Is it still 1971 in Ireland? The contraceptive train still runs - Under another name.

OldNotWIse

I think abortion threads should be terminated after two days.

lazygal

Fuhrer wrote: »

Yes, I'm sure you're also of the view that every child should always be killed.


See what I did there?

I have two children I haven't killed. In fact I'm breastfeeding one right now. So no, I don't thinkall children should be killed. But all women should be able to access abortion services.

volchitsa

Fuhrer wrote: »

I dont know what the law is in Ireland but killing a Fetus does carry the exact same penalty as killing a baby in Northern Ireland, life imprisonment.

A life sentence is also possible for rape, that doesn't mean it is the same as murder, does it?

The point is that killing a fetus is not murder but a different crime, feticide. It's actually a form of assault on the woman.

Fuhrer

lazygal wrote: »

I have two children I haven't killed. In fact I'm breastfeeding one right now. So no, I don't thinkall children should be killed. But all women should be able to access abortion services.

And they should be able to abort the fetus at any time for any reason?


We're swinging back around here to my original point because you wouldn't answer it but seeing as you seem to feel so strongly about this, presumably you've given it some thought.

volchitsa

Fuhrer wrote: »

That would be the decent thing to do, wouldn't it?

So how many times have you saved lives by donating your bone narrow then? And presumably you've already donated one kidney, too.

Why should a woman be forced by law to donate her body because it is "the decent thing to do" by people who don't even bother donating bone marrow?

Sunnyisland

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I think you are confused as to the difference between contraception and abortion. Nobody in Ireland has to "go in secret" to another country to get contraceptives.

I Am not confused about anything and you know what I meant.

But let me explain a little better for you and others my opinion.

It's absolutely embarrassing in this day and age, with all the equal rights that women have archived since the 1960,s in this country that today there are still women having, hundreds of them,to go to foreign jurisdictions to do what they want with there own bodies, it's there right and there choice and they should be allowed to make that choice themselves,as it been illegal has done nothing to stop this cowardice by successive governments to deal with the problem.

lazygal

Fuhrer wrote: »

And they should be able to abort the fetus at any time for any reason?


We're swinging back around here to my original point because you wouldn't answer it but seeing as you seem to feel so strongly about this, presumably you've given it some thought.

I did answer your question on murder and assault. I'd answered it twice actually. I said I didn't know whether it was murder. Maybe now you can answer my question on why we allow the unborn to be taken elsewhere to be killed?

Grayson

Fuhrer wrote: »

And they should be able to abort the fetus at any time for any reason?


We're swinging back around here to my original point because you wouldn't answer it but seeing as you seem to feel so strongly about this, presumably you've given it some thought.

Because that's been said in this thread. Stop trying to make people look crazy and illogical. You're only making yourself look bad. I'm sure there are prolife people reading this thread and cringing.

OldNotWIse

realies wrote: »

I Am not confused about anything and you know what I meant.

But let me explain a little better for you and others my opinion.

It's absolutely embarrassing in this day and age, with all the equal rights that women have archived since the 1960,s in this country that today there are still women having, hundreds of them,to go to foreign jurisdictions to do what they want with there own bodies, it's there right and there choice and they should be allowed to make that choice themselves,as it been illegal has done nothing to stop this cowardice by successive governments to deal with the problem.

You said that women are travelling abroad for contraceptives.

They are not.

They are travelling abroad for abortions.

Abortion does not = contraception...irrespective of the verbal gymnastics you wish to engage in.

Now, as for whether you or I agree with that, I am not interested in discussing this as I have more than had my fill of tiresome, repetitive, agenda-driven threads on this, and put up with enough shíte and drivel from both sides to fill a slurry tank but if you are going to argue, at least do yourself a favour and get your facts right - abortion is not contraception.


...lest there be any "confusion"

volchitsa

lazygal wrote: »

I did answer your question on murder and assault. I'd answered it twice actually. I said I didn't know whether it was murder. Maybe now you can answer my question on why we allow the unborn to be taken elsewhere to be killed?

And why it is acceptable to force a woman to provide her body to save the unborn's life, even at the cost of permanent damage to her health, but not apparently to force anyone even to provide blood or bone marrow with no longterm consequences to their health for the same reason.

The unborn has more rights over one woman hosting it than the born do over anyone, including their parents.
Except that the unborn can be legally transported out of the country to be killed.

Hypocrisy, much?

Fuhrer

lazygal wrote: »

I did answer your question on murder and assault. I'd answered it twice actually. I said I didn't know whether it was murder. Maybe now you can answer my question on why we allow the unborn to be taken elsewhere to be killed?

Oh, you considered that a valid answer?

You support abortion but you dont know for when and why you support it.

Not hard to see why no government ever bothered to legislate for the X case. Such apparent vocal support for the position but not even a modicum of thought put into the position.


Here is a position on abortion, let me know if you agree with it.

Early Abortion, people can abort the fetus at any stage before brain activity has developed(Lets say for arguments sake 24 weeks) for whatever reason they want, or in practise, without having to specify a reason.

Medical Reason Abortion - Abortions after the Brain activity phase, only where the reasons are related to the viability of the fetus surviving or the health of the mother is at risk.

Frito

volchitsa wrote: »

Why should a woman be forced by law to donate her body because it is "the decent thing to do" by people who don't even bother donating bone marrow?

We could examine this further.
Why does the law insist women remain pregnant (where life is not at risk) but does not insist we donate bone marrow or blood? If the preservation of life is so important?

volchitsa

Frito wrote: »

We could examine this further.
Why does the law insist women remain pregnant (where life is not at risk) but does not insist we donate bone marrow or blood? If the preservation of life is so important?

Yes, I would understand the ban on abortion if the preservation of life was so important that blood and bone marrow donation were mandatory. That would be a consistent take on things.

What seems completely at odds with the claim that the ban on abortion is about the preservation of life is that there is no similar priority given to the preservation of born life.

OTOH, I don't imagine one could with impunity announce that one was taking one's child to Yemen or Somalia to have them killed, or even "just" to sell them into slavery.

All very strange and illogical. If one believes that the ban on abortion has anything to do with protecting life.

volchitsa

Fuhrer wrote: »

At what point should we be allowed to kill the fetus?

If someone walks up to a woman on her way to the hospital and hammer fists her in the gut killing the baby, is that just assault? Or murder?

I've gone back as far as I can to see what this original question was that you say wasn't answered, and I gather it's this or some form of it.

My answer to this is that it isn't murder, and I know that to be the case legally too because the unborn twins that died in the Omagh bombing are not counted in the number of victims murdered according to legal statistics. The youngest victim, officially, is their older (baby) sister.

You are trying to establish a false equivalence between a woman refusing to allow her body to be used for a pregnancy she doesn't want, and a random stranger causing a woman to miscarry by attacking her. The fact that it isn't murder (since the unborn baby has no identity or legal existence) doesn't make it any less of a crime. Just as rape isn't murder, but may still deserve as long a sentence.

Frito

volchitsa wrote: »

What seems completely at odds with the claim that the ban on abortion is about the preservation of life is that there is no similar priority given to the preservation of born life.

Yes it's come up over in A&A thread where a foetus has the right to the preservation of life, until it's born and needs a blood donation which no-one can be compelled to make. So the event of birth confers less rights in this respect, ie the right to make demands of another person's body in life threatening situations.

TomJerryPoochy

volchitsa wrote: »

And why it is acceptable to force a woman to provide her body to save the unborn's life, even at the cost of permanent damage to her health, but not apparently to force anyone even to provide blood or bone marrow with no longterm consequences to their health for the same reason.

The unborn has more rights over one woman hosting it than the born do over anyone, including their parents.
Except that the unborn can be legally transported out of the country to be killed.

Hypocrisy, much?

The unborn never had a choice in the matter, the mother did.

volchitsa

TomJerryPoochy wrote: »

The unborn never had a choice in the matter, the mother did.

So by that logic you would be for a legal obligation on parents to donate a kidney if necessary for their child then? Up to what age? And would the obligation be greater if the parents had set out to have the child than if it was an accident?

And of course legal abortion and possibly even euthanasia in cases of rape? (It might take some time to prove the rape, so the child could be four or five by then!)

One eyed Jack

strobe wrote: »

So, as I said, single women or those having a child who's father is not their husband, can legally sever the legal rights and responsibilities they have in relation to that child. Do you consider these women "deadbeat Mom's"? Do you reserve the same kind of ire for them you do for the people that have suggested that men should be able to essentially do the same thing?

The reality is you were so quick to jump on the suggestion with your sexist hypersensitivity you didn't think things through and had to immediately begin back tracking and straw manning. I'll leave you to it. Effort...

It's not that simple though and well you know it. On paper of course, just like your 'paper abortion' it's that simple, once you allow yourself to ignore the complexity of what you're actually suggesting.

Again, let's try like for like - if the mother wants to abdicate her responsibility and give up her child for adoption and the father wants to keep the child and support the child, then of course I would support him in that endeavour.

I wouldn't think much of a mother who wants to give up her child simply to abdicate her responsibility in the same way as I wouldn't think much of a man for doing the same.

You're still a long way from equating adoption to abortion. The word you're actually searching for is a person's right to abandon their child, and no, I wouldn't support anyone in doing that, regardless of their gender.

Grayson

volchitsa wrote: »

And why it is acceptable to force a woman to provide her body to save the unborn's life, even at the cost of permanent damage to her health, but not apparently to force anyone even to provide blood or bone marrow with no longterm consequences to their health for the same reason.

The unborn has more rights over one woman hosting it than the born do over anyone, including their parents.
Except that the unborn can be legally transported out of the country to be killed.

Hypocrisy, much?

Actually, that involved the difference between action and inaction along with the utilitarian basis for our laws.

The idea is that we are allowed do stuff so long as it doesn't harm people. We are allowed avoid doing something for similar reasons. However actions are considered greater than inaction. That's why we can find someone for littering yet not fine someone for not picking other peoples litter up. It's the same reason not donating blood isn't a crime.
Our laws generally work in punishing people for something "bad", yet not forcing someone to do something "good".

the reason that it's legal to travel for an abortion is a weird nimby kind of law. Just because a crime occurs in another jurisdiction doesn't mean it can't be tried here. the UK made it legal to try people who travel to SE Asia and commit child abuse. So it's within the remit of the government to make abortion in the UK illegal. I think it might also be because it would be weird to try only Irish people who travel there. If it was made illegal for everyone then we might have to arrest an English woman who came to Ireland but had an abortion at sometime in the past.
Either way the prolife group don't like it but kinda accept it because of nimbyism.

One eyed Jack

SeanW wrote: »

1) According to some people (whether because of religious influence or otherwise) an unborn child is still a human being.

I'm not sure why you were given the impression I ever said an unborn child wasn't a human being? In fact if you check back through the thread, I said I wasn't going to engage in reductive semantics.

2) It is indeed an equal rights issue, because a no-abortion regime is equal - an unwanted pregnancy cannot be ended by either party, and everyone know where they stand before the fact. Where abortions are legalised, but there is no "paper abortion" procedure for the father, is when inequality arises.

You can quote unquotes it all you like, but there's a difference between abortion for women, and child abandonment 'rights' for either gender. Your stance merely ignores reality and that's why you'll never gain much support for the idea. A 'paper abortion' is nothing like an abortion.

Because under this case, in a questionable pregnancy the father has no say in his own future - if he is not able/willing to accept the responsibility of fatherhood, but the mother decides to have/keep the child, tough, he's on the hook. Likewise if the father wants the child, even being willing to raise it on his own, but the mother wants to walk away from the pregnancy immediately, again, sux 2 B him.

See? Ignoring reality again - the woman can't walk away from the pregnancy when she's carrying the unborn child inside her own body. When a man is able to carry an unborn child inside his own body, then you can argue about equal rights with regard to abortion for men and women, or child abandonment rights for everyone.

Again, a woman doesn't become a mother until she gives birth to a child, and a man doesn't become a father until a woman gives birth to a child.

Under your "if the child happens to exist" standard, the only way to give the man to have any say in his own future in these cases were for him to be able to petition a court to force the mother to abort/carry the child in accordance with his plans for the future.

Since no one would seriously like that, an alternative standard is proposed.

Don't you mean "Since nobody would seriously support the idea of a man being able to force a woman to have an abortion/continue her pregnancy, they should support the idea that a man be allowed to abandon his child instead"?

Yeah, good luck with that.

Sunnyisland

OldNotWIse wrote: »

You said that women are travelling abroad for contraceptives.

They are not.

They are travelling abroad for abortions.

Abortion does not = contraception...iNow, as for whether you or I agree with that, I am not interested in discussing this as I have more than had my fill of tiresome, repetitive, agenda-driven threads on this, and put up with enough shíte and drivel from both sides to fill a slurry tank but if you are going to argue, at least do yourself a favour and get your facts right - abortion is not contraception.


...lest there be any "confusion"

It seems your the one confused,
Many People reluctant to make a connection between contraception and abortion. They insist that these are two very different acts — that there is all the difference in the world between contraception, which prevents a life from coming to be and abortion, which takes a life that has already begun.

With some contraceptives there is not only a link with abortion there is an identity. Some contraceptives are abortifacients; they work by causing early term abortions. The IUD seems to prevent a fertilized egg — a new little human being — from implanting in the uterine wall. The pill does not always stop ovulation but sometimes prevents implantation of the growing embryo. And, of course, the new RU 486 pill works altogether by aborting a new fetus, a new baby.
Far from being a check to the sexual revolution, contraception is the fuel that facilitated the beginning of the sexual revolution and enables it to continue to rage. In the past, many men and women refrained from illicit sexual unions simply because they were not prepared for the responsibilities of parenthood. But once a fairly reliable contraceptive appeared on the scene, this barrier to sex outside the confines of marriage fell. The connection between sex and love also fell quickly; ever since contraception became widely used, there has been much talk of, acceptance of, and practice of casual sex and recreational sex.abortion. abortion is "necessary" for those whose intimate relationships are based upon contraceptive sex. And as you won't be replying back to the thread you have a nice day wink.

http://www.goodmorals.org/smith4.htm

OldNotWIse

realies wrote: »

It seems your the one confused,
Many People reluctant to make a connection between contraception and abortion. They insist that these are two very different acts — that there is all the difference in the world between contraception, which prevents a life from coming to be and abortion, which takes a life that has already begun.

With some contraceptives there is not only a link with abortion there is an identity. Some contraceptives are abortifacients; they work by causing early term abortions. The IUD seems to prevent a fertilized egg — a new little human being — from implanting in the uterine wall. The pill does not always stop ovulation but sometimes prevents implantation of the growing embryo. And, of course, the new RU 486 pill works altogether by aborting a new fetus, a new baby.
Far from being a check to the sexual revolution, contraception is the fuel that facilitated the beginning of the sexual revolution and enables it to continue to rage. In the past, many men and women refrained from illicit sexual unions simply because they were not prepared for the responsibilities of parenthood. But once a fairly reliable contraceptive appeared on the scene, this barrier to sex outside the confines of marriage fell. The connection between sex and love also fell quickly; ever since contraception became widely used, there has been much talk of, acceptance of, and practice of casual sex and recreational sex.abortion. abortion is "necessary" for those whose intimate relationships are based upon contraceptive sex. And as you won't be replying back to the thread you have a nice day wink.

http://www.goodmorals.org/smith4.htm

You are still wrong.

One eyed Jack

realies wrote: »

It seems your the one confused,
Many People reluctant to make a connection between contraception and abortion. They insist that these are two very different acts — that there is all the difference in the world between contraception, which prevents a life from coming to be and abortion, which takes a life that has already begun.

http://www.goodmorals.org/smith4.htm

From your own link -

The connection between contraception and abortion is primarily this: contraception facilitates the kind of relationships and even the kind of attitudes and moral characters that are likely to lead to abortion.

And we don't have to go back too far in history to understand that people were having just as much sex then as they are now, only that then the difference was that if a woman became pregnant outside marriage, she was locked away and abandoned by society.

It's not that people are reluctant to make the same connection the author of that article makes, it's just that they realise that contraception and abortion are two very different concepts.

Grayson

realies wrote: »

Far from being a check to the sexual revolution, contraception is the fuel that facilitated the beginning of the sexual revolution and enables it to continue to rage. In the past, many men and women refrained from illicit sexual unions simply because they were not prepared for the responsibilities of parenthood. But once a fairly reliable contraceptive appeared on the scene, this barrier to sex outside the confines of marriage fell. The connection between sex and love also fell quickly; ever since contraception became widely used, there has been much talk of, acceptance of, and practice of casual sex and recreational sex.abortion. abortion is "necessary" for those whose intimate relationships are based upon contraceptive sex. And as you won't be replying back to the thread you have a nice day wink.

http://www.goodmorals.org/smith4.htm

To be fair, the connection between love and marriage didn't exist for centuries. people married for convenience more than love. And it was very common to be matched.

I think the fact that you referred to sex as illicit illustrates your opinion. You obviously think anyone who has sex with someone who they're not in love with, or married to, is a dirty person who is doing something wrong.

When the first Marie Stopes clinic opened in London there were queues around the block. This was long before abortion was offered. They were women who were mainly married buy wanted control over their reproductive systems. They'd had loads of kids and didn't want any more.

The simple fact is that the catholic church espouses natural family planning. That's still having sex without having kids. Wanting to be able to have sex and not want kids is something most couples want, even married ones. I'd even go so far as to say that most married couples have at some point used some kind of family planning, natural or otherwise, to prevent pregnancy. Either to hold off until they were ready or because they had enough kids.

SeanW

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm not sure why you were given the impression I ever said an unborn child wasn't a human being? In fact if you check back through the thread, I said I wasn't going to engage in reductive semantics.

I was simply reminding all that people view the unborn differently. Some as a pre-human "foetus" some as a young human being. I did not necessarily attribute either to you.

You can quote unquotes it all you like, but there's a difference between abortion for women, and child abandonment 'rights' for either gender. Your stance merely ignores reality and that's why you'll never gain much support for the idea. A 'paper abortion' is nothing like an abortion.

No, there's not a difference. If a woman has an abortion, she is walking away from a pregnancy and absolving both herself and the father of parental responsibility.

If she carries the child and does not place it up for adoption, she confers parental responsibility on both herself and the father. In both cases, the father doesn't have any control.

Don't you mean "Since nobody would seriously support the idea of a man being able to force a woman to have an abortion/continue her pregnancy, they should support the idea that a man be allowed to abandon his child instead"?

Yes. If society determines that a woman should be able to walk away from a pregnancy she does not want, it is reasonable to ask what mechanism there is for a man to do the same.

Yeah, good luck with that.

Thank you

TomJerryPoochy

volchitsa wrote: »

So by that logic you would be for a legal obligation on parents to donate a kidney if necessary for their child then? Up to what age? And would the obligation be greater if the parents had set out to have the child than if it was an accident?

And of course legal abortion and possibly even euthanasia in cases of rape? (It might take some time to prove the rape, so the child could be four or five by then!)

There is a distinct difference, aborting a foetus is taking action to kill it, not giving a baby your kidney is not taking action to save it.

Personally I would feel obliged to donate my organs to my children if they needed them and wouldn't hesitate to do so even if it meant my death.

OldNotWIse

TomJerryPoochy wrote: »

There is a distinct difference, aborting a foetus is taking action to kill it, not giving a baby your kidney is not taking action to save it.

Personally I would feel obliged to donate my organs to my children if they needed them and wouldn't hesitate to do so even if it meant my death.

That's how they get around avoiding prosecuting healthcare workers who withdraw feeding tubes, life support etc. Someone who breaks into a hospital and kills a person by turning off their life support will be charged with murder. A doctor who ceases life support will not be.

http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Re-A-%28conjoined-twins%29.php

Very sad case but interesting read.

One eyed Jack

SeanW wrote: »

No, there's not a difference. If a woman has an abortion, she is walking away from a pregnancy and absolving both herself and the father of parental responsibility.

She is not absolving anyone of parental responsibility, as there is no child. A man is only responsible for a child once a child is actually born.

If she carries the child and does not place it up for adoption, she confers parental responsibility on both herself and the father. In both cases, the father doesn't have any control.

No, the child confers parental responsibility upon the father. In either case it is the existence of the child that determines the responsibility of the man involved.

Yes. If society determines that a woman should be able to walk away from a pregnancy she does not want, it is reasonable to ask what mechanism there is for a man to do the same.

I can't help but get the feeling that you're not actually all that interested in men's welfare or father's rights, because your argument just seems to be based on being spiteful rather than any move towards equality.

The reason I say that is because you don't seem to give any regard to the welfare of the woman, or the unborn child, or the child once the woman gives birth. Your only concern seems to be that because a man cannot force a woman to have an abortion, nor can he force her to give birth, you want him to be given the right to abandon his child?

Your argument is based on a false equivalence. If you want to campaign for a father's right to abandon his child, that's a separate issue from whether a woman should be forced to give birth against her will.

Frito

TomJerryPoochy wrote: »

There is a distinct difference, aborting a foetus is taking action to kill it, not giving a baby your kidney is not taking action to save it.

Personally I would feel obliged to donate my organs to my children if they needed them and wouldn't hesitate to do so even if it meant my death.

I could be wrong but I think a duty of care exists between relations whereby acts of omission are criminal. I'm not suggesting that a failure to donate constitutes this, it would be more a case of failing to summon help for someone injured/infirm/vulnerable.

We can use necessity principles to argue that abortion does not intend the death of the foetus but is an inevitable consequence of exercising the woman's right to autonomy. A counter argument could be the proportional harm to the foetus is greater than the proportional harm to the woman should she remain pregnant.

I suppose this is where we go round in circles. If the proportional harm done to the potential recipient is greater than the proportional harm done to the reluctant donor then why shouldn't a failure to donate be an act of omission?

---

edit

---

/

By donation I am referring to blood or bone marrow, not organs.

SeanW

One eyed Jack wrote: »

She is not absolving anyone of parental responsibility, as there is no child. A man is only responsible for a child once a child is actually born.

She is absolving both parties of responsibility, because she is preventing the child from being born. How is this not obvious?

No, the child confers parental responsibility upon the father. In either case it is the existence of the child that determines the responsibility of the man involved.

The child does not just come into existence. A decision must be made to carry it to term.

I can't help but get the feeling that you're not actually all that interested in men's welfare or father's rights, because your argument just seems to be based on being spiteful rather than any move towards equality.

That is not true.

Your argument is based on a false equivalence. If you want to campaign for a father's right to abandon his child, that's a separate issue from whether a woman should be forced to give birth against her will.

I never said they were the same. I merely said if one (potential) parent should have the right to walk away from an unwanted pregnancy, so should the other.

I am not suggesting that anyone should be FORCED to do anything, in fact quite the opposite. It's only under your view, that there would be no way to let a man out of responsibility for a pregnancy except with a forced abortion. Not mine.