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

lazygal · 07-03-2016 10:15PM

Selene Dry Apartment wrote: »

Very very few as the whole abortion to save the life of the mother is such a rare event and just latched onto by the pro abortion people to push their agenda. The vast majority of abortions are lifestyle choices.

So for the sake of fairness let's say banned in geneal but if saving the life of the mother means the baby doesn't make it then it would be allowed (which it is in Irelans as things stand and I'm happy enough with the rule being like this I might add).

And long term health affects of pregnancy don't merit abortions?
Are you happy with the 14 year sentence? What about prosecuting women who take abortion pills they've imported, should they be prosecuted?

eviltwin · 07-03-2016 10:17PM

Selene Dry Apartment wrote: »

Very very few as the whole abortion to save the life of the mother is such a rare event and just latched onto by the pro abortion people to push their agenda. The vast majority of abortions are lifestyle choices.

So for the sake of fairness let's say banned in geneal but if saving the life of the mother means the baby doesn't make it then it would be allowed (which it is in Ireland as things stand and I don't have a problem with that).

Of course women would die. No access to abortion doesn't stop women trying to end pregnancies by other means. Abortion is never going to go away. There are always ways to end a pregnancy.

07-03-2016 10:33PM

lazygal wrote: »

And long term health affects of pregnancy don't merit abortions?

No, again a very overstated reason. Pregnancy is made out likes its bloody AIDS here by some people yet women are having babies evey day of the week and problems are rare.
Honestly if it was 1/10 as bad as some make out nobody would be risking getting pregnant.

If people don't want children then they can't risk getting pregnant as abortion should just not be an option.

lazygal wrote: »

Are you happy with the 14 year sentence? What about prosecuting women who take abortion pills they've imported, should they be prosecuted?

It's pointless as its not enforced, should it be? its the law so there should be a least some attempt to enforce it to discourage the practice. Selling or being in position of the pills should also be punished.

eviltwin · 07-03-2016 10:54PM

Selene Dry Apartment wrote: »

No, again a very overstated reason. Pregnancy is made out likes its bloody AIDS here by some people yet women are having babies evey day of the week and problems are rare.
Honestly if it was 1/10 as bad as some make out nobody would be risking getting pregnant.

If people don't want children then they can't risk getting pregnant as abortion should just not be an option.

It's pointless as its not enforced, should it be? its the law so there should be a least some attempt to enforce it to discourage the practice. Selling or being in position of the pills should also be punished.

You think women who have abortions should be jailed. Well aren't you the compassionate one. So much for 'love them both'

Penny Tration · 07-03-2016 10:55PM

eviltwin wrote: »

You think women who have abortions should be jailed. Well aren't you the compassionate one. So much for 'love them both'

Let's be honest here, it's not "love them both." It's "love the foetus more than a human, until it's actually a human."

anothernight · 07-03-2016 11:35PM

Selene Dry Apartment wrote: »

Very very few as the whole abortion to save the life of the mother is such a rare event and just latched onto by the pro abortion

Are you saying that people who suffer from very rare medical issues (rare cancers, rare autoimmune conditions, etc) should get no treatment because "very very few" people die from each of those issues?

07-03-2016 11:37PM

anothernight wrote: »

Are you saying that people who suffer from very rare medical issues (rare cancers, rare autoimmune conditions, etc) should get no treatment because "very very few" people die from those issues?

No I'm not. For a start they are not comparable scenarios and secondly I said continued to say in the post that if saving the life of the mother meant the baby didn't make it then that should be allowed.

As I said these exceptionally rare events are being latched into by people as one of their main points to argue about when in fact abortion is already allowed in these situations and what these people really want is women to be able to decide they want an abortion just become they want it which is just not right and should never be allowed.

anothernight · 07-03-2016 11:40PM

Selene Dry Apartment wrote: »

No I'm not. For a start they are not comparable scenarios and secondly I said continued to say in the post that if saving the life of the mother meant the baby didn't make it then that should be allowed.

But that exact scenario is still abortion. Let's not forget that up until a few years ago, an abortion to prevent the death of the mother was also illegal in Ireland, and it would have remained so if it was up to a lot of people who prefer to keep the ban in the constitution. Let's also not forget that preventing the deterioration of the woman's health (rather than the destruction of her life) through abortion is still illegal.

07-03-2016 11:44PM

anothernight wrote: »

But that exact scenario is still abortion. Let's not forget that up until a few years ago, an abortion to prevent the death of the mother was also illegal in Ireland, and it would have remained so if it was up to a lot of people who prefer to keep the ban in the constitution. Let's also not forget that preventing the deterioration of the woman's health (rather than the destruction of her life) through abortion is still illegal.

It really should be an absolute last resort not something that's done on a whim.

anothernight · 07-03-2016 11:47PM

Selene Dry Apartment wrote: »

It really should be an absolute last resort not something that's done on a whim.

I won't argue for or against that because it's not really the topic of the thread. But don't you think it's better to let medical doctors decide where abortion is necessary, rather than blindly following a constitutional blanket ban with a very rushed, very specific exception?

volchitsa · 08-03-2016 07:40AM

Selene Dry Apartment wrote: »

It really should be an absolute last resort not something that's done on a whim.

What exactly do you mean by "on a whim"? Does a woman who's likely to become infertile because of a pregnancy that is doomed anyway act "on a whim" if she decides to terminate the pregnancy instead of waiting while her health suffers?

Or, to take a non medical example, but one I know of from real life, a woman who is in the process of leaving a violent partner, and who discovers she's pregnant by him : if she had his baby she'd never have been free of him. She also decided that it wasn't fair on any child to bring it into the world in those conditions.

But her decision to terminate was definitely not taken on a whim and it's both insulting and ignorant of you to try to present all terminations which are not immediate life or death matters as being "whims".

krankykitty · 08-03-2016 08:19AM

Selene Dry Apartment wrote: »

Very very few as the whole abortion to save the life of the mother is such a rare event and just latched onto by the pro abortion people to push their agenda. The vast majority of abortions are lifestyle choices.

So for the sake of fairness let's say banned in geneal but if saving the life of the mother means the baby doesn't make it then it would be allowed (which it is in Ireland as things stand and I don't have a problem with that).

47,000 women a year die worldwide due to complications from unsafe/illegal abortion
13% of all maternal deaths are due to unsafe abortion.

Making abortion illegal does not stop it happening. It puts desperate women at risk.

seamus · 08-03-2016 08:22AM

krankykitty wrote: »

47,000 women a year die worldwide due to complications from unsafe/illegal abortion
13% of all maternal deaths are due to unsafe abortion.

Making abortion illegal does not stop it happening. It puts desperate women at risk.

Yeah, but now you've got the same "only criminals use guns illegally" fallacy. That is, "If they didn't want to die, they wouldn't have an abortion, they have only themselves to blame".

Religion of love me bollox.

orubiru · 08-03-2016 08:45AM

eviltwin wrote: »

You think women who have abortions should be jailed. Well aren't you the compassionate one. So much for 'love them both'

The craziest thing is that if we followed this "women who have abortions should be jailed" attitude to it's logical conclusion then we'd have to investigate any woman who has a miscarriage.

What I don't really understand about these "pro life" people is that they are only half on board with their "pro life" stance.

They want to "protect the life of the unborn baby" and that's all very righteous and great but they have no solutions for protecting those unborn lives.

In fact they seem to care more about denying women the right to choose than they do about actually protecting those unborn lives they all supposedly care so much about.

It's some kind of sick joke.

If someone truly considers themselves to be "pro life" then you should have no problem at all with the government implementing the following measures, as they will allow us to protect the lives of the unborn.

Mandatory pregnancy tests for Irish women leaving the country.
Mandatory pregnancy test upon re-entry to the country.
All miscarriages must be reported to the police to be investigated.

If you think that these measures are extreme then you aren't pro-life. If you aren't campaigning to have these measures introduced then you obviously don't care about the lives of unborn children that much, so you aren't pro-life.

If they cared so much about protecting the lives of the unborn then they wouldn't be satisfied that it's simply illegal to have an abortion in Ireland. They'd be campaigning for harsh punishments. They'd be demanding that "miscarriages" be investigated by law enforcement. They'd be insisting that the government treat the issue of women going overseas to abort pregnancy in the same way that we treat the issue of people smuggling drugs etc into the country.

It really looks like they don't actually care THAT much, doesn't it?

Let's just call it like it is. Most of these people care more about denying choice to a woman than they care about "saving the lives of unborn children".

They are not pro-life. They are anti-choice.

osarusan · 08-03-2016 09:31AM

seamus wrote: »

If you can't see the difference between the two, then you're probably a lost cause.

With 4 posts to their name, I think we know what they are.

08-03-2016 09:31AM

volchitsa wrote: »

What exactly do you mean by "on a whim"? Does a woman who's likely to become infertile because of a pregnancy that is doomed anyway act "on a whim" if she decides to terminate the pregnancy instead of waiting while her health suffers?

Or, to take a non medical example, but one I know of from real life, a woman who is in the process of leaving a violent partner, and who discovers she's pregnant by him : if she had his baby she'd never have been free of him. She also decided that it wasn't fair on any child to bring it into the world in those conditions.

But her decision to terminate was definitely not taken on a whim and it's both insulting and ignorant of you to try to present all terminations which are not immediate life or death matters as being "whims".

The first example is really scraping the bottom of the barrel looking for a scenario that you can somehow make an argument over in the hope you can get someone on the pro life side to blink. I'd say its so rare that this scenario should not be used as something to argue over imo.

As for the second scenario, no I dont think she should have an abortion. Its not the child's fault and it doesn't deserve to die because the mother and father are not getting on.

krankykitty wrote: »

47,000 women a year die worldwide due to complications from unsafe/illegal abortion
13% of all maternal deaths are due to unsafe abortion.

Making abortion illegal does not stop it happening. It puts desperate women at risk.

The aim here should be to educate people and treat the physiological and mental health issue that women have who are willing to injure themselves in order to kill their unborn child.

volchitsa · 08-03-2016 10:12AM

Selene Dry Apartment wrote: »

The first example is really scraping the bottom of the barrel looking for a scenario that you can somehow make an argument over in the hope you can get someone on the pro life side to blink. I'd say its so rare that this scenario should not be used as something to argue over imo.

Are you trying to say you don't believe it ever happens, or that it doesn't matter unless we reach a certain number of women harmed in that way? How many would it require before it would be worth discussing?

Because it does happen, and it's not all that uncommon. You genuinely don't know anyone who's had ongoing health problems as a result of a pregnancy? You must lead a very protected life if that's the case.

(And to avoid yet more pointless meandering, I'm not saying all women in that case will need or want a termination, I'm asking whether you think a termination for such a reason would be for "convenience" or not.

Selene Dry Apartment wrote: »

As for the second scenario, no I dont think she should have an abortion. Its not the child's fault and it doesn't deserve to die because the mother and father are not getting on.

But there is no child, it's a fetus - and one that was likely to end up in care though having a violent father, if not actually being abused itself.

Do you think any life at all however miserable is preferable to never having been born in the first place? Personally I don't.

But what I'm actually trying to ascertain isn't whether she should have an abortion or not, it's whether you think an abortion for such a reason is really "just for convenience" or not. I guess I'm asking whether you are capable of empathy for the woman who found herself in that situation.

Selene Dry Apartment wrote: »

The aim here should be to educate people and treat the physiological and mental health issue that women have who are willing to injure themselves in order to kill their unborn child.

So what mental issue did Miss Y have, and how should it have been treated?

And what do you suggest doing when it's sheer grinding poverty that's the cause, especially a woman who may already have other children she can't feed and educate properly? Easy to say get rid of the caus, but in the meantime she's the one unable to put food on the table in many countries.

ProfessorPlum · 08-03-2016 10:13AM

Selene Dry Apartment wrote: »

The first example is really scraping the bottom of the barrel looking for a scenario that you can somehow make an argument over in the hope you can get someone on the pro life side to blink. I'd say its so rare that this scenario should not be used as something to argue over imo.

As for the second scenario, no I dont think she should have an abortion. Its not the child's fault and it doesn't deserve to die because the mother and father are not getting on.

Really? Really? Is that what the situation described reads to you?

That actually explains a lot.

The aim here should be to educate people and treat their physiological and mental health issue that women have who are willing to injure themselves in order to kill their unborn child.

Please explain what you mean by "physiological and mental health issues". Please do.

I don't know down what rabbit hole you live, or maybe if your purposely trolling, but you seem to be completely disconnected from the realities of life, and don't really show much evidence of ability to show empathy for others. Sad really.

orubiru · 08-03-2016 10:37AM

Selene Dry Apartment wrote: »

The aim here should be to educate people and treat the physiological and mental health issue that women have who are willing to injure themselves in order to kill their unborn child.

OK. Here is your first lesson.

Let's call it "Definitions for Dummies"

child
tʃʌɪld/
noun
noun: child; plural noun: children
a young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority.

fetus
ˈfiːtəs/
noun
noun: fetus; plural noun: fetuses; noun: foetus; plural noun: foetuses
an unborn or unhatched offspring of a mammal, in particular, an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception.

baby
ˈbeɪbi/
noun
noun: baby; plural noun: babies
1.
a very young child.

OK. Now you have your chance to educate me.

At what point does an "unborn child" come into existence? At conception? Eight weeks after conception? Nine months? How have you come to this conclusion? Are you just selecting an arbitrary point or do you have medical reasons for selecting that point?

So, here is what troubles me. Well, at least it makes me highly suspicious of the "pro-life" people.

Abortion is legal and available "on demand" in almost all European states during the first trimester. Beyond the first trimester things get a little more complex and there are medical and legal conditions that must be met before an abortion would be allowed.

These decisions have been made based on the findings of medical doctors. A key factor is the rate of development of the Cerebrum. A lack of brain activity in the first trimester plays a major role in the decision to legalize first trimester abortions.

So, on one side we have medical and legal experts and we have a well reasoned approach. We are giving women a choice because a first trimester abortion is not an immoral choice (nobody is being killed, there is no brain activity) and is a relatively safe procedure.

What are the opposition offering up? The "pro life" (by the way, you are not pro-life, you are anti-choice) movement is largely headed, and funded, by people who believe that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.

The reason Ireland is "out of sync" with the rest of Europe is because, once upon a time, many people in positions of power in Ireland shared the above beliefs and as a result women don't have a choice because they need to learn that actions have consequences? They should suffer for their sins?

This doesn't worry anyone else?

AtomicHorror · 08-03-2016 01:09PM

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Yes I think it would pass, and pass well.

As long as there were certain restrictions/conditions put in place and abortion wasn't allowed to become just another form of contraception I can't see why anyone, regardless of their own personal feelings, would vote against it.

Do you think there's a realistic danger of surgery becoming just another form of contraception, anywhere, ever?

One eyed Jack · 08-03-2016 02:14PM

orubiru wrote: »

It really looks like they don't actually care THAT much, doesn't it?

Let's just call it like it is. Most of these people care more about denying choice to a woman than they care about "saving the lives of unborn children".

They are not pro-life. They are anti-choice.

I don't agree with much of what you're saying there about what people who call themselves pro-life should be doing. In fact, I'm relieved most of them aren't doing a lot of the things you say they should be doing.

People can take whatever position they want as individuals, and sometimes both a person who is pro-life, and a person who is pro-choice, actually agree on the term limits for an abortion (both LittleCuchulainn and volchista agree that an abortion up to 12 weeks would be acceptable to them). I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth here but... what do they suggest should happen after 12 weeks? Are they then labelled anti-choice too?

orubiru wrote: »

OK. Here is your first lesson.

Let's call it "Definitions for Dummies"

...

OK. Now you have your chance to educate me.

I think it would probably be easier for you to educate yourself tbh, as you don't appear to be amenable to the idea that everyone is going to use different definitions and actually all are acceptable depending upon context. For example -

A guide to the implementation of Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights

Abortion and the European Convention on Human Rights

Implementation of the Protection of Life During Prenancy Act 2013: Guidance Document for Health Professionals

Convention on the Rights of the Child

Plenty of reading material there to be going ahead with, including in the first two, many references to "the unborn child", and the third document includes the POLDPA which references "the unborn", and defines "the unborn" as -

"“unborn”, in relation to a human life, is a reference to such a life during the period of time commencing after implantation in the womb of a woman and ending on the complete emergence of the life from the body of the woman"

and that last document includes this little nugget -

"Bearing in mind that, as indicated in the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, "the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth"

(bold emphasis my own)

orubiru wrote: »

At what point does an "unborn child" come into existence? At conception? Eight weeks after conception? Nine months? How have you come to this conclusion? Are you just selecting an arbitrary point or do you have medical reasons for selecting that point?

That depends entirely upon where you get your information and in what context you mean "unborn child". The POLDPA gets around the religious conundrum by specifying that the unborn in relation to human life begins at implantation rather than conception. That provides an arbitrary point from a legal perspective at least, and when you're talking about making a change in the Irish Constitution, well, that's the kind of terminology you're dealing with. In a medical or scientific context, you're free to use terms like zygote, embryo, foetus, etc, you get the idea, but I don't imagine there are too many scientists or medical professionals here who are using the term, let alone people with a legal background.

orubiru wrote: »

So, here is what troubles me. Well, at least it makes me highly suspicious of the "pro-life" people.

Abortion is legal and available "on demand" in almost all European states during the first trimester. Beyond the first trimester things get a little more complex and there are medical and legal conditions that must be met before an abortion would be allowed.

These decisions have been made based on the findings of medical doctors. A key factor is the rate of development of the Cerebrum. A lack of brain activity in the first trimester plays a major role in the decision to legalize first trimester abortions.

These decisions were based more on social change than the opinions of the medical profession.

orubiru wrote: »

So, on one side we have medical and legal experts and we have a well reasoned approach. We are giving women a choice because a first trimester abortion is not an immoral choice (nobody is being killed, there is no brain activity) and is a relatively safe procedure.

Your definition of well reasoned, and someone else's definition of well reasoned, may well be worlds apart, and whether or not we are giving women a choice because of the suggestion that a first trimester abortion is not an immoral choice is one that we could argue the morality of all day. It would be ethics would need to be considered when deciding on an amendment to the Irish Constitution because the change would affect all members of society, both now, and in the future.

orubiru wrote: »

What are the opposition offering up? The "pro life" (by the way, you are not pro-life, you are anti-choice) movement is largely headed, and funded, by people who believe that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.

I'm not sure how whatever organisation or movement is funded is actually relevant to the discussion. There have been a few posters already who have actually contributed to this particular discussion and declared that their opinion is not based on any religious beliefs. They went largely ignored. The sort of rhetoric above, I might as well tell you, is an irrelevant distraction from the actual discussion.

orubiru wrote: »

The reason Ireland is "out of sync" with the rest of Europe is because, once upon a time, many people in positions of power in Ireland shared the above beliefs and as a result women don't have a choice because they need to learn that actions have consequences? They should suffer for their sins?

The reason Ireland is "out of sync" with the rest of Europe is because, once upon a time, society's revulsion of abortion was quite a bit stronger than it is now. It had much less to do with religion than you're trying to make out. It was actually a combination of a number of factors in Irish society which led to Irish society being out of sync with the rest of Europe.

orubiru wrote: »

This doesn't worry anyone else?

If you're actually that worried about it, why are you not out on the street campaigning, or climbing up church steeples and hanging banners or some shít? Ahh you're not pro-choice at all, are you?*

*Intentionally facetious comparison to your own declarations of what anyone who declares themselves pro-life should or shouldn't be doing. Whatever they do or don't do is their choice to do, or not to do. It doesn't at all indicate what or who they care any more or any less about, because the simplistic labelling is utterly irrelevant.

nozzferrahhtoo · 08-03-2016 03:04PM

Selene Dry Apartment wrote: »

if saving the life of the mother means the baby doesn't make it then it would be allowed (which it is in Ireland as things stand and I don't have a problem with that).

What you do actually have a problem with is not entirely clear however. You have asserted things in your last few posts like:

"In an ideal world abortion would be banned everywhere"
"abortion should just not be an option"
"just not right and should never be allowed."

but you have not actually lent those assertions any substance. It is just wrong because.... well because you say so.

That is really all you have shown here, other than a rather fatuous analogy to shooting strangers in the head and then declaring it "arrogance" and I made a point of reading every post you have made on the thread in sequence before I wrote this reply.

Perhaps I differ to you in this regard but I am personally HEAVILY invested in a simple premise in this world of "innocent until proven guilty". That is to say that if there is no arguments against the morality or ethics of X, then I have absolutely no issue with X.

Given no one, least of all you, has actually managed to explain what the issue with aborting a fetus up to, say, 16 weeks of development actually is then I mean no insult or slight by simply saying.... I have no idea what your actual problem is based on.

THAT you have an issue with abortion is clear. The basis for it however could not be less so at this time.

The topic of the thread is whether we think a referendum on abortion would pass. Clearly the answer to that is to point out it would entirely depend on the wording of the change and the implications of that wording.

I would not vote yes, or expect a yes vote, on anything that allowed women to abort and kill the developing life at 8 months for example, though I know some minority would.

But assuming nothing too extreme then I would say yes, it absolutely will pass, if the quality of argument offered by the anti abortion side is just to assert it is wrong and make weird analogies to on street gun murders.

I would then expect it to go very much the way of the SSM referendum where the anti side there produced no relevant arguments, focused on a campaign of irrelevant arguments about children, all coupled with some very shrill appeals to emotion.

Sometimes I wonder if their side did not so much lose that referendum so much as helped us win it. And I wonder if people like yourself risk doing the exact same thing with any vote on abortion.

Selene Dry Apartment wrote: »

It really should be an absolute last resort not something that's done on a whim.

I think you might find many, if not the majority, of pro-choice campaigners agree with you here.

While pro-choice campaigners often want to let women have abortions when they choose to.... for whatever reason they choose to..... usually up to some defined cut off point in the development process (the numbers campaigning that we should be allowed abort and kill the child "anytime" are very few indeed and have quite shrill but empty arguments too).... they are also often people who campaign for every single initiative that will prevent a woman ever having to take that choice.

From better and earlier sex education in schools.... to the more widely and preferably tax free availability of contraception and morning after solutions..... to the support of women financially and medically who do go through with pregnancies.... and much more...... those campaigning for pro-choice also often work towards women never having to make that choice.

The ideal world in my view would be one where 100% of women can have abortions on demand yet 0% of them ever actually do. We will never get to that 100%-0% result I suspect.... but I would work towards both as hard possible.

12Phase · 08-03-2016 05:16PM

orubiru wrote: »

They are not pro-life. They are anti-choice.

They're pro-sweep-it-under-the-carpet.

It's just the ultimate form of Irish NIMBYism.

"No abortions happen here. Now get on the plane and never speak of it again!" brigade.

12Phase · 08-03-2016 05:21PM

The other aspect that gets to me is that the same conservative groups who are 'pro life' were (not all that many years ago) making life a living hell for any woman who had children outside 'wedlock' and were the very same people who created a horrific social stigma for single mothers / fathers.

There's an element of hugely conditional love of the born going on with the right wing conservatives in this country and elsewhere.

08-03-2016 05:22PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

What you do actually have a problem with is not entirely clear however. You have asserted things in your last few posts like:

Its very clear what my problem is I am totally against ending the life of an unborn child which is what abortion is doing at any stage of development.

The Randy Riverbeast · 08-03-2016 06:23PM

Selene Dry Apartment wrote: »

Its very clear what my problem is I am totally against ending the life of an unborn child which is what abortion is doing at any stage of development.

You said you were for it when it was to save the woman's life.

You can be totally against it or not. Totally against it would mean abortions would never be done.

volchitsa · 08-03-2016 06:28PM

Selene Dry Apartment wrote: »

Its very clear what my problem is I am totally against ending the life of an unborn child which is what abortion is doing at any stage of development.

So when exactly does it become a child in your opinion? Fertilization? Later? What exactly is required for that definition to be accurate?

PhoenixParker · 08-03-2016 06:32PM

volchitsa wrote: »

So when exactly does it become a child? Fertilization?

Also at what point should we give it a funeral if there's a miscarriage? At what point should society commemorate the death of this child in line with how we commemorate the death of any other child?

At what point should the woman be entitled to maternity leave if there's a miscarriage? (it's currently 24 weeks)

The Golden Miller · 08-03-2016 06:34PM

volchitsa wrote: »

So when exactly does it become a child? Fertilization?

I never really got this argument. It's a mute point, because when someone finds out they are pregnant it's already at the point where someone who is anti-abortion see's it as an unborn child. So their opinion of when it actually becomes a child isn't really relevant as the pregnancy has already gone way past that point. Just a deflection argument.

lazygal · 08-03-2016 06:34PM

PhoenixParker wrote: »

Also at what point should we give it a funeral if there's a miscarriage? At what point should society commemorate the death of this child in line with how we commemorate the death of any other child?

At what point should the woman be entitled to maternity leave if there's a miscarriage? (it's currently 24 weeks)

When should child benefit start? When you get pregnant you're already two weeks pregnant because of your cycle so I think all ovulating women should get two weeks' worth of child benefit payments each month because they could be with child.

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

Comments