smacl wrote: » Your original post referred to 'the most recent cqc report (dec 2016) on marie stopes' and the report I linked was what google came up with, i.e. a Dec 2016 report on a Marie Stopes clinic. Perhaps in future if you have a specific report in mind you should provide a link. You made three other replies based on the report I linked prior to deciding it wasn't in fact the report that you were referring to. So which of these reports refers to 'holding down vulnerable women' because I'm still not seeing it.
volchitsa wrote: » I don't think the fetus has any rights over the woman's body, like I don't think you can be held down and and had your blood taken, not even to save someone's life. It'd be nice if you would do that, but the truth is that lots of people die for lack of kidney or bone marrow donors, but we don't force people to donate all the same.
fran17 wrote: » This analogy gets used quite a lot in the case for abortion.For anyone particularly interested,it can be traced back to the author Judith Jarvis Thompson and a 1971 paper entitled "A defence for abortion".I believe she also used the line "It would be nice if you would do that" volchitsa. I don't see that as a correct analogy for abortion as,apart for rape,there is the consent issue.Any lady who engages in sexual intercourse consensually is aware that it may result in a pregnancy as this is the natural result of sex.So to say that the unborn child which you now carry is something you can decide to no longer be responsible for is false.Secondly,one's refusal to donate blood or an organ to prevent a death is not the cause of another's death as they are already dying from some other illness/condition.Abortion stands alone here as you are intentionally killing a healthy human being who's life you hold full responsibility for.
jameorahiely wrote: » Lung cancer isn't a good anology as some people who never smoked can get lung cancer. Consenting to jump off a cliff isn't consenting to getting both your legs broken, but there's a good chance that may just be the result.
volchitsa wrote: » And if it does happen, nobody will tell you to get over it, that you just should not have jumped. The rescue service will come out at huge expense to the taxpayer, and the emergency service will give you as good treatment as someone who was injured saving somebody's life. So the point is the same. Being responsible for what happens you doesn't mean you get worse treatment - except when you're pregnant.
volchitsa wrote: » I don't think the fetus has any rights over the woman's body, like I don't think you can be held down and and had your blood taken, not even to save someone's life.
volchitsa wrote: » The consent issue is a false one - consent to have sex is no more consent to get pregnant than smoking is consent to get lung cancer.
jameorahiely wrote: » I'd say a lot of people would say you shouldn't have jumped, should have worn a parachute etc and have very little sympathy, wasting emergency services time. I've seen threads on boards where people have had little sympathy of those type of activities. I have a good idea that if I ended up in hospital after undertaking such an activity most people I know would say "it's your own fault" others may be too polite to say it to your face, but they 'd be thinking it.
Worse treatment than what? Than pregnant women? No Than non pregnant women? Well you wouldn't have the same condition so treatment ...?
jameorahiely wrote: » Then why did you prentend in the other thread my mention was the first you'd heard if it? If you can't grasp the difference between one case and systematic failures, so be it.
stefanovich wrote: » What about the rights of the human inside them whose life is being ended before it even begun?
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » I don't know what the point to any of your posts in this thread are. If all the i's were dotted and all the t's crossed, as they should be, would you be OK with these abortions proceeding? If not, what is the point? You're opposed to abortion anyway. That's obvious. Nit-picking over the details is pointless. A certain proportion of pregnant women will choose abortion irrespective of these details. Plenty are prepared to break the law here (And in NI) by ordering abortion pills. Nobody is asking them about consent or holding their hand, but that's the position our archaic laws have forced them into if they can't travel to Britain.
jameorahiely wrote: » Your post suggests you don't think consent is a thing that should be considered, WOW.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » Deliberate misrepresentation, but expected. Women are making their own choices, that is the point. Whether those choices are legal under our current archaic laws, or not. You haven't answered the question. What is the point of your nit-picking as you're totally opposed to any abortions anyway.
Nobody is asking them about consent
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » Women are making their own choices and ordering abortion pills off the internet. You can't stop this, the authorities can't stop this. Nobody is asking them about consent because they are taking charge of their own fertility and making their own decisions. More power to them I say. Less paternalistic interference 'we know best' in the lives of women. All this moralising about consent is a fake position on your part. You are opposed to any abortions taking place anyway so your grandstanding on issues affecting a tiny number of abortions is a nonsensical irrelevance.
volchitsa wrote: » The consent issue is a false one - consent to have sex is no more consent to get pregnant than smoking is consent to get lung cancer. I'm not sure the other points are enough to invalidate the right not to be pregnant - the right to refuse to donate is not dependent on there being someone else available, so people do actually die for want of a donor and yet that isn't even enough to warrant systematic removal of organs from the dead, who certainly don't need them! So our right not to have our bodies used by others against our will is pretty strong - except, as pointed out above, for pregnant women.
fran17 wrote: » For a lady to engage in consensual sexual intercourse and then deny her responsibility for the pregnancy on the grounds of not giving her consent to getting pregnant is farcical,surely deep down you must know this.I refuse to accept that you see this as a valid argument. A lot of abortion advocates argue on the grounds of the unborn child not being a human being.Is the bolded text you acknowledging he/she is a human being?
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » Women are making their own choices and ordering abortion pills off the internet. You can't stop this, the authorities can't stop this.
Cabaal wrote: » Can't? They simply are not interested in doing so.Equally they aren't interested in stopping women who openly have the pills in their hands as they get off the train from Belfast. Why aren't they bothered? Because it's a can of worms they simply don't want to open. If the government try prosecute any woman it will cause outrage and they will be forced into dealing with removing the 8th. They don't want this, no TD wants to touch this as they fear it "might" result in the loss of their seat. The current law that allows for upto 14 years in jail might as well say upto 1billion years in jail for all the likelihood it has of ever being imposed in the republic. Meanwhile all is ok as we export around 12 women a day for medical services to the UK, if the tables were turned you can bet the UK would sort its **** out and provide services.
jameorahiely wrote: » Are abortion pills available in Belfast then?
stefanovich wrote: » Condoms, morning after pill. These things are available you know.
aloyisious wrote: » Ummm, loaded question. Probably not under that title. If this BBC report is the current legal state of play, they are not.... With regard to the titles used to describe pills which end the possibility of being pregnant. Morning-after pills are available in the UK and here in the south, according to the 2nd link below. the link has a lot of debate replies attached. I can't get a google-answer on the N.I. legal status of the sale there of M/A pill. Edit: Sorry, the 1st (BBC) link I posted here seems to be gone off the net, replaced with ref to killer ladybirds in Northern Ireland. The one below is still reliable.https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj6j4XBmdLSAhVMDcAKHR5hDjsQFggfMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thejournal.ie%2Fmorning-after-pill-2-2077829-May2015%2F&usg=AFQjCNGQuFDltUu6hT3Mp5PJvqunInB-7A
jameorahiely wrote: » The bbc case, she is being prosectued because she bought them online to supply her 15 year old daughter with them without seeing a doctor.
aloyisious wrote: » Sorry, the BBC report was about the morning-after pills availability, not the specific criminal case you mentioned above.
jameorahiely wrote: » It linked to this for me when I pressed it http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-37789341 Anyhow women arriving back with handfuls of them on a train says a lot about their availability.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: but you still don't believe that a foetus is the same as a born human.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: Women are making their own choices and ordering abortion pills off the internet. You can't stop this, the authorities can't stop this.
