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

Abortion Discussion

Options
1…192193195197198…334

Comments

  • Options
    #5822
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    I don't see how you can stop anyone from travelling.
    They should both be given some educational material:
    * on contraception
    * scientific facts such as DNA being in place at the moment of conception.
    * the amount of couples who are finding it impossible to conceive and would love to adopt
    * state support should they wish to carry the baby either to adoption or to keep (if there are financial reasons motivating their decision)

    It is not the job of women with unwanted pregnancies to be brood mares for the childless. Also as a married woman I am not allowed to give up my biological children for adoption in Ireland. And there are laws preventing people from traveling for other reasons.


  • Options
    #5823
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users Posts: 8,965 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    swampgas wrote: »
    And it's more special than a woman and her right to have some say over whether she continues with an unwanted pregnancy or not?
    What about the fetus' right to have a life?
    Or is a woman's right to some control over her own body not so special as a fertilized egg, something which cannot even be seen with the naked eye?
    So say everyone is blind does that mean no-one has a right to life? You seem quite interested in communicating with a bunch of people on boards.ie you can't see.


  • Options
    #5824
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users Posts: 8,965 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    lazygal wrote: »
    It is not the job of women with unwanted pregnancies to be brood mares for the childless.
    But it is not their job to be wilfully killing unborn babies either.
    Also as a married woman I am not allowed to give up my biological children for adoption in Ireland. And there are laws preventing people from traveling for other reasons.
    Most married people would go through with the pregnancy or would certainly be in a good enough routine of contraception. If not, they need some serious education. And that should be done rather the killing an unborn babies.


  • Options
    #5825
    swampgas
    Registered Users Posts: 3,537 ✭✭✭swampgas


    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    What about the fetus' right to have a life?
    It doesn't have any such right. A foetus can only become a baby if a woman is willing to incubate it for 9 months. Then it gets rights.
    So say everyone is blind does that mean no-one has a right to life? You seem quite interested in communicating with a bunch of people on boards.ie you can't see.

    A fertilized egg is invisible to the naked eye because it's tiny, very tiny, not because we have poor vision. It isn't a baby or anywhere near, it is 99% potential. There isn't even a guarantee that a fertilized egg will develop properly.


  • Options
    #5826
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    But it is not their job to be wilfully killing unborn babies either.


    Most married people would go through with the pregnancy or would certainly be in a good enough routine of contraception. If not, they need some serious education. And that should be done rather the killing an unborn babies.

    So you're ok with women killing unborn children outside of Ireland? Do you think married couples don't terminate pregnancies? What's your solution to unwanted pregnancies?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5827
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users Posts: 8,965 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    lazygal wrote: »
    What about the fact no contraception even with perfect use is 100% effective? What about people who don't ever want children? Women who don't have children will find it virtually impossible to be sterilized in Ireland. What's your solution to women with unwanted pregnancies?

    Most of ineffective uses of contraception or because it is incorrectly used. Hence - the importance of education.

    People who don't want children can be sterilised.

    I think abortion should be the very very last option and only in extreme cases e.g. rape. If you don't put limits on it you begin a slippery slope of all sorts of madness. Using it as a form of contraception, abortion doping, dehumanising surrogate mothers even more.

    Do you think that couples should be allowed kill their babies after they are born? What's your cut off for the killing?


  • Options
    #5828
    Balmed Out
    Registered Users Posts: 4,713 ✭✭✭Balmed Out


    swampgas wrote: »
    Very few if any women actually want an unplanned pregnancy, or want to have to go through with an abortion at all. Suggesting that they will be "aborting away, with bells and whistles" shows a very poor understanding of this fact.
    I can only presume your trying to misunderstand me as well as ignoring the point, obviously I meant that whereby the pregnancy is not viable I cant be more agreeable with aborting and I think it is loathsome that people are forced to continue on with pregnancies knowing the baby cannot survive.


  • Options
    #5829
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users Posts: 8,965 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    lazygal wrote: »
    So you're ok with women killing unborn children outside of Ireland? Do you think married couples don't terminate pregnancies?
    I am not ok with it. No. I just don't see how you can legislate for it.
    What's your solution to unwanted pregnancies?
    Pregnancies.

    How about you answer my question? Do you think it is ok for a couple to kill the child after it is born?


  • Options
    #5830
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users Posts: 8,965 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    swampgas wrote: »
    It doesn't have any such right. A foetus can only become a baby if a woman is willing to incubate it for 9 months. Then it gets rights.
    So that means 5 seconds before birth, the mother can still kill it?
    What about as the baby is being born half in / half out?

    If it is so simple answer that.
    A fertilized egg is invisible to the naked eye because it's tiny, very tiny, not because we have poor vision. It isn't a baby or anywhere near, it is 99% potential. There isn't even a guarantee that a fertilized egg will develop properly.
    So what if it is invisible. If you were blind everyone would be invisible.


  • Options
    #5831
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    Most of ineffective uses of contraception or because it is incorrectly used. Hence - the importance of education.

    People who don't want children can be sterilised.

    I think abortion should be the very very last option and only in extreme cases e.g. rape. If you don't put limits on it you begin a slippery slope of all sorts of madness. Using it as a form of contraception, abortion doping, dehumanising surrogate mothers even more.

    Do you think that couples should be allowed kill their babies after they are born? What's your cut off for the killing?

    Why is it a different crime to kill a foetus than a minute old born child? I wouldn't have a cutoff as I know from my own pregnancies emergencies can arise at any time. But if a foetus reaches viability past 24 weeks all efforts should be made to save it.
    There is virtually no access to sterilization for childless women in Ireland. And stop beating the drum about contraception. Even with perfect use it can fail. Is your solution to every unwanted pregnancy to remain pregnant? Why can the unborn conceived through rape be killed but the foetus conceived because the morning after pill and an iud didn't work must be gestated?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5832
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users Posts: 8,965 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    lazygal wrote: »
    Why is it a different crime to kill a foetus than a minute old born child? I wouldn't have a cutoff as I know from my own pregnancies emergencies can arise at any time. But if a foetus reaches viability past 24 weeks all efforts should be made to save it.
    There is virtually no access to sterilization for childless women in Ireland. And stop beating the drum about contraception. Even with perfect use it can fail. Is your solution to every unwanted pregnancy to remain pregnant? Why can the unborn conceived through rape be killed but the foetus conceived because the morning after pill and an iud didn't work must be gestated?
    Difficult to follow what you are saying.
    Are you saying abortion fine before 24 weeks purely because Science can play the part of the womb after 24 weeks? Well then, what happens if Science can make a fetus outside the womb viable after a week?

    I know several people who weren't bothered using contraception and ended up getting pregnant and had abortions. How many out of 5,000 aborted pregnancies do you think were using contraceptives perfectly?


  • Options
    #5833
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    Difficult to follow what you are saying.
    Are you saying abortion fine before 24 weeks purely because Science can play the part of the womb after 24 weeks? Well then, what happens if Science can make a fetus viable after a week?

    I know several people who weren't bothered using contraception and ended up getting pregnant and had abortions. How many out of 5,000 aborted pregnancies do you think were using contraceptives perfectly?
    I know plenty of people who use contraception and it failed. I know plenty of people who don't want to be pregnant and give birth. I know women who've been refused sterilization procedures. Why is it ok to kill an unborn child conceived by rape? Why don't we issue death certs for babies born before 24 weeks?
    If science could create a womb environment capable of gestation of unwanted foetuses from the moment of conception then science could take care of unwanted pregnancies but that is not possible at the moment. Being pregnant is crap and no one should be forced to remain so against her wishes.


  • Options
    #5834
    swampgas
    Registered Users Posts: 3,537 ✭✭✭swampgas


    Balmed Out wrote: »
    I can only presume your trying to misunderstand me as well as ignoring the point, obviously I meant that whereby the pregnancy is not viable I cant be more agreeable with aborting and I think it is loathsome that people are forced to continue on with pregnancies knowing the baby cannot survive.

    I suspect many "abortion only in limited cases" people agree to abortion for non-viable pregnancies (and for pregnancy caused by rape in many cases) because they feel sufficient sympathy for the woman to justify the abortion. After all, in such cases the woman had no say in the situation. And magically the foetal right to life is suddenly no longer a problem.

    However as soon as a woman's pregnancy is somehow judged to be "immoral" or careless - she was careless with contraception, she was sleeping around, she was wearing a short skirt and got raped, or she cares too much about her career and not enough about having children - then suddenly age-old prejudices come into play, and the foetal right to life is suddenly valid again.


  • Options
    #5835
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users Posts: 8,965 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    lazygal wrote: »
    Why is it ok to kill an unborn child conceived by rape?
    Because it is unfair to make the mother continue with the pregnancy. She has suffered enough.
    Why don't we issue death certs for babies born before 24 weeks?
    Because nobody cares.
    If science could create a womb environment capable of gestation of unwanted foetuses from the moment of conception then science could take care of unwanted pregnancies but that is not possible at the moment.
    Well then you agree that the fetus as special rights. Just that science can't realise them so the Mother shouldn't have to either. That doesn't seem right.
    Being pregnant is crap and no one should be forced to remain so against her wishes.
    Oh boo hoo. Being killed against your will when you could have had a great life is probably worse.


  • Options
    #5836
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    TheChizler wrote: »
    What's with the concept of using abortion as a form of contraception? Is a girl, in the heat of the moment, going to throw away a condom thinking "sure I'll just have potentially dangerous and expensive surgery instead".
    http://jfprhc.bmj.com/content/early/2011/06/30/jfprhc-2011-0063.full.pdf
    The analysis presented here also reveals that com-
    pared with women who have had one abortion and
    after controlling for all other factors, those who have
    obtained multiple abortions are more likely to be Black
    as opposed to White, to have left school at an earlier
    age, to be living in rented accommodation, to report
    an earlier age at first sexual experience, to have been
    less likely to have used a reliable method of contracep-
    tion at sexual debut and to report a greater number of
    lifetime sexual partners.
    The failure of effective contraception obviously has a
    central role in the occurrence of unintended pregnancy
    and subsequent abortion; indeed, several studies sug-
    gest modern method usage rates of around 50% among
    women presenting for abortion.
    20 29 30
    Unfortunately,
    NATSAL2 did not collect comparable data; however,
    it does appear that early sexual competency, contracep-
    tive use at sexual debut and contraceptive use at first
    intercourse with a new partner (see bivariate analyses)
    could impact on subsequent effective contraceptive use
    practices and, as such, be used as an advance indicator
    of potential risk. Similarly, is it evident that women
    who engage in sexual behaviour from an early age and
    those who have greater numbers of sexual partners are
    also at increased risk of experiencing repeat abortion.



    This suggests that, for the majority of women, such abortions are clearly not unintended pregnan-
    cies occurring at the extremes of their reproductive
    careers. It seems there are more complex patterns of
    delay and spacing prior to completion of their child-
    bearing goals, and indicates likely context or situa-
    tional specific barriers to the prevention of unintended
    pregnancy, including poor partner communication,
    planning and a possible lack of control in sexual situ-
    ations. Regrettably, from NATSAL2 it is not possible
    to determine what proportion of these relatively close
    repeat abortions occur to women prior to entering a
    stable relationship.


  • Options
    #5837
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    Balmed Out wrote: »
    That's right I am.
    Not long enough - to state the blindingly obvious. In the UK, you have to make an appointment with your GP, who will refer you to a clinic. You should get a first appointment within 5 working days when you will discuss your options and make a final decision. After that you will be given another appointment within five working days for the actual termination. That's two weeks assuming you go straight to a GP the second you are 4 weeks pregnant.

    On top of that women's bodies are not clocks. Sometimes our periods get delayed, especially when we're stressed. Stressed out over fears of a crisis pregnancy? Think your period is just a week late? Boom, sorry no abortion for you.
    Balmed Out wrote: »
    And if she's wrong?
    Wrong according to who? That's the entire logic of pro-choice.
    Balmed Out wrote: »
    I think in emergency situations consent shouldn't be required for organs. Fair enough where possible take them from willing donors but allowing someone to die rather then take from a dead person without their consent is imho crazy.
    That's every single day. People die every day waiting for organs around the world.
    Balmed Out wrote: »
    If one believes that a fetus is a person then how can they ethically support aborting them to ensure a woman's bodily integrity?
    Because many people don't think a fetus is a person?
    Balmed Out wrote: »
    If I felt an 8 and a half month fetus was not yet a person, not yet alive I would have absolutely no problem aborting it to ensure a woman's choice.
    Great, let's let the women decide and not impose our philosophical concepts of personhood on them.

    Of course 8.5 months is a silly example. The norm across Europe is to allow abortions in the first trimester but to limit them strictly after that except for serious risk to the health or life of the woman or in cases of fatal fetal abnormalities. If such a system were introduced in Ireland, I would be satisfied.


  • Options
    #5838
    Balmed Out
    Registered Users Posts: 4,713 ✭✭✭Balmed Out


    swampgas wrote: »
    I suspect many "abortion only in limited cases" people agree to abortion for non-viable pregnancies (and for pregnancy caused by rape in many cases) because they feel sufficient sympathy for the woman to justify the abortion. After all, in such cases the woman had no say in the situation. And magically the foetal right to life is suddenly no longer a problem.

    However as soon as a woman's pregnancy is somehow judged to be "immoral" or careless - she was careless with contraception, she was sleeping around, she was wearing a short skirt and got raped, or she cares too much about her career and not enough about having children - then suddenly age-old prejudices come into play, and the foetal right to life is suddenly valid again.

    A non viable pregnancy is where the fetus will not survive and an abortion should obviously be performed its not really to do with sympathy and certainly nothing to do with fetal right to life. I cant see how you think it should be used to further your opinion.


  • Options
    #5839
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    Because it is unfair to make the mother continue with the pregnancy. She has suffered enough.


    Because nobody cares.


    Well then you agree that the fetus as special rights. Just that science can't realise them so the Mother shouldn't have to either. That doesn't seem right.


    Oh boo hoo. Being killed against your will when you could have had a great life is probably worse.
    Your dismissive attitude towards the demands pregnancy makes on women is telling.


  • Options
    #5840
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users Posts: 8,965 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    lazygal wrote: »
    Your dismissive attitude towards the demands pregnancy makes on women is telling.
    Well I am not suggesting she be killed whereas you are suggested the unborn baby should be. Perhaps, you should assess your own dismissive attitudes.


  • Options
    #5841
    swampgas
    Registered Users Posts: 3,537 ✭✭✭swampgas


    Balmed Out wrote: »
    A non viable pregnancy is where the fetus will not survive and an abortion should obviously be performed its not really to do with sympathy and certainly nothing to do with fetal right to life. I cant see how you think it should be used to further your opinion.

    What about rape or incest then? Many people seem to feel that abortion should be allowed in those cases, why should the foetus right to life be ignored in those cases? Is it because no right is absolute and people can see what a travesty it is to force to pregnant woman (or girl) to carry her rapist's baby against her will?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5842
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    Well I am not suggesting she be killed whereas you are suggested the unborn baby should be. Perhaps, you should assess your own dismissive attitudes.

    I've birthed two babies. How often have you been pregnant? Do you know what an imposition it is on your body and life?


  • Options
    #5843
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users Posts: 8,965 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    lazygal wrote: »
    I've birthed two babies. How often have you been pregnant? Do you know what an imposition it is on your body and life?

    Oh here we go, I don't have the right to an opinion because I am a man. So the man, the unborn baby gets no say. Just the woman.

    So you dismiss everyone except the woman.

    You are unconvincing.


  • Options
    #5844
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    Oh here we go, I don't have the right to an opinion because I am a man. So the man, the unborn baby gets no say. Just the woman.

    So you dismiss everyone except the woman.

    You are unconvincing.

    You have the right to an opinion. But you don't have the right to dismiss the physical and mental toll of pregnancy and birth. You'll never have to deal with the physical and mental toll and you seem to think that no woman should have the right to decide those tolls are too great for her and she must continue a pregnancy regardless of her wishes. You are unconvincing and it's nothing to do with your gender.


  • Options
    #5845
    Balmed Out
    Registered Users Posts: 4,713 ✭✭✭Balmed Out


    Macha wrote: »
    ...
    Im not suggesting the UK is best practice?

    Any reasonable person will agree that at some time between the fertilization of an egg and birth there is a point where a life is formed and that it is not acceptable to terminate that life.

    Unfortunately we don't have a clue where that point is and we must try to make somewhat of an arbitrary judgment. For me that's brain activity. When I made that decision I didn't know if it was 2 weeks or 8 months.

    Some believe that point is the fertilization of the egg, some when its implanted in the womb, has a heart beat, has brain activity, a nervous system, has all major organs, has sexual organs, looks like a baby etc etc right up till its breathing air.

    If you believe that it is point X then surely you would disagree with termination after that point unless there's some unusual circumstances ?

    If it is past point X should any factors such as career, knowledge of pregnancy etc matter?

    Dont argue with me about choices and rights. Argue with me about when is life. For me its the only real debate when it comes to abortion. Society must dictate some rules. If someone doesn't believe some ethnic minority has a right to live we as a society can and should enforce our ethics over theirs, their beliefs and choices are rendered irrelevant. That's an extreme example but the point stands. When it comes to a fetus the truth is we don't actually know but if as a society we come to a majority view point that its arbitrary developmental point 'X' then surely we should not allow termination after that point regardless of an individuals own opinion?


  • Options
    #5846
    Balmed Out
    Registered Users Posts: 4,713 ✭✭✭Balmed Out


    swampgas wrote: »
    What about rape or incest then? Many people seem to feel that abortion should be allowed in those cases, why should the foetus right to life be ignored in those cases? Is it because no right is absolute and people can see what a travesty it is to force to pregnant woman (or girl) to carry her rapist's baby against her will?

    I already stated my opinion on that... For me once I believe it is alive I would be against termination. I would encourage an early abortion though should that be the mothers wish.


  • Options
    #5847
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users Posts: 8,965 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    lazygal wrote: »
    You have the right to an opinion. But you don't have the right to dismiss the physical and mental toll of pregnancy and birth. You'll never have to deal with the physical and mental toll and you seem to think that no woman should have the right to decide those tolls are too great for her and she must continue a pregnancy regardless of her wishes. You are unconvincing and it's nothing to do with your gender.

    It is nothing to do with my gender but yet you make points solely based on my gender.


  • Options
    #5848
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    It is nothing to do with my gender but yet you make points solely based on my gender.

    Your arguments are unconvincing. You're not concerned about the unborn children taken out of Ireland to be killed abroad. You suggest adoption even though married couples aren't allowed to avail of that option. You dismiss the physical and mental toll pregnancy takes on a woman. Nothing you've posted makes sense.


  • Options
    #5849
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    Balmed Out wrote: »
    Im not suggesting the UK is best practice?
    Neither am I but I what I see is a reasonable practice that takes a fair amount of time - but not one week. So your proposal is unworkable.
    Balmed Out wrote: »
    Any reasonable person will agree that at some time between the fertilization of an egg and birth there is a point where a life is formed and that it is not acceptable to terminate that life.

    Unfortunately we don't have a clue where that point is and we must try to make somewhat of an arbitrary judgment. For me that's brain activity. When I made that decision I didn't know if it was 2 weeks or 8 months.

    Some believe that point is the fertilization of the egg, some when its implanted in the womb, has a heart beat, has brain activity, a nervous system, has all major organs, has sexual organs, looks like a baby etc etc right up till its breathing air.

    If you believe that it is point X then surely you would disagree with termination after that point unless there's some unusual circumstances ?

    If it is past point X should any factors such as career, knowledge of pregnancy etc matter?
    Yes, as I already stated, I would be happy with abortions being allowed until the end of the 1st trimester. That's 12 weeks, which gives a women reasonable amount of time to become aware she's pregnant, make a decision, make the necessary arrangements and get through the medical system. Beyond that, exceptional circumstances like risk to health or life, or fatal fetal abnormality should apply.
    Balmed Out wrote: »
    Dont argue with me about choices and rights. Argue with me about when is life. For me its the only real debate when it comes to abortion. Society must dictate some rules. If someone doesn't believe some ethnic minority has a right to live we as a society can and should enforce our ethics over theirs, their beliefs and choices are rendered irrelevant. That's an extreme example but the point stands. When it comes to a fetus the truth is we don't actually know but if as a society we come to a majority view point that its arbitrary developmental point 'X' then surely we should not allow termination after that point regardless of an individuals own opinion?
    Afraid it isn't so easy to ignore choices and rights.

    It's not actually possible, as you say to determine when a fetus is 'alive' or not. So you're simply left with the choice of either picking a point, which most people across Europe seem to have agreed is 12 weeks, or you go into arguments about utilitarianism, which in my mind the woman would win anyway up until around the same point.


  • Options
    #5850
    aloyisious
    Registered Users Posts: 11,558 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    For Attention of Mods: I'm not sure if what I'm typing is allowed here as it might be seen as promotion of acts not allowed for or against ROI law. If you think it's against Boards.ie protocols or NS please delete all if legally advisable.

    I saw a small sticker (red with white lettering) on a street lamp, Capel St, with link-addresses www.womenonweb.org and info@womenonweb.org. The sticker mentions a particular type of pill relevant to this debate. There is no mention of financial cost on the label.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5851
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users Posts: 8,965 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    lazygal wrote: »
    Your arguments are unconvincing. You're not concerned about the unborn children taken out of Ireland to be killed abroad

    That's not true. You are not reading my posts. See post at 21:02:
    I am not ok with it. No. I just don't see how you can legislate for it.
    You suggest adoption even though married couples aren't allowed to avail of that option.
    Married couples would be a minority case and should be legislated for if it such an issue. I have never heard of it happening. It is the first time I have ever heard anyone mention it. Plenty of married couples have "Accidents" but they usually keep the baby.
    You dismiss the physical and mental toll pregnancy takes on a woman. Nothing you've posted makes sense.
    Abortion has a toll on a woman as well and on the father and on the fetus / unborn baby.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement