Does anyone feel insulted by the abortion proposals?

lazygal wrote: »

I still don't understand why you think its okay to travel to avail of something you think is wrong. Women have to spend time and money availing of something which is legal in most countries. What do you think women would do if they didn't have the right to travel, or the means to do so, or the UK wasn't as easily accessible? Do you think they'd just remain pregnant? Or would they try to do something about it, as women have done for millenia?

I don't think everyone should think like I do. But I don't understand why people think its okay to deny a service to women in their country of residence, when they need it. No one has to have an abortion, your position remains unchanged if abortion on request is legal here. You don't have to have one. But to deny other women access to it because you don't agree with it is something I will never understand.

I dont (on a personal level) think its ok to travel for one, because I disagree with abortion on a moral level. But its not up to me to stop all women from travelling. whats wrong with you?

whatvere say I might have on what goes on in my own country, I dont have the right to stop women travelling for availing of legal services abroad.

Do those who oppose prostitution try to stop men travelling to Thailand?

Morag

I was listening back to the show last night on 98fm.
There was speakers on from both sides and then people ringing in.
One of them was a guy called Jim and I was staggered by him.
He went on about ripping babies out of bellies and putting them in buckets
and then when one of the other people who had rang in said the word period
he freaked out and called her rude and crude.

That abortion was evil and satanic and it was going against nature, I was gobsmacked by him.
Said that women who have a deliberate abortion prove that there was an EVE!

If anyone wants to listen to it, it's here http://media.98fm.com/listenback/360/thursday/1/

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I dont (on a personal level) think its ok to travel for one, because I disagree with abortion on a moral level. But its not up to me to stop all women from travelling. whats wrong with you?

whatvere say I might have on what goes on in my own country, I dont have the right to stop women travelling for availing of legal services abroad.

Do those who oppose prostitution try to stop men travelling to Thailand?

What is the answer to an unwanted pregnancy in your opinion?

username123 wrote: »

But the point is, Irish women travel to the UK to procure abortions in large numbers. Im not aware of large numbers of Irish people travelling to other jurisdictions specifically to bear arms or euthanise or any other thing that is legal elsewhere.

Hence - there is a clear demand for abortion. So why continue to ignore that demand? We are not talking about 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 women a year here, we are talking about thousands.

If its because abortion is bad no matter where its carried out, they why are the pro lifers not campaigning to ban travel for pregnant women? If its just "well legal things in other jurisdictions are ok" then its a hypocritical stance that ensures that only women who can afford it can have abortions.

Surely all members of society should be treated equally, and some not have certain advantages because they have money.

But the argument remains the same.

I'm sure there are plenty of things there would be a very high demand for if people really thought hard about it! Still doesnt mean we have to legislate for it.

username123 wrote: »

What is the answer to an unwanted pregnancy in your opinion?

Another trick question?

Or do you mean what would be the answer to an unwanted pregnancy that I had?

username123 wrote: »

Surely all members of society should be treated equally, and some not have certain advantages because they have money.

An idealist - wonderful.

There are demands for all kinds of things that are illegal in this country.
The demand is not being ignored because the dept have overlooked how profitable it might be - misread the cost/benefit ratio.

eviltwin

Abortion is illegal and yet women have the right to travel for one written into the constitution. Isn't that just everything that is wrong with this country and its attitude to this issue summed up right there.

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Another trick question?

Why do you think its a trick question? I am genuinely interested to know what you think the solution is to an unwanted pregnancy.

If you think Im trying to trick you then no need to answer - but its a strangely paranoid response to a straight question!

eviltwin wrote: »

Abortion is illegal and yet women have the right to travel for one written into the constitution. Isn't that just everything that is wrong with this country and its attitude to this issue summed up right there.

People can travel to do whatever the hell they want if its legal in other jurisdictions. Why this incessant "its legal there so make it legal here" argument??

And there are plenty of things wrong with this country (mostly Enda Kenny but lets not go there) but newsflash, there is more going on in the world right now, but it all seems to have taken a back seat.

Morag wrote: »

That abortion was evil and satanic and it was going against nature, I was gobsmacked by him.

But that's the attitude some people have towards it.

As deranged as it sounds to you or me (and I'm sticking my neck out here), you have to respect it.
It was the common (ubiquitous) attitude until relatively recently.
You have found a new master and a new knowledge and you are adamant that you are right.

The Pro-Life God people are also adamant that they are right.

TBH, from the outside looking in, each side looks a little nuts

kylith

OldNotWIse wrote: »

You're not happy? why? Because my opinion is not a carbon copy of yours? Will you only be happy when we are all the same?

Just because something is legal in another country doesnt mean people should be allowed do it in here. Isnt that a fairly basic point? Do you think we should have the right to bear arms? Eusthanase? You can't just make a blanket statement like, "oh well they're allowed do it there so why not here".

I know what you are trying to get at. You think if I really want to claim a pro life stance I should be trying to stop abortions everywhere right? As an Irish citizen, I have a right to a say in what goes on in our country.

tbh your argument has been trotted out many times before and its just a bit...straw clutchy... Go into any court and claim you should be able to break the law because activity X, Y or Z is legal elsewhere and you'll be laughed at. Of course we can take precedence from UK supreme court etc but we have out own legal system, constitution etc. Its just not proper argument to say "well we can do it over there".

Of course we can't do X, Y, or Z and then claim it should be ok because its legal elsewhere, but what we can do is campaign for the law to be changed so that X, Y, or Z are no longer illegal in this country, and the fact that the service can be freely accessed elsewhere with no repercussions on return to Ireland is a salient point in the discussion.

For example; assisted suicide is illegal in Ireland, but not in Switzerland. If I were to aid a terminally ill person in travelling to Switzerland to avail of assisted suicide I would be prosecuted on my return to Ireland. Despite the fact that the anti-choice side states that they believe abortion is 'killing babies' there is no campaign for women who go to England to 'murder' their babies to be held to account on return to Ireland. It's simple NIMBY-ism.

Da Shins Kelly

MaxWig wrote: »

As deranged as it sounds to you or me (and I'm sticking my neck out here), you have to respect it.

No, we don't have to respect it.

OldNotWIse wrote: »

People can travel to do whatever the hell they want if its legal in other jurisdictions. Why this incessant "its legal there so make it legal here" argument??

Well Kylith has beaten me to it but usually if you travel to procure something illegal in another country you will be prosecuted upon your return to Ireland, underage sex would have been the example I would have used.

But not abortion - its ok so long as its elsewhere.

Obliq

MaxWig wrote: »

I am not.

I find it very hard to come a (personally) satisfactory conclusion about how I feel about abortion.

I have no religion.

In general, I am much more inclined to agree with the pro-choice side, in most aspects of the debate. I'd share their general outlook I'm sure.

But I'm frustrated at the level of debate.
By all means push forward with your arguments.

But arguing things like 'it's insulting to women to suggest they might be dishonest' riles me up. I actually find it insulting, or patronising to women (and I'm not a woman, I accept). But there is something unsettling about this suggestion that women are somehow angelic, and beyond dishonesty.

Focus the argument.
If you don't think a woman should have to provide a reason for a termination, argue that.
But spare me 'women wouldn't do that' guff

I haven't personally attempted to argue that women wouldn't be dishonest, as it's beside the point. I wouldn't demean myself by focusing on anything less than the argument that this shambles of legislation does nothing useful for women, and indeed legitimises suicidal ideation as an appropriate response to a crisis pregnancy. It may also prove to be incredibly damaging to the health of many women who access pills for abortion purposes and are going to be much more afraid to visit a health professional if problems arise.

As you (in your comment above) are clearly focused on women's potential to abuse this legislation, perhaps you can spot how this focus might get the backs up of women who realise that this will be the starting position (rightly or wrongly) for all who attempt to run the gamut of this new system?

If you want to actually discuss how you feel about abortion, and I can understand how you find it very hard to come a (personally) satisfactory conclusion about how you feel about it - there IS NO satisfactory conclusion IMO, this is not disneyland as I have said before, why not try and do that? Having circular arguments about whether/why women should/should not have to go before a panel of judges is not helpful (from anyone, IMO) because that will be law, and it is simply unsatisfactory for many reasons. We don't have to agree on those reasons.

MaxWig wrote: »

As deranged as it sounds to you or me (and I'm sticking my neck out here), you have to respect it.

I disagree.

Pro choice does not force their own morals on other people.
Pro life does.

That is what I do not respect.

username123 wrote: »

I disagree.

Pro choice does not force their own morals on other people.
Pro life does.

That is what I do not respect.

The State is the only enforcer in question.

eviltwin

OldNotWIse wrote: »

People can travel to do whatever the hell they want if its legal in other jurisdictions. Why this incessant "its legal there so make it legal here" argument??

And there are plenty of things wrong with this country (mostly Enda Kenny but lets not go there) but newsflash, there is more going on in the world right now, but it all seems to have taken a back seat.

We all know there are other things in the world but what else are we going to talk about on an abortion thread?

This is not the be all and end all but as a woman of child bearing age who is directly affected and who has a daughter who will be affected this is a big deal and its not something that I can ignore.

MaxWig wrote: »

The State is the only enforcer in question.

You said "the attitude some people have........you have to respect it".

I stated "I do not".

I dont know what you mean by the above.

username123 wrote: »

You said "the attitude some people have........you have to respect it".

I stated "I do not".

I dont know what you mean by the above.

The legislation reflects the attitudes.

The attitudes are genuine, despite the values you attribute them.

The Pro-Lifer do not enforce anything. They lobby, and argue and make a nuisance of themselves.

But they neither provide or deny abortions.

I think drugs should be legal, and I believe hundreds of lives would be saved each year as a result. I can say that those who oppose legislation to legalise drugs are forcing their morals on me, or I can say that the current legislation reflects their opinions.

I choose the latter

eviltwin

MaxWig wrote: »

The legislation reflects the attitudes.

Perceived attitudes. We haven't had a vote on this issue in a generation. Who knows what public opinion really is.

eviltwin wrote: »

Perceived attitudes. We haven't had a vote on this issue in a generation. Who knows what public opinion really is.

Granted - but you can only play whats in front of you

cdaly_

MaxWig wrote: »

The legislation reflects the attitudes.

The legislation reflects the lobbying money.

The attitudes have long passed out the legislation...

Obliq

MaxWig wrote: »

Granted - but you can only play whats in front of you

And what will be put in front of us in terms of legislation is not necessarily a product of demand, is it? How many TD's do you think are just wishing this legislation will see them out of office, without having to face up to the demand for more abortion access in Ireland, under more circumstances? How many TD's are repelled and repulsed by the offensive pro-life bullying, yet don't want to stand up to them? Do you really think this legislation reflects public opinion as it stands today?

Obliq wrote: »

And what will be put in front of us in terms of legislation is not necessarily a product of demand, is it? How many TD's do you think are just wishing this legislation will see them out of office, without having to face up to the demand for more abortion access in Ireland, under more circumstances? How many TD's are repelled and repulsed by the offensive pro-life bullying, yet don't want to stand up to them? Do you really think this legislation reflects public opinion as it stands today?

And you think Pro Life exists in a vaccuum?

Ugly as you may deem them - they are tapping into a pre-existing attitude.

You'd be very wrong to believe its a small collection of nut jobs that share some of these contentions.

username123 wrote: »

Why do you think its a trick question? I am genuinely interested to know what you think the solution is to an unwanted pregnancy.

If you think Im trying to trick you then no need to answer - but its a strangely paranoid response to a straight question!

It usually is though. Not paranoid at all I can assure you.

My experience has been you guys ask a question and when we answer you go, "oh well if thats the case then..." and twist what we have said.

In any case it is not "unwanted" pregnancies that are being addressed in the legislation, it is pregnancies that pose a real, substantial and probable risk to the life or health of the mother. And I have made my view on that clear - if such a risk exists, I do not have a problem.

kylith

MaxWig wrote: »

And you think Pro Life exists in a vaccuum?

Ugly as you may deem them - they are tapping into a pre-existing attitude.

You'd be very wrong to believe its a small collection of nut jobs that share some of these contentions.

Surveys on abortion would lead me to believe that they are a much smaller section of the population than they would like you to think.

Handsome Bob

username123 wrote: »

I disagree.

Pro choice does not force their own morals on other people.
Pro life does.

That is what I do not respect.

Maybe not their morals, but I find some to be overwhelming and overbearing in expressing their opinions. I'd see myself as pro-choice, but I try to be flexible and develop an opinion on a case by case basis, whereas I find other people who would be pro-choice to be extremely rigid and inflexible in their thinking.

I think that's why so many people tend to steer clear of the debate, as they feel it's monopolised by those who are extreme in their thinking on both ends of the spectrum.

So I'd have to disagree with you, as I feel there's a lack of respect coming from both sides.

Obliq

MaxWig wrote: »

And you think Pro Life exists in a vaccuum?

Ugly as you may deem them - they are tapping into a pre-existing attitude.

You'd be very wrong to believe its a small collection of nut jobs that share some of these contentions.

That's an assumption you make about my beliefs there. As you recommended yourself, try and focus your argument.

The overwhelming majority of people in this country support further access to abortion services in more cases than this legislation, yes? (I can give the link if you want proof). The brushing under the carpet hoping it'll all go away attitude that is prevalent in govt. now and for at least the last 20 yrs since we first voted on this legislation should be enough to prove to you that public opinion IS NOT reflected in this legislation (or at least, not the current public opinion which is better educated and informed and less religiously informed than 20 yrs ago.)

Obliq wrote: »

The overwhelming majority of people in this country support further access to abortion services in more cases than this legislation, yes?

Yeah if there's one thing you can say about Ireland, its that society as a whole has a very clear cut, uncomplicated and decisive attitude to abortion