape off my nose when it's itchy. None. I do believe that there is a time ..... somewhere late in gestation, when those cells change from non-life to life and hence I am opposed to late term abortions. What exact time that change takes place - I do not know. I don't believe anyone can know. I therefore agree fully with the UK abortion laws and their choice of when abortion is allowed until, although I would be agreeable to choosing to bring it back a week or so.

Well, there is a very considerable difference between the snot that you pick from your nose and a collection of human form cells with the obvious potential to become the same person as you or I or any person here discussing this subject. You don't know when transition occurs from a collection of independently formed human cells, to an actual life. Neither do I, and neither does anyone else, which is why I think that until we can answer that question, we ought to err very much on the side of caution and accept that as developed and civilised as we like to think we are these days, that we do not know everything, we cannot solve every problem and we should let the best that nature has given us, take its course when conception has occurred.

HellFireClub

eviltwin wrote: »

Nothing wrong with that, I'm sure we all have things that would be deal breakers when it comes to relationships but don't make out women who have abortions just do it on a whim or don't take their partners concerns into it. Often there are men who are as in favour of the decision as the women is.

But there are women who don't take their partners concerns into it, there are women with the attitude, "My body my choice", they are the same women waving banners and posters saying so at protests in this country for abortion on demand, so any rational guy who doesn't ever want to be involved in this debate in terms of having a personal experience of it, is going to judge women who are pro-abortion. Why people say this is somehow unfair is a bit ridiculous. This is where the problem actually is, if you avoid people who do not have the same views as you, you won't actually have a problem here at all...

RDM_83 again

eviltwin wrote: »

So your happy to provide people with a get out clause if they decide they can't be bothered to pay for their own offspring and pick up the tab yourself? Sorry that doesn't sit well with me.

Mistakes happen I get that, I admire anyone who can put that child up for adoption, I think that is an amazing thing to do. I also don't judge anyone who choose to have an abortion, I know how hard that is.

Bringing a child into the world and raising it yourself is a massive responsibility, that kid will need food, clothes, an education, health care etc. Someone has to pay. Its nearly impossible for a single person to pay for all that on their own.

I can just about live with paying for the people who are at least raising the child and doing the hard work that involves but when I have to sacrifice something for my own children so I can pay for the scumbag down the street who walks away becasue he or she can't be arsed then I get angry.

Whatever about the rights and wrongs of this debate I don't think financial issues should be the deciding factor in this debate, as if it ever comes to pass abortion services would be at least part tax payer funded in Ireland (including those tax payers who believe its literally murder)

Also from another perspective mandatory abortion in certain cases could be a massive money saver for the state, the cost of long term care for those born with severe disabilities/conditions can be vast, and in the most severe cases it could even be considered moral depending on your viewpoint (I'm honestly not a eugenicist )

Piliger

HellFireClub wrote: »

Well, there is a very considerable difference between the snot that you pick from your nose and a collection of human form cells with the obvious potential to become the same person as you or I or any person here discussing this subject.

Yet I do not agree with this at all. I see no difference whatsoever. None. Potential is a worthless and meaningless concept in this issue, imho.

You don't know when transition occurs from a collection of independently formed human cells, to an actual life. Neither do I, and neither does anyone else, which is why I think that until we can answer that question, we ought to err very much on the side of caution and accept that as developed and civilised as we like to think we are these days, that we do not know everything, we cannot solve every problem and we should let the best that nature has given us, take its course when conception has occurred.

I don't agree. There is an enormous difference between erring on the side of caution, and the fundamentalist absolutism that is applied by the Catholic view and the anti Women's Choice view.

I believe that erring on the side of caution is the basis of the UK system and they have a very good balance in place that we should echo.

RDM_83 again

Piliger wrote: »

Yet I do not agree with this at all. I see no difference whatsoever. None. Potential is a worthless and meaningless concept in this issue, imho.

I don't agree. There is an enormous difference between erring on the side of caution, and the fundamentalist absolutism that is applied by the Catholic view and the anti Women's Choice view.

I believe that erring on the side of caution is the basis of the UK system and they have a very good balance in place that we should echo.

Come on if Pro-abortion isn't used saying Anti-Choice is just looking for an argument and derailment.

UK is 24 weeks which is quite late (in comparison to other places with legal abortion) and you could argue (scientifically!) by that stage there is a potential for fetal response (18-20 weeks would be a different story and I'm saying that as some one with conflicted views on the issue).

Anyway sorry for bringing this thread back off topic! (there is a million generic abortion arguments on here)