Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

Cabaal wrote: »

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

and the women's health, don't give a monkeys about that so then eh?

And this is something else that annoys me when discussing abortion - because I'm pro-life I'm automatically seen as "not giving a monkeys" about women's health. I care about every person's health, including the unborn child.

Oh, I wish I hadn't asked my original question - I should have realised I'd get a verbal battering from people opposed to my point of view. I discovered long ago that it's pointless discussing this topic as both sides are so entrenched in their views that we will never change each other's opinions.

This really is the last time I'm responding to any more questions folks. You have your views, I have mine, and never the twain will meet.

I've not posted on boards until the last couple of days.

I'm thinking I'm after making a few mistakes using the quote button. Some of the quotes seem a bit mixed up. Apologies to everyone whose quote was attributed to me and vice versa, as I'm sure you are incensed that some of my anti-abortion quotes are attributed to you

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

Cabaal wrote: »

Please feel free to enlighten us then,
Hard to claim you're liberal though when you're happy to restrict personal freedoms, even when the persons health and life is at risk.

I don't accept the abortion argument is about personal freedom for women because I also believe in personal freedom for the unborn child.

You are perfectly entitled to have that view but don't kid yourself that you are liberal because there is nothing liberal in believing women should be forced to continue with pregnancies they don't want. The liberal thing would be to respect the rights of women to make the right decisions for themselves even if you don't agree with it.

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

Not sure if I would or not to be honest, it's not really relevant anyway as no abortion is going to take place at this early stage. And before you ask, I'm not against the day after pill, although I will admit that it makes me feel slightly morally uneasy.

Abortions take place many weeks after conception, and by this stage I genuinely believe that is an unborn child, not just a foetus.

An unborn child that's 24 to 28 weeks old can still be aborted legally in the UK. Would you call that a foetus or an unborn child? There are plenty of cases, as you well know without asking me for links etc, of children that have been born at this stage and have survived to live happy, successful lives.

The question begs itself: do you equate embryo with child? Or blastocyst with child? If so, would you equate a blastocyst with a foetus? At what point would it be ok to abort a pregnancy? Research has shown about half of all pregnancies end in abortion. People call them miscarriages as if that's somehow different to abortion.

Just curious...

lazygal wrote: »

Abortions can be carried out at any stage of pregnancy in Ireland, if there's a risk to life.

OK so why is there a demand for even more liberal abortion laws?

Abortion was legalised in the UK around 1967, with very specific and restrictive guidelines. However, the reality is that ever since then, abortion has been allowed on demand. I grew up in the UK and spent over 20 years there, and I personally know several women who have had abortions - none of these abortions were extreme cases, no rape, no incest, no threat to their lives. They were quite open about the reasons for their abortions, that if they had continued with their pregnancies it would have prevented them from continuing with their education course or their job prospects would have been compromised or their boyfriend wouldn't support them. These were genuine reasons for the women concerned.

I did not agree with their choices (not that they consulted me beforehand!) and they were all happy with their choice to abort their unborn child. As far as I know none of them suffered afterwards, and they continued with their lives as if nothing had happened (and again, I might not have been privy to their real thoughts and feelings afterwards).

This is my real problem with allowing abortion in certain cases - that once it becomes acceptable to allow abortion it then becomes used as an alternative to contraceptives.

There have been some compelling medical and moral reasons put forward by posters here to support abortion. Despite these well thought out arguments in favour of abortion, I still cannot ever agree that the destruction of what I consider to be a completely innocent human life (and to use an emotional term, a baby) should ever be allowed.

When does the foetus become human? It's impossible for people to agree on this in either scientific or moral terms, and I'm not sure I can even decide myself so I tend to think it's within the first few weeks after conception.

oscarBravo wrote: »

And your position is that they should be denied an education or a career because you personally believe that an embryo's right to life is more important than their right to choose not to be pregnant.

I'm not saying they should be denied an education or a career at all. I do believe however, that an innocent life is more important than either, and of course education and careers are only put on hold, whereas once an unborn child is aborted that's final.

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

I have also read plenty of pro-choice arguments. I already stated that I find some of the arguments in favour of more liberal abortion quite compelling and logical, but however that may be, I cannot accept the destruction of an unborn child. That's emotive language, and I use it to try and explain the way I feel. I accept you and many others don't see it in this way, and that's perhaps the main reaon we will never agree.

Is abortion of an ectopic pregnancy abhorrent?

oscarBravo wrote: »

There are two key words in that latter sentence: "I believe."

That's the point I will keep coming back to. This is a belief that you hold. That's fine. Nobody's asking you to do anything that's against your beliefs.

It's when your personal beliefs come up against someone else's right not to be pregnant that we have a problem.

We all hold certain beliefs that infringe on other peoples rights. It's a question of how much an individual can be totally free. Taken to extremes, I don't believe in the Nazis were right to implement the Final Solution, or that the atrocities being carried out at the moment by Muslim extremists are right. But in the interests of freedom of belief and action, do you think the Nazis and Muslim extremists were/are perfectly entitled to behave the way they did/do?

And please don't accuse me of equating women who choose to have an abortion with Nazis or ISIS, I was just using these extreme examples to show where my beliefs would curtail someone else's rights, and I believe that this would be perfectly correct and acceptable.

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's not a problem; I don't need you to agree with me. All I need is for you to understand that it's OK for your emotions to override your logic when you're making decisions that only affect you; it's not OK when your decisions impact on others.

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?

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?

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: »

You are,
Now, would you like to see pregnant women trying to travel to avail of abortions banned from traveling?

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).

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?

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?

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.

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?

There's many circumstances in which I'd have an abortion despite all the "supports" in the world to sway me otherwise.

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.

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?

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?

Given that such pregnancies almost invariably threaten the life of the mother, whose death will result in the death of the child, there probably aren't many who'd argue two deaths are better than one, wouldn't you think?

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?

I'd say by passing legislation to make an offence to intentionally destroy unborn human life, like the State has.

Cabaal wrote: »

Now, would you like to see pregnant women trying to travel to avail of abortions banned from traveling?

Isn't it amazing that once again it's those who are pro-abortion proposing this? It's like a little mantra

Delirium wrote: »

What rights does the foetus have? Where are these enumerated? At what stage of the pregnancy does the foetus receive these rights?

Just the one which is the right to life, in the Constitution, and on implantation. I bet you know all those answers already though, just from reading this thread. So the purpose of asking is.....?

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.

Rather than assuming he's being patronising based on what you think is being implied, you could just take him at his word; after all he certainly has not claimed that banning abortion will stop it happening. Though I don't think it's patronising at all to point out that banning it in Ireland is highly likely to be reducing the amount of abortions that happen in Ireland.

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?

Surely people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones? Or have you given up offering opinions on legal actions by the State?

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?

I'm going to say it's the body of the other person inside their's that will die if they are given 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.

I reckon you won't find anyone who has been convicted of murder for killing someone who was going to die in order to save the life of someone else. Even a conviction for manslaughter would be interesting to see...

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?

Women and babies are going to die; I bet you can't produce an iota of evidence that introducing abortion on demand would suddenly result in a massive reduction of maternal deaths in Ireland, so lets not pretend his opinion somehow puts blood on his hands. But I reckon the introduction of abortion on demand would very likely cause the deaths of unborn children in Ireland to increase significantly. Don't you?

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

I could be wrong, but I think his notion of an 'ideal world' is one in which unborn children aren't killed anywhere, and women feel sufficiently supported to continue pregnancies they might otherwise wish to have terminated (by killing the unborn child, for the purpose of avoiding such confusion as some posters like to introduce at the use of that term).

lazygal wrote: »

There's many circumstances in which I'd have an abortion despite all the "supports" in the world to sway me otherwise.

I think that there are probably people who would not support enabling you to do so, even to the degree of preventing you from doing so, in many of those circumstances, if perhaps not all. Like some of the posters on this thread.

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?

I think Ragnar said "I would like to see abortion not available anywhere", so if it were banned in the way he wanted there would be no reason to want someone to be criminalised for travelling, would there?

Apologies for butting in, but there does seem to be a barrage of posts directed at just the one poster, and whilst I can't speak for Ragnar Lothbroks opinions, I think it's helpful to address some of the more factual bits to allow him to collect his thoughts so as to provide genuine opinion rather than be distracted trying to address the usual nonsense that has been thrown out so very many times before on this thread

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.

I think that's one of the things about living in a democracy though; we all get a say in things (sort of, one way or another) and majority views tend to carry the day. 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.

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.

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.