1216 packs of abortion pills seized in 2009

Millicent wrote: »

Legally, in Ireland at least, it's statutory rape if the girl is 14 so the point is moot.

crayolastereo wrote: »

She is 14. You're the one who brought up the age thing and not being able to make decisions by herself (without parents knowing) you can't back out of it now. 14 year olds make mistakes.

In any case, I am not beholden to my body's ability to carry children. Its mine and I'll decide what happens with it.

I know that is illegal but are we to believe that 14 year old girls who consent to sex with lets say a 15 year old boy is because she has no control over her body, it is the controlling one's body bit I was referring to, not the illegal bit.

bronte wrote: »

No it is not.
Actually if we really want to go into it...lets.

I was concieved in 1984 to a 16 year old schoolgirl who I'm guessing had no access to condoms considering how available they were at the time. Especially to unmarried people. I was adopted via a religious adoption society who imposed a condition on my adoption that I be raised in the faith involved.
This faith opposes the use of any contraceptive and abortion.

You can start to get an idea why I passionately believe that women should have the right to emergency contraception/abortion in my home country.
The anguish that my birth mother must have faced is disturbing and all because of the situation as it stands in Ireland.

It needs to change.

I don't want to go into personal details, but you say it needs to change, I think it is great we have you on this forum and your birth mother allowed you to live, I think if it was nowadays you wouldn't have been given up for adoption.
I could be wrong, just to say that any of us that are alive should be happy we can voice our opinions - either way on the subject.

Chuchoter

Millicent wrote: »

Actually, I'm curious about this viewpoint -- not trolling here, I promise. If you're an atheist, you don't believe in a soul, do you? A foetus prior to birth is cells, especially in the formation stage. Why are you more in favour of the life of cells over the rights of the woman?

Again, not trolling. Just interested in your viewpoint.

Actually I am an atheist too. I don't know what I would do if I found myself pregnant with no means to raise a child. I honestly don't know, but I believe it should be my right to choose at that time.

Originally posted by Min
I know that is illegal but are we to believe that 14 year old girls who consent to sex with lets say a 15 year old boy is because she has no control over her body, it is the controlling one's body bit I was referring to, not the illegal bit.

Going from Father Dano's point, she is either able to make her own decisions or she is not. He can't have it both ways.

From my own perspective, if she is having sex at 14 she is very immature and has her own problems, but it is her body to do with it what she will.

bronte

Min wrote: »

I don't want to go into personal details, but you say it needs to change, I think it is great we have you on this forum and your birth mother allowed you to live, I think if it was nowadays you wouldn't have been given up for adoption.
I could be wrong, just to say that any of us that are alive should be happy we can voice our opinions - either way on the subject.

The whole aren't you glad you're alive angle doesn't work for me, I'm afraid.

My birth mother didn't "allow" me to live...the woman had no choice.
Her family were Catholic...couldn't afford another mouth to feed and didn't "believe" in abortion. Hence the utter hell my birth mother endured.
I wouldn't have known any different had she had a termination.
My sympathy is with her.

Min wrote: »

I know that is illegal but are we to believe that 14 year old girls who consent to sex with lets say a 15 year old boy is because she has no control over her body, it is the controlling one's body bit I was referring to, not the illegal bit.

Would you be happy if every big decision you made when you were 14 was held over you for life? The brain's not fully cooked when you're a teenager. Just because a girl makes a mistake, does she and the child she will probably resent have to be punished for it for life?

bronte wrote: »

The whole aren't you glad you're alive angle doesn't work for me, I'm afraid.

My birth mother didn't "allow" me to live...the woman had no choice.
Her family were Catholic...couldn't afford another mouth to feed and didn't "believe" in abortion. Hence the utter hell my birth mother endured.
I wouldn't have known any different had she had a termination.
My sympathy is with her.

I hope you don't feel bitter to be alive.

Min wrote: »

I hope you don't feel bitter to be alive.

Ah, come off it. Don't go twisting the girl's words. Just because she has the audacity to challenge a central tenant of your argument does not mean you can make a barb like this. I'm sure Bronte's very happy to be alive. The point you missed was that she wouldn't have known the difference if she wasn't.

philologos

Millicent wrote: »

Actually, I'm curious about this viewpoint -- not trolling here, I promise. If you're an atheist, you don't believe in a soul, do you? A foetus prior to birth is cells, especially in the formation stage. Why are you more in favour of the life of cells over the rights of the woman?

Again, not trolling. Just interested in your viewpoint.

The soul doesn't really come into it very much for me. Rather all I would have to do is empathise, realise that I would want others to live just as I have had the opportunity to. I can see that it is crucially unfair that I have had this chance to be here, yet millions of other people are denied this chance every year. Not by abortions alone admittedly, but it is a huge factor in why I am pro-life.

Indeed, the same would result in my belief that we should be aiming to improve living conditions for millions, improving education for millions, precisely because I don't believe its fair that I can be in this place, and so many others can't.

I personally don't see why it should be a choice to decide if someone should live or die. It seems far too serious. Maybe that's just me, but I think I have pretty good reasoning behind my position right now.

Edit:

Teferi wrote: »

Then you shouldn't get an abortion then.

This doesn't solve the problem. People are being denied the right to life, and if they don't get an abortion people will still be. Agreeing that we should tackle the problem at large, by reducing the number of unplanned pregnancies and so on, is a reasonable action to take.

I'd love to live in a society where none of this was necessary. I can't help but think that abortion is a barbaric procedure best left in the past!

Millicent wrote: »

Would you be happy if every big decision you made when you were 14 was held over you for life? The brain's not fully cooked when you're a teenager. Just because a girl makes a mistake, does she and the child she will probably resent have to be punished for it for life?

I never considered having sex when I was 14, way to young for starters. I had enough sense then to know the consequences.
She would resent the child?
Why not resent having sex, it wouldn't be the child's fault and a child is not a punishment.

bronte

Min wrote: »

I hope you don't feel bitter to be alive.

Feck No!

As it happens I was adopted by the most amazing parents ever!
I got to travel the world from an early age and never wanted for anything.
I love my parents with all my heart.
My point is my birth mother should have had a choice.

Millicent wrote: »

Ah come off. Don't go twisting the girl's words. Just because she has the audacity to challenge a central tenant of your argument does not mean you can make a barb like this. I'm sure Bronte's very happy to be alive. The point you missed was that she wouldn't have known the difference if she wasn't.

I am not twisting, I was posting what I was thinking.

Not knowing the difference and knowing the difference is two situations, if someone knows the difference it is a valid question.

Jakkass wrote: »

The soul doesn't really come into it very much for me. Rather all I would have to do is empathise, realise that I would want others to live just as I have had the opportunity to. I can see that it is crucially unfair that I have had this chance to be here, yet millions of other people are denied this chance every year. Not by abortions alone admittedly, but it is a huge factor in why I am pro-life.

Indeed, the same would result in my belief that we should be aiming to improve living conditions for millions, improving education for millions, precisely because I don't believe its fair that I can be in this place, and so many others can't.

I personally don't see why it should be a choice to decide if someone should live or die. It seems far too serious. Maybe that's just me, but I think I have pretty good reasoning behind my position right now.

But what about the other point I asked of you? The life of the mother?

Millicent wrote: »

Actually, I'm curious about this viewpoint -- not trolling here, I promise. If you're an atheist, you don't believe in a soul, do you? A foetus prior to birth is cells, especially in the formation stage. Why are you more in favour of the life of cells over the rights of the woman.

And there was me popping into AH for a few minutes before I went to bed!!

Anyhoo, I don't believe that a foetus prior to birth is just cells. And I don't really believe that anyone thinks that. I've heard proponents of abortion claim that it's the equivalent of clipping one's fingernails, yet can't seem to reconcile that view (or yours) with the heartache that women go through when they miscarriage. Or how, when a massacre occurs, the fact that any pregnant woman killed is given special mention. I mean, if she's just carrying a few extra cells, why single it out? Why not mention that another victim had particularly long hair, or toe nails? In the aftermath of the Omagh bombing, there was some confusion over the exact number killed, because some news outlets were including the two unborn children of one of the victims as amongst the dead. All outlets mentioned that a pregnant woman was killed. I think that this indicates that the majority of people have an instinctive understanding that foetus' are more than merely a bunch of cells, regardless of what they might say when asked about it.

Furthermore, and to be a bit more empirical about it, 35% of babies born at 23 weeks gestation survive. Which would seem to indicate that they are something more than what you describe. Also, though there is much debate on the matter, foetal perception of pain is unlikely before the 26th week. Which means it is possible after that time. I'm pretty certain that clumps of cells are unable to feel pain independently at any stage of their development. Which again leads me to believe that foetus' cannot be described as such.

I'm far from a fundamentalist on the matter. I believe that a foetus has some intrinsic value and this should be acknowledged. However I don't believe that value is the same as that of a fully developed life form. From that, I'm against abortion in general, but would approve of them in cases where the life or wellbeing of the mother was at serious risk, and also in cases of rape and incest. Were there a referendum tomorrow however, I would vote against allowing abortion to becomes generally available. Having said that, were the referendum passed, I'd accept it with no difficulties. I've a close family member who went through the process with his girlfriend at the time, and while I told him how I felt when he asked me, I made no judgement when he and his partner went ahead with it. I think that's quite a reasonable position to take to be honest, and I get a bit narky sometimes when people try to pigeon hole me as a Catholic troglodyte or a misogynist for expressing it.

Min wrote: »

I never considered having sex when I was 14, way to young for starters. I had enough sense then to know the consequences.
She would resent the child?
Why not resent having sex, it wouldn't be the child's fault and a child is not a punishment.

Sincerely, it's wonderful that you "had enough sense" and that you are reasoned enough not to resent an unwanted child, but unfortunately, others are not like you. I have known several women who have resented their unwanted children and children are wise to more than they get credit for. Just because it's not the child's fault doesn't mean the child doesn't feel the consequences.

philologos

Millicent wrote: »

But what about the other point I asked of you? The life of the mother?

I personally believe that services should be made available to help the mother bear the pregnancy, but I think the life of the child shouldn't be destroyed.

I don't believe that it is a "right" to abort in any case. Without the right to life, there is no other right. None matter.

Einhard wrote: »

And there was me popping into AH for a few minutes before I went to bed!!

Anyhoo, I don't believe that a foetus prior to birth is just cells. And I don't really believe that anyone thinks that. I've heard proponents of abortion claim that it's the equivalent of clipping one's fingernails, yet can't seem to reconcile that view (or yours) with the heartache that women go through when they miscarriage. Or how, when a massacre occurs, the fact that any pregnant woman killed is given special mention. I mean, if she's just carrying a few extra cells, why single it out? Why not mention that another victim had particularly long hair, or toe nails? In the aftermath of the Omagh bombing, there was some confusion over the exact number killed, because some news outlets were including the two unborn children of one of the victims as amongst the dead. All outlets mentioned that a pregnant woman was killed. I think that this indicates that the majority of people have an instinctive understanding that foetus' are more than merely a bunch of cells, regardless of what they might say when asked about it.

Furthermore, and to be a bit more empirical about it, 35% of babies born at 23 weeks gestation survive. Which would seem to indicate that they are something more than what you describe. Also, though there is much debate on the matter, foetal perception of pain is unlikely before the 26th week. Which means it is possible after that time. I'm pretty certain that clumps of cells are unable to feel pain independently at any stage of their development. Which again leads me to believe that foetus' cannot be described as such.

I'm far from a fundamentalist on the matter. I believe that a foetus has some intrinsic value and this should be acknowledged. However I don't believe that value is the same as that of a fully developed life form. From that, I'm against abortion in general, but would approve of them in cases where the life or wellbeing of the mother was at serious risk, and also in cases of rape and incest. Were there a referendum tomorrow however, I would vote against allowing abortion to becomes generally available. Having said that, were the referendum passed, I'd accept it with no difficulties. I've a close family member who went through the process with his girlfriend at the time, and while I told him how I felt when he asked me, I made no judgement when he and his partner went ahead with it. I think that's quite a reasonable position to take to be honest, and I get a bit narky sometimes when people try to pigeon hole me as a Catholic troglodyte or a misogynist for expressing it.

I'm due for bed in a few minutes too, but I will come back to this in the morning.

Thanks for answering.

Napper Hawkins

Einhard wrote: »

Ummm could you explain how being terminated could possibly be the best choice for what you acknowledge as the child? Not sure I'd agree on that one.

Perhaps if the people who liked murdering babies stepped out of their murdering babies mode....

See what I did there? I tarred everyone who disagrees with me with a broad, entirely sensationalist, entirely mendacious brush. Just as you did. I'm an atheist. I also believe that abortion should not be generally available. Perhaps you could tell me how, apart from the whole not believing in God thing, I could further step out of my "Catholic mode"?

You don't need to be religious to be a fascist.

bronte wrote: »

Feck No!

As it happens I was adopted by the most amazing parents ever!
I got to travel the world from an early age and never wanted for anything.
I love my parents with all my heart.
My point is my birth mother should have had a choice.

Sorry for the questioning, I was just wondering, thanks for your honesty and I am happy for you.
I didn't know and your patience with me is appreciated.

Jakkass wrote: »

I personally believe that services should be made available to help the mother bear the pregnancy, but I think the life of the child shouldn't be destroyed.

I don't believe that it is a "right" to abort in any case. Without the right to life, there is no other right. None matter.

No, I meant my other post in relation to women doing it anyway and possibly endangering themselves?

Nevyn

Father Damo wrote: »

Or get a cheap flight abroad. Jesus like :pac: I doubt theres been a backstreet abortion in Ireland in 25 years minimum.

It happens on a regular enough bases that there is a medical code for it in all the maternity hospitals were a woman has presented when an 'induced miscarriage' has occurred. These women are not prosecuted but there have been raids on places in Dublin, Cork and Limerick on places where they are said to be carried out.

It also happens with women who are waiting asslym here and so can not leave the country.

http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=7940

Concern on illegal Irish abortions

[Posted: Thu 28/07/2005 - www.irishhealth.com]

By Niall Hunter-Editor

The Irish Family Planning Association (IFPA) has said the small drop in the number of Irish women going to Britain for abortions is most likely due to the high costs of having the procedure there.

And the IFPA has stressed that the latest abortion figures do not take account of the number of women who have had illegal abortions in Ireland.

An IFPA spokeswoman told irishhealth.com that recent anecdotal reports of 'backstreet' abortions in Ireland are an extremely worrying development, but not at all surprising, given that in any country where women's access to safe, legal abortion is denied, some women will seek to terminate their pregnancy by other means.

A total of 6,217 Irish women traveled to the UK for abortions in 2004, a drop of 103 on the figures for the previous year.

Women aged between 20 and 30 years represented the majority of those who travelled to Britain for abortions last year.

Rosie Toner, director of the IFPA's counseling services, said an increasing number of women attending the Association's post-abortion medical and counselling service had had their terminations in other European countries, including the Netherlands and Spain.

She said lower airfares and access to the internet has enabled Irish women to investigate other options outside of Britain.

The cost of a termination in the UK at present varies from £650 to £750 while the cost of an early abortion in Holland can be 250 or 300 euros less.

Even when travel and accommodation are taken into account it can still work out much cheaper to travel to other EU countries, according to the IFPA.

It says there is a real need for Irish statistics on abortion which indicate the number of women who access termination services within the EU, America and Russia; which are all locations that Irish women have been reported to travel to for abortions.

Ms Toner said unless we can develop a real picture of the numbers of women traveling for abortion services we will not be in a position to develop strategies and services that deal with the needs of women.

The IFPA said the fact that over 6,000 Irish women were traveling to Britain for abortions was further evidence of the need for domestic-based abortion services.

The Association suspects that some illegal abortions have taken place recently in Ireland but says it has it has no hard evidence of this.

It points out that in the past year the Gardai have found evidence of a return to illegal abortion, which has not been reported in Ireland since the 1950s. These terminations are believed to have taken place among the immigrant population, some of whom might face greater restrictions on travel and often lack funds, according to the Association.

Father Damo wrote: »

My God, customs seizing drugs which have not been passed for sale by the dept of health. Shocking.

I agree that prescription drugs should not be brought into the country and used by people who have not been checked by a dr as being ok to take it.

But a prescription to induce a chemical miscarriage/abortion is a better option then surgical abortion in terms of a woman's health and cost and travel but by the time most women can get out of the country it is no long an option for them due to the time window for taking it.

A lot of women are also so desperate that they are going back to herbal remedies to try and induce a miscarriage.

shebango

Einhard wrote: »

From that, I'm against abortion in general, but would approve of them in cases where the life or wellbeing of the mother was at serious risk, and also in cases of rape and incest. Were there a referendum tomorrow however, I would vote against allowing abortion to becomes generally available. .

I hear your point and respect it totally.

However, why would you only agree to abortion on these grounds?

What if you couldn't support the child for whatever reason but didn't fall into category of rape/incest/serious risk?

I do maintain that it shouldn't just be used as a method of birth control willy nilly. But where is the fairness in bringing a child into the world that you can't support, no matter how much you want to?

Teferi

Jakkass wrote: »

This doesn't solve the problem. People are being denied the right to life, and if they don't get an abortion people will still be. Agreeing that we should tackle the problem at large, by reducing the number of unplanned pregnancies and so on, is a reasonable action to take.

I'd love to live in a society where none of this was necessary. I can't help but think that abortion is a barbaric procedure best left in the past!

You're christian, I'm not so I have no interest in debating with you because it will go around in circles. In any case, just because you don't want abortion doesn't mean that nobody should have the option. Anyway, an acorn isn't a tree.

Napper Hawkins wrote: »

You don't need to be religious to be a fascist.

LOL and here's where the interesting debate ended, and the vitriol started pouring. Just goes to show that the abusive fundies aren't limited to one side of the debate!! Thanks for the input though...

shebango wrote: »

I hear your point and respect it totally.

However, why would you only agree to abortion on these grounds?

What if you couldn't support the child for whatever reason but didn't fall into category of rape/incest/serious risk?

I do maintain that it shouldn't just be used as a method of birth control willy nilly. But where is the fairness in bringing a child into the world that you can't support, no matter how much you want to?

I think that's a cop out because the child can be supported, just not necessarily by the birth mother.

GLaDOS

Napper Hawkins wrote: »

You don't need to be religious to be a fascist.

FFS, I'd consider myself pro choice but he's presenting a very reasoned argument for his side of the story, no need for that.

shebango

Einhard wrote: »

I think that's a cop out because the child can be supported, just not necessarily by the birth mother.

Define what you mean by supported though?

Considering the rate of job losses etc in this country and suppose you fell prey to losing your job etc... And you are barely able to financially support yourself... How can you then financially support a child also?

When you say it's not just the birth mother that can support the child, who else do you mean? I assume that you don't just mean the birth mother's partner because as we all know, the birth mother could be single.

Again, i'm not arguing. I am just interested in your views. Do you really think that if the pregnancy doesn't fall under the exceptional circumstances you mentioned previously, then ALL abortions are wrong?

Chuchoter

I would never have the audacity to refer to having an abortion as cutting your nails, it is a massive emotional thing and shouldn't be brought down to something so trivial, but I really do not think that the foetus has any value as a person. It is cells, it might one day be a person, but right now it is cells.

One thing I have never, ever understood is the 'only in the case of rape/incest' argument. Its not the child's fault its the product of rape, so it has a right to life just as much as the child of the 16 year old who had sex with her boyfriend. To be honest I think it really shows up a lot (not all) of the anti choice argument as an excuse to punish women for being sexual beings.

(PS, Don't go to sleep everyone! I'm still here! :P)

philologos

Teferi wrote: »

You're christian, I'm not so I have no interest in debating with you because it will go around in circles. In any case, just because you don't want abortion doesn't mean that nobody should have the option. Anyway, an acorn isn't a tree.

Not at all. I believe it's categorically wrong to deny people the right to live as we do. I believe it's royally unfair, with the exception of severe health risks to the mother. Indeed, it's a human rights issue to suggest that someone else has the right to decide whether people should live or die.

The "you're Christian" excuse is limited. I can argue my case on this, and hold my ground. Indeed, this is an issue that crosses many religious lines and non-religious lines as a few posters are demonstrating.

Personally, I'm glad that the Government supports the Constitutional stance on this. I'm actually opposed to excessive legislation, and that laws should only exist where the situation is serious enough, and this is one of those situations where the Government needs to step in to ensure that peoples rights aren't trampled on.