‘People think I’m the devil for having an abortion, but it’s the only option that&

RobertKK wrote: »

But we are talking about life that has been created, not life that has not been created.

Has it though?

sup_dude wrote: »

But it's not life yet

Test the cells and see what life form the cells are which are alive and dividing.

boatbuilder wrote: »

Sad and barbaric that potentially on one floor of a hospital a doctor is killing an unborn baby (which involves dismembering it inside the mother) and on another floor a doctor could be battling to save a baby's life of a very similar age (23/24 weeks).

Do not see anything sad, or barbaric there. I think it is wonderful that our medical science has progressed to the point that we can bring it to bear on controlling our own life cycle and support the decision to have, or not have, children as the woman sees fit.

That a woman can reach a stage of pregnancy, and be fully supported in how she chooses to go from there, and therefore our species is not simply a slave to its reproductive cycle any more, is a joy to me, not the horror you paint it as.

boatbuilder wrote: »

I would guess that abortion is pure selfishness in the vast majority of cases

A point that pedantically would of course be true because essentially every choice a human makes is selfish. For example I see the choice to have an abortion as being no more (or less) selfish than the choice to have children. One just has to mediate ones definition of "selfish" to fit which is easily facilitated by how labile a word it is.

boatbuilder wrote: »

Problem is many people don't see foetuses as human beings. How different it would be if mothers suddenly decided they wanted to kill off their two year olds

You have answered your own question already, so why ask it. One is a human being. The other is not.

boatbuilder wrote: »

When does a baby become a human? Society is messed up.

Perhaps before you pass judgement on high to all of society you could attempt to meaningfully and usefully answer that question yourself. When indeed does a fetus become human. Answer it, and give a basis for the answer. Though your bias is plainly on your sleeve when you use the word "baby" in the question.

boatbuilder wrote: »

My points are perfectly valid. Your calling them rubbish doesn't just magically make them invalid.

Then I hope you find that I more cogently dealt with the failures in your points that mere dismissal. Let us see if the same level of decorum is returned in kind.

boatbuilder wrote: »

Apparently the woman said she wanted to do away with the baby because she felt she couldn't cope with another baby (single mother).

A perfectly valid reason. Would that all the children born into this world were born to people who were prepared to provide it with all of its requirements. Sounds like she recognized her resources of time and money would not be sufficient to provide a child with the life it deserves, so she simply chose not to have one. Sounds fine to me.

boatbuilder wrote: »

You can call it what you like and use any amount of cold and distancing terminology to describe it and make it seem like it wasn't a human

Or you can apply emotive labels to it that do not fit in order to get people to become more emotionally attached to the concept than is warranted. Both sides can play the propaganda game with terminology and language. And, as you demonstrate wantonly, both sides can contrive to do this while denigrating the exact same thing in the other side as if you are as pure as the driven snow yourself.

The trick therefore is to cut through the language and establish _exactly_ what it is you are trying to say, and on what basis, and not hide behind terminology. Answering your own question that you posed above would be a useful starting point in this.

boatbuilder wrote: »

Avoiding the usage of the word "baby" doesn't suddenly make it ok.

Wantonly misusing the word "baby" doesn't suddenly make it all NOT ok either. Check your pedestal, it is not as high as you appear to believe it to be.

boatbuilder wrote: »

Simple equation for you... baby = toddler a couple years later

Not simple, simplistic. And entirely arbitrary. Why pick those particular cut off points for example. You could just as easily say "Sperm = toddler a couple of years later" and off the back of that start supporting extremist anti contraception rules. And it would be just as valid a basis from which to do so (that is to say: Not valid at all).

boatbuilder wrote: »

Totally agree with you. I would argue that some mothers are the opposite of brave - cowardly.
Call it judgmental if you like, but hey I never saw the law that says we shouldn't judge people's actions.

Absolutely. But let us not conflate simply name calling with reasoned judgement. What you wrote above was simple name calling. It was not reasoned judgement.

padd b1975 wrote: »

Don't "we" now??

Have you ever made any of those points to a parent that has suffered those type of loses?

What was their reaction?

I've had friends who lost babies through miscarriage, my mother had two 2nd trimester miscarriages and I've had two in the first trimester. Yes they are sad, very sad but not at all comparable to the loss of a living, breathing child. I would rather lose a pregnancy than lose one of my kids as would most parents. I also think its a huge insult to those who have been unlucky enough to suffer a still birth or a neo natal death to say its in anyway the same. That's not to take away from the grief of a miscarriage but they are not comparable.

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

Indeed. Slut is not appropriate and the proper term is foetus killer.

Spoken by one of Ireland's very own Taliban.

RobertKK wrote: »

Test the cells and see what life form the cells are which are alive and dividing.

When you are diagnosed with cancer, make sure to tell the surgeon not to remove it.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Even if abortion on demand became available in the morning, why should she be entitled to an abortion for free or in her desired location? Should her abortion mean that maybe a poor elderly person doesnt get a bed in an emergency room?

I think abortion should be decriminalised, I dont think it should be paid for by the taxpayer where it is not done to save a life or for a rape victim etc.

There's a utilitarian argument here. If a woman cannot afford an abortion, is it better that she carries a child to term, which she didn't originally want and which she clearly does not have the means to care for?

Are the best interests of society served if abortions are only obtainable by the wealthy, while the poor are forced to carry unplanned pregnancies to term due to a lack of funds?

I personally would say not. As bizarre as it would seem that the state would pay for such things, it falls into the realms of family planning, and we know that if family planning isn't a freely available and easily accessible service, then the rate of unplanned families goes up, as does the burden on the state and on society.

wonderfullife wrote: »

Whatever the context its not very helpful to use cancer comparisons to advance any point of view.

And not big or particularly clever to even loosely compare cancer to an unborn child.

It wasn't a child.

cnocbui wrote: »

It wasn't a child.

Are you reading a different thread? Of course it is a child.

wonderfullife wrote: »

That argument is fairly redundant in terms of travel though. As I've stated before you can get to London handy for under 50 euro and stay 2 nights in a hostel for 20 quid.

I.e. that remains a problem whether the legislation changed here or not.

I dont think the abortion debate is a class-dependent debate - there is no clear rich and poor divide to this. A grand is by no means pocket change but it is not an insurmountable prohibitive price either. Most people, even the poor, can afford to run a car on the dole. It might require slightly longer to pay for an abortion and involve some sacrifices, sure.

And the burden on the state argument is wholly dependent on the assumption that the mothers and children will not be net contributers long run. Many of these mothers and children will return/enter into the workforce and be long term positive contributors to the state.

The whole nexus of the issue returns to unplanned pregnancies. It really should be something that is controllable. Speaking from experience. Carelessness and recklessness are 2 things that contribute to most unplanned pregnancies.

As one of "the poor" you refer to, I can safely tell you it would be impossible for me to come up with 1000 in a matter of weeks without borrowing off a richer friend or family. Some people don't have richer family/friends. Most "poor" people run cars on the fume of petrol and pay the tax/insurance on a hand to mouth basis (thereby costing more to themselves in the long run). You're totally wrong about it not being an insurmountable prohibitive price. I couldn't get a credit union loan for 1000 on top of the loans taken to upgrade my heating system/plumbing/electrics in the house. I'm already paying that back at as much as I can afford and if the car dies, I'm fooked.

As for getting to London for under 50, I'm assuming you are talking about coach? Not the best return journey for a woman who has just had a medical procedure on her womb, is it? Ditto with staying in a hostel. Sure, I can think of nothing more suited to her physical/mental health than sharing a bathroom with a bunch of back packers.

I'm a single parent of two (one resulting from our "careless and reckless" mishap with a condom, unbeknownst until a month later) and I can also safely tell you that had I not had the full support of my family (including financially), it would have been a much better decision at the time to have an abortion. It's no joke raising kids on a shoe string and is definitely a drain on tax payers, a feeling in myself that is exacerbated each and every time I collect my social welfare. If I had had an abortion and waited until I was financially stable to raise a child (as I believe people should, although I didn't - knowing what I know now, like) I would still have produced children that would contribute to the economy eventually but would also have been better positioned to do the same, without having been a drain on tax payers in the first place.

All good reasons to have at least a subsidised abortion service in this country.