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

Options
1…4445464749

Comments

  • Options
    #1442
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    You know nothing about me on which to base such a probabilistic estimate. I would love to see your workings. It is always great to see people talk about what is more or less likely to occur when they have not got the data to make the estimates. One can not even know the odds of getting an ace of hearts from a deck of cards if one did not know how many cards are in a deck and how many of them are the ace of hearts. Yet with zero knowledge about me personally you can make estimates on the probability of me performing a certain action.

    The point however is that all you are doing is stating, and restating, the "potential" argument. When someone pokes a hole in that argument you simply restate it. Yet not once have you answered the question put to you: Why is potential suddenly a magic ticket in this topic?

    If it is a potential human then it is NOT human. It can not be both. In a discussion which, as this one does, essentially reduces to human rights then you need to ground the decision to allocate human rights to something on a lot more than saying it might be human one day if left alone.



    Reply to the post, not the poster. This ad hominem stuff has no use here. I guess it is just easier to throw out words like "pedantic" than actually address points being made. That really is a "low" for any conversation when it happens.

    Oh dear... this is getting very wearing altogether. An outsider coming into the debate such as it is now, would be justified in thinking we are all more concerned with the last word and point scoring than we are with the rights of the baby or the mother... and I include pro-lifers in that aswell!

    Also, where did I claim a fetus is not human???


  • Options
    #1443
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,338 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    OldNotWIse wrote: »
    Oh dear... this is getting very wearing altogether.

    Your problem, not mine. No one is forcing you to post (I hope). Otherwise there actually IS a human rights violation in process :p
    OldNotWIse wrote: »
    Also, where did I claim a fetus is not human???

    I am talking about the "potential" argument. IF you say a fetus is a "potential" human then you are also saying it is NOT human by definition. Unless of course you think something can be X and be becoming X at the same time, which is far from logical.


  • Options
    #1444
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Your problem, not mine. No one is forcing you to post (I hope). Otherwise there actually IS a human rights violation in process :p



    I am talking about the "potential" argument. IF you say a fetus is a "potential" human then you are also saying it is NOT human by definition. Unless of course you think something can be X and be becoming X at the same time, which is far from logical.

    Oh come on we're not in a playground for Gods sake. You might as well say "I know you are but what am I" and pull someones ponytail. Nobody is forcing me to post, nice though, that you think human rights violations are a source of amusement.

    It was actually another poster (shock horror I cannot remember which one) who introduced the point of a "potential" human being, but you only quoted a fragment of the post. The actual point referred to a potentially fully functioning human being. A fetus is clearly not fully functioning in that it relies on its mother for nutrition etc but that does not mean it is not a human being. I never said a fetus was not a human being so please stop insisting that I did.


  • Options
    #1445
    king_of_inismac
    Registered Users Posts: 1,365 ✭✭✭king_of_inismac


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    king_of_inismac wrote: »
    If I wrote "I was as people obsessed with labels would call a feminist", I think that would imply that I at least had some interest in feminism.

    Hard to say. It does not take much for people to slap a label on you even if you have no interest or affinity with that label. For example I got labelled "Totalitarian" recently for the crime of highlighting when people make unsubstantiated claims.

    To be honest I have even got very little concept of what "Liberal" even means. All I know in the context of the post you replied to is A) I have been called it many times and B) Most people I have heard called that are also pro-choice. And essentially my point was that I do not like to find that I hold "default" positions on things like abortion... so I try to explore the arguments for them and make sure those positions I hold actually are rational and defensible.

    That's fair enough. I think it's hard to judge tone on boards like this.

    I have a similar logical approach to you and I think we'd probably agree on many other topics.

    This one is particularly devisive since there's not really a middle ground


  • Options
    #1446
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,338 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    OldNotWIse wrote: »
    Oh come on we're not in a playground for Gods sake. You might as well say "I know you are but what am I" and pull someones ponytail. Nobody is forcing me to post, nice though, that you think human rights violations are a source of amusement.

    Oh drop the ad hominem act and stick to the topic. It is you, not me, that is getting emotional and angry and "weary" here. I am perfectly capable of having a serious conversation and injecting a bit of comedy and smileys to lighten the mood. If you want to use that to take a snide ad hominem shot fine, whatever gets you through. I however have the faculty of humor, as do much of our species, and we should use it.
    OldNotWIse wrote: »
    It was actually another poster who introduced the point of a "potential" human being, but you only quoted a fragment of the post. The actual point referred to a potentially fully functioning human being.

    Not just one poster, which is probably why you do not remember who it was. It is a very very common argument here. The "fully functional" part is irrelevant to my reply which is why I did not address it. I explained that already in post #1415

    Let me make my point more explicit, though I am repeating something I have said in over 10 posts on the thread so far. The entire abortion conversation comes down to a question of "Human Rights". The Fetus either has them or it does not. THAT is the conversation we should be having therefore.

    Many things cloud that conversation however. One of them: people who admit that their position on the issue is emotional only and little more. Clearly they are not of help. Another are people who try to bypass that conversation by playing linguistic tricks like Philologos who just declare everything "Human Life" and then say all "Human Life" should be protected.

    Yet another are those who try to get the fetus to "Human Rights" status by claiming they are "Potential Humans". Clearly that does not help either because if they are "Potential" humans then by definition they are NOT humans now.

    So the only question of real merit left on the issue is what arguments actually ARE there for assigning a fetus human rights at certain stages in their development and thus far in 95+ pages of posts (depending on your forum settings) I have not heard one yet.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1447
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,338 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    king_of_inismac wrote: »
    This one is particularly devisive since there's not really a middle ground

    Indeed. As I said I like to explore a lot of my positions to see why I actually hold them and if they are rational and defensible positions to hold. The abortion topic took me longer than most to research all the evidence, data, argument and reasoning behind both sides and to actually find which side appeared to be the "right" side to be on.

    Disappointingly the majority of what I got to read and explore was on the pro choice side. The Anti side was very bereft of argument. The vast majority of it appeared to be "Arguments from emotion" most of which took the form of pictures of aborted fetus' blown up to A1 or A2 side and stuck on Dublin main streets. When I actually one day tried to talk with the people running those stalls and hanging those pictures to, without judgement or rebuttal, actually hear their side of the arguments all they could come out with was "Look at the pictures maaaaaaan, have you seeeeen the piiiiictures mmmmaaaann?" which was hardly an intellectually stimulating discussion from my side of things.

    Online things are not much better with the arguments from the anti side either taking the religious form of "God puts the soul into the zygote at conception" to linguistic vagueness ala Phililogos where they just apply a very vague definition of "Human Life" to the fetus and zygote and then declare "all human life must be protected" before walking off, running their hands together and telling themselves "Job done".

    It is a frustrating thing to really be open to spending quality time investigating and considering one sides arguments only to find they are not really forthcoming with any. You would expect if they really were as emotionally invested in the topic as they appear they might go to _some_ effort at least.


  • Options
    #1448
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Oh drop the ad hominem act and stick to the topic. It is you, not me, that is getting emotional and angry and "weary" here. I am perfectly capable of having a serious conversation and injecting a bit of comedy and smileys to lighten the mood. If you want to use that to take a snide ad hominem shot fine, whatever gets you through. I however have the faculty of humor, as do much of our species, and we should use it.



    Not just one poster, which is probably why you do not remember who it was. It is a very very common argument here. The "fully functional" part is irrelevant to my reply which is why I did not address it. I explained that already in post #1415

    Let me make my point more explicit, though I am repeating something I have said in over 10 posts on the thread so far. The entire abortion conversation comes down to a question of "Human Rights". The Fetus either has them or it does not. THAT is the conversation we should be having therefore.

    Many things cloud that conversation however. One of them: people who admit that their position on the issue is emotional only and little more. Clearly they are not of help. Another are people who try to bypass that conversation by playing linguistic tricks like Philologos who just declare everything "Human Life" and then say all "Human Life" should be protected.

    Yet another are those who try to get the fetus to "Human Rights" status by claiming they are "Potential Humans". Clearly that does not help either because if they are "Potential" humans then by definition they are NOT humans now.

    So the only question of real merit left on the issue is what arguments actually ARE there for assigning a fetus human rights at certain stages in their development and thus far in 95+ pages of posts (depending on your forum settings) I have not heard one yet.

    Interesting, that by your own admission you rely so heavily on objectivity and "brain over heart" way of thinking...yet you feel it is acceptable to joke about human rights violations to substantiate your posts... and you have the audacity to accuse other posters of linguistic tricks? Really?

    Like I said (numerous times) I have not argued about "potential" human beings, I dont know why you insist on barking at me about this in every post addressed to me.

    How is "fully functional" not relevant when it formed an integral part of the post? It may not be relevant to your argument (in other words, it did not suit your agenda so you simply extracted the piece that did) but I'm sure it was pretty relevant to the poster who made the point in the first place! You cannot just ignore a vital piece of a sentence because it doesn't fit in with your argument.

    The difference between, "A fetus is not a human being" and "a fetus is not a fully functioning human being" is clearly huge, and by leaving out the relevant part, you have changed the original meaning of the post. Of course a fetus is human. Perhaps it has not "attained personhood" by being born but it is human. The cells that it is comprised of are human. It is conceived by humans. It has human DNA. We can argue about whether it is a person of course, but to argue that it is not human? What else could it be? Amoeboid?


  • Options
    #1449
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,338 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    OldNotWIse wrote: »
    you rely so heavily on objectivity and "brain over heart" way of thinking...yet you feel it is acceptable to joke about human rights violations to substantiate your posts...

    Never once claimed I need jokes to substantiate anything. You are plain and simple making stuff up about me now. Some decorum please.

    What I said is that I have the faculty of humor and I see no reason not to lighten the mood especially in a topic as emotive as this one. Boards.ie is a discussion forum and a community. We do not have to be serious faced stiffs the whole time. We can lighten the mood. Using humor to lighten a mood has nothing... at all... to do with substantiating any points.
    OldNotWIse wrote: »
    Like I said (numerous times) I have not argued about "potential" human beings, I dont know why you insist on barking at me about this in every post addressed to me.

    And like I said (numerous times) I am not just talking about you. I am talking about the entire subject as a whole. I am in no way constrained when talking with you to only talk ABOUT you.
    OldNotWIse wrote: »
    How is "fully functional" not relevant when it formed an integral part of the post? It may not be relevant to your argument (in other words, it did not suit your agenda so you simply extracted the piece that did) but I'm sure it was pretty relevant to the poster who made the point in the first place! You cannot just ignore a vital piece of a sentence because it doesn't fit in with your argument.

    I ignored nothing. The point is that my reply would have been the same with or without the words "Fully functional". Therefore there was no onus or requirement on me to custom the wording of my reply to reply to his post word for word.
    OldNotWIse wrote: »
    Of course a fetus is human.

    Indeed, but it is entirely dependent on what definition of "Human" you are using. For example if you merely define "Human" as "containing human DNA" then everything from you, to the fetus, to a sperm, to a cancer cell is "Human".

    If you define "Human" however as something which has... in whatever state of functionality... the faculty of "human consciousness" in much the same way you are using "person" then suddenly cancer, sperm, and the fetus before 24 weeks falls out of your definition.

    So as I said in my last post the only question of merit IN this discussion is what arguments ARE there for giving "Human rights" to a fetus and clearly a large part of that argument is going to be about which definition of "Human" you work with and whether it is defensible to work with it. This has to be contextual if it is to mean anything and in the context of deciding what we should assign "Human Rights" to definitions of "Human" such as "The cells that it is comprised of are human. It is conceived by humans. It has human DNA." just do not get you there.

    Philologos for example uses a very dilute and general definition of it for a very clear and agenda based reason. It lets him bypass all the arguments about "Human Rights". He can just say "Human life is precious, the zygote is human life, conversation over". Yet have we seen him once make arguments for defending that particular definition of "Human life" in this context? Not a bit of it, no.

    Context is everything here I feel and when the definitions used very purposefully attempt to evade the context then a little red Inspector Gadget type Hat Light should be swirling about your head with a nice alarm bell to accompany it.


  • Options
    #1450
    IzzyWizzy
    Registered Users Posts: 6,645 ✭✭✭IzzyWizzy


    Mr.S wrote: »
    tbh, if we offer the morning after pill, I don't see the problem with abortion.

    Why doesn't the government just hold a vote on it? Surely if the majority are in favor of abortion, then it should be allowed.

    Personally, I think Ireland should offer abortions in any case up upto an X amount of weeks.

    If women want to get an abortion, there really isn't anything stopping them from taking a ~1-2hour trip to the UK and getting it done, so why not just offer it here?

    They did, didn't they? Majority voted no.


  • Options
    #1451
    coffee_cake
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Politics Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 81,310 CMod ✭✭✭✭coffee_cake


    Mr.S wrote: »
    tbh, if we offer the morning after pill, I don't see the problem with abortion.

    Why doesn't the government just hold a vote on it? Surely if the majority are in favor of abortion, then it should be allowed.

    they did hold a vote for the life threatening clause after the supreme court yoke
    we said yes
    they still can't be arsed legislating for it


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1452
    B0jangles
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,951 ✭✭✭B0jangles


    Mr.S wrote: »
    :eek: was this recently or a good few years ago?!

    1992, so (jesus I feel old...) 20 years ago now.

    I have a major problem with something as fundamentally personal as a woman's right to choose what to do with her own body being put to a popular vote.


  • Options
    #1453
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    bluewolf wrote: »
    they did hold a vote for the life threatening clause after the supreme court yoke
    we said yes
    they still can't be arsed legislating for it
    Really? Whatever about my stance, I find it hard to believe that a woman whose life is in danger would not be allowed access to one? That's quite bad tbh.


  • Options
    #1454
    coffee_cake
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Politics Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 81,310 CMod ✭✭✭✭coffee_cake


    OldNotWIse wrote: »
    Really? Whatever about my stance, I find it hard to believe that a woman whose life is in danger would not be allowed access to one? That's quite bad tbh.

    "Constitutional Referendum 2002

    A further referendum was held in 2002 on the Twenty-fifth Amendment, which would have removed the threat of suicide as a grounds for legal abortion, but it too failed to enact any regulatory changes."

    It's not illegal but since it's not legislated they won't do it


  • Options
    #1455
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,713 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    B0jangles wrote: »
    1992, so (jesus I feel old...) 20 years ago now.
    Just to be clear, that referendum was to determine if the threat of suicide was grounds to allow an abortion. The voters said no allowing an abortion if the mother is threatening to kill herself unless she gets an abortion.

    EDIT: I misread how the referendum text was worded.

    The Twelfth Amendment proposed that the possibility of suicide was not a sufficient threat to justify an abortion. The proposal was rejected.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #1456
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    OldNotWIse wrote: »
    Really? Whatever about my stance, I find it hard to believe that a woman whose life is in danger would not be allowed access to one? That's quite bad tbh.

    *Looks at economy.*
    *Looks at education system.*
    *Looks at health care system.*
    *Looks at other signs that show general incompetence*


    Not that hard to believe. . . :(


  • Options
    #1457
    mardybumbum
    Registered Users Posts: 1,939 ✭✭✭mardybumbum


    Mr.S wrote: »
    tbh, if we offer the morning after pill, I don't see the problem with abortion.

    The morning after pill is a contraceptive, not an abortifacient.
    Totally different.


  • Options
    #1458
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    mardybumbum wrote: »
    The morning after pill is a contraceptive, not an abortifacient.
    Totally different.
    True, it wont undo an established pregnancy. Though I think it just stops implantation as opposed to fertilisation? I've never had a problem with the MAP - restricting access to this would only result in more unwanted pregnancies, which would be pointless. I can see the argument though if someone is taking the point of fertilisation as the "no going back" point (not that I do)


  • Options
    #1459
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    koth wrote: »
    Just to be clear, that referendum was to determine if the threat of suicide was grounds to allow an abortion. The voters said no allowing an abortion if the mother is threatening to kill herself unless she gets an abortion.

    But if someone is suicidal isn't that classed as a risk to the mothers life? At least, it should be.


  • Options
    #1460
    mardybumbum
    Registered Users Posts: 1,939 ✭✭✭mardybumbum


    OldNotWIse wrote: »
    mardybumbum wrote: »
    The morning after pill is a contraceptive, not an abortifacient.
    Totally different.
    True, it wont undo an established pregnancy. Though I think it just stops implantation as opposed to fertilisation? I've never had a problem with the MAP - restricting access to this would only result in more unwanted pregnancies, which would be pointless. I can see the argument though if someone is taking the point of fertilisation as the "no going back" point (not that I do)

    There has been no evidence to suggest that ECPs prevent implantation. Their MOA is to prevent fertilization either by inhibiting ovulation or increasing cervical mucus.
    What other period could someone take as the "no going back" point out of interest?


  • Options
    #1461
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,713 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    OldNotWIse wrote: »
    But if someone is suicidal isn't that classed as a risk to the mothers life? At least, it should be.

    My bad. I got the details backwards. the 1992 referendum was to insert an amendment that proposed that the possibility of suicide was not a sufficient threat to justify an abortion. The proposal was rejected.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1462
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    mardybumbum wrote: »
    There has been no evidence to suggest that ECPs prevent implantation. Their MOA is to prevent fertilization either by inhibiting ovulation or increasing cervical mucus.
    What other period could someone take as the "no going back" point out of interest?
    ok but either way they wont undo an established pregnancy? ie; one that has implanted within the uterus?

    I dont actually know what point would be good to take tbh! Obviously a just fertilised zygote is not the same as a 22 week old fetus. Imo the "point" (as idealistic as it sounds) would be somewhere in between, but where? :confused: I will put my hands up and say I dont know.


  • Options
    #1463
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Mr.S wrote: »
    tbh, if we offer the morning after pill, I don't see the problem with abortion.

    Why doesn't the government just hold a vote on it? Surely if the majority are in favor of abortion, then it should be allowed.

    Personally, I think Ireland should offer abortions in any case up upto an X amount of weeks.

    If women want to get an abortion, there really isn't anything stopping them from taking a ~1-2hour trip to the UK and getting it done, so why not just offer it here?

    There's a problem with X amount of weeks though. How do you know when to cut off?

    There's no X point during the pregnancy when life begins. Biologically the foetus is already alive. It's already growing and developing within the womb.

    As I've mentioned as well X points are entirely arbitrary:
    The argument on putting an X week rate is as arbitrary as the juggling 8914 apples up Mt Snowdon on a BMX point of development. It assumes something only becomes alive at an X point of development despite the fact that it has been biologically alive long before that point. The X point of development argument is flawed and it is entirely arbitrary.

    The question of when life becomes meaningful to X or Y person is a philosophical issue. It's not a question of whether or on a factual level something is alive or dead.

    It's conceivable that people mightn't regard someone elses life as meaningful, but that doesn't mean that people should have the liberty to kill another life.


  • Options
    #1464
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,338 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    philologos wrote: »
    There's a problem with X amount of weeks though. How do you know when to cut off?

    That depends entirely on how you define Human Life in the context of Human Rights and how you then apply that to the fetus.

    For example if you hinge human rights around the faculty of human conciousness then clearly your cut off will be reliant on that. Any point in the development when you can be sure human conciousness has not arisen in ANY form is certainly a point where abortion would be ok.

    Once it starts to form in some way or another we enter a grey area where some debate is possible, but if it is entirely absent in any way then I do not see the debate.

    At 16 weeks for example not only is there no reason to think that human conciousness exists in any form... the structures and activity we associate with it have not even formed.

    An analogy I use often is to radio. At 16 weeks not only is there no radio waves being broadcast (conciousness) the transmitter tower has not even been built yet.

    That is the kind of discussion we need to have. Not the kind you want us to have which is just throwing "god" around and accusing everyone of "killing lives". Your kind of talk on here is propaganda with no substance.


  • Options
    #1465
    PrincessLola
    Registered Users Posts: 852 ✭✭✭PrincessLola


    philologos wrote: »
    PrincessLola: Do we really need that kind of nonsense or can we just discuss this in a reasonable manner?

    Do you not see at all why people might have serious concerns about people destroying human life as a matter of choice?

    Did you.. even read my post? The person in question (IzzyWizzy) says they are pro-choice, it does not make sense.


  • Options
    #1466
    PrincessLola
    Registered Users Posts: 852 ✭✭✭PrincessLola


    IzzyWizzy wrote: »
    Are you actually asking why I think abortion isn't desirable? Really? REALLY? On the offchance that you're not just trying to wind me up:

    1) Abortion is free on the NHS. I can think of many better ways to spend that money, such as on cancer drugs and other treatments. Treatment is already rationed for other preventable conditions caused by lifestyle choices. People are dying all the time because they can't get drugs for a condition they had no choice whatsoever in developing.
    2) Women having abortions take up resources that could be used in other ways.
    3) Abortion can be psychologically scarring for some women

    Okay, I think I get you now. You are mad that abortions cost tax payer money (except, Irish women don't get free NHS abortions, but never mind)
    Thats a pretty flimsy excuse to hate something And I absolutely do not buy it, lots of health procedures cost tax payer money in the UK, many are less essential than abortions.

    You're argument also pivots on the point that abortions are preventable, sure they are. So are lots of cancers, obesity, heart disease, many cases of broken bones.
    I bet if you told people they would not receive medical care if they ever hurt themselves, they'd be much more careful for the rest of their lives, in fact I bet if you made littering punishable by life imprisonment no-one would ever litter again. No more stupid safety net! Happy days! See the logic?

    Psychologically scarring for some women, yes. But those are usually the women for whom the decision is hardest and so shouldn't concern you and your "abortion as a contraception" problem.

    Your head is so far buried in the sand that you're incapable of rational, normal thought on this issue.

    I just find this really funny. Keep 'em coming.
    You've gone from suggesting that no women takes an abortion lightly to asking what's wrong with taking abortion lightly. You do realise that?

    I guess you're right that *some* may take it extremely lightly, I admit I initially did not think it possible of other women because abortion is not something I've ever had done or would take lightly myself.
    However I still think that only a small minority would use it as contraception. And considering I do not believe a fetus to be a baby than I don't really mind, the only cause for my concern would be possible health complications from repeat abortions, which is not good.
    Except if you could read you'd say I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying 'it might be an idea to make sure you're on reliable contraception before you have sex' but that's not as dramatic, is it? So let's just pretend I said something completely different.

    Yeah, and what I'm saying is that no contraception is 100% (even the pill) and telling adults to only have sex if they are sure they want a kid is not going to work.
    It is when you're claiming no women takes abortion lightly. Funnily enough, someone who actually lives in a country where abortion is legal and knows plenty of people who have had them might just have a clearer idea of how it's viewed than someone who's read something on the internet.

    Cop on now.
    You don't know who I am or where I have lived. I have many friends in England and Scotland and have not seen what you are describing. But I can accept that it happens in some cases. Fine.
    For someone who claimed that nobody takes abortion lightly, you sure seem to.

    From an ethical and philosophical standpoint, yes I do. In the practical sense I do not I guess.
    Eh, no, because as I said, she didn't bother getting the morning-after pill. That's the least I would expect of someone who doesn't want to get pregnant. But why should she make the effort, right? It's not her fault she got pregnant, it takes two to make a baby.

    You didn't make that clear in your post. That was a mistake not taking the morning-after-pill alright, probably because she was in denial/lying to herself rather than laziness.
    Think about it, abortions can be quite uncomfortable and painful, of course she'd rather take the pill than go through with an abortion.
    Wah wah wah.

    Keep typing "wah wah wah", who knows, you might eventually prove something, or not. :pac:
    I think all women should have access to abortion. I also think that any women who thinks she's mature enough to have sex should be mature enough to protect herself from STI's and pregnancy. Cutting the abortion rate and reducing the number of STI treatments would save the country millions. Ooooh, so controversial, I know. :rolleyes:

    Yeah, I agree with this actually. I just think you're taking an absolutist stance on abortion and contraception.


  • Options
    #1467
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    PrincessLola wrote: »
    Did you.. even read my post? The person in question (IzzyWizzy) says they are pro-choice, it does not make sense.

    Maybe I was wrong about the context, but there's no need for that kind of vitriol on this thread.


  • Options
    #1468
    coffee_cake
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Politics Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 81,310 CMod ✭✭✭✭coffee_cake


    philologos wrote: »
    PrincessLola: Do we really need that kind of nonsense or can we just discuss this in a reasonable manner?

    PrincessLola wrote: »
    Did you.. even read my post? The person in question (IzzyWizzy) says they are pro-choice, it does not make sense.
    philologos wrote: »
    Maybe I was wrong about the context, but there's no need for that kind of vitriol on this thread.

    What vitriol? telling her she's posting nonsense and being unreasonable?


  • Options
    #1469
    Fizzlesque
    Registered Users Posts: 668 ✭✭✭Fizzlesque


    IzzyWizzy wrote: »

    3) Abortion can be psychologically scarring for some women

    I promised myself I wouldn't get involved in this thread; when I read this comment yesterday I was tempted to respond, but managed to resist, and then when I read it for a second time (as part of Princess Lola's post) my promise to myself not to get involved weakened considerably.

    The reason I try not to get involved in the abortion debate is because while I'm 100% pro choice, when I fell pregnant 23 years ago, single, immature, emotionally damaged from an abusive childhood and with absolutely no support, I discovered I couldn't go through with my vague plan to have an abortion if the pregnancy test turned out to be positive, and opted for adoption instead and therefore it's a very emotive topic for me.

    If people think an abortion can be psychologically scarring, I'd love to know what words they'd use to describe the ever-lasting after-effects of adoption. I damn near destroyed my life by making that choice. As it is, I know I'll never fully recover from the trauma of handing my child to someone else, even though I've been able to maintain contact all along (semi open adoption: letterbox contact) and it's taken lots of counselling, years of substance (marijuana and alcohol) abuse [more counselling to deal with that] inability to form a healthy, happy relationship, severe self-isolation and loneliness [more counselling to deal with that] and the guts of 20 years for me to begin heal from the hell that is putting your child up for adoption. If you want to torture yourself till the day you die, give birth and then allow another woman to become your child's mother. If you're lucky you'll shorten your life considerably with the stress of it all :(

    Now, I know some people might argue that not all birth mothers regret their decision as deeply and as heartbreakingly as I do, but neither do all women who make the decision to abort suffer psychological trauma afterwards. I know more women who aborted and are still at peace with their decision than women who regret making that choice. Each person is different, what works for one woman won't necessarily work for the next woman: and that's why I'm pro choice. No woman should be forced to birth or to abort an unplanned baby. Unplanned doesn't always equate to unwanted. I wanted my baby very much by time she was ready to be born (even more so after she was born) but my circumstances at the time weren't conducive to my being able to give her a happy home and a happy life. Sometimes too many vital ingredients are missing.

    As a little sidenote, I'd like to add this little nugget. When I told my father I was pregnant, one of his first responses was "well, at least you didn't use contraception" :eek: :eek: :eek:

    Just a little snapshot into the Catholic Ireland I grew up in. Mad world, eh?

    Now, at this late stage of the game, I wait patiently for my daughter to decide the time is right for her to pursue some kind of a relationship with me (it's not guaranteed, but highly likely) and I can only hope she takes the view it's better to have a life (even separated from her mother) than no life at all. I wouldn't advise any woman to go down the road I chose to go down, because it's absolute and inescapable hell on earth.

    Thanks for reading - to all who've read to the end of this long and emotional post. :)


  • Options
    #1470
    RaRaRasputin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 394 ✭✭RaRaRasputin


    Fizzlesque wrote: »
    Thanks for reading - to all who've read to the end of this long and emotional post. :)

    Fair play for you choosing such a painful route for yourself because it was most probably the better option for your child. By doing that you surely did the best for her as you could because you were not in the best position to bring her up. I'd say you did something very selfless by putting her up for adoption and giving her the chance to have a better life. I bet it wasn't easy and you should be a bit "proud" to have had the strength to go through with it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1471
    Fizzlesque
    Registered Users Posts: 668 ✭✭✭Fizzlesque


    RaRaRasputin wrote: »
    Fair play for you choosing such a painful route for yourself because it was most probably the better option for your child. By doing that you surely did the best for her as you could because you were not in the best position to bring her up. I'd say you did something very selfless by putting her up for adoption and giving her the chance to have a better life. I bet it wasn't easy and you should be a bit "proud" to have had the strength to go through with it.

    Thanks, Rasputin. I wish I could feel 'proud', instead I feel overwhelmingly guilty. It's impossible to know how things would have turned out if I hadn't made the decision I did but I'd love to be able to turn the clock back and find out.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement