The Abortion Issue

[Chris_]

It is beyond my comprehension that anyone would even consider a woman taking a morning after pill to prevent an unwanted pregnancy as abuse!

 

The abortion pill is an option, just like the normal pill is, the loop, a condom or the snip. You are preventing unwanted pregnancies. I have never hear of anyone telling a guy that he is abusing condoms. How absurd would that be.

 

The fact that men are allowed unrestricted sexual freedom without the responsibility of an unplanned pregnancy, but woman are not, seems very prejudiced and discriminatory towards woman. 

 

Remember the abortion pill is taken very early in a pregnancy and cannot be remotely equated to the vacuuming of a healthy fetus out of a womb that is in the second trimester. These are precisely the images anti-abortionists want to create in your mind in order to elicit highly emotive and irrational responses to the very mention of the word 'abortion'.

 

Maybe I wasn't clear on the context of using the word abuse, nor the occasion I was trying to refer to. I agree with all your points.

 

I'm not talking about general birth control. I'm talking more to using morning after pills as a last resort and an excuse for poor decisions, in your youth. My issue is people living like they're in a music video and taking potentially big decisions too liberally because theres ultimately an easy out for one person, and an appalling disregard from the opposite party. Because when someones sitting the next morning wondering if they need an aids test, a morning after pill and a memory, its not a great situation. And an increase in such occurrences is for want of a better word - abuse.

 

I think we're living in an age where the decision to erase x event is being made too easily. I'm still pro-choice because I'm not stupid and won't say you shouldn't ever make mistakes, but as my very first misunderstood post said, I can't see how to promote lifestyle changes so that people do not have to be faced with this decision to resort to the final option ie abort.

[Thor Buttox]

Maybe I wasn't clear on the context of using the word abuse, nor the occasion I was trying to refer to. I agree with all your points.

 

I'm not talking about general birth control. I'm talking more to using morning after pills as a last resort and an excuse for poor decisions, in your youth. My issue is people living like they're in a music video and taking potentially big decisions too liberally because theres ultimately an easy out for one person, and an appalling disregard from the opposite party. Because when someones sitting the next morning wondering if they need an aids test, a morning after pill and a memory, its not a great situation. And an increase in such occurrences is for want of a better word - abuse.

 

I think we're living in an age where the decision to erase x event is being made too easily. I'm still pro-choice because I'm not stupid and won't say you shouldn't ever make mistakes, but as my very first misunderstood post said, I can't see how to promote lifestyle changes so that people do not have to be faced with this decision to resort to the final option ie abort.

I totally agree with you, but I still don't think there was should be an unequal attribution of blame, or an uneven allocation of consequence. And more than anything, I don't think any child should be born into that selfish, unthinking environment.

[Skubarra]

 

I think we're living in an age where the decision to erase x event is being made too easily. I'm still pro-choice because I'm not stupid and won't say you shouldn't ever make mistakes, but as my very first misunderstood post said, I can't see how to promote lifestyle changes so that people do not have to be faced with this decision to resort to the final option ie abort.

 

 

And the irony of Republican's war on Planned Parenthood centers because they provide abortions is that they are also attacking the distribution of birth control to women (again, especially the poor are on the receiving end) - probably the best way to avoid the need for abortions.

[MrJacques]

Here's a good read from an OB... 

 

Look at all those reasons that most people don't even think about. Dozens of legit reasons why you simply cannot take that decision away from a mother.

 

Also go read the comments... hundreds of women, all in agreement and sharing their reasons why.

 

Does it not worry you Robbie and Jacquers that it's a huge struggle to find a women who is not pro-choice? Why on earth do you think as men it's fair to have a say in this? 

 

https://www.boredpanda.com/doctor-gynecologist-abortion-reasons-message/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=organic

 

 

Admittedly they number less than the 'pro-choice' but, I know a fair number of women who aren't 'pro-choice'

[Stretch]

Admittedly they number less than the 'pro-choice' but, I know a fair number of women who aren't 'pro-choice'

With the recent vote on abortion here it became clear that there are lots of pro life women

[Andrew Steer]

With the recent vote on abortion here it became clear that there are lots of pro life women

Would be interested to see the link between religion and this stance...

 

Religion still holding strong in Ireland I believe. Still largely Roman Catholic as well?

[Stretch]

Would be interested to see the link between religion and this stance...

 

Religion still holding strong in Ireland I believe. Still largely Roman Catholic as well?

Very much religion focused.

 

Not related but there's a referendum vote today to reduce the number of years you have to be separated to legally divorce. It's currently 4 years and the referendum is to reduce it to 2. Some of these law's are ridiculously archaic because of the Catholic influence

[Andrew Steer]

Nice clear thought process here...

Mary Morris

23 May at 08:26

Shared with permission
_________________________

“Last night, I was in a debate about these new abortion laws being passed in red states. My son stepped in with this comment which was a show stopper. One of the best explanations I have read:

‘Reasonable people can disagree about when a zygote becomes a "human life" - that's a philosophical question. However, regardless of whether or not one believes a fetus is ethically equivalent to an adult, it doesn't obligate a mother to sacrifice her body autonomy for another, innocent or not.

Body autonomy is a critical component of the right to privacy protected by the Constitution, as decided in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), McFall v. Shimp (1978), and of course Roe v. Wade (1973). Consider a scenario where you are a perfect bone marrow match for a child with severe aplastic anemia; no other person on earth is a close enough match to save the child's life, and the child will certainly die without a bone marrow transplant from you. If you decided that you did not want to donate your marrow to save the child, for whatever reason, the state cannot demand the use of any part of your body for something to which you do not consent. It doesn't matter if the procedure required to complete the donation is trivial, or if the rationale for refusing is flimsy and arbitrary, or if the procedure is the only hope the child has to survive, or if the child is a genius or a saint or anything else - the decision to donate must be voluntary to be constitutional. This right is even extended to a person's body after they die; if they did not voluntarily commit to donate their organs while alive, their organs cannot be harvested after death, regardless of how useless those organs are to the deceased or many lives they would save. That's the law.

Use of a woman's uterus to save a life is no different from use of her bone marrow to save a life - it must be offered voluntarily. By all means, profess your belief that providing one's uterus to save the child is morally just, and refusing is morally wrong. That is a defensible philosophical position, regardless of who agrees and who disagrees. But legally, it must be the woman's choice to carry out the pregnancy. She may choose to carry the baby to term. She may choose not to. Either decision could be made for all the right reasons, all the wrong reasons, or anything in between. But it must be her choice, and protecting the right of body autonomy means the law is on her side. Supporting that precedent is what being pro-choice means.’”

[stefmeister]

 

Nice clear thought process here...

 

Mary Morris

23 May at 08:26

Shared with permission

_________________________

“Last night, I was in a debate about these new abortion laws being passed in red states. My son stepped in with this comment which was a show stopper. One of the best explanations I have read:

‘Reasonable people can disagree about when a zygote becomes a "human life" - that's a philosophical question. However, regardless of whether or not one believes a fetus is ethically equivalent to an adult, it doesn't obligate a mother to sacrifice her body autonomy for another, innocent or not.

Body autonomy is a critical component of the right to privacy protected by the Constitution, as decided in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), McFall v. Shimp (1978), and of course Roe v. Wade (1973). Consider a scenario where you are a perfect bone marrow match for a child with severe aplastic anemia; no other person on earth is a close enough match to save the child's life, and the child will certainly die without a bone marrow transplant from you. If you decided that you did not want to donate your marrow to save the child, for whatever reason, the state cannot demand the use of any part of your body for something to which you do not consent. It doesn't matter if the procedure required to complete the donation is trivial, or if the rationale for refusing is flimsy and arbitrary, or if the procedure is the only hope the child has to survive, or if the child is a genius or a saint or anything else - the decision to donate must be voluntary to be constitutional. This right is even extended to a person's body after they die; if they did not voluntarily commit to donate their organs while alive, their organs cannot be harvested after death, regardless of how useless those organs are to the deceased or many lives they would save. That's the law.

Use of a woman's uterus to save a life is no different from use of her bone marrow to save a life - it must be offered voluntarily. By all means, profess your belief that providing one's uterus to save the child is morally just, and refusing is morally wrong. That is a defensible philosophical position, regardless of who agrees and who disagrees. But legally, it must be the woman's choice to carry out the pregnancy. She may choose to carry the baby to term. She may choose not to. Either decision could be made for all the right reasons, all the wrong reasons, or anything in between. But it must be her choice, and protecting the right of body autonomy means the law is on her side. Supporting that precedent is what being pro-choice means.’”

 

One flaw with that argument, with organ donation etc, the person must act to save the life of another. Conversely, the result of taking no action will lead to potential death.

With abortion, you have to act to terminate the life of the baby/fetus/etc, and taking no action will result in a potential life created.

[Odinson]

Very much religion focused.

 

Not related but there's a referendum vote today to reduce the number of years you have to be separated to legally divorce. It's currently 4 years and the referendum is to reduce it to 2. Some of these law's are ridiculously archaic because of the Catholic influence

Do you lot have a referendum too on which day the trash should be collected? Sheesh.

[Skubarra]

One flaw with that argument, with organ donation etc, the person must act to save the life of another. Conversely, the result of taking no action will lead to potential death.

With abortion, you have to act to terminate the life of the baby/fetus/etc, and taking no action will result in a potential life created.

 

Organ donation is probably a bit of a flawed analogy - whether in defence of or against abortion

[Stretch]

Do you lot have a referendum too on which day the trash should be collected? Sheesh.

Lol... Just to try revert all these Catholic law's

 

Gay marriage

Abortion

Divorce wait from 4 years to 2 years

And end of last year... To repeal the blasphemy law... Yes.. It was illegal to blaspheme

[Stretch]

Organ donation is probably a bit of a flawed analogy - whether in defence of or against abortion

Yeah got to agree... That analogy didn't really work

[Skubarra]

Lol... Just to try revert all these Catholic law's

 

Gay marriage

Abortion

Divorce wait from 4 years to 2 years

And end of last year... To repeal the blasphemy law... Yes.. It was illegal to blaspheme

 

Is it a requirement to have a referendum to approve every (big?) law change or is it just the way the Irish government chose to go about things? 

[Stretch]

Is it a requirement to have a referendum to approve every (big?) law change or is it just the way the Irish government chose to go about things?

Not sure.. But these ones founded on religion I think they want to make sure it's the will of the people

[Andrew Steer]

Organ donation is probably a bit of a flawed analogy - whether in defence of or against abortion

Agreed, it's a different scenario entirely... but I think it was in there to further illustrate the point that all human beings have the full and final saying wrt their bodies. Even when dead. 

 

But anyway, let's not nitpick on one small point. The general points still remains well illustrated