RBG, abortion and Ireland

bfa1509 wrote: »

Exactly. Abortions on healthy unborn children should never be allowed for as long as there is someone who will look after them

That someone somewhere might want to be a parent or have a child places NO onus on any other woman to be forced to incubate an unwanted one for them. The sheer sense of privilege that people who want to look after children should expect other women to produce for them is absolutely disgusting. For. Shame.

bfa1509 wrote: »

Who lost? The only ones who lost are the millions of those who have and will be aborted.

Those people do not, and never have, existed. You are imagining non existent people just to invent a non-narrative of them losing out. They no more lose out that children lose out when two people marry and decide never to reproduce. It makes as much sense to imagine children "losing out" because their parents decided never to be parents, than it does to imagine the same for a fetus at 12 weeks.

bfa1509 wrote: »

Public opinion changes with the wind. One day we will look back and realise the mistake we made and it will weigh on your conscience no matter how much you think it won't.

The only way I would ever look at our decision to allow abortion and have it weight on my conscience is if you people FINALLY come up with a single argument for why I should have moral or ethical concern for an entirely non-sentient agent.

Imagining some future society agreeing with you in some distant future is not going to manufacture filler for the void of argument you have available now.

Present such an argument and I would reverse my position on this topic without reservation, apology, shame, or embarrassment. I would be proud to change my position in the light of new argument.

bfa1509 wrote: »

Why don't you answer his/her question as to whether or not a woman should be compelled to give birth to a 36 week old baby?

At 36 weeks we do not terminate the baby without extreme reason. We terminate the pregnancy. The woman should NOT be forced to "give birth". We can medically remove the baby from her and care for it without her.

Conflating termination of a fetus (abortion) with termination of a pregnancy is poor form. They are ENTIRELY different things.

The moment we have ANY reason to think the fetus has become a sentient agent in my view: No one should be allowed terminate it without just and extreme cause. It should have as many rights as you or I.

I’m so glad that even though it appears here every couple of months, this debate is actually over in public life.

Young and old, across the country, we voted to repeal the 8th. The youngest cohort was most in favour, so the likelihood that it will come up again in 30 years is slim.

Anti-abortion activists who want to make an impact should focus their energies and their significant funds on sex education, providing free contraception, and offering judgement-free bursaries and services to struggling women who do choose to have babies despite financial hardships or other issues.

Deleted User wrote: »

While I think I understand what your intention is posting that picture it comes across a little disrespectful towards her to throw her picture into the middle of this. Particularly as no one here is arguing she shouldn't have been provided with an abortion.

Deleted User wrote: »

She was the catalyst for (finally) removing that horrid 8th, forcing women to risk death giving birth. I had family a close family member forced to bring a (non viable) child to term, no matter the very high risk to her. So people can feck off if they think that people were not saying that she should not have access to an abortion. The mother had to be in the process of actually dying, for the doctors to be legally safe in performing one.


That image is from The Irish Times, on their publicly accessible website, and posted there specifically for that discussion

I get it. She was the catalyst for repelling the 8th but this discussion has not been about any situations similar to hers. Like I said most people agree she should have been provided access to an abortion.

Igotadose wrote: »

Is someone being *forced* to have an abortion? Your argument is in the weeds - you're forced to not speed down roads by the speed limit, enforced by the authorities. Even if you think you have a good and valid reason.

If you don't want an abortion, don't have one. But, don't be forced if you are to travel to another country to have one, or be forced into criminal behavior.

The problem is, anti-women activists like yourself want to FORCE women to commit crimes. How bad is that?

the fact you have to call me an anti-woman activist dispite being as far from such as is possible, and there being plenty of proof on this site to show i'm not an anti-woman anything, just shows to me, and i would expect others, that you have no confidence in the arguments you put forward, because if you were confident in what you put forward, then you wouldn't have to screach anti-woman simply because someone has a view you disagree with.

QUOTE=Igotadose;114761928]Absolutely. Unlike a "newbie" like yourself, many of us on this thread have been debating this issue in the Abortion thread for years. The same person clutching pearls today, would've voted for the 8th in 1983, and been happy with Magdalene laundries. Hence "anti-woman." Their position is basically, keep women down by forcing them into pregnancy and birth and childcare.

There is a moderated Abortion discussion under A&A where the morals of abortion position can be discussed. Not here though. As a "newbie" you should read some of the posts there then come up with questions, so far they've all been repeatedly answered.[/QUOTE]


the problem is your claims as to what posters believe or not don't corelate to reality across the board in relation to all of the posters you make the claim about, because just like within the yes side, the no side also have varying views in relation to specific points and arguments.
i'm sure there are a small few who may be happy with Magdalene laundries, but they are in such a minority that i think i have only ever heard of 1 person, maybe 2 throughout my whole lifetime who hold such a view and they were quite rightly debunked.
and no, i wouldn't have voted for the 8th, given i did agree with it's repeal, just not the follow up legislation.

Why the constant hashing up of rape and incest victims when these only make up such a small percentage of abortion? I voted No, but would vote yes today for several reasons and I'm glad the repeal passed. But if you're going to support abortion then just say "I think all women should have access to abortion at any stage and under any circumstances" - why the need to constantly "justify" this using rape and incest victims to further the agenda. Can we not just have abortion, for whoever wants it, and for whatever reason (which is nobody else's business) and stop bleating on about hard cases all the time?

KiKi III wrote: »

That is what we have, and it’s what we campaigned for. Very little of the discourse was about rape and incest. The Yes side mostly talked about a woman’s right to bodily autonomy.

I remember a lot of talk about rape and incest.

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

It was always useful for teasing out peoples actual position.
When they had it explained to them what affect the 8th had on some women (victims of rape/incest, women seriously ill during pregnancy) it perhaps made some people pause. Obviously some were still hardcore opposed.

But I think it's unfair to say that these issues were always brought up. Many posters and campaigners were very consistently in the 'woman's right to choose regardless' camp.

I'm sure they were. But I recall a lot of focus on these issues.

uptherebels wrote: »

As is possible? That is a bit contradictory with your stance that rape victims should be denied an abortion.

not at all, both positions can co-exist.

KiKi III wrote: »

That is what we have, and it’s what we campaigned for. Very little of the discourse was about rape and incest. The Yes side mostly talked about a woman’s right to bodily autonomy.

Agreed. In fact during the referendum debates I was constantly as a "yes" can "pro choice" campaigner explaining why the "rape/incest" argument was in fact a bad one, that we should abandon.

Either the fetus at 12 weeks should have rights, or it should not. I think it should not.

If it does not, then rape/incest is irrelevant. The woman should have access to abortion for ANY Reason.

If it does, then rape/incest is irrelevant because no entity should lose it's rights due to a crime committed on someone who is not it, by someone who is not it.

So regardless of a pro choice or anti choice position.... the rape/incest argument adds very little. And that is BEFORE you try to work out a system by which "rape/incest" would be established in order to allow abortion. No one had any good ideas how to do it, and those that did offer ideas offered some pretty horrific ones.

nolivesmatter wrote: »

Particularly as no one here is arguing she shouldn't have been provided with an abortion.

Not explicitly on this thread (yet) but implicitly.

The reason she couldn't have an abortion was because of the 8th amedment.

So do you support the repeal of the 8th, or not - and if not, how many dead women is an acceptable level of collateral damage? Savita wasn't the first.


BTW her husband and parents approved the repeal of the 8th campaign and provided them with her image to use in the campaign, so your faux concern is entirely misplaced.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Agreed. In fact during the referendum debates I was constantly as a "yes" can "pro choice" campaigner explaining why the "rape/incest" argument was in fact a bad one, that we should abandon.

Either the fetus at 12 weeks should have rights, or it should not. I think it should not.

If it does not, then rape/incest is irrelevant. The woman should have access to abortion for ANY Reason.

If it does, then rape/incest is irrelevant because no entity should lose it's rights due to a crime committed on someone who is not it, by someone who is not it.

So regardless of a pro choice or anti choice position.... the rape/incest argument adds very little. [/b]And that is BEFORE you try to work out a system by which "rape/incest" would be established in order to allow abortion. No one had any good ideas how to do it, and those that did offer ideas offered some pretty horrific ones.[/b]

Ah yes, the rape committees and forced hysterectomies were some of the more colourful ideas offered up as reasonable solutions to the complex issue.
I believe some supporters of those ideas are still posting about the topic on this very thread.

nolivesmatter wrote: »

end of the road is only "anti-women" in your view because you don't place the same value on the unborn. Placing value on the unborn is not anti-women.

What would any of us even have to gain from being "anti-women" anyway? It just comes off as an attempt to discredit a person rather than tackle their ideas. Why can't people here disagree without resorting that?

placing the same value on the unborn as you do on actual living women is anti-women.

nolivesmatter wrote: »

Prove it.

sure thing chief. Im sure you would respond to anything I posted in a mature manner. it would be a really useful way for me to spend my time.