Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: » I don't know, I'm afraid. I will read up on this issue. If it is what I think it is, then I could probably understand the need to terminate the pregnancy, yes. I do not claim to be an expert on pregnancy or any medical matters. All I've tried to do is explain why I feel the way I do. I would deliberately steer away from the use of such words as "abhorrent".
Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: » I'm afraid that I believe that the unborn child has a right to life. So the decision to abort this child is not just a decision that affects the mother and I would suggest that the ending of this child's life has a serious impact on the child. Who is there to defend the child's rights?
lazygal wrote: » Ectopic pregnancy is where an innocent baby implants in a fallopian tube. Is it ok to end the life of such innocent babies?
Cabaal wrote: » You are, Now, would you like to see pregnant women trying to travel to avail of abortions banned from traveling?
Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: » In an ideal world, I would prefer that the woman would not need to travel because either: a) She would receive all the support necessary to continue with the pregnancy, or b) There would be nowhere to travel to, as I would like to see abortion not available anywhere. (I did qualify the above by stating in an "ideal world".) Real world: A woman will travel for an abortion. I don't like the idea, but I wouldn't criminalise her for doing so. I would prefer that she had the financial and social support here so that she wouldn't feel the need to travel for an abortion.
Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: » lazygal wrote: » Ectopic pregnancy is where an innocent baby implants in a fallopian tube. Is it ok to end the life of such innocent babies? See my previous reply, which you've quoted. I will need to understand the issue much better than I do, and I can't just answer a straight yes or no right now. I'm not some anti abortion fanatic, sometimes the activities and declarations of those who are strongly opposed to abortion embarrass me, although in general I agree with them on the main issue. I would never condemn any individual woman for choosing to have an abortion if it is available to her and that's her choice. However, I do believe abortion shouldn't be available (despite my lack of knowledge regarding ectopic pregnancies).
Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: » In an ideal world, I would prefer that the woman would not need to travel because either: a) She would receive all the support necessary to continue with the pregnancy, or b) There would be nowhere to travel to, as I would like to see abortion not available anywhere. (I did qualify the above by stating in an "ideal world".) Real world: A woman will travel for an abortion. I don't like the idea, but I wouldn't criminalise her for doing so.I would prefer that she had the financial and social support here so that she wouldn't feel the need to travel for an abortion.
Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: » Real world: A woman will travel for an abortion. I don't like the idea, but I wouldn't criminalise her for doing so.
Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: » I'm afraid that I believe that the unborn child has a right to life.
lazygal wrote: » How exactly should the state protect the rights of unborn children? Compulsory pregnancy tests for women every month to ensure those who are pregnant are known and requirements to eat properly and not drink or smoke? Preventing pregnant women from travelling? Detention of pregnant women to ensure they don't try to administer abortions themselves?
Cabaal wrote: » Now, would you like to see pregnant women trying to travel to avail of abortions banned from traveling?
Delirium wrote: » What rights does the foetus have? Where are these enumerated? At what stage of the pregnancy does the foetus receive these rights?
eviltwin wrote: » That's very patronising. It's implies abortion happens because it's the only option, that if the woman had the money, support etc she would keep going with the pregnancy. Women have abortions for all sorts of reasons mainly because they don't want to be pregnant. The banning of abortion will not stop it happening, it just means desperate women will take matters into their own hands.
volchitsa wrote: » Shouldnt this acknowledgment of your own level of ignorance of the issues involved tell you that perhaps you are just not well enough informed to have an opinion on the subject?
volchitsa wrote: » What is it about women's bodies that makes every Tom Dick and Harry think he has the right to decide whether or not she should be allowed certain medical treatments?
volchitsa wrote: » An untreated ectopic pregnancy is almost certain death for the woman. The only treatment is to end the pregnancy i.e. kill the "baby". Yet by your reckoning that baby is as entitled to life as any other, I mean, when else are you allowed to kill someone innocent just to save someone else's life? Could I kill you if I needed your heart and lungs? I suspect not.
volchitsa wrote: » So if you're going treat a pregnancy as "a baby" right from the word go, then women are going to die. Are you prepared to accept that, and if you aren't, then all you're doing is enforcing your views on when it's acceptable to end the pregnancy on the pregnant woman. Surely she should be the one to decide that?
Delirium wrote: » Strange notion of an "ideal world" where you'd compel women to carry a pregnancy against their wishes. But you don't support allowing for abortion here
lazygal wrote: » There's many circumstances in which I'd have an abortion despite all the "supports" in the world to sway me otherwise.
Mark Hamill wrote: » If all abortion was banned in the way you want, would you want her criminalised for travelling then? What about if she procured the means of abortion without travelling?
oscarBravo wrote: » Again, that's a belief that you're perfectly entitled to have, which isn't the same thing as being entitled to impose the consequences of that belief on someone other than yourself.
oscarBravo wrote: » Again, that's a belief that you're perfectly entitled to have, which isn't the same thing as being entitled to impose the consequences of that belief on someone other than yourself. ... Now, I'm not equating your pro-life stance with ISIS either - but I'll reiterate my point that your personal beliefs don't entitle you to deny someone else the right to choose not to be pregnant.
Absolam wrote: » I don't think many pro-choice advocates would complain if a referendum allowed them to impose the consequences of the belief that an unborn child may be killed at the will of a prospective mother on the country, but it would be a similar imposition.
No one would be forced to hold that belief, but the consequences would be imposed on the country; prospective mothers could choose to kill their unborn children.
One eyed Jack wrote: » They're not denying anyone the right not to be pregnant, as no such human right actually exists.
One eyed Jack wrote: » They're not denying anyone the right not to be pregnant, as no such human right actually exists. Anyone absolutely can impose the consequences of their belief on anyone other than themselves through the Irish Constitution, and they are perfectly entitled as is anyone else as a citizen of Ireland, to use the Constitution to uphold the right to life of the unborn. That's not anyone personally denying a woman an abortion, that's refusing to support and facilitate and legislate for abortion in this country, and every citizen who is eligible to vote in Ireland has that right.
oscarBravo wrote: » That's a pretty patriarchal attitude. It's also one the UN disagrees with.
eviltwin wrote: » Unfortunately Jack that's exactly what you are doing. It's all very well for you but think of the people personally affected by this. Abortion exists even where it's illegal. You don't stop it, you just push desperate women into dangerous situations. I don't know anyone who wants to see abortion being needed. It's always the goal that every pregnancy is wanted. I'm a realist though and I'd rather see women having legal abortions in safety than risking their lives and liberty taking matters into their own hands.
One eyed Jack wrote: » I agree with all of the above, but I'm a realist that deals in facts too, and the fact is that every Irish citizen who is eligible to vote in a referendum has a right to impose their beliefs on anyone else. I might not like the consequences of them enforcing their beliefs, but because they cannot be excluded from the democratic process and are subject to the Irish Constitution themselves, then they get a say, whether I like it or not.
Electric Sex Pants wrote: » Also women seem to think that it should be 100% your choice and "no uterus no opinion". Well I can promise you that you did not get yourself pregnant and the father makes up just as much of the child as you, dont you think that he deserves a say?
eviltwin wrote: » I'd give more credit to that of there was an actual referendum on it. I'm nearly 40 and I've never had a chance to have a say. We are working from the opinion of a generation ago which is no longer relevant. Meanwhile at least 12 women a day travel abroad for healthcare while others put their health at risk dealing with it themselves or are forced to stay pregnant. I wonder if you could spare a thought for them.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Opinions don't become irrelevant due to time, they become irrelevant when people no longer hold those opinions, and the fact of the matter is that there are still plenty of people who are opposed to legislating for widening the scope of abortion limitations in Ireland. I think you've taken me up wrong though because I've always argued that abortion should be available to all women regardless their circumstances and without limitations. But I still recognise that there are people who exist who would deny women that choice and as you point out they don't spare a thought for women that take matters into their own hands. (nor do they appear to spare a thought for women who took matters into their own hands who will never appear on any statistics or reports)
One eyed Jack wrote: » Opinions don't become irrelevant due to time, they become irrelevant when people no longer hold those opinions, and the fact of the matter is that there are still plenty of people who are opposed to legislating for widening the scope of abortion limitations in Ireland.
Cabaal wrote: » I'm sure there are people against abortion, just like there were people against marriage equality. A very vocal group but very much not a group that represented the majority as all the polls showed before hand, At the end of the day we need to put the issue to a vote and society decides as a whole, its the fairest and most democratic way of doing it. There is nothing to fear from vote unless you don't trust people?
One eyed Jack wrote: » To be perfectly honest - no, I don't trust people. I don't trust people because I know enough people who go with the popular opinion on social media that gets them plenty of likes and thanks from their peers, and then in private, those same people hold a very different opinion.
I absolutely agree that the issue needs to be put to a vote, but I'd rather people were informed on the issues for their own sake, apart from any vote on the issue, rather than seeing them buying into and believing propaganda being thrown out there by all "sides".
