Would Ireland follow Europe's Lead in Aborting the Huge Majority of Down Syndrome Pos

Outlaw Pete · 17-11-2017 04:31AM

LETHAL LADY wrote: »

Ok then Pete! 23 weeks��

But what if a woman wants to have an elective abortion at 24 weeks?

What has that got to do with you? It's none of your "effing business what anyone else does".

You see, what I've just shown there is the typical hypocrisy of the prochoice.

We see these kind of comments being made all the time: It's nobody else's business. If you don't want an abortion don't have one. Etc etc.

But when it comes down to it, they are all just hollow mantras as they themselves will have a gestational age at which they would not want elective abortions legal at.

As I said on a previous thread:

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Imo discussions like these only ever get places when people are willing to honestly answer questions. The truth is that every single person that ever walked Planet Earth who has an opinion on when an abortion should be legal and when it should be illegal, has formed their view based on fetal development (excluding risk to life, fta etc). Everything else is background noise and indulged usually in an effort to impress other people.

So what everyone should do (if they genuinely want a discussion on abortion) is declare what stage of fetal development it is that they are okay with a healthy woman choosing to abort a healthy fetus at. Then, and only then, can any meaningful discussion take place.

GritBiscuit · 17-11-2017 08:19AM

For most pro-choice people the line is sentience and viability. When you are choosing between competing rights, the rights of the sentient, viable person trump those of the non. Once a fetus has sentience and viability, they gain a firmer footing in person-hood.

It's no more hypocritical than being happy to ship the problem off the nearest jurisdiction and providing advice, support and medical care around that...or having the MAP and a range of contraception which prevent implantation freely available while smugly claiming you have no abortion because it's all about the life of the unborn.

Everything about the abortion debate is based on arbitrary lines - from either side - or the choices would be zero MAP and contraception affecting implantation, travel and info illegal, no abortion under any circumstances on one side and freely available abortion up to 39.5 weeks on the other.

swampgas · 17-11-2017 09:06AM

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

But what if a woman wants to have an elective abortion at 24 weeks?

Why don't you ask some women about it, instead of assuming that they will be lining up to have late-term abortions for what you are assuming are unworthy reasons.

In my experience late term abortions have all been linked to medical issues.

I suspect you think some women will get bored of being pregnant after 6 months and decide that they really wanted that new pair of shoes instead.

One eyed Jack · 17-11-2017 09:29AM

GritBiscuit wrote: »

For most pro-choice people the line is sentience and viability. When you are choosing between competing rights, the rights of the sentient, viable person trump those of the non. Once a fetus has sentience and viability, they gain a firmer footing in person-hood.

I don't mean to be confrontational or anything else, but why is what most other people think relevant to the pro-choice position of the pregnant woman making choices for herself as an individual, suited to herself, regardless of the opinions of anyone else? Also, specifically in a thread relating to DS, clearly the line isn't just sentience and viability if most of those people who are pro-choice are suggesting that a woman should have the choice to have an abortion under those circumstances. I'm hearing that most abortions take place in the first trimester, that that's what most pro-choice people advocate for, but then they'll make allowances for a condition that is not a FFA, so the line for them really appears to be what they'd be comfortable with, for themselves. How what they would be comfortable with for themselves relates to anyone else, is the part that always frustrates me, because how is that anything other than pro-their-choice, if that makes sense?

Also, it's more accurate to point out that that may well be how you decide legal rights should be determined, but it's not how they actually are determined in reality. Otherwise we simply wouldn't have the 8th amendment and the POLDPA which makes reference to the right to life of the unborn. No "rights" plural, just one, the right to life, and not the right to life of the foetus, but the right to life of the unborn, from implantation to it's emergence from the body of the woman, in relation to the protection of human life and to protect that right to life of the unborn and respect it as equal to the right to life of the pregnant woman, as far as is practical. What that means is that in cases where it isn't practical to view their competing right to life as equal, the right to life of the pregnant woman takes precedence over the right to life of the unborn.

It's no more hypocritical than being happy to ship the problem off the nearest jurisdiction and providing advice, support and medical care around that...or having the MAP and a range of contraception which prevent implantation freely available while smugly claiming you have no abortion because it's all about the life of the unborn.

It's really not any more hypocritical than the other position you present at all. Me personally I couldn't care less about whether or not I'm seen as a hypocrite for supporting a woman's right to choose at any stage of her pregnancy even though I consider myself Roman Catholic. The apparent hypocrisy of my own position as pointed out to me by others is the last thing I give a fcuk about tbh. It's not about me, it's about the woman who is pregnant, and providing whatever support a woman in that situation needs, not about me and my conscience and whatever I personally are comfortable or uncomfortable with. I personally would have no issue with raising a child with any number of cognitive, developmental or physical conditions because I have plenty of experience with both children and adults with any number of conditions, but I wouldn't expect that anyone else should have to make the same choices I would, based upon my experience. If they don't want to, they shouldn't have to, because that leads to a shìtty situation for everyone all round.

Everything about the abortion debate is based on arbitrary lines - from either side - or the choices would be zero MAP and contraception affecting implantation, travel and info illegal, no abortion under any circumstances on one side and freely available abortion up to 39.5 weeks on the other.

Aren't those too arbitrary lines, or am I missing something?

gctest50 · 17-11-2017 09:33AM

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

As I said on a previous thread:

So what everyone should do (if they genuinely want a discussion on abortion) is declare what stage of fetal development it is that they are okay with a healthy woman choosing to abort a healthy fetus at. Then, and only then, can any meaningful discussion take place.

All you are doing with that post is trying to restrict conversation

How about: No criminal law restricting abortion at all

( like Canada before anyone goes off on one )

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

But what if a woman wants to have an elective abortion at 24 weeks?

It should be between a woman and her doctor

Do you not trust women ?

Do you not trust doctors ?

....... · 17-11-2017 09:40AM

This post has been deleted.

volchitsa · 17-11-2017 09:43AM

:rolleyes:

GritBiscuit wrote: »

Everything about the abortion debate is based on arbitrary lines - from either side - or the choices would be zero MAP and contraception affecting implantation, travel and info illegal, no abortion under any circumstances on one side and freely available abortion up to 39.5 weeks on the other.

Which is exactly the opinion that pro lifers are determined to attribute to the pro choice side. Straw man fashion.

They can't make a real case against limited abortion without using what are basically religion-based arguments, so telling pro choice people what their views should be, rather than what they are, is their current strategy.

Even though all European countries, IMUIC, have had limited abortion with little conflict over that, certainly no mad feminists screaming to be able to "kill their babies" an hour before birth. But that makes such a good argument for pro lifers to argue against, they can't resist inventing it for themselves.

mahamageehad · 17-11-2017 10:10AM

Howard Breezy Minibus wrote: »

Cryptically enough, IME stands for "in my experience", not "I know what all pro life people think or believe".

Also, that Abby one that the Love Both campaign just flew over from the US is against ALL contraception except the rhythm method. At least one of the Unbroken campaign women that they flew over also was against MAP, calling it a form of abortion. So.... if people think that pro-lifers don't want to tackle the causes of unwanted pregnancies such as sex education & easily accessible contraception, maybe pro-lifers should start using their campaigns to promote those rather than actively seeking speakers with those views? These two things have been shown to have much more of an impact on the abortion rate in a country than making it illegal.

One eyed Jack · 17-11-2017 10:12AM

volchitsa wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Which is exactly the opinion that pro lifers are determined to attribute to the pro choice side. Straw man fashion.

volchista I couldn't give a tinkers fcuk about either pro-choice or pro-life posturing. I'm neither, but I think you'll find that nobody has to attribute that position to anyone who doesn't hold it already, and it's fast becoming a more popular position as the most logically consistent position, as far from a strawman as it gets. People who claim to be pro-choice, that it is up to the pregnant woman herself, but only up until such a time as they personally are comfortable with, are strawmanning themselves, because they're shifting the goal posts even though the circumstances are still the same, up to the generally defined human gestation period of 40 weeks. 12 weeks in those circumstances is fcukall.

It's the same sort of shyte is levelled at people who are pro-life, that they don't care about babies once they're born. I don't know where that comes from as it's patently untrue - everyone is generally pro-life, they tend to want to have children and they want to be in a position to be able to take care of their children. Sometimes, due to circumstances beyond their control, they find themselves in a position where they recognise that they aren't in a position to offer a child the chance to have the life they would want for them, and that doesn't leave them with much of a choice, often far more likely due to socioeconomic factors than any medical reasons.

Why should anyone be made to feel embarrassed about that or feel ashamed of circumstances beyond their control is something I've always wondered. I've never gotten an answer that doesn't involve the judgement of other people of those women.

They can't make a real case against limited abortion without using what are basically religion-based arguments, so telling pro choice people what their views should be, rather than what they are, is their current strategy.

Ohh... bollocks! There's no other way to describe that. Arguments can easily be made against abortion from any number of perspectives, the least of all being religious arguments because a multitude of religions present a number of different perspectives on abortion, and you'd struggle to make a religious argument to someone who didn't share the same perspective just the same as you would struggle to make any kind of an argument from a humanitarian perspective with anyone who didn't share your humanitarian perspective, and you'd still struggle to make an argument from a feminist perspective because of the dichotomy of feminist perspectives regarding abortion.

MrPudding · 17-11-2017 10:20AM

end of the road wrote: »

direct rule is unlikely to bring abortion. if the DUP pulls the plug, the conservatives will be out of power in the uk. the conservatives need to keep the DUP on side, hence they are unlikely to push the issue.

I quite agree, it is unlikely that anything will change if direct rule is imposed, but at the same time, May is so vulnerable and weak, one never knows.

And let's not forget, the deal with the DUP is not actually a done deal. The extra money has not happened yet, and the Tories admitted it would take an act of Parliament to approve it. Nothing that May needs to do is easy, simple or without the risk of defeat. Free abortions for women from NI came out od the blue, if you remember. She had to give in to that, very quickly indeed, to avoid a defeat in parliament. There are enough Tory MPs rightlfully disgusted that women's rights are being impinged in NI, not to mention that its government is ignoring the rule of law. Like I said, unlikely, but I would not be so quick to dismiss it as a possibility.

Winston Orange Pennant wrote: »

But let's call a baby a fetus so we can dehumanise it and kill it before we actually see it.Its a lot neater.

This is getting really boring. It is called a foetus because that's what it fcuking is. By all means, call it a baby if you want, but 1) you would be wrong, because it is not a baby, and 2) don't give people sh1t for using the correct word. It makes you look, at best, ignorant, and at worst, a person that is both ignorant and trying to score cheap emotional points.

MrP

MrPudding · 17-11-2017 10:22AM

mahamageehad wrote: »

Also, that Abby one that the Love Both campaign just flew over from the US is against ALL contraception except the rhythm method. At least one of the Unbroken campaign women that they flew over also was against MAP, calling it a form of abortion. So.... if people think that pro-lifers don't want to tackle the causes of unwanted pregnancies such as sex education & easily accessible contraception, maybe pro-lifers should start using their campaigns to promote those rather than actively seeking speakers with those views? These two things have been shown to have much more of an impact on the abortion rate in a country than making it illegal.

Yes, typically the people against abortion are against not just contraception, but also sex education. Basically they are against the two things that have a chance of reducing the abortion rate.

MrP

17-11-2017 10:24AM

Ohio are about to ban it.

http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2017/11/16/ohio-senate-passes-bill-banning-abortions-for-down-syndrome/

The Ohio Senate has passed legislation that would make it a crime for a doctor to perform an abortion if the fetus might have Down syndrome.

The Dispatch reports the Senate on Wednesday passed the legislation by a 20-12 vote. It makes performing such abortions a fourth-degree felony and requires the state medical board to revoke a physician’s license if convicted.

One eyed Jack · 17-11-2017 10:35AM

MrPudding wrote: »

Yes, typically the people against abortion are against not just contraception, but also sex education. Basically they are against the two things that have a chance of reducing the abortion rate.

MrP

Those are the two things that are commonly identified as reducing the rate of unwanted pregnancy, but it's a stretch to relate them to a reduction in the numbers of pregnant women who choose to avail of an abortion. In fact the reality is that the more information is given to women regarding contraception and abortion, the more likely they are to be in a position to make choices they are at least aware of.

By far the most relevant factors to reducing the numbers of unwanted pregnancy and abortion is actually education in general because it gives women the ability to lift themselves out of circumstances where due to socioeconomic factors, whether or not abortion is legally available to them, they will put themselves at risk to avoid remaining pregnant, let alone giving birth. It's not just a lack of sex ed or contraception has any effect on the rate of abortion in developed societies, it's the level of access to education, and you hardly need me to tell you whom that education has historically been provided by.

MrPudding · 17-11-2017 11:14AM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Those are the two things that are commonly identified as reducing the rate of unwanted pregnancy, but it's a stretch to relate them to a reduction in the numbers of pregnant women who choose to avail of an abortion. In fact the reality is that the more information is given to women regarding contraception and abortion, the more likely they are to be in a position to make choices they are at least aware of.

By far the most relevant factors to reducing the numbers of unwanted pregnancy and abortion is actually education in general because it gives women the ability to lift themselves out of circumstances where due to socioeconomic factors, whether or not abortion is legally available to them, they will put themselves at risk to avoid remaining pregnant, let alone giving birth. It's not just a lack of sex ed or contraception has any effect on the rate of abortion in developed societies, it's the level of access to education, and you hardly need me to tell you whom that education has historically been provided by.

Hold on. You are saying it is a stretch to suggest that fewer unwanted pregnancies also means fewer abortions? Um, ok.

MrP

One eyed Jack · 17-11-2017 11:27AM

MrPudding wrote: »

Hold on. You are saying it is a stretch to suggest that fewer unwanted pregnancies also means fewer abortions? Um, ok.

MrP

No, I was pointing out that you appeared to have missed the nuance in the middle where better education while it leads to less unwanted pregnancies, that doesn't mean it leads to less abortions. I'm suggesting that the factors which some people commonly identify as leading to a reduction in the number of women choosing to avail of abortion, don't necessarily correlate with what they consider to be better sex education, let alone the availability of contraception.

I'm suggesting that there are factors which affect the rate of abortion in any given society far more than just sex ed which the people advocating for the type of sex ed they would want to see promoted, or the availability of contraceptives.

optogirl · 17-11-2017 11:28AM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, I was pointing out that you appeared to have missed the nuance in the middle where better education while it leads to less unwanted pregnancies, that doesn't mean it leads to less abortions. I'm suggesting that the factors which some people commonly identify as leading to a reduction in the number of women choosing to avail of abortion, don't necessarily correlate with what they consider to be better sex education, let alone the availability of contraception.

I'm suggesting that there are factors which affect the rate of abortion in any given society far more than just sex ed which the people advocating for the type of sex ed they would want to see promoted, or the availability of contraceptives.

How could less unwanted pregnancies NOT reduce the number of abortions?

....... · 17-11-2017 11:32AM

This post has been deleted.

One eyed Jack · 17-11-2017 11:34AM

optogirl wrote: »

How could less unwanted pregnancies NOT reduce the number of abortions?

Because one isn't related to the other. You're taking a rather simplistic view if you think that women experiencing an unwanted pregnancy would immediately opt for an abortion even given the choice to make of their own free will without any constraints. Often in my experience at least, the cause of their emotional and mental turmoil in those circumstances is that they don't want to remain pregnant, but they don't want to have an abortion either.

optogirl · 17-11-2017 11:36AM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Because one isn't related to the other. You're taking a rather simplistic view if you think that women experiencing an unwanted pregnancy would immediately opt for an abortion even given the choice to make of their own free will without any constraints. Often in my experience at least, the cause of their emotional and mental turmoil in those circumstances is that they don't want to remain pregnant, but they don't want to have an abortion either.

but surely a large percentage of abortions are due to the pregnancy being unwanted? Of course not all unwanted pregnancies end in abortion but some do. I'm struggling to see your point here.

captbarnacles · 17-11-2017 11:36AM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Those are the two things that are commonly identified as reducing the rate of unwanted pregnancy, but it's a stretch to relate them to a reduction in the numbers of pregnant women who choose to avail of an abortion. In fact the reality is that the more information is given to women regarding contraception and abortion, the more likely they are to be in a position to make choices they are at least aware of.

By far the most relevant factors to reducing the numbers of unwanted pregnancy and abortion is actually education in general because it gives women the ability to lift themselves out of circumstances where due to socioeconomic factors, whether or not abortion is legally available to them, they will put themselves at risk to avoid remaining pregnant, let alone giving birth. It's not just a lack of sex ed or contraception has any effect on the rate of abortion in developed societies, it's the level of access to education, and you hardly need me to tell you whom that education has historically been provided by.

This makes no sense at all.

Access to emergency contraception will reduce the number of Irish women travelling to England for an abortion and that is not even debatable.

One eyed Jack · 17-11-2017 11:41AM

optogirl wrote: »

but surely a large percentage of abortions are due to the pregnancy being unwanted? Of course not all unwanted pregnancies end in abortion but some do. I'm struggling to see your point here.

Not necessarily, is my point. Often the pregnancies are wanted, but due to external factors, they feel they are left in a position where an abortion may either be their only option, or it may be forced upon them by external parties or circumstances beyond their control.

One eyed Jack · 17-11-2017 11:44AM

captbarnacles wrote: »

This makes no sense at all.

Access to emergency contraception will reduce the number of Irish women travelling to England for an abortion and that is not even debatable.

It most certainly is debatable. We've had access to emergency contraception in this country now for decades, and in case you missed that which has been pointed out numerous times already - it isn't infallible for one thing, and secondly, availability doesn't provide any certainty that it will be an option.

gctest50 · 17-11-2017 11:47AM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm suggesting that there are factors which affect the rate of abortion in any given society far more than just sex ed .......

Yip, the criminalisation of abortion is not associated with fewer abortions.

Overall abortion rates in Canada have been in a steady decline since the mid-1990s, from

16 per 1000 in 1996 to
11.6 per1000 in 2014

despite relative stability in birth rate

.

captbarnacles · 17-11-2017 11:51AM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It most certainly is debatable. We've had access to emergency contraception in this country now for decades, and in case you missed that which has been pointed out numerous times already - it isn't infallible for one thing, and secondly, availability doesn't provide any certainty that it will be an option.

No, I know from personal experience people who were refused the MAP and later had to travel to England as a result.

btw you don't just stop by and are given the MAP when you ask - it should work like that but it doesn't.

mahamageehad · 17-11-2017 11:54AM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Not necessarily, is my point. Often the pregnancies are wanted, but due to external factors, they feel they are left in a position where an abortion may either be their only option, or it may be forced upon them by external parties or circumstances beyond their control.

There are certainly cases where the pregnancy is wanted, but the woman can't continue with it due to her circumstances. But there is absolutely no evidence that this is the majority, the opposite in fact is true. Also "forced upon them" seems a little heavy handed there, absolutely no-one is advocating for forced abortions.

The vast, vast majority of abortions are performed on women with unwanted pregnancies. Their reasons for abortion are varied, some in their control and some not, but they have chosen to end their pregnancy. The small remainder would be women carrying wanted pregnancies that they feel they can't continue with. Reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies will of course reduce the number of abortions. There will always be a small number of abortions as there have been since the dawn of time.

Your point about MAP is correct, it has been available for a while, it is even easier to access now. (Side note - I believe it's rather expensive and involves pleading your case to a pharmacist so I can see why some wouldn't do that.) My point was about easy access to contraception in general rather than the MAP. Ireland, particularly rural Ireland, leaves a lot to be desired in that area.

One eyed Jack · 17-11-2017 12:03PM

captbarnacles wrote: »

No, I know from personal experience people who were refused the MAP and later had to travel to England as a result.

btw you don't just stop by and are given the MAP when you ask - it should work like that but it doesn't.

I have no doubt your personal experience isn't at all uncommon, not least because of the fact that it tallies with my own personal experience, but the experiences of many women at least whom I have talked to about these kinds of issues.

Given those experiences then, would it not cause you to question whether or not cultural and individuals personal morals are far more immediate influential factors than national policy decisions regarding any relationships and sexuality education curriculum which parents maintain the right to opt their children out of, in this country at least?

I wouldn't agree with the idea of any type of MAP specifically being handed out without at least a cursory consultation with the pharmacist. Experiences may vary significantly and women should be aware of any potential effects. Some women I know have said they were put off them for life after their experiences.

One eyed Jack · 17-11-2017 12:27PM

mahamageehad wrote: »

There are certainly cases where the pregnancy is wanted, but the woman can't continue with it due to her circumstances. But there is absolutely no evidence that this is the majority, the opposite in fact is true. Also "forced upon them" seems a little heavy handed there, absolutely no-one is advocating for forced abortions.

On the contrary, there is reams of evidence from international organisations to suggest that this is in fact the most commonly given reason by women for their decision to avail of an abortion, and that's why I used the term forced upon them, entirely appropriate, given that these women themselves have said that it is due mainly to socioeconomic factors - they don't want to have an abortion, but their circumstances leave them no choice.

The vast, vast majority of abortions are performed on women with unwanted pregnancies. Their reasons for abortion are varied, some in their control and some not, but they have chosen to end their pregnancy. The small remainder would be women carrying wanted pregnancies that they feel they can't continue with. Reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies will of course reduce the number of abortions. There will always be a small number of abortions as there have been since the dawn of time.

Reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies only reduces the number of unwanted pregnancies. It doesn't mean that reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies reduces the number of abortions. As I said - the two simply aren't related.

Your point about MAP is correct, it has been available for a while, it is even easier to access now. (Side note - I believe it's rather expensive and involves pleading your case to a pharmacist so I can see why some wouldn't do that.) My point was about easy access to contraception in general rather than the MAP. Ireland, particularly rural Ireland, leaves a lot to be desired in that area.

I understood your point was about the availability of contraception generally, but again as I said - availability isn't the issue, neither in rural nor urban Ireland. Many women choose not to avail of artificial contraception for a whole multitude of their own personal reasons, as do just as many men. What actually leaves a lot to be desired is peoples attitudes to their own personal and sexual health, and broadening our abortion laws will simply make not one iota of a difference to that phenomenon without the ground work being done to influence peoples attitudes towards their own personal and sexual health.

You can educate people as much as you like about the multitude of contraceptive options available to them, blast them with sex education, whatever, and still at the end of the day you won't have addressed the reality of the nuances of more influential factors such as their socioeconomic, cultural and ethnic background factors. What's needed is not better sex education, but rather to drop all the posturing and look at the real lives and experiences of people rather than expect that they will come round overnight just because new legislation is passed at the stroke of a pen.

....... · 17-11-2017 12:58PM

This post has been deleted.

....... · 17-11-2017 12:59PM

This post has been deleted.

One eyed Jack · 17-11-2017 01:16PM

....... wrote: »

How so - the logic just doesnt add up here.

The logic doesn't add up when your starting point is that women make these choices in a vacuum, or that their decisions aren't influenced by external factors, yet here we are in a thread discussing the idea of women being influenced to terminate their pregnancy in the event of it being discovered that their child will be born with a condition such as downs syndrome... and you don't think even that conversation itself would have any effect or influence on whether a woman would choose whether or not to continue her pregnancy or not?

Of course it does. While we have all sorts of human rights charters which recognise the legal rights of people with disabilities, any human rights charter is always aspirational, and only works at a societal level (hell it barely even works at a societal level when member states are granted exemptions!), but the point is - none of these aspirations work at an individual level, to account for individuals circumstances, where often I've experienced women who feel that the influence of their partner, or their family, or their peers, forces them into a position they'd rather not be in.

Would Ireland follow Europe's Lead in Aborting the Huge Majority of Down Syndrome Pos

Comments