nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

PopePalpatine

I didn't know whether to post this here or in the Sanctimony of Pro-Lifers thread in t'udder forum - a BBC article on Paraguay's "epidemic" of child pregnancies. Paraguay only allows for abortion if the mother's life is at risk. On average, two girls aged 14 and under become pregnant in Paraguay every day.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Absolam

volchitsa wrote: »

No-one has said aborting a pregnancy caused by a rape would undo the rape, the claim is that forcing a girl or a woman to continue a pregnancy to term when that pregnancy was caused by rape is another further crime against her. It comes down to considering that because she was a victim of one crime, it's acceptable to commit another crime against her.

What precisely would the further crime be? I haven't heard of a law that would make it a crime.

Absolam

Cabaal wrote: »

Why should the rapist be denied access to their biological off spring if the fetus comes to term? <...> Would you deny a child created from a rape its father?

I'd imagine a rapist could only be denied access to their biological offspring on the same basis as any other biological father could be; their fitness to be a father, as determined by our welfare and courts system. Where the fact that he raped the child's mother is not likely to be a sterling reference?

Absolam

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Quick, someone get onto the Supreme Court and tell them they're doing it wrong.
The Supreme Court has held there is no right to be born, and that's with the 8th amendment still in place.

G vs An Bord Uchtala, 1980.
Walsh J "[A child] has the right to life itself and the right to be guarded against all threats directed to its existence whether before or after birth . . . The right to life necessarily implies the right to be born, the right to preserve and defend (and to have preserved and defended) that life. . . ."

The SC also referred to that particular judgment in the X Case.

Cabaal

volchitsa wrote: »

No-one has said aborting a pregnancy caused by a rape would undo the rape, the claim is that forcing a girl or a woman to continue a pregnancy to term when that pregnancy was caused by rape is another further crime against her.

It comes down to considering that because she was a victim of one crime, it's acceptable to commit another crime against her.

Not to mention the mental health issues of putting a women through knowing that her rapists genetic material continues to grow inside her body, leading a women to feel violated each and every day the pregnancy continues.

No women should have to feel that her body is violated in this manner,

volchitsa

frostyjacks wrote: »

As per the constitution, everyone has a right to life; a right to be born. Executing a baby in the womb does not undo a rape. Do not pass the sins of the father onto the child.

No-one has said aborting a pregnancy caused by a rape would undo the rape, the claim is that forcing a girl or a woman to continue a pregnancy to term when that pregnancy was caused by rape is another further crime against her.

It comes down to considering that because she was a victim of one crime, it's acceptable to commit another crime against her.

Cabaal

Kole Round Spectator wrote: »

Why should the unborn child be sentenced to death because of the crimes committed by someone else?

Why should the rapist be denied access to their biological off spring if the fetus comes to term?

Clearly if the child is that important and every child deserves and mother and a father then the rapist should be allowed regular visitation rights and should be allowed to have total imput into how the child is raised, including where it lives, education, holidays etc.

We're already seen that the women who was raped should be ignored in pregnancy, should we also put her through the hell of dealing with her rapist for the next 20 odd years?

Would you deny a child created from a rape its father?

One eyed Jack

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Quick, someone get onto the Supreme Court and tell them they're doing it wrong.

The Supreme Court has held there is no right to be born, and that's with the 8th amendment still in place.

What case was this?

As I understand it, and granted I could be wrong as I can't seem to find it now, but I had read an interpretation before that the right to life of the unborn implied within it the right to be born. Now whether this was because of the way the unborn is defined in the POLDPA I'm not sure, but the Act applies until the point when the unborn exits the womb.

May or may not be related, but I remember in the case of the woman who wanted to be impregnated with the frozen embryos of her and her ex-partner, she was refused as the 8th only applied to the unborn as within the womb.

In the case where the woman wanted the right to die, she was refused as she was told no such right exists under current Irish legislation. How is that related? Well if euthanasia were legislated for in this country, I would also like to see it included in the legislation regarding abortion that late term pregnancies would allow for a termination of the pregnancy by euthanising the unborn.

I would argue that this is the most humane approach that would respect both the dignity of the woman and offer that same dignity in death to the unborn.

One eyed Jack

oscarBravo wrote: »

I have no problem with anyone holding the view that a fertilised egg in their own body is a human being with a fully-fledged right to life, and doing everything practicable to vindicate that right.

If someone expresses the view that a fertilised egg in another person's body is a human being with a fully-fledged right to life, and that that other person has thereby forfeited any say over whether or not they want to carry that fertilised egg to term, then I don't think it's unfair to accuse them of a deficit of compassion.

Well I understand why it wouldn't be unfair as such to accuse them of being deficient in compassion, I just don't see what purpose it serves. Given that this would obviously be a sincerely held sentiment for them, I don't see how insulting them is likely to gain any ground for my position.

I'm using myself and my wife as an example because she would be adamant about her position in relation to her objection to abortion under any circumstances, whereas I would want to see abortion legislated for regardless of circumstances and term limits. It's a very contentious issue obviously and both of us couldn't be at more polar opposite ends of the scale in relation to the issue, but neither of us would associate ourselves with some of the silliness that either the pro-life or pro-choice side are at, because the one thing we appear to agree on is that people playing politics with people's lives is absolutely dehumanising in every respect.

oscarBravo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Because they are human beings themselves, even though I completely disagree with their position (and I often find myself in disagreement too with people who express a pro-choice position but would impose term limits), I understand where they're coming from, and I don't think any purpose is served by criticising anyone for the positions they hold regarding such a sensitive issue.

I have no problem with anyone holding the view that a fertilised egg in their own body is a human being with a fully-fledged right to life, and doing everything practicable to vindicate that right.

If someone expresses the view that a fertilised egg in another person's body is a human being with a fully-fledged right to life, and that that other person has thereby forfeited any say over whether or not they want to carry that fertilised egg to term, then I don't think it's unfair to accuse them of a deficit of compassion.

One eyed Jack

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Nonsense, otherwise they'd be trying to overturn the right to travel and the right to information. They did so successfully in the 80s, and whinged constantly in the 90s, but now not a word about it.

Just like they campaigned against the morning after pill, then then whinged about it for years, now there's barely a peep about it, and some argue that between contraception and the MAP 'there is no need for abortion' :rolleyes:

Given enough time, maybe most of them will get over the very limited PLDP Act too, but I expect events to overtake them before then and the 8th to be repealed while they're still renacting their last lost battle in their minds.

I'm only speaking of the people I know who are opposed to legislating for abortion in Ireland. There are quite a few of them and quite frankly I'm relieved they're not doing anything like the above. Even if the 8th were repealed though, which I would honestly doubt would be amended with anything removing the right to life of the unborn, it still wouldn't mean that the abortion restrictions currently in place in Ireland would be relaxed.

Are you saying I lack compassion because I vehemently disagree with the so-called 'pro lifers' ? Or what?

Nope, I vehemently disagree with their position myself, I also vehemently disagree with most people who claim to be "pro-choice", but would impose their own restrictions in legislation upon women's choices during their pregnancy and when they should be able to end their pregnancy, however they choose to end their pregnancy.

The lack of compassion I'm referring to is the way in which some people on both sides of the discussion, seem to be more interested in criticising each other for their ideological positions, making broad generalisations about what other people should be doing, making claims about what they are or aren't doing or what they do and don't believe, who they do and don't care about, etc.

I don't agree with nox's position, but I can understand where he's coming from, and I just don't see how anyone's interests are served by some people choosing to goad and gloat about their one-upmanship. I can see where other people here are coming from too, and I don't agree with them being bossed and gloated at. I just don't see what purpose it serves. I've seen plenty of claims that the discussion is going to get messy and all the rest of it. It will if the level of discussion is reduced to both sides sneering at each other, and instead of people being informed, they'll just tune out.

You know, even if we do get abortion 'on demand' it'll still be a CHOICE, no woman should ever be compelled or pressured to have an abortion just the same as she should never be compelled or pressured not to have one.

You'll get no argument from me on that one. That's ideally what I would want to see legislated for in this country. It's not going to happen though if both sides most vocal representatives are also their own worst enemy.

Forcing people down a path they'd rather not go is not compassion it is the opposite, and only one side in this debate is doing this.

Both sides are doing it, because both sides are arguing from their own respective positions and want to force the other side down a path they'd rather not go down. I'd rather see understanding and compassion for people who I disagree with on an issue like this, than adults acting like a bunch of school children thumbing their noses at each other across the table. That's just embarrassing to witness if the aim is to inform people with the facts.

Hotblack Desiato

Quick, someone get onto the Supreme Court and tell them they're doing it wrong.

The Supreme Court has held there is no right to be born, and that's with the 8th amendment still in place.

frostyjacks

As per the constitution, everyone has a right to life; a right to be born. Executing a baby in the womb does not undo a rape. Do not pass the sins of the father onto the child.

Hotblack Desiato

One eyed Jack wrote: »

From the people I know who espouse a pro-life position, they empathise with the women who find themselves facing an unwanted pregnancy, but they don't want abortion legislated for in Ireland. They're not thinking about the inconvenience to any women of having to travel or the expense of traveling and the cost of the procedure and accommodation. They're thinking of the unborn human life.

Nonsense, otherwise they'd be trying to overturn the right to travel and the right to information. They did so successfully in the 80s, and whinged constantly in the 90s, but now not a word about it.

Just like they campaigned against the morning after pill, then then whinged about it for years, now there's barely a peep about it, and some argue that between contraception and the MAP 'there is no need for abortion' :rolleyes:

Given enough time, maybe most of them will get over the very limited PLDP Act too, but I expect events to overtake them before then and the 8th to be repealed while they're still renacting their last lost battle in their minds.

Because they are human beings themselves, even though I completely disagree with their position (and I often find myself in disagreement too with people who express a pro-choice position but would impose term limits), I understand where they're coming from, and I don't think any purpose is served by criticising anyone for the positions they hold regarding such a sensitive issue.

How people don't see their own lack of compassion while accusing others of lacking compassion, never ceases to make me wonder what the hell is their bloody point?

Are you saying I lack compassion because I vehemently disagree with the so-called 'pro lifers' ? Or what?

You know, even if we do get abortion 'on demand' it'll still be a CHOICE, no woman should ever be compelled or pressured to have an abortion just the same as she should never be compelled or pressured not to have one.

Forcing people down a path they'd rather not go is not compassion it is the opposite, and only one side in this debate is doing this.

[Deleted User]

PopePalpatine wrote: »

>17,000 pregnancies forced upon women - real, living, breathing women - after being rape is >17,000 too many. Not to mention you didn't clarify what "extremely rare" meant until after I posted the link from RAINN.

Why should the unborn child be sentenced to death because of the crimes committed by someone else?

Aside from that I've no idea what relevance the number of pregnancies caused by rape in the US has to do with this debate. A figure for abortions due to the mother being raped vs abortions "just because I feel like it" for the Uk would be a far more relevant stat and would no doubt prove my point.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

This is the nub of the utter hypocrisy of the so-called "pro-life" position. They know the Irish people voted to allow travel and information on abortion, they know the Irish people will never vote to reverse this. They don't really care provided abortion is awkward and relatively expensive, i.e. takes place overseas and has to be paid for privately. So long as they lightly oppress women in general, and oppress poor women and women unable to travel (asylum seekers, carers etc.) in particular, they're happy.

Ahh back to this old nonsense about pro life people wanting to oppress women, it's the greatest load of absolute rubbish you could read. Pro-life peope value the life of the unborn child it's as simple as that, there is no other motives no matter how much the pro abortion side want to imagine there is.

Absolam

Delirium wrote: »

I'm not disputing what the 8th refers to.
Rather I was challenging the idea that the constitution can't pick and choose who to give rights to. 8th amendment shows you can do so, as did the marriage referendum.

I'm pretty sure Frostyjacks didn't say the Constitution can't pick and choose who to give rights to; he said "you can't just pick and choose who gets rights under the constitution". Which is to say, once the Constitution confers a right on everyone, one cannot argue that some people should be denied that right. Which would be in line with his following sentence; "Would you argue to exclude people with disabilities from having rights?".

Maybe I'm misinterpreting what Frostyjacks said, or maybe you are. Rather than argue it, perhaps we can wait for Frostyjacks to tell us.

Delirium

Absolam wrote: »

Did you not specifically say "The 8th amendment is actually a case of picking and choosing who to extend/deny rights to."? Does the 8th amendment specify any right other than the right to life?

I'm not disputing what the 8th refers to.

Rather I was challenging the idea that the constitution can't pick and choose who to give rights to. 8th amendment shows you can do so, as did the marriage referendum.

Absolam

Delirium wrote: »

I'm not talking about 'picking and choosing who gets a right to life'. My initial response which you replied to was about 'picking and choosing who gets rights under the constitution'. That is all I've been responding to.

Did you not specifically say "The 8th amendment is actually a case of picking and choosing who to extend/deny rights to."? Does the 8th amendment specify any right other than the right to life?

Delirium

Absolam wrote: »

But it's not picking and choosing who gets a right to life; it gives an equal right to life to the foetus. No one is denied a right to life, so no one is picked or chosen. Everyone gets it.

It doesn't offer women a right to have access to abortion, nor does it offer it to anyone else; everyone is equally denied a right to have access to abortion.

Well no; two specific examples of how rights can be afforded to everyone or denied to everyone whilst being entirely equitable, in the Constitution.

I'm not talking about 'picking and choosing who gets a right to life'. My initial response which you replied to was about 'picking and choosing who gets rights under the constitution'.

That is all I've been responding to.

Absolam

Delirium wrote: »

The 8th amendment is actually a case of picking and choosing who to extend/deny rights to. It gives the right to life to the foetus (outside of threat of suicide/danger to the womans life/health).

But it's not picking and choosing who gets a right to life; it gives an equal right to life to the foetus. No one is denied a right to life, so no one is picked or chosen. Everyone gets it.

Delirium wrote: »

And it denies the right of women to have access to abortion beyond the extremely narrow parameters mentioned above.

It doesn't offer women a right to have access to abortion, nor does it offer it to anyone else; everyone is equally denied a right to have access to abortion.

Delirium wrote: »

Two sides of the coin that illustrate that the 8th amendment confirms you can pick and choose what rights citizens (and foetuses) have via the constitution.

Well no; two specific examples of how rights can be afforded to everyone or denied to everyone whilst being entirely equitable, in the Constitution.

Delirium wrote: »

Two sides of the coin that illustrate that the 8th amendment confirms you can pick and choose what rights citizens (and foetuses) have via the constitution.

Absolam

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

This is the nub of the utter hypocrisy of the so-called "pro-life" position. They know the Irish people voted to allow travel and information on abortion, they know the Irish people will never vote to reverse this.

And that is the conceit of the pro-choice position; knowing that Ireland cannot in any practicable fashion extend the right to life of the unborn beyond it's jurisdiction, but claiming it is hypocrisy not to try. In fact, claiming there should be abortion whilst arguing for the expansion of the anti-abortion position is true hypocrisy.

Delirium

Absolam wrote: »

Well, really it doesn't. It's not picking and choosing who gets a right to life; it gives it to everyone. It's not picking an choosing who gets a right to abort a life; it denies it to everyone.

The 8th amendment is actually a case of picking and choosing who to extend/deny rights to. It gives the right to life to the foetus (outside of threat of suicide/danger to the womans life/health).

And it denies the right of women to have access to abortion beyond the extremely narrow parameters mentioned above.

Two sides of the coin that illustrate that the 8th amendment confirms you can pick and choose what rights citizens (and foetuses) have via the constitution.

One eyed Jack

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

This is the nub of the utter hypocrisy of the so-called "pro-life" position. They know the Irish people voted to allow travel and information on abortion, they know the Irish people will never vote to reverse this. They don't really care provided abortion is awkward and relatively expensive, i.e. takes place overseas and has to be paid for privately. So long as they lightly oppress women in general, and oppress poor women and women unable to travel (asylum seekers, carers etc.) in particular, they're happy.

From the people I know who espouse a pro-life position, they empathise with the women who find themselves facing an unwanted pregnancy, but they don't want abortion legislated for in Ireland. They're not thinking about the inconvenience to any women of having to travel or the expense of traveling and the cost of the procedure and accommodation. They're thinking of the unborn human life.

Because they are human beings themselves, even though I completely disagree with their position (and I often find myself in disagreement too with people who express a pro-choice position but would impose term limits), I understand where they're coming from, and I don't think any purpose is served by criticising anyone for the positions they hold regarding such a sensitive issue.

How people don't see their own lack of compassion while accusing others of lacking compassion, never ceases to make me wonder what the hell is their bloody point?

Hotblack Desiato

Kole Round Spectator wrote: »

Keep it illegal in Ireland, it mightn't stop every abortion but it will certainly result in fewer than if it's allowed to happen here

This is the nub of the utter hypocrisy of the so-called "pro-life" position. They know the Irish people voted to allow travel and information on abortion, they know the Irish people will never vote to reverse this. They don't really care provided abortion is awkward and relatively expensive, i.e. takes place overseas and has to be paid for privately. So long as they lightly oppress women in general, and oppress poor women and women unable to travel (asylum seekers, carers etc.) in particular, they're happy.

PopePalpatine

Kole Round Spectator wrote: »

You are confirming what I said not disproving it. Rape is rare and pregnancy results from 5% of cases which makes its extremely rare as I said.

>17,000 pregnancies forced upon women - real, living, breathing women - after being rape is >17,000 too many. Not to mention you didn't clarify what "extremely rare" meant until after I posted the link from RAINN.

[Deleted User]

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

How do you plan to prevent women from having abortions?

Keep it illegal in Ireland, it mightn't stop every abortion but it will certainly result in fewer than if it's allowed to happen here

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

What are your views on IVF? I've got frozen embryos sitting in a hospital freezer at the moment. If I wanted to freeze my 7 year old for later use, I think I'd have a few legal issues, however I'm allowed to have embryos frozen. Is that because embryos and foetuses are not the same as 7 year olds and grown women?

When we have the ability to freeze people who are alive and successfully revive them it will happen so it's not a great argument.

Kiwi in IE

Kole Round Spectator wrote: »

There is absolutely everything wrong with it, there shouldn't be a choice simple as that. Abortion should not be an option.

Killing an unborn child because it "doesn't suit me to have it" is barbaric.

How do you plan to prevent women from having abortions?

What are your views on IVF? I've got frozen embryos sitting in a hospital freezer at the moment. If I wanted to freeze my 7 year old for later use, I think I'd have a few legal issues, however I'm allowed to have embryos frozen. Is that because embryos and foetuses are not the same as 7 year olds and grown women?

eviltwin

Kole Round Spectator wrote: »

There is absolutely everything wrong with it, there shouldn't be a choice simple as that. Abortion should not be an option.

Killing an unborn child because it "doesn't suit me to have it" is barbaric.

In your opinion. In my opinion it's completely fine. We will just go around in circles, you won't change your mind, I won't change mine. I don't claim to speak for the country, neither do you so it would be best all round to put it to the people and see what way we want our country to develop.

Kiwi in IE

Kole Round Spectator wrote: »

When even a basket case of a country like Sierra Leone can see the abortion is wrong it shows the mentallity of people who want it legalised.

Really? Have you done a comparison lately between countries where abortion is legal and illegal, to see which list has the most 'basket cases' among its numbers?

[Deleted User]

PopePalpatine wrote: »

RAINN, the rape & sexual assault victims advocacy group, estimates that 5% of rapes result in pregnancy, and that's just in the USA, where access to contraception would be far easier than in the developing world. So please, educate yourself before going full Todd Akin.

You are confirming what I said not disproving it. Rape is rare and pregnancy results from 5% of cases which makes its extremely rare as I said.

eviltwin wrote: »

most abortions are for lifestyle reasons and there is nothing wrong with that.

There is absolutely everything wrong with it, there shouldn't be a choice simple as that. Abortion should not be an option.

Killing an unborn child because it "doesn't suit me to have it" is barbaric.

Absolam

PopePalpatine wrote: »

The disabled (unless you're talking about patients in a vegetative state or with anenecephaly), black people and the elderly have one thing in common - sentience. A foetus in the first 20 or so weeks of pregnancy doesn't.

So, a person who is sufficiently disabled (or comatose) so as not to demonstrate sentience should not have a right to life either, in your opinion? Or is sentience only useful for excluding a particular portion of those who aren't sentient?

Delirium wrote: »

And yet the 8th amendment does this by denying women access to abortion.

Well, really it doesn't. It's not picking and choosing who gets a right to life; it gives it to everyone. It's not picking an choosing who gets a right to abort a life; it denies it to everyone.