Do you think a referendum on abortion would be passed?(not how you'd vote)

Dirty Dingus McGee · 05-03-2016 09:06AM

PhoenixParker wrote: »

No.

The words "sole purview" are very important. Pre-24 weeks while a fetus is in utero the pregnant woman is the only person who can support and maintain its existence.

Once it is born and capable of maintaining life from second to second independently anyone can care for them. At that point the responsibility can be passed to others readily either temporarily for an hour or two off, or permanently through adoption.

Letting a child die is murder. Abortion is the withdrawal of medical care or the switching off of life support. They're very very different things despite the anti-choices protestations to the contrary.

See some people wouldn't see them as being that different.

The fact that 2 people help create the fetus yet only 1 has a say in whether it is terminated or not is completely wrong in my opinion.

Neyite · 05-03-2016 09:34AM

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

See some people wouldn't see them as being that different.

The fact that 2 people help create the fetus yet only 1 has a say in whether it is terminated or not is completely wrong in my opinion.

Should I be allowed to have a say in a medical procedure for a male then? Say, if there was a procedure that may affect your sex life forever, give you faecal and urine incontinence from a young age, for life. That would tie you to a woman you barely can stand for the next 20-odd years (and all her family!) Take vast amounts of your money over the years. A procedure that leads to a life where any kind of job is hard to find because you need flexibility. One that you have halfway through your degree and can never finish it. You'd be ok if I was the Coppers one-night-stand who gets to call the shots on your body? And the rest of your life, even if you don't want that?

Only one has a say in a termination because it's her body undergoing the procedure. If a man had a say in whether or not to terminate, you'd have forced abortions because there are far many more men that would prefer to abort a crisis pregnancy than be willing to give up their entire life, career, income and social life to care for a newborn through to adulthood.

Dirty Dingus McGee · 05-03-2016 09:38AM

Neyite wrote: »

Should I be allowed to have a say in a medical procedure for a male then? Say, if there was a procedure that may affect your sex life forever, give you faecal and urine incontinence from a young age, for life. That would tie you to a woman you barely can stand for the next 20-odd years (and all her family!) Take vast amounts of your money over the years. A procedure that leads to a life where any kind of job is hard to find because you need flexibility. One that you have halfway through your degree and can never finish it. You'd be ok if I was the Coppers one-night-stand who gets to call the shots on your body? And the rest of your life, even if you don't want that?

Only one has a say in a termination because it's her body undergoing the procedure. If a man had a say in whether or not to terminate, you'd have forced abortions because there are far many more men that would prefer to abort a crisis pregnancy than be willing to give up their entire life, career, income and social life to care for a newborn through to adulthood.

The unborn child being terminated belongs to 2 people.The 2 people who created it.

How about if a woman decides to have a child but the father doesn't want it.He'll still be forced to pay maintenance for the child despite wanting nothing to do with it.Based on your argument above I assume you would be in favour of some form of legal abortion that allows fathers to give up any responsibility for a child and not have to pay a penny towards it's well being?

Malari · 05-03-2016 10:28AM

CaraMay wrote: »

One things I've always been curious about but never had the forum to ask. For people who have had an abortion, between finding out you were pregnant and the abortion, did you continue to smoke/ drink/ do drugs / eat peanuts / shellfish / un pasteurized foods or was the baby's health just unimportant from the start?

What would the point of not doing any of those things unless you were going to have the baby?

05-03-2016 10:38AM

Neyite wrote: »

Should I be allowed to have a say in a medical procedure for a male then? Say, if there was a procedure that may affect your sex life forever, give you faecal and urine incontinence from a young age, for life. That would tie you to a woman you barely can stand for the next 20-odd years (and all her family!) Take vast amounts of your money over the years. A procedure that leads to a life where any kind of job is hard to find because you need flexibility. One that you have halfway through your degree and can never finish it. You'd be ok if I was the Coppers one-night-stand who gets to call the shots on your body? And the rest of your life, even if you don't want that?

The drivel, exaggeration and general nonsense from the pro killing unborn baby side of the debate is increasing rapidly.

Neyite wrote: »

Only one has a say in a termination because it's her body undergoing the procedure.

Thankfully in Ireland no one has the say and that's the way it should remain. The fact it's her body should in no way give her the right to kill another life inside of her, once you get pregnant it's no longer just your body and obviously we need laws to enforce the rights on the unborn as some people don't give a s*it about it.

Penny Tration · 05-03-2016 10:44AM

I hate the ridiculous phrases thrown out here -

Pro killing unborn babies.
Anti-choice
Anti-mother
Pro murder.

Would ye ever stop. it's pro life and pro choice. the only reason the other phrases are used is to insult or add unneeded emotional manipulation to an argument - on both sides.

As to whether abortion in any circumstances would pass - I'd WANT it to, but I don't believe it would. I think abortion in rape, incest or abuse cases, and where the woman is suicidal, would pass, but I don't think Ireland would vote for unrestricted abortion yet.

CaraMay · 05-03-2016 10:45AM

Malari wrote: »

What would the point of not doing any of those things unless you were going to have the baby?

Are you going to answer the question? It's very valid

05-03-2016 11:03AM

I'd be quite liberal on a lot of issues. Abortion doesn't quite sit right with me however, probably to do with the fact there were complications with me that mean i wouldn't be here if such a law existed at the time of my birth.

I've heard enough people i know who would have it as the number 1 political issue that they care about though to think it would pass.

I'd probably vote yes to allow it but I'd like to still have some small barriers to having one. The clinics should all have a councillor on hand hired by an independent body to talk to people and there should be a somewhat premium price on it. Subsidised after a councilling session.

AtomicHorror · 05-03-2016 11:07AM

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

The unborn child being terminated belongs to 2 people.The 2 people who created it.

Only 1 of those 2 people has to put their health and life at risk to complete the act. Only 1 of them builds the body of the child using raw materials they have to consume.

You really want to go down the road of talking about the unborn "belonging" to anyone? The person with the biggest stake in that "ownership" is the mother.

I have to laugh at this "belongs" business. The usual pro-life argument hinges on the rights of the unborn and here you are turning it into property.

AtomicHorror · 05-03-2016 11:11AM

Liam O wrote: »

I'd be quite liberal on a lot of issues. Abortion doesn't quite sit right with me however, probably to do with the fact there were complications with me that mean i wouldn't be here if such a law existed at the time of my birth.

I wouldn't exist if my parents hadn't had sex. Or if they'd conceived on a different day. Or if they'd separated before I was conceived.

What does any of that mean, really?

Penny Tration · 05-03-2016 11:16AM

Selene Dry Apartment wrote: »

once you get pregnant it's no longer just your body.

And that folks, is the problem with the pro-life side.

It absolutely IS still just the woman's body. It is hers to do as she pleases with.

Until the foetus is at a viable stage, it is 100% ONLY the woman's body.

That post is a blatant disregard for the woman's right to bodily autonomy

Malari · 05-03-2016 11:18AM

CaraMay wrote: »

Are you going to answer the question? It's very valid

Sure, sorry, I thought the answer was implied. No, I would not stop doing those things if I was having an abortion anyway.

05-03-2016 11:20AM

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I wouldn't exist if my parents hadn't had sex. Or if they'd conceived on a different day. Or if they'd separated before I was conceived.

What does any of that mean, really?

Probably true, but it means something to me so...

AtomicHorror · 05-03-2016 11:20AM

Penny Tration wrote: »

It absolutely IS still just the woman's body. It is hers to do as she pleases with.

Until the foetus is at a viable stage, it is 100% ONLY the woman's body.

And after viability, in my opinion. The threat to life and health of the mother only increases as a pregnancy advances. Circumstances change and the balance of those considerations against the choice she made to conceive (if she made it), shifts constantly.

She is at risk, she has the only opinion that matters.

AtomicHorror · 05-03-2016 11:21AM

Liam O wrote: »

Probably true, but it means something to me so...

I get that, and I hope you didn't think I was dismissing your feelings.

I suppose I would counter that we have to look beyond that, and see if those feelings are really useful to us.

Arkady · 05-03-2016 11:22AM

Penny Tration wrote: »

And that folks, is the problem with the pro-life side.

It absolutely IS still just the woman's body. It is hers to do as she pleases with.

Until the foetus is at a viable stage, it is 100% ONLY the woman's body.

That post is a blatant disregard for the woman's right to bodily autonomy

The problem with the pro-choice side is the child's body isn't theirs to damage and kill either, there are two human lives involved not one.

LoonyLovegood · 05-03-2016 11:23AM

Malari wrote: »

But...hundreds of women fly to the UK every day. For hundreds of reasons. Why on earth do you think anyone assumes you are going for an abortion? Are these glares from people who overheard your conversation?

I've taken the 6.25am flight to Manchester regularly over the last eighteen months. Every single flight, there's people who look at me weirdly. Now it could just be random people staring at me because I'm not dressed in business wear, but it happens each time. Every. Time. There'll be someone who gives me a weird look, which has never happened when I fly anywhere else, even on an early morning flight.

thattequilagirl · 05-03-2016 11:26AM

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

The unborn child being terminated belongs to 2 people.The 2 people who created it.

How about if a woman decides to have a child but the father doesn't want it.He'll still be forced to pay maintenance for the child despite wanting nothing to do with it.Based on your argument above I assume you would be in favour of some form of legal abortion that allows fathers to give up any responsibility for a child and not have to pay a penny towards it's well being?

I addressed this earlier. There is no equality in this matter. There cannot be. It's the woman's right to choose because she takes the health burden of pregnancy. If a baby is born however and assuming it's not adopted, the father is the father whether he likes it or not.

05-03-2016 11:27AM

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I get that, and I hope you didn't think I was dismissing your feelings.

I suppose I would counter that we have to look beyond that, and see if those feelings are really useful to us.

Fair enough, as i said, I'm probably somewhere in the middle on the issue. Obviously as a man my feelings aren't as important as a womans on the issue. The overriding opinion on it from women my age seems to be pro-choice so I'd probably go along with that, even though i still have some misgivings about it.

thattequilagirl · 05-03-2016 11:27AM

Arkady wrote: »

The problem with the pro-choice side is the child's body isn't theirs to damage and kill either, there are two human lives involved not one.

In terms of using deliberately misleading and evocative terminology, the word child is totally inappropriate for this thread.

AtomicHorror · 05-03-2016 11:27AM

Arkady wrote: »

The problem with the pro-choice side is the child's body isn't theirs to damage and kill either, there are two human lives involved not one.

If you accept that both lives are of equal value for some reason, this still leaves the matter that one is solely dependant on the other to exist, and presents a threat to the health and life of the other just by existing. That to ensure one continues to exist, the other must endure suffering.

Even if the lives are of equal value, this is an unequal relationship.

As it stands, the lives are not of equal value. A woman has decades of life and memories and human attachments, huge influence on the world. We can't compare that to an foetus, and certainly not to an embryo or zygote.

Penny Tration · 05-03-2016 11:27AM

Arkady wrote: »

The problem with the pro-choice side is the child's body isn't theirs to damage and kill either, there are two human lives involved not one.

It's not a baby at standard abortion stages, though. It's a foetus that, without the woman's body, is not viable.

Ultimately pro life people see it as a baby from conception. Pro choice people see it as a foetus until it becomes viable. The two views will never align.

At the end of the day though, my having an abortion will never affect any pro life person. A pro life person refusing to allow me to have an abortion, that WILL affect me.

CaraMay · 05-03-2016 11:32AM

Penny Tration wrote: »

.

At the end of the day though, my having an abortion will never affect any pro life person.

You see I think that's where you are wrong. Society will be missing a potentially very important member. My best friend is adopted. If her birth mother had not gone ahead with the pregnancy the world would be missing a world class musician (she won word championships in her instrument), a fantastic daughter, teacher, mother, wife and child. So not having her on the planet would affect a lot of people. I don't think anyone has the right to stop another persons potential.

Malari · 05-03-2016 11:37AM

LoonyLovegood wrote: »

I've taken the 6.25am flight to Manchester regularly over the last eighteen months. Every single flight, there's people who look at me weirdly. Now it could just be random people staring at me because I'm not dressed in business wear, but it happens each time. Every. Time. There'll be someone who gives me a weird look, which has never happened when I fly anywhere else, even on an early morning flight.

I don't know, it just never occurred to me that people would think I was having an abortion on an early morning flight to the UK! I take them regularly enough too.

Penny Tration · 05-03-2016 11:37AM

CaraMay wrote: »

You see I think that's where you are wrong. Society will be missing a potentially very important member. My best friend is adopted. If her birth mother had not gone ahead with the pregnancy the world would be missing a world class musician (she won word championships in her instrument), a fantastic daughter, teacher, mother, wife and child. So not having her on the planet would affect a lot of people. I don't think anyone has the right to stop another persons potential.

So if I have an abortion, how does that affect you?

Forget society missing out on people - that's not an effect if they never knew of the existence of the 'person.' Society is also potentially losing out on a serial child rapist for all you know!

If I have an abortion, how are you personally affected?

You're not because you'd never know.

PhoenixParker · 05-03-2016 11:45AM

This business of X wouldn't exist if their mother had had an abortion goes both ways.

There are hundreds of thousands of people born today precisely because their mother aborted an earlier pregnancy. Should society miss those important members?

Shenshen · 05-03-2016 11:54AM

PhoenixParker wrote: »

This business of X wouldn't exist if their mother had had an abortion goes both ways.

There are hundreds of thousands of people born today precisely because their mother aborted an earlier pregnancy. Should society miss those important members?

And everytime that particular topic is brought up, cynical me can't help wondering how many destructive people and psychopathic killers the world was spared because there mothers decided to abort - how many Ted Bundys, how many Graham Dwyers, how many Donald Trumps, even?

It's a silly argument either way.

PhoenixParker · 05-03-2016 11:54AM

One thing that gets me about this whole "it's a child" business, is the contrast between abortion and the treatment of miscarriages.

I had a miscarriage at 12 weeks last September of a very much wanted baby. I found out on a Tuesday, worked from home for two days, had an operation on Friday and was back in work Monday morning. I was upset and more emotional then usual for a few months but it was in no way remotely comparable to the loss of a child.

And that's exactly how society treats it. It's sad, difficult, people are sympathetic but it's a mostly private thing shared only with close friends and family. Having a miscarriage means you hear about dozens and dozens of friends and relatives who have also gone through the same thing. (It's most of them).

Unless the pregnancy is gone past 20 weeks the state offers no support. No maternity leave for this baby, no maternity benefit, time off is sick leave. That's as it should be BUT when I contrast the attitude towards a fetus that passes away naturally with the attitude when someone wants an abortion I can see the whole falseness of the situation with respect to the 8th Amendment blown wide open.

The fetus is only an "unborn child" when it is convenient to the state and no one but the state treats it as a child.

Arkady · 05-03-2016 12:02PM

thattequilagirl wrote: »

Whether it is capable of surviving independently outside the womb.

Human life is often not capable of surviving independently, should their lives be taken as well ?

thattequilagirl · 05-03-2016 12:05PM

Arkady wrote: »

Human life is often not capable of surviving independently, should their lives be taken as well ?

If they are hooked up to a ventilator then no. If their survival depends on the sacrifice of another human being, that person gets to decide. Hence we don't have forced blood or organ donation even though it would save lives. It's called bodily autonomy.

Do you think a referendum on abortion would be passed?(not how you'd vote)

Comments