Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Abortion Discussion, Part the Fourth

1…2627293132…101

Comments

  • #842
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,458 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    First thing Obama should have done on his first day of his first term in office, was have the floors outside the Supreme Court polished.
    That might have copped a Ginsburg as easily as a Scalia.


  • #843
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    They know this law is unconstitutional, they want to challenge Roe v Wade.

    Disgraceful way for legislators to behave, and even if Roe v Wade is not struck down and this law is, they'll be happy to have caused suffering to women in the meantime and they'll do it all over again shortly.


    First thing Obama should have done on his first day of his first term in office, was have the floors outside the Supreme Court polished.

    It's always struck me as insane how much the politics of a Supreme Court judge in the U.S. is allowed to influence their 'interpretation' of the laws - and how accepted this is.


  • #844
    Calina
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Calina


    robindch wrote: »
    I am replying to your point:The facts I've quoted above suggest that abortion can be an option for women when an alternative exists.

    TBH, the existence of alternatives is not absolute. Some women cannot take the pill for various reasons, the effects can be massively disruptive on their lives, some men, despite years of safe sex campaigns refuse to wear condoms. I have had a doctor choose not to prescribe the pill even when it was indicated for a medical condition. Most people go through a Catholic ethos schooling and occasionally have guilt problems linked with sin. Access to the MAP was hit or miss courtesy of conscientious objections until Boots broke the taboo of it being prescription only and our friends in the Iona institute went ballistic and wrote a carefully worded piece that suggested girls would get very promiscuous. Family background and a history and presence of shaming women either way are incredibly powerful in messing with women's minds. Even now as a society we shame and despise single mothers. But if she had an abortion well she shouldn't have got pregnant in the first place.

    The alternatives exist. The reasons they are not always accessed are enormously complex. As fot Alabama, it doesn't surprise me and it is a retrograde step. Pure control freakery. Trump is trying to shut down health coverage of contraception too.


  • #845
    Kidchameleon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,482 ✭✭✭Kidchameleon


    lazygal wrote: »
    People with planned pregnancies need abortions too.

    Women should have the choice up until 40 weeks for any reason. They already have the choice up to 12 weeks. I voted to repeal. Womans body, womans choice


  • #846
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    Kidchameleon wrote: »
    Women should have the choice up until 40 weeks for any reason. They already have the choice up to 12 weeks. I voted to repeal. Womans body, womans choice

    I don't believe you, sorry.


  • Advertisement
  • #847
    Kidchameleon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,482 ✭✭✭Kidchameleon


    Igotadose wrote: »
    Here's a related question: should there be any restrictions on women's sterilization? In my view, absolutely not ever no reason for it.

    It's certainly a way to avoid unplanned pregnancy.

    Could you elaborate on that? Im not sure I understand.


  • #848
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Kidchameleon wrote: »
    Women should have the choice up until 40 weeks for any reason. They already have the choice up to 12 weeks. I voted to repeal. Womans body, womans choice

    Do you mean have the choice to end the pregnancy or to terminate the fetus?
    It's not clear which you mean and they are not the same thing but both have the same end result of a woman no longer being pregnant.


  • #849
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,458 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Calina wrote: »
    TBH, the existence of alternatives is not absolute.
    And this is exactly what my point is.

    One poster said that people "never" do something.

    I replied, inter alia, that personal knowledge indicates that some people do this thing.

    Hence, that the original claim appears not to be accurate.


  • #850
    Kidchameleon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,482 ✭✭✭Kidchameleon


    lazygal wrote: »
    I've had tubal ligation. It has a failure rate of 3 per 1000. No contraception is 100% effective.

    Indeed. Using an additional method would lower that 3%.


  • #851
    Kidchameleon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,482 ✭✭✭Kidchameleon


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Do you mean have the choice to end the pregnancy or to terminate the fetus?
    It's not clear which you mean and they are not the same thing but both have the same end result of a woman no longer being pregnant.

    If I understand you correctly, they should have the choice of both


  • Advertisement
  • #852
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    Kidchameleon wrote: »
    If I understand you correctly, they should have the choice of both

    Weren't you only on about the importance of the point of sentience a few posts ago? Why is sentience no longer relevant?


  • #853
    Kidchameleon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,482 ✭✭✭Kidchameleon


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    The most practical way would be if men took equal responsibility for also using contraception. There are trials on-going in the area of hormonal/non-hormonal contraceptive pills for men and it will be interesting to see how many men will be willing to take them.
    Although having said that - I have a granddaughter because two forms of contraception failed. It happens.

    The most responsible way in my opinion is to always use two methods. Of course there will always be outliers.

    I think we will see a male "pill" soon enough.


  • #854
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Kidchameleon wrote: »
    If I understand you correctly, they should have the choice of both

    I disagree actually.

    Once a fetus is sentient (i.e functioning brain) and viable than every effort should be made to secure a successful birth.

    I honestly don't see anyone here - with the exception of yourself - arguing for the termination of a sentient, viable fetus.


  • #855
    volchitsa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,637 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    robindch wrote: »
    I am replying to your point:The facts I've quoted above suggest that abortion can be an option for women when an alternative exists.

    I genuinely don't see how they do suggest that.

    A woman chose not to use contraception because, presumably, at that point she wanted to get pregnant for some reason. Then, once pregnant, for some other reason, she decided not to continue the pregnancy. At that stage, abortion was the only way to do that.


    ETA: are you saying that these women chose not to use contraception with the intention of having a termination if they got pregnant?

    What evidence is there of that? Because (and particularly in Ireland) that could not possibly have been the solution of facility could it? TBF I think those sorts of claims, which are regularly made by prolifers, are not reliable. As I suggested, all sorts of other explanations are at least as likely.

    ”I enjoy cigars, whisky and facing down totalitarians, so am I really Winston Churchill?” (JK Rowling)



  • #856
    volchitsa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,637 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    Kidchameleon wrote: »
    Indeed. Using an additional method would lower that 3%.

    Sterilisation and oral contraception?? Really? Why only for sex though? What about telling drivers and passengers they should systematically wear both seatbelts and crash helmets? Why don't we make that obligatory? It would reduce the death and injury rate for sure. Don't born people's lives matter too?

    ”I enjoy cigars, whisky and facing down totalitarians, so am I really Winston Churchill?” (JK Rowling)



  • #857
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    I disagree actually.

    Once a fetus is sentient (i.e functioning brain) and viable than every effort should be made to secure a successful birth.

    I honestly don't see anyone here - with the exception of yourself - arguing for the termination of a sentient, viable fetus.

    I suspect he will use that very detail as "proof" that he is more pro-choice than the rest of us, even though that isn't remotely what being pro-choice is about.


  • #858
    Calina
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Calina


    robindch wrote: »
    And this is exactly what my point is.

    One poster said that people "never" do something.

    I replied, inter alia, that personal knowledge indicates that some people do this thing.

    Hence, that the original claim appears not to be accurate.

    The point I am making is that many women may be trying not to get pregnant but have issues around using methods other than abortion after pregnancy is established. Your post did not account for the complexity of reasons and implied women were wilfully lazy about avoiding pregnancy. My point is that it is absolutely not that simple and there are issues both social and medical which limit their options.

    But this really only matters if you consider women should be compelled to go through the pregnancies they failed to avoid just because you have an opinion on what you think are their choices but which may not be free choices at all.


  • #859
    Kidchameleon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,482 ✭✭✭Kidchameleon


    SusieBlue wrote: »
    Weren't you only on about the importance of the point of sentience a few posts ago? Why is sentience no longer relevant?

    Of course it is relevant but it does not supersede the woman's choice to do what she wants with her own body. Abortion is an undesirable but necessary decision that we as a civilization need to make sometimes.
    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    I disagree actually.

    Once a fetus is sentient (i.e functioning brain) and viable than every effort should be made to secure a successful birth.

    I honestly don't see anyone here - with the exception of yourself - arguing for the termination of a sentient, viable fetus.

    What about in a case of a rape. Due to trauma, the victim has taken until the 24th week to decide she wants an abortion. Would you deny her it bearing in mind that the fetus could be viable and sentient?
    volchitsa wrote: »
    Sterilisation and oral contraception?? Really? Why only for sex though? What about telling drivers and passengers they should systematically wear both seatbelts and crash helmets? Why don't we make that obligatory? It would reduce the death and injury rate for sure. Don't born people's lives matter too?

    Well I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this post, with all due respect it is a little confusing. But I will say that asking drivers to wear helmets in cars is a bit of a nanny state move and I have never said that using two forms of contraception should be obligatory, it is just the smart thing to do if you are not ready to be a parent.


    As a side note, I and I imagine many others would not be able to drive safely with a helmet on so your scenario would probably lead to more road accidents.

    SusieBlue wrote: »
    I suspect he will use that very detail as "proof" that he is more pro-choice than the rest of us, even though that isn't remotely what being pro-choice is about.

    Susie, could you please define your term when you say "pro-choice", just so we can try to figure out if we are getting our wires crossed.
    Igotadose wrote: »
    Here's a related question: should there be any restrictions on women's sterilization? In my view, absolutely not ever no reason for it.

    It's certainly a way to avoid unplanned pregnancy.

    If I understand you correctly, you are referring to having tubes tied etc? My opinion is that no, there should be no restrictions on it, again it comes down to woman's body, woman's choice for me. To be perfectly honest, I don't know that there is any restrictions but I could be wrong. A male associate of mine got "the snip" recently and the doctor was hesitant because of his young age but it was more a case of "are you sure, like really sure? Yes? OK then - SNIP!"


  • #860
    Kidchameleon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,482 ✭✭✭Kidchameleon


    From:


    https://www2.hse.ie/conditions/abortion/after-an-abortion/pregnancy-remains.html
    5. Pregnancy remains

    If you have an abortion between 9 to 12 weeks, hospital staff should explain the options available for disposal of the pregnancy remains.

    This will be done in a sensitive manner. They will help you make a decision that is right for you.

    If you do not wish to make a decision about your pregnancy remains, the hospital can make a decision for you and dispose of the remains.

    If you have an abortion before 9 weeks of pregnancy, you can decide how to dispose of the remains. They can be flushed down the toilet or wrapped in tissue and disposed of as you wish.

    Whats peoples opinions on this sentence? Is it insensitive language on the part of the HSE? Strange choice of words given that some people can be quite sensitive.


    I know technically speaking at the 9 week stage it is only a clump of cells but to some people I would imagine it is more than that in their eyes.

    *Edit* I forgot to say that it would not bother me personally, it is only words.


  • #861
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    Kidchameleon wrote: »
    From:


    https://www2.hse.ie/conditions/abortion/after-an-abortion/pregnancy-remains.html



    Whats peoples opinions on this sentence? Is it insensitive language on the part of the HSE? Strange choice of words given that some people can be quite sensitive.


    I know technically speaking at the 9 week stage it is only a clump of cells but to some people I would imagine it is more than that in their eyes.

    *Edit* I forgot to say that it would not bother me personally, it is only words.

    At that gestation, be it abortion or natural miscarriage, the result is a very heavy period with large blood clots. For women who miscarry, the contents also go down the toilet.
    There is nothing to bury.
    Its hypocritical to have an issue with this, but not have an issue with the fact that miscarriages end EXACTLY the same way.

    Its not insensitive, its an unfortunate reality for the 1/3 women who experience miscarriage in their lifetimes, never mind those who have abortions.


  • Advertisement
  • #862
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    Kidchameleon wrote: »
    If I understand you correctly, you are referring to having tubes tied etc? My opinion is that no, there should be no restrictions on it, again it comes down to woman's body, woman's choice for me. To be perfectly honest, I don't know that there is any restrictions but I could be wrong. A male associate of mine got "the snip" recently and the doctor was hesitant because of his young age but it was more a case of "are you sure, like really sure? Yes? OK then - SNIP!"

    Tubal ligation is an invasive surgery compared to vasectomy which is a simple snip.

    Traditionally the medical profession in Ireland wont entertain people under 35 saying they never want to have children. Its become a lot easier for men.

    However, because there are alternatives for women with low failure rates, the risk of pregnancy is considered lower than the risk of invasive surgery so they would prefer if you took the pill or got the coil etc.. Its totally understandable, a woman is trying to solve a temporary problem, she WILL reach the end of her fertility at some stage so an invasive surgery is always best avoided if possible.

    There is also the cost involved, its an elective procedure, many people couldnt afford it.

    Just as a personal anecdote when I enquired about tubal ligation I was variously told (at different ages) that I was (a) too young, (b) they would prefer if I got the coil, (c) they would prefer my husband got a vasectomy.

    But overall, if a woman has access to safe legal abortion as a backup to an unwanted pregnancy then we really dont need women to undergo invasive tubal ligations.


  • #863
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Kidchameleon wrote: »


    What about in a case of a rape. Due to trauma, the victim has taken until the 24th week to decide she wants an abortion. Would you deny her it bearing in mind that the fetus could be viable and sentient?

    As a rape victim I can assure you one of the greatest traumas in the aftermath is the possibility of pregnancy and it is highly unlikely any rape victim would wait to get a test done. And even more unlikely that should she be pregnant she would wait 5 1/2 months to terminate it.

    Edit to add: I see you have apparently ruled out the possibility of the fetus being born.

    It is the pregnancy that is aborted/terminated in order to end it. The birth of a child terminates the pregnancy.
    In all your questions you avoid this as a possibility. Why is that?


  • #864
    The Late Late Show
    Closed Accounts Posts: 840 ✭✭✭The Late Late Show


    This carry on in Alabama shows us more of the same hypocrisy practiced by the real world Gilead types in America. They are obsessed with 'pro life' on one hand(maid!!!) and would not mind killing 1000s of innocent people in Iran or Venezuela as part of their unneeded wars on the other. America since this time last year is a sick country with a leader who has to hide behind a comedian rather than show his real face (America's unseen real leader is a he but he prefers to rule through fools who are expendable).


  • #865
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,363 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Charles Ingles wrote: »
    We can do both. Life is precious and a gift from God

    And yet we end life all the time. Without reservation. So it seems life is only precious when it suits you for it to be.

    That said though.... perhaps you should FINALLY get around to presenting the first SHRED of argument, evidence, data or reasoning to suggest your god entity even exists before you shoe horn it into the conversation as if it should be relevant to anything or anyone.
    Charles Ingles wrote: »
    Reading about Alabama and the new stringent abortion law's, maybe this could be the start of the tide turning.

    Doubtful. This happens periodically in the US. Just like attempts to remove evolution or smuggle in creationism in the class room occasionally gets written into, and back out of, local state laws.

    No "tide turning" at all in that. It is just he cyclical nature of local american legal politics. Been happening for years. 12 years ago South Dakota did a similar thing for example.


  • #866
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,363 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Kidchameleon wrote: »
    I find thinking about things we might face in the future to be very interesting.

    As do I. A lot. But there is a time and a place.

    All the science we have suggests the fetus is not sentient at that point. None of the science we have suggests it is, or even might be, or even could be.

    Imagining what data we might have in the future is interesting but hardly relevant to the discussion of abortion here, now, today. And I find myself suspecting your discussion of imaginary futures is less because you find it interesting.... and more because you are painting over (entire) posts, points and discussions that were sent your way to which you have not responded.
    Kidchameleon wrote: »
    Here's one of many video's of Ben talking about abortion, no real mention of faith just science...

    Hardly science. First he takes EMOTIONAL offence to someone pregnant finding themselves discussing reproductive rights. And his issue with her saying it is based on words he then puts in her mouth that she never even remotely said.

    SHE said that being pregnant put reproductive rights in her head.
    HE claims she said "I want to be able to kill this thing" and that her position is that women should be able to kill it "anytime they want".

    That is one of the most blatant and dishonest distortions and strawmen I have seen.... well..... ever. She did not say ANY of what he claimed she did.

    He then goes on to moan about a baby that was killed illegally after the cut off. Hardly representative of abortion is it?

    Have to say I do not know who this man is. Is he always this dishonest and manipulative?
    Kidchameleon wrote: »
    I believe yes is the answer to both of these questions. What is your opinion? I see no difference between a 24 week pregnancy and a 40 week one.

    Not seeing it and not wanting to see it are too VERY different things. You have been given a difference many times already. Here it is again:

    In the former there is NO current reason to think it a sentient agent. In the latter there is.

    That is no small difference. Thankfully I do not think anyone I have met wants abortion to be available to 40 weeks. At least not in terms of termination of the child. Termination of the pregnancy in late pregnancy, thus delivering a healthy live child, is another matter.

    We had ONE poster around here who claimed over and over for years to support abortion up to term. Amazingly the moment the referendum was announced that poster almost instantly switched to the opposite extreme of no abortions should be allowed at all! I suspect he was just doing a "poe" on the pro choice position until the referendum popped up and his mask basically slipped.

    Mere location is not a justification for the killing of a sentient living human being. Either a sentient human has rights or it does not. Its rights are not mediated by location. Thankfully no one needs to kill a child at 40 weeks however. We can deliver the baby and remove it from the woman as she requires. Suggesting she has, or even requires, the right to kill it is not founded on any moral arguments I can discern.
    Kidchameleon wrote: »
    Indeed. Using an additional method would lower that 3%.

    Which sounds great, but actually small %s of large numbers is still a large number. Even if you could get the contraceptive failure rate down to 0.1% that is still 0.1% of a large number. Which itself will be a large number.

    A lot of people in our world are having sex a lot of the the time. 0.1% of that large number is still going to result in a significant quantity of unplanned and unwanted pregnancies.

    Further however, we can not assume that everyone seeking abortion is having an unplanned pregnancy. Quite often the pregnancy they are seeing to end is one that initially they had planned to have. However changes in something like their circumstances means they no longer wish to continue with that plan.


  • #867
    aloyisious
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,836 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    Charles Ingles wrote: »
    Reading about Alabama and the new stringent abortion law's, maybe this could be the start of the tide turning.
    Abortion should only be used in extreme circumstances such as rape or FFA.
    I worry what our abortion rates in Ireland will be in 10 or 20 years.

    Given that you agree with some cases whereby abortion should be legal here [rape and FFA] how do you compare that position with reference to the new Alabama state law "maybe this could be the start of the tide turning" which bans all abortions?

    Is it that your position on abortion is a floating position, OK for some conditions in some countries and not at all for the same in other countries? Is it rather that you feel that the right of the lawmakers to decide on access to abortion, rather than the pregnant women involved [and their medical condition] is the prime for you due to how abortion is in inherent conflict with your religious beliefs? I note your use of the quote on banners at RC churches referring to life being a gift from God. Can you tease out my questions and reply please?


  • #868
    Kidchameleon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,482 ✭✭✭Kidchameleon


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    .. and more because you are painting over (entire) posts, points and discussions that were sent your way to which you have not responded.

    If I have failed to answer any question I'd be happy to if you let me know what I may have missed. Im pretty sure I have answered all questions put to me at this stage though


  • #869
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    Kidchameleon wrote: »
    If I have failed to answer any question I'd be happy to if you let me know what I may have missed. Im pretty sure I have answered all questions put to me at this stage though

    You completely ignored my long response to you where I also asked you some more questions.

    Its cool though - I can see you are cherry picking what you want to respond to while maintaining an disingenuous position.


  • #870
    Kidchameleon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,482 ✭✭✭Kidchameleon


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    As a rape victim I can assure you one of the greatest traumas in the aftermath is the possibility of pregnancy and it is highly unlikely any rape victim would wait to get a test done. And even more unlikely that should she be pregnant she would wait 5 1/2 months to terminate it.

    Edit to add: I see you have apparently ruled out the possibility of the fetus being born.

    It is the pregnancy that is aborted/terminated in order to end it. The birth of a child terminates the pregnancy.
    In all your questions you avoid this as a possibility. Why is that?

    Nowhere in my post did I rule out the possibility of delivery. If the victim wanted to deliver then that would be a great solution imho.

    I was asking specifically about abortion. Ill ask you again, if a rape victim decided to abort at 24 weeks would you deny their request?

    I agree that it is a rare scenario but it is very possible.


  • Advertisement
  • #871
    Kidchameleon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,482 ✭✭✭Kidchameleon


    SusieBlue wrote: »
    Its hypocritical to have an issue with this, but not have an issue with the fact that miscarriages end EXACTLY the same way.

    This may not have been directed at me but I will just point out that in the post you quoted I literally said I had no issue with it


Advertisement