Why we can't have a rational conversation about abortion

gandalf · 03-05-2013 04:21PM

Nodin wrote: »

.....I support choice and I'm a 43 year old working class man.

I'm a 43 yr old married man with a son and I am pro-choice as well.

I am not comfortable with abortion per say but I do recognise that life is not black and white but is shades of grey and people should have the right to decide their path for themselves.

From experience those who shout the most about religion tend to be the least Christian.

StudentDad · 03-05-2013 04:23PM

thebullkf wrote: »

i have absolutely no idea how that relates to my quote. tbh.

FTR - i am not religious- i respect peoples rights- i respect all life forms.

I wasn't responding to you directly, including your post was an error.

SD

thebullkf · 03-05-2013 04:24PM

Nodin wrote: »

The fact is that many things - from use of automotive transport to access to cultlery - leaves open the risk of abuse, with fatal consequences. If its fair enough to let that happen, then why not abortion?

because if you stab or kill someone with your car you will face consequences. If you travel on the boat and willingly kill a healthy foetus because you simply made a mistake or don't want kids is not the same thing. I assume you are in agreement with that at least

Iwasfrozen · 03-05-2013 04:24PM

kylith wrote: »

So, the right of something with no brain or nervous system and which may not, even under the best circumstances, ever achieve a state where it can exist independently (~40% of conceptions end in spontaneous abortion) is greater than my right to decide what happens to my own body?

I respectfully disagree. A person's right to bodily integrity is paramount.

Yes. That child is the potential to life and while you have the right to create life you have no right to snuff it out.

Clandestine · 03-05-2013 04:26PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Yes. That child is the potential to life and while you have the right to create life you have no right to snuff it out.

Potential for life? Sure, but it is not a developed human being, and therefore a "fetus" as to say.

eviltwin · 03-05-2013 04:27PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Yes. That child is the potential to life and while you have the right to create life you have no right to snuff it out.

The irony is that women do have the right to have abortions in other countries, that right is actually written into our constitution. So abortion is a constitutional right if it involves getting on a boat or plane, just not within the republic. Its a bit mad to say the least.

Iwasfrozen · 03-05-2013 04:29PM

eviltwin wrote: »

The irony is that women do have the right to have abortions in other countries, that right is actually written into our constitution. So abortion is a constitutional right if it involves getting on a boat or plane, just not within the republic. Its a bit mad to say the least.

Rights are subjective. You only have a right if the people in power decide to grant you that right. The mistake people make is that rights are fixed and to be expected instead of fought for. The child's right to life is more important then the woman's right to choose not to be pregnant and that right has to be fought for.

03-05-2013 04:31PM

One side are murderers and the other are bigots apparently.

eviltwin · 03-05-2013 04:32PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Rights are subjective. You only have a right if the people in power decide to grant you that right. The mistake people make is that rights are fixed and to be expected instead of fought for. The child's right to life is more important then the woman's right to choose not to be pregnant and that right has to be fought for.

So why does that "right to life" not extend to IVF clinics?

kylith · 03-05-2013 04:32PM

thebullkf wrote: »

interesting stats kylith can you share a link?

Only 30 to 50% of conceptions progress past the first trimester.
(^ Annas, George J.; Elias, Sherman (2007). "24. Pregnancy loss". In Gabbe, Steven G.; Niebyl, Jennifer R.; Simpson, Joe Leigh. Obstetrics: Normal and Problem Pregnancies (5 ed.). Churchill Livingstone. ISBN 978-0-443-06930-7.)

This is the reason why a pregnancy is usually only announced after the third month.

Between 15% and 30% of known pregnancies end in clinically apparent miscarriage,
(^ Stovall, Thomas G. (2002). "17. Early Pregnancy Loss and Ectopic Pregnancy". In Berek, Jonathan S.. Novak's Gynecology (13 ed.). Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. ISBN 978-0-7817-3262-8.)

thebullkf wrote: »

in response to your last line ( genuine question) do you think your right supercedes that of an actual life- eg 6-9mths foetus?

At that point in gestation if it came to a choice between my life and a foetus, I would choose my life.

thebullkf wrote: »

Is it the line between whats a life form and whats not (with yourself i mean) or do you think a right to bodily integrity supercedes all other rights in realtion to that body.

I'm having difficulty working out what you mean here. Could you restate the question please?

Nodin · 03-05-2013 04:34PM

thebullkf wrote: »

because if you stab or kill someone with your car you will face consequences. If you travel on the boat and willingly kill a healthy foetus because you simply made a mistake or don't want kids is not the same thing. I assume you are in agreement with that at least

No, as I deem the womans right to her body as pre-eminent. There's something rather odd about the notion of denying autonomy to a person for 9 months.

WindSock · 03-05-2013 04:37PM

OCorcrainn wrote: »

One thing that I have noticed is that it is mostly single, 'educated', middle and upper class young women and students with no children that vehemently support abortion. Why is that?

Well, it's fairly understandable why young women are the most vocal about it. As for the 'educated' in commas and I am not sure why, I suppose it is because educated people have more media exposure from blogs to Twitter and even boards.ie sometimes, so you are most likely going to be reading their shit, y'all.

thebullkf · 03-05-2013 04:37PM

kylith wrote: »

This is the reason why a pregnancy is usually only announced after the third month.

At that point in gestation if it came to a choice between my life and a foetus, I would choose my life.

I'm having difficulty working out what you mean here. Could you restate the question please?

thanks for the link.

My question was do you think your right to abort a 6-9 mth old foetus supercedes that of bodily integrity- i suppose iwas getting at at what point do you believe human life begins in a way. So if you believe in abortion only to save your own life then i don't have any issue, however if you were to abort a healthy 6-9mth old foetus just because you didn't want kids or decide not to go through with it is wrong imo.

Hope this clarifies

An Coilean · 03-05-2013 04:37PM

Nodin wrote: »

No, as I deem the womans right to her body as pre-eminent. There's something rather odd about the notion of denying autonomy to a person for 9 months.

Out of curiosity, at what point does the unborn child become a human being with the same right to life that you have acording to you?

thebullkf · 03-05-2013 04:40PM

Nodin wrote: »

No, as I deem the womans right to her body as pre-eminent. There's something rather odd about the notion of denying autonomy to a person for 9 months.

well idisagree and thikn its wrong- so we'll havwe to disagree ao agree

i genuinely do not see "because i don't want kids" as a valid reason for termination in a healthy foetus/baby.

eviltwin · 03-05-2013 04:40PM

thebullkf wrote: »

thanks for the link.

My question was do you think your right to abort a 6-9 mth old foetus supercedes that of bodily integrity- i suppose iwas getting at at what point do you believe human life begins in a way. So if you believe in abortion only to save your own life then i don't have any issue, however if you were to abort a healthy 6-9mth old foetus just because you didn't want kids or decide not to go through with it is wrong imo.

Hope this clarifies

Most women who have abortions do so because they don't want to be pregnant, it doesn't make sense for them to wait until such a late stage to have an abortion. Its more expensive, more invasive, takes longer to recover etc. I don't see many women waiting that long unless something happens to compromise their health or they find out the child has fetal abnormalities.

thebullkf · 03-05-2013 04:42PM

eviltwin wrote: »

Most women who have abortions do so because they don't want to be pregnant, it doesn't make sense for them to wait until such a late stage to have an abortion. Its more expensive, more invasive, takes longer to recover etc. I don't see many women waiting that long unless something happens to compromise their health or they find out the child has fetal abnormalities.

do you have any stats to support that? So do you not think my argument isvalid

eyescreamcone · 03-05-2013 04:43PM

We should have a vote on it
And not the anti-choice led wording of times past.

We should have a referendum on the whole thing:

Would you support abortion in the following cases?:

- in no cases whatsoever
- if the life of the mother was at risk
- if the life of the mother was at risk including risk due to suicide
- if the pregnancy was due to rape or incest
- if the foetues is unviable
(I know a couple who were expecting twins. One foetus was poorly and was going to die eventually, in the womb, and kill the healthy twin in the process. The couple were advised to go to England and abort the unhealthy foetus, which they did. The couple then had one healthy baby.
Anyone who is against legislating for abortion in cases such as this is a complete nutjob).

- if the foetus will ultimately be born disabled (including DS - in Denmark nearly all DS foetus' are aborted))
- if the mother wishes to abort the foetus for whatever reason up to the internationally accepted time limits

Let the people make a democratic decision on ALL these issues and let that be the end of it.

Had to laugh today when the bishops put their oar in "not in our hospitals etc." - that certainly can be arranged!!!!

I'd just like to thank the medical personnel and lawmakers in the UK who look after our dirty little secrets for us and keep our women and girls safe.

Cunning Alias · 03-05-2013 04:43PM

Staff Infection wrote: »

Ya see both sides of the debate keep saying "the majority of people agree with our stance" etc etc so I'd love to see a multiple choice referendum to actually find out once and for all what people want. It could be on a scale such as say

1. No Abortions ever
2. Abortions if the mothers life is at risk
3. Abortions in cases where the foetus will die at birth (fatal foetal abnormalities)
4. Abortions in cases of incest
5. Abortions in cases of rape
6. Combinations of the above so maybe options 2 and 3 together
7. Likewise other combinations of the above options
8. Abortion on demand

This way at least we'd have whatever the majority decides rather than both groups claiming to represent the majority. I'd also like to do the same around a right to death referendum for terminally ill people with regressive painful diseases but that's for another day.

I can't understand why more people aren't calling for this. Since debate/protests/lobbying is getting us nowhere and just seems to be angering each side more and more. Why the hell don't we just have this vote? Are people afraid of the possible results?

thebullkf · 03-05-2013 04:45PM

So if suicidal one can terminate a life but not a debt.... strange.

Clandestine · 03-05-2013 04:46PM

Cunning Alias wrote: »

Are people afraid of the possible results?

Of course... but certain politicians and well-funded religious groups will oppose it at any cost.

eviltwin · 03-05-2013 04:46PM

thebullkf wrote: »

do you have any stats to support that? So do you not think my argument isvalid

77% of abortions in the UK last year took place between 3 - 9 weeks

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/may/24/abortion-statistics-england-wales

There is no advantage in waiting until later.

kylith · 03-05-2013 04:47PM

eviltwin wrote: »

Most women who have abortions do so because they don't want to be pregnant, it doesn't make sense for them to wait until such a late stage to have an abortion. Its more expensive, more invasive, takes longer to recover etc. I don't see many women waiting that long unless something happens to compromise their health or they find out the child has fetal abnormalities.

This.

It would be highly unusual for a woman to go through two thirds of a pregnancy and then decide that she just didn't want to have the baby. The vast, vast majority of abortions are performed in the first trimester and are often medical (taking a tablet and getting a heavy period) rather than surgical.

I believe that up to foetal viability it is the woman's choice whether or not to continue with the pregnancy. I agree with a cut off of 22-24 weeks, as I feel that six months should be enough time to decide whether or not you are prepared, mentally, physically, and financially to have a baby.

gandalf · 03-05-2013 04:47PM

thebullkf wrote: »

thanks for the link.

My question was do you think your right to abort a 6-9 mth old foetus supercedes that of bodily integrity- i suppose iwas getting at at what point do you believe human life begins in a way. So if you believe in abortion only to save your own life then i don't have any issue, however if you were to abort a healthy 6-9mth old foetus just because you didn't want kids or decide not to go through with it is wrong imo.

Hope this clarifies

I would say if a woman doesn't want to be pregnant that she will have decided well before this stage. I would certainly not be in favour of any liberalisation that allows terminations at that stage unless it has been shown that the foetus will not be viable outside the womb. In those cases I believe it is perfectly correct to end the pregnancy.

Having gone through a pregnancy with my wife I know the pressures that it places on a womans body and the physiological pressures it puts on both parents and we had a healthy baby boy. To prolong someone's agony after telling them their child will not survive birth is cruel and unusual torture and I am disgusted that the current legislation being put forward has not covered this eventuality.

thebullkf · 03-05-2013 04:47PM

Cunning Alias wrote: »

I can't understand why more people aren't calling for this. Since debate/protests/lobbying is getting us nowhere and just seems to be angering each side more and more. Why the hell don't we just have this vote? Are people afraid of the possible results?

i think so. I believe abortion is warranted in certain cases. We still live in a catholic country ( despite what the rabid boards brigade would have you think) and this is i believe one of the reasons for lack of discourse- another is the precedence that would be set, as soon as its legislated for there will be a multitude of " allowances" for abortion pardon the phrase.

thebullkf · 03-05-2013 04:50PM

eviltwin wrote: »

77% of abortions in the UK last year took place between 3 - 9 weeks

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/may/24/abortion-statistics-england-wales

There is no advantage in waiting until later.

thanks - interseting.

Over 17,000 aborted over the 3 month period....

PinkLemonade · 03-05-2013 04:54PM

thebullkf wrote: »

thanks - interseting.

Over 17,000 aborted over the 3 month period....

Well that's not including the morning after pill, I presume you also consider the morning after pill abortion also?

rugbyman · 03-05-2013 04:55PM

I got some value out of this thread, nobody extreme.

An Cailin, i was minded to thank your posts, but that semed like agreeing with you. You are anti abortion,with a wee let out clause , but you are rational and reasonable.

I am a father, am pro choice, not happy about liberal abortions, but willing to accept the womans wishes. Early abortions, while the foetus in unviable,subject to whatever rules the medics set down, are ok by me.

If the referendum as suggested were to happen I would be voting for abortion on demand.the situation re going ,legally to the UK is simply ridiculous.

Regards

bhamsteve · 03-05-2013 04:55PM

How do people feel about aborting due to the gender of the child? It has become a real problem in some parts of the UK. Is it the inevitable outcome of a pro-choice society?

BTW, I am undecided on the issue of abortion myself and wouldn't vote if it went to a referendum. I think that the only viable outcomes would be abortion on demand or abortions only for serious physical health complications , and I don't think either is ideal.

Pumpkinseeds · 03-05-2013 04:56PM

Ever noticed how many of the anti-abortion protesters are retired, church going ladies, long past child bearing age? Abortion should be available on demand to any woman who asks for one. If a woman wants an abortion she should be entitled to one. If a woman doesn't want an abortion nobody is going to force her to have one. Sadly so long as the goverment are straddling the fence trying to keep the catholics happy women will never have any other choice than to go abroad for an abortion.

I saw some of these elderly women with their 'love them both' placards and petitions today. I do actually feel quite irate at them and their hypocritical slogans. Forcing a woman to have a child she doesn't want doesn't help the woman or the child. What kind of life is an unwanted child going to have. You won't find these protestors popping round to visit the woman and her child to see if they are coping or if they need any help. Oh no,these people don't give a flying fig about the woman or her child. They want to keep catholic Ireland abortion free. They're the same twats who were against the pill and availabilty of condoms.

I totally agree with that Nobel winning scientist who said 'ignorance is the curse of the Irish'

Why we can't have a rational conversation about abortion

Comments