# Time to repeal the abortion ban in Ireland



## BeanPole (13 Oct 2009)

As a confident liberal democracy, we are slowly starting to shake off the yoke of the Roman Catholic church in places like healthcare and education.

Is it now time to take the next step and liberalise our abortion laws to bring them in line with the rest of Europe, so that Irish women have the same right to control their fertility as other European women do?

Other predominantly RC countries, such as those in the Mediterranean, have few problems with this. 

The arguments that banning abortion reduces the termination rate have again been proved false:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8305217.stm

Indeed, the countries with the lowest abortion rates, such as the Netherlands, are those with the freest availability of contraceptive devices, and the best sex education for their children.


----------



## BoscoTalking (13 Oct 2009)

'em i don't think so. We women have the same right to control our fertility right now  - what _some_ women lack is the ability to prevent unwanted pregnancies - there are plenty of means available.


----------



## BeanPole (13 Oct 2009)

So what right do you have to judge or control the choices that women with unwanted pregnancies face?

At present, such women have the right to travel to anywhere outside Ireland to procure a termination. Why shouldn't they be entitled to obtain this medical procedure in the Republic? Perhaps then we would see the abortion rate drop to a much lower level.

Or are you advocating that we should condemn yet more women to taking the boat over the water, as women have done for generations?


----------



## Ancutza (13 Oct 2009)

> So what right do you have to judge or control the choices that women with unwanted pregnancies face?



What right do you have to deem the life of the unborn child as worthless?



> At present, such women have the right to travel to anywhere outside Ireland to procure a termination. Why shouldn't they be entitled to obtain this medical procedure in the Republic? Perhaps then we would see the abortion rate drop to a much lower level.



From this I'd understand that you believe that women with unwanted pregnancies are getting pregnant to spite the system.  If they knew they could have an abortion in Ireland then they wouldn't get pregnant.  Very interested to hear your reasoning behind that statement.

You see it is indeed an emotive subject.  I'm not at all religious so none of my views are RC dogma.  My opinion is that from a biological point of view we have an obligation to nurture and protect the least able in our society, born or unborn.

My brother is adopted.  If my parents had not stepped in then he probably would have been an abortion statistic.  His mum (aged 16 and pregnant) stayed with us for 4 months before giving birth and fell in love with my best mate.  Hence my brother bears my best mates name.  He's a pain in the This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language and needs kickings to keep him in line but, 20 years later, he IS wanted.  I draw no distinctions between him and the rest of my siblings. He's also a contributing human being albeit taking more than he's contributing for the moment.

One of his best mates is also the product of a 'crisis' pregnacy.  In fact his mum was on the gurney being wheeled into surgery in the UK for an abortion when she had a change of heart and asked to be allowed to phone her parents who knew nothing of her situation.  Her Dad, at the age of 72, flew to the UK that night and brought her home.  

Like I say an emotive subject.  No babys are unwanted and thats a fact.

I think the law is just fine as it is although I'd like to see more support offered to women who decide to take the pregnacy to term and either give the baby up for adoption or keep it.  I'd vehemently oppose abortion on demand and I suspect my brother would too.


----------



## BeanPole (14 Oct 2009)

Hi Antcutza,

Thanks for your detailed contribution, but I don’t feel that you’ve understood the argument or the evidence presented to date. 

To begin with, I am vehemently anti-abortion, but would not condemn any woman in a crisis pregnancy who felt she had no alternative to terminate. Women cannot just be seen as unwilling vessels. If a woman chooses to keep or not to keep a child, we should support her in this decision, and not condemn her.

Too many women in Ireland in this situation don’t feel that they have a choice at present, which is why our termination rate is far in excess of that in more mature liberal democracies. By “banning” abortion, we just force women to take the boat to England. I know – I have met a number of women who have done this and are deeply traumatised by the experience.

If we were far less judgemental and gave our children (and adults) more open and honest sex education, and explained the options that they have to present unwanted pregnancies in the first place as well as the options open to them if they are faced with an unwanted pregnancy, then I think you would see abortion rates drop dramatically in this country.


----------



## jhegarty (14 Oct 2009)

BeanPole said:


> Women cannot just be seen as unwilling vessels.



You do know how women get pregnant ?

There is plenty of options for contraception in this country.


----------



## BeanPole (14 Oct 2009)

jhegarty said:


> You do know how women get pregnant ?
> 
> There is plenty of options for contraception in this country.


 
I struggle to see your point. No form of contraception is completely reliable. No woman should be forced into a pregnancy.

I think that very few reasonable commentators would view abortion as a form of contraception though. The physical and emotional toll it takes on many women is immense.


----------



## truthseeker (14 Oct 2009)

Ancutza said:


> No babys are unwanted and thats a fact.


 
No it isnt. There ARE unwanted babies (very unfortunate but true).
However, I dont believe the debate hinges on whether or not the babies are unwanted, but whether or not it is fair to force a woman to continue with a pregnancy that she does not want to continue with.

Its irrelevant whether or not I personally agree with abortion, but the anti abortion lobby force the consequences of their moral choices on others - which I do not agree with.

I am pro choice - a choice that only affects the woman in the situation. Of course the arguement offered here is that the choice doesnt only affect the woman, it affects the unborn child - but it is a matter of opinion for an individual when they believe life begins.


----------



## Caveat (14 Oct 2009)

truthseeker said:


> Its irrelevant whether or not I personally agree with abortion, but the anti abortion lobby force the consequences of their moral choices on others - which I do not agree with.


 
+1

As a matter of principle, I also personally object to living under a 'law' which is largely as a consequence of the influence of the RC church (like pub closure on good friday).


----------



## truthseeker (14 Oct 2009)

Caveat said:


> +1
> 
> As a matter of principle, I also personally object to living under a 'law' which is largely as a consequence of the influence of the RC church (like pub closure on good friday).


 
Ill object on the same grounds.

My prediction is that this thread is going to degenerate into the anti abortion side using emotive terms and talking about murdering children etc....while the pro choice side will continue to argue about the rights of a woman....and no one will agree when life begins....etc....

Its a predictable debate that has no real answers because it comes down an individuals moral compass as to whether or not they are anti or pro.


----------



## Sunny (14 Oct 2009)

This topic was discussed a while back if you do a search. Nothing is going to be achieved by having the same debate again. It's a divisive emotional subject that doesn't belong on Askaboutmoney.


----------



## pinkyBear (14 Oct 2009)

> My prediction is that this thread is going to degenerate into the anti abortion side using emotive terms and talking about murdering children etc....while the pro choice side will continue to argue about the rights of a woman....and no one will agree when life begins....etc....
> 
> Its a predictable debate that has no real answers because it comes down an individuals moral compass as to whether or not they are anti or pro.


 
Well said..


----------



## jhegarty (14 Oct 2009)

Caveat said:


> +1
> 
> As a matter of principle, I also personally object to living under a 'law' which is largely as a consequence of the influence of the RC church (like pub closure on good friday).



I was under the impression it was the result of several referendums.

The church is also against murder. Is that a good reason to legalise it ?


----------



## Caveat (14 Oct 2009)

jhegarty said:


> I was under the impression it was the result of several referendums.


 
...the results of which are largely as a result of the influence of the RC church.



> The church is also against murder. Is that a good reason to legalise it?


 
Which of course is exactly the same thing. 

As Sunny says though, it has all been said before. I've nothing to add anyway.


----------



## truthseeker (14 Oct 2009)

jhegarty said:


> The church is also against murder. Is that a good reason to legalise it ?


 
IMO what the church thinks is no reason to legalise or not legalise something. The church should not have any influence in matters of laws of the state. Thats a different debate altogether though!


----------



## liaconn (14 Oct 2009)

BeanPole said:


> I struggle to see your point. No form of contraception is completely reliable. No woman should be forced into a pregnancy.
> 
> I think that very few reasonable commentators would view abortion as a form of contraception though. The physical and emotional toll it takes on many women is immense.


 
It was you that advocated abortion as a means for a woman to 'control her fertility'.

Unless a woman has been raped, she has not been 'forced into a pregnancy'.


----------



## Kitten (14 Oct 2009)

What possesses someone to start a debate on "askaboutmoney" about the rights or wrongs of abortion?  Try EUMOM or Magicmum or Rollercoaster if you really want to get into it.  
Silly silly.


----------



## truthseeker (14 Oct 2009)

Kitten said:


> What possesses someone to start a debate on "askaboutmoney" about the rights or wrongs of abortion? Try EUMOM or Magicmum or Rollercoaster if you really want to get into it.
> Silly silly.


 
Well this is Letting Off Steam.......


----------



## liaconn (14 Oct 2009)

Ancutza said:


> Like I say an emotive subject. No babys are unwanted and thats a fact.


 

I totally agree. Even if the mother does not feel she is in a situation to keep the child there are queues and queues of people prepared to put themselves through the mill in order to adopt a baby. I know this is a very difficult choice for the mother, but surely it's better than terminating the pregnancy.


----------



## truthseeker (14 Oct 2009)

liaconn said:


> ...there are queues and queues of people prepared to put themselves through the mill in order to adopt a baby.


 
It would require for the same number of expectant mothers willing to put themselves through the mill to give birth to a child they dont want for this to be a feasible solution though.
Some women dont want to risk their health, job, social status, finances, emotional well being etc.. to give birth to a child they dont want.


----------



## Cahir (14 Oct 2009)

When was the last referendum?  I've never been able to vote in one so there's a whole generation of fertile women who've never had a say.  Thankfully I've never been in a situation where I've had to decide on abortion myself but I have a lot of friends (late 20's - mid 30's) who've travelled to the UK for the procedure.


----------



## truthseeker (14 Oct 2009)

Cahir said:


> When was the last referendum?


 
2002 I believe.


----------



## michaelm (14 Oct 2009)

Abortion is a quick fix solution which gives rise to long-term negative impacts on the well-being of the women involved and on society in general.  Women deserve better.  Sadly there is, worldwide, a yearly hidden holocaust (emotive term granted, but apt methinks) of between 40 and 50 million abortions.


----------



## liaconn (14 Oct 2009)

truthseeker said:


> Some women dont want to risk their health, job, social status, finances, emotional well being etc.. to give birth to a child they dont want.


 
But if the child is being adopted theri finances, job etc won't be affected. I also think your health and emotional well being are just as likely to be affected by an abortion as by childbirth and adoption.

To be honest, there was a thread on this before and I think it got quite nasty in the end. (Not by anyone on here, I can't even remember who contributed).

I suppose, if you see abortion as killing a child then you don't see finance, job status etc as being an excuse for a termination and feel it is better for the mother to undergo the very understandable (and it is extremely understandable and sad) upset of an unwanted pregnancy and then handing over the child, to actually killing a baby.


----------



## truthseeker (14 Oct 2009)

michaelm said:


> Abortion is a quick fix solution which gives rise to long-term negative impacts on the well-being of the women involved and on society in general. Women deserve better. Sadly there is, worldwide, a yearly hidden holocaust (emotive term granted, but apt methinks) of between 40 and 50 million abortions.


 
See this is why the debate never goes anywhere.
A definition of Holocaust from dictionary.com:
1. a great or complete devastation or destruction, esp. by fire. 
2. a sacrifice completely consumed by fire; burnt offering. 
3. (usually initial capital letter) the systematic mass slaughter of European Jews in Nazi concentration camps during World War II (usually prec. by the). 
4. any mass slaughter or reckless destruction of life.

Ill assume OP is referring to meaning number 4?

Life is the key term here, there will never be agreement between individuals on when life begins. Its a grey area and it probably always will be.


----------



## truthseeker (14 Oct 2009)

liaconn said:


> But if the child is being adopted theri finances, job etc won't be affected.


 
They will miss time from work (or maybe college), so may miss key meetings/projects/exams. It also takes the body some time to recover from pregnancy so they may be off or not fit for purpose for quite a while (im thinking of certain jobs that have a high activity level).



liaconn said:


> I also think your health and emotional well being are just as likely to be affected by an abortion as by childbirth and adoption.


 
Yeah - I agree.



liaconn said:


> To be honest, there was a thread on this before and I think it got quite nasty in the end. (Not by anyone on here, I can't even remember who contributed).


 
It usually does - people can get nasty when they cant MAKE other people agree with them on emotive issues!



liaconn said:


> I suppose, if you see abortion as killing a child then you don't see finance, job status etc as being an excuse for a termination and feel it is better for the mother to undergo the very understandable (and it is extremely understandable and sad) upset of an unwanted pregnancy and then handing over the child, to actually killing a baby.


 
Thats the thing, some people dont see it as a baby at all. So the term 'killing a baby' (which is an emotive one) doesnt count to those people.

I think social status counts a lot as well. Im sure no one wants to go through 9 months of pregnancy to tell people afterwards 'i gave the baby up for adoption'. I suppose it becomes a public matter if they do go ahead with the pregnancy, whereas its a private matter if they have an abortion.


----------



## michaelm (14 Oct 2009)

truthseeker said:


> See this is why the debate never goes anywhere.


Well that explains it.  And there was me thinking that it might be because some hold their opinion to be supreme and wish to control the language used by those who have a contrary view .


----------



## truthseeker (14 Oct 2009)

michaelm said:


> Well that explains it. And there was me thinking that it might be because some hold their opinion to be supreme and wish to control the language used by those who have a contrary view .


 
And there was me thinking it might be because some hold their opinion to be supreme and wish to control the morals of others who have a contrary view .


----------



## peelaaa (14 Oct 2009)

And priests can't even have relationships. What do they REALLY know about the reasons behind abortion?


----------



## Ruam (14 Oct 2009)

michaelm said:


> Abortion is a quick fix solution which gives rise to long-term negative impacts on the well-being of the women involved and on society in general. .



My partner has a termination many years ago when when was young 17 or 18.  She went to England for a termination and is convinced to this day that it was the best decision for her.  She has suffered no negative impacts on herself personally.

I think many people who are anti abortion try to make women feel guilty about choices they make.


----------



## Protocol (14 Oct 2009)

I have a practical, though perhaps simplistic, solution.

Loads of couples have fertility problems and so put a lot of time and money into foreign adoptions.

Hundreds, or thousands, of Irish women go to the UK, etc. to get abortions.

Can we imagine some way of matching these two groups?


----------



## ney001 (14 Oct 2009)

I won't engage in another abortion debate, suffice to say we all know how it will end - the die hards will drag it on for weeks in the end everybody will just have to agree to disagree.  Abortion is one of those subjects where you just know the answer yourself, it's all down to your own beliefs and an argument on an internet forum will not change your opinion! .

I would suggest closing the debate and perhaps doing another poll similar to the Lisbon poll, to see if people would be for or against another referendum on abortion in Ireland - just out of interest for the OP!


----------



## truthseeker (14 Oct 2009)

ney001 said:


> I would suggest closing the debate and perhaps doing another poll similar to the Lisbon poll, to see if people would be for or against another referendum on abortion in Ireland - just out of interest for the OP!


 
Good idea.

On the subject of abortion referendum (as opposed to abortion and the moral rights and wrongs) - how often should such a referendum be held?
I suspect until there is a yes vote. At which point the no voters are going to say 'we should have another referendum'. And the circularity begins again.


----------



## ney001 (14 Oct 2009)

There should definitely be a limit on referendums for the same topic  - once every ten years perhaps?  Whatever the result is, that's it for ten years so suck it up!


----------



## S.L.F (14 Oct 2009)

peelaaa said:


> And priests can't even have relationships. What do they REALLY know about the reasons behind abortion?


 
Actually here is a priests' son

http://media.tribune.ie/site_media/.../Feb/07/cache/Ross_Hamilton003727_display.jpg


His da was Father Michael Cleary


----------



## circle (14 Oct 2009)

What I find interesting about this debate is that we've never actually had a referendum on abortion that would have really introduced abortion.

1983 Referendum:

- 8th amendment - passed 64%

Introduced article 40.3.3 "The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right. "
Triggered a high court judgement respecting privacy in marital affairs that worried William Binchy & Des Hanafin, who were pro-life.
1992 Referendum:

- 12th amendment - rejected 65%

Proposed adding "It shall be unlawful to terminate the life of an unborn unless such termination is necessary to save the life, as distinct from the health, of the mother where there is an illness or disorder of the mother giving rise to a real and substantial risk to her life, not being a risk of self-destruction. "
Triggered by the X case - aim was to define suicide risk as not justification for abortion.
- 13th amendment - passed 62%

Added "This subsection shall not limit freedom to travel between the State and another state."
- 14th amendment - passed 60%

Added "This subsection shall not limit freedom to obtain or make available, in the State, subject to such conditions as may be laid down by law, information relating to services lawfully available in another state."
Ending the practise where back pages with ads for UK family planning clinics were omitted from or cut from magazines.
2002 Referendum:

- 25th amendment - rejected 50.42%

Proposed adding article 40.3.4 "In particular the life of the unborn in the womb shall be protected in accordance with the provisions of the Protection of Human Life in Pregnancy Act 2002."
Act would have introduced penalties for performing or assisting in abortion and defined suicide as not being sufficient grounds.


----------



## Teatime (14 Oct 2009)

truthseeker said:


> And there was me thinking it might be because some hold their opinion to be supreme and wish to control the morals of others who have a contrary view .


 
 I nominate you and michaelm for post of the week!


----------



## BeanPole (14 Oct 2009)

circle said:


> What I find interesting about this debate is that we've never actually had a referendum on abortion that would have really introduced abortion.
> 
> 1983 Referendum:
> 
> ...


 

Thanks for this circle

The irony is that many of these amendments were brought in to tighten the constraints on availability of abortion for distressed women, but each one ended up actually liberalising availability.


----------



## Mpsox (15 Oct 2009)

ney001 said:


> I won't engage in another abortion debate, suffice to say we all know how it will end - the die hards will drag it on for weeks in the end everybody will just have to agree to disagree. Abortion is one of those subjects where you just know the answer yourself, it's all down to your own beliefs and an argument on an internet forum will not change your opinion! .
> 
> I would suggest closing the debate and perhaps doing another poll similar to the Lisbon poll, to see if people would be for or against another referendum on abortion in Ireland - just out of interest for the OP!


 
+1

Not in favour of abortion myself, just think it is fundamentally wrong, but that is my view. All I'll say on it that if it was legal in Ireland over the last few decades, how many people currently posting on here would not exist?


----------



## orka (15 Oct 2009)

Mpsox said:


> All I'll say on it that if it was legal in Ireland over the last few decades, how many people currently posting on here would not exist?


Same is true of the unavailability of contraception but does that make current availability wrong?


----------



## truthseeker (15 Oct 2009)

Mpsox said:


> All I'll say on it that if it was legal in Ireland over the last few decades, how many people currently posting on here would not exist?


 
What difference does that make?
If I never existed I wouldnt mind, because I wouldnt exist to mind my lack of existance.


----------



## S.L.F (15 Oct 2009)

orka said:


> Same is true of the unavailability of contraception but does that make current availability wrong?


 
This is not the same thing contraception is to do with stopping something from happening but abortion is killing a viable human being.


----------



## S.L.F (15 Oct 2009)

truthseeker said:


> What difference does that make?
> If I never existed I wouldnt mind, because I wouldnt exist to mind my lack of existance.


 
There is no, "I", in "lack of existance"...


----------



## ney001 (15 Oct 2009)

S.L.F said:


> This is not the same thing contraception is to do with stopping something from happening but abortion is killing a viable human being.



And on and on it goes - seriously lads all of these comments and arguments can be found here!

http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=96262&highlight=abortion


----------



## Latrade (15 Oct 2009)

S.L.F said:


> This is not the same thing contraception is to do with stopping something from happening but abortion is killing a viable human being.


 
The implication being that all abortions are one of convinience rather than necessity or other reasons?

But the crux of the argument isn't religious, but moral and to some extent scientific, when does ending or preventing a viable human life become "killing"?


----------



## Bronte (15 Oct 2009)

I wonder if you add up the 5 to 6 thousand women who go to the UK (and actually confirm they are Irish) and multiply this over say the last 20 years how many of our sisters, mothers, aunts as a percentage of the current female population have had an abortion.  I wonder for you men who were 50% responsible for the pregnancies of our wives, daughters, mothers, aunts, girlfriends and grandmothers who had abortions what percentage of the male population that would be and then  if you added the men involved in the pregnancies to the women involved what percentage would we arrive at of the Irish population.  That would be a very interesting figure.


----------



## truthseeker (15 Oct 2009)

Bronte said:


> I wonder if you add up the 5 to 6 thousand women who go to the UK (and actually confirm they are Irish) and multiply this over say the last 20 years how many of our sisters, mothers, aunts as a percentage of the current female population have had an abortion. I wonder for you men who were 50% responsible for the pregnancies of our wives, daughters, mothers, aunts, girlfriends and grandmothers who had abortions what percentage of the male population that would be and then if you added the men involved in the pregnancies to the women involved what percentage would we arrive at of the Irish population. That would be a very interesting figure.


 
I had to read that twice - but yes, that would be a very interesting figure!!


----------



## BeanPole (15 Oct 2009)

Thanks Bronte

The real issue is that Ireland's abortion rate is higher than other more liberal countries, despite it being illegal in this country.

My thesis is that, if we allowed terminations to be performed in this country, and 
Gave our citizens full access to information, that the abortion rate could fall as low as that in the Netherlands.

I don’t think any sane person would welcome either a rise in our abortion rate, or the continued status quo whereby we happily export societal problems, at the expense of confused and hurt women


----------



## MrMan (16 Oct 2009)

truthseeker said:


> IMO what the church thinks is no reason to legalise or not legalise something. The church should not have any influence in matters of laws of the state. Thats a different debate altogether though!


 
I agree, which makes it all the more irritating when posters continually throw in comments about the RC in order to validate their point. It's a bit similar to current threads where every second post is just a rant against FF.


----------



## MrMan (16 Oct 2009)

BeanPole said:


> Thanks Bronte
> 
> The real issue is that Ireland's abortion rate is higher than other more liberal countries, despite it being illegal in this country.
> 
> ...


I don't follow this, we are not cut off from access to information and if people are willing to travel to get the procedure, why would numbers drop if it was available here?


----------



## Bronte (16 Oct 2009)

truthseeker said:


> I had to read that twice - but yes, that would be a very interesting figure!!


 
I type too fast sorry.  We would then also have to add all those women who had taken the morning after pill ! plus the men involved in this.   Though that figure would be suspect as no pregnancy may have occured.  And then what about the coil, em think about that a bit, and finally what about the French abortion drug R something but I'm not too sure that's available in Ireland.  

But of course when you add up all these people none of us are even remotely linked or related to anyone ever who had anything to do with abortion.


----------



## michaelm (16 Oct 2009)

BeanPole said:


> The real issue is that Ireland's abortion rate is higher than other more liberal countries, despite it being illegal in this country.
> 
> My thesis is that, if we allowed terminations to be performed in this country, and Gave our citizens full access to information, that the abortion rate could fall as low as that in the Netherlands.


I'm afraid your contention and your top-o-the-head "thesis" are entirely incorrect.  Britain has the most liberal of abortion regimes, it's population is 15 times ours but it's abortion rate is 40 times ours (200,000 each year).  You refer to the Netherlands, perhaps you have figures, but I suspect you are unaware that abortions up to 12 weeks are not counted in the Dutch figures . . making such figures worthless.


----------



## Caveat (16 Oct 2009)

MrMan said:


> I agree, which makes it all the more irritating when posters continually throw in comments about the RC in order to validate their point.


 
If you are referring to my post #9, I think it was a relevant response to Truthseekers reference to the anti abortion lobby and not an attempt to validate anything really.


----------



## dereko1969 (19 Oct 2009)

S.L.F said:


> There is no, "I", in "lack of existance"...


 
there is! it's between the x and the s in existance [sic]


----------



## MrMan (19 Oct 2009)

Caveat said:


> If you are referring to my post #9, I think it was a relevant response to Truthseekers reference to the anti abortion lobby and not an attempt to validate anything really.



This thread in my opinion should be about whether you and I as individuals feel that abortion should be legal. As it is currently illegal i don't see how the church should come into this argument at all. 
If i said that it was against Gods teachings etc i would be rightfully told that God doesn't write our laws so keep him/her out of it. 

It wasn't a personal dig at you, it's just that like the public sector bashing that is now commonplace here, RC seems to be lured into more and more debates when I don't see the need for it.


----------



## Yachtie (20 Oct 2009)

S.L.F said:


> This is not the same thing contraception is to do with stopping something from happening but abortion is killing a viable human being.


 
A foetus is not viable until 24 weeks of pregnancy. This viability is determined by its ability to survive outside of womb. In most jurisdictions (if not in all), it is illegal to perform an abortion after 24 weeks.

I am a 34 year old married woman who ended up in a 'crisis pregnancy' situation. I never wanted a child of my own and got pregnant not as a consequence of being drunk or stupid but as a consequence of an unfortunate sequence of medical events which impaired my chosen method of contraception.

Abortion was an option which for a while felt right for me but not for my husband influenced by his RC stigmatised upbringing. I went for counselling, talked to abortion clinic in UK and in Holland all in order to try and regain some control over the situation. It is impossible to explain or describe a torment of an unwanted pregnancy, especially if you are surrounded by people with mentality of no-choice and no-option. The fact that I'd have to travel abroad and keep my choice a secret was as hard as accepting the pregnancy itself. In the end, I have decided to continue with the pregnancy for reasons I don't want to go into but am even more pro-choice now than I was before. My baby is due in less than 3 weeks.

None of us in a position to judge other's decisions on the basis of what we see. If I went ahead and bought a plane ticket that time, anyone could have assumed that my choice was out of selfishness BUT nobody other than my counsellor knew of my darkest thoughts and the emotional turmoil pregnancy caused for me. Has anyone who hasn't been through crisis pregnancy sat at the N4/M50 roundabout and contemplated driving down the wrong side of the motorway? I don't think so.

Everyone has a duty to make choices best for them regardless of how contrary they may be to the social norm. I still believe that most of the stigma is due to the RC church and its teachings. In my humble opinion, we would all be much better off knowing the full extent of the physical and psychological consequences of abortion  in order to enable women to not only decide for themselves but also to get support which they need.


----------



## S.L.F (20 Oct 2009)

Yachtie said:


> A foetus is not viable until 24 weeks of pregnancy. This viability is determined by its ability to survive outside of womb.


 
The problem I have with this is that you generalise, are you saying no baby born has ever survived that was less than 24 weeks in the womb?


----------



## S.L.F (20 Oct 2009)

dereko1969 said:


> there is! it's between the x and the s in existance [sic]


 
The spelling yes not the "lack of existance"...


----------



## Yachtie (20 Oct 2009)

S.L.F said:


> The problem I have with this is that you generalise, are you saying no baby born has ever survived that was less than 24 weeks in the womb?


 
I am not generalising, this is a milestone adopted (no pun intended) and recognised by the medical science. I recently read about an exception but it doesn't disprove that majority of foetuses are not viable until then.


----------



## S.L.F (20 Oct 2009)

Yachtie said:


> I am not generalising, this is a milestone adopted (no pun intended) and recognised by the medical science. I recently read about an exception but it doesn't disprove that majority of foetuses are not viable until then.


 
Correct but you won't know if a baby will survive till you take it out.


----------



## bren1916 (21 Oct 2009)

Women do have a choice - but if they want an abortion, they can go abroad and have it.
I am proud of the fact that as a nation we consider it illegal to abort a foetus/child. The fact that a woman needs to travel for an hour to the UK - does that make a significant difference compared to the enormity of the life changing act which she is about to commit?
I am pro-choice but anti-abortion.


----------



## circle (21 Oct 2009)

bren1916 said:


> Women do have a choice - but if they want an abortion, they can go abroad and have it.
> I am proud of the fact that as a nation we consider it illegal to abort a foetus/child. The fact that a woman needs to travel for an hour to the UK - does that make a significant difference compared to the enormity of the life changing act which she is about to commit?
> I am pro-choice but anti-abortion.


 
The problem with the current situation is that it's the most vulnerable people who for a variety of reasons won't be able to afford a flight / be able to get away / have access to their passport.

It also leads to women having terminations at a later stages of their pregnancies than would otherwise be possible, which I don't think anyone would be in favour of.

I also think that this 'Irish solution to an Irish problem' is convenient but ultimately a hypocritical stance for us as a nation to hold.


----------



## seriams (22 Oct 2009)

We live in a democracy, right? We should then be allowed to decide as individuals whether or not we want an abortion. In my view, it's as simple as.


----------



## Caveat (22 Oct 2009)

seriams said:


> We live in a democracy, right? We should then be allowed to decide as individuals whether or not we want an abortion. In my view, it's as simple as.


 
Exactly.


----------



## Yachtie (22 Oct 2009)

circle said:


> the problem with the current situation is that it's the most vulnerable people who for a variety of reasons won't be able to afford a flight / be able to get away / have access to their passport.
> 
> It also leads to women having terminations at a later stages of their pregnancies than would otherwise be possible, which i don't think anyone would be in favour of.
> 
> I also think that this 'irish solution to an irish problem' is convenient but ultimately a hypocritical stance for us as a nation to hold.


 


seriams said:


> we live in a democracy, right? We should then be allowed to decide as individuals whether or not we want an abortion. In my view, it's as simple as.


 
+1


----------



## MrMan (22 Oct 2009)

seriams said:


> We live in a democracy, right? We should then be allowed to decide as individuals whether or not we want an abortion. In my view, it's as simple as.


 
We should be allowed to choose as a nation what passes as law. We should not be allowed to make individual calls on what is allowed. If the majority says no to abortion, then live with until the majority swings the other way.


----------



## Bronte (23 Oct 2009)

MrMan said:


> We should be allowed to choose as a nation what passes as law. We should not be allowed to make individual calls on what is allowed. If the majority says no to abortion, then live with until the majority swings the other way.


Do you think that Irish women should be prevented from travelling abroad to have an abortion?


----------



## MrMan (23 Oct 2009)

Bronte said:


> Do you think that Irish women should be prevented from travelling abroad to have an abortion?




i don't think they should be prevented from travelling, and what you do in another country depends on their laws.


----------



## truthseeker (23 Oct 2009)

MrMan said:


> i don't think they should be prevented from travelling, and what you do in another country depends on their laws.


 
Isnt that just back to 'an Irish solution to an Irish problem' line of thinking?


----------



## MrMan (24 Oct 2009)

truthseeker said:


> Isnt that just back to 'an Irish solution to an Irish problem' line of thinking?



No it's actually straight forward logic. I would not prevent you from travelling. When you travel you  should obey the laws of the land you are in. If you travel to have an abortion in england, you are not committing a crime so where is the problem? Laws are not universal, but freedom to travel and to work etc is accepted in Ireland.


----------



## Complainer (24 Oct 2009)

truthseeker said:


> Isnt that just back to 'an Irish solution to an Irish problem' line of thinking?


Just because something is legal overseas doesn't make it legal here. You can legally buy dope in Amsterdam, but that doesn't make it legal here. Female Genital Mutilation is legal in parts of Africa, but that doesn't mean we should make it legal here to avoid the need to travel.


----------



## truthseeker (27 Oct 2009)

MrMan said:


> No it's actually straight forward logic. I would not prevent you from travelling. When you travel you should obey the laws of the land you are in. If you travel to have an abortion in england, you are not committing a crime so where is the problem? Laws are not universal, but freedom to travel and to work etc is accepted in Ireland.


 
So in that case its ok for women to have abortions, just not in the same country in which they live, work, pay their taxes. 
Well if its ok for them to do it - why not let them do it in their own country instead of having the expense and hassle of travel?
It seems to me that employing a moral relativism argument is just a way of pushing the problem elsewhere.

Something is either morally acceptable to you or it isnt. If abortion in the UK or anywhere else is morally acceptable to you then why should it be morally unacceptable to you in Ireland? I dont get it?


----------



## Yachtie (27 Oct 2009)

truthseeker said:


> So in that case its ok for women to have abortions, just not in the same country in which they live, work, pay their taxes.
> Well if its ok for them to do it - why not let them do it in their own country instead of having the expense and hassle of travel?
> It seems to me that employing a moral relativism argument is just a way of pushing the problem elsewhere.
> 
> Something is either morally acceptable to you or it isnt. If abortion in the UK or anywhere else is morally acceptable to you then why should it be morally unacceptable to you in Ireland? I dont get it?


 
Exactly!

My understanding is that it is actually not illegal for women to have an abortion BUT it is illegal for medical professionals to carry out a safe and very simple procedure. To me, this is nothing but moral double standard. If you really want to be picky about it, adultery is a moral issue considered a sin by RC church yet it's left to an individual to make their own choice and then deal with the consequences yet the state doesn't interfere with it. Why isn't the same applied to issues such as abortion? Or, does the state (or the majority of population) have the right to judge every woman and/or every couple on the same merit? There is a huge difference between a woman who views abortion as a form of birth control (I am personally very much against this) and a couple who already have children and feel that they can't afford another 'accidental' one on whichever basis.

It really gets on my nerves when people start talking about selfishness in those situations. IMHO it is more selfish to have children without having the means to give them proper upbringing and education (can be due to illness, poverty, family circumstances,...).


----------



## liaconn (27 Oct 2009)

Yachtie said:


> Exactly!
> It really gets on my nerves when people start talking about selfishness in those situations. IMHO it is more selfish to have children without having the means to give them proper upbringing and education (can be due to illness, poverty, family circumstances,...).


 

But is it more selfish to abort the baby than to allow it be adopted by people who long for a child and will give it a great life?


----------



## csirl (27 Oct 2009)

> It really gets on my nerves when people start talking about selfishness in those situations. IMHO it is more selfish to have children without having the means to give them proper upbringing and education (can be due to illness, poverty, family circumstances,...).


 
The logical extension of this line of thinking is that if someone becomes unemployed, their children should be put down. 



> it's left to an individual to make their own choice and then deal with the consequences yet the state doesn't interfere with it. Why isn't the same applied to issues such as abortion?


 
The problem is that it isnt left to the individual to make the choice. You often here the pro-abortion lobby trotting out the "its my body" line. The ignore the fact that the individual that suffers the gravest consequences - the unborn child is a human being in its own right with its own body. Again, the extension of the "its my body" logic would be that its ok to e.g. kill a poor person because you need a heart transplant from them because "its my body" that is in need.


----------



## truthseeker (27 Oct 2009)

csirl said:


> The ignore the fact that the individual that suffers the gravest consequences - the unborn child is a human being in its own right with its own body.


 
I dont believe a collection of cells in the womb is a person, an individual, a human being in its own right with its own body. Until it is old enough to survive outside of the womb on its own it is not a person (to me). So the logic of the heart transplant argument falls apart as presumably the donor is capable of surviving without dependancy on another body, has cognitive awareness and is capable of making choices.

Collections of cells do not have cognitive awareness and are not capable of making choices. 

If you murder a pregnant woman you do not stand trial for murder of 2 persons. You stand trial for murder of 1.


----------



## Complainer (27 Oct 2009)

truthseeker said:


> So in that case its ok for women to have abortions, just not in the same country in which they live, work, pay their taxes.
> Well if its ok for them to do it - why not let them do it in their own country instead of having the expense and hassle of travel?





Yachtie said:


> Exactly!
> 
> My understanding is that it is actually not illegal for women to have an abortion BUT it is illegal for medical professionals to carry out a safe and very simple procedure. To me, this is nothing but moral double standard.


So given that female genital mutliation is legal in other countries, you would recommend that we make this procedure legal in Ireland too - right? We should be saving people the expense and hassle of travel for FGM too?



truthseeker said:


> I dont believe a collection of cells in the womb is a person, an individual, a human being in its own right with its own body. Until it is old enough to survive outside of the womb on its own it is not a person (to me).


A 3-month old baby won't survive on its own outside the womb for too long.


----------



## Bronte (27 Oct 2009)

Abortions are carried out in Ireland they are just not called that.  The medical profession will go in to say remove a tumour and as a consequence of that there will be an abortion but this is not an abortion,  same with ectopic pregnancies as far as I know.


----------



## truthseeker (27 Oct 2009)

Complainer said:


> So given that female genital mutliation is legal in other countries, you would recommend that we make this procedure legal in Ireland too - right? We should be saving people the expense and hassle of travel for FGM too?


 
FGM is a totally different issue to abortion with totally different moral considerations - trying to make a comparision is like trying to compare apples and oranges - nonsensical.



Complainer said:


> A 3-month old baby won't survive on its own outside the womb for too long.


 
You misunderstand, there is a difference between massive medical intervention and a mammal feeding its young.


----------



## Complainer (27 Oct 2009)

truthseeker said:


> FGM is a totally different issue to abortion with totally different moral considerations - trying to make a comparision is like trying to compare apples and oranges - nonsensical.


You are right in that they are quite different issues. It is rare for someone to be killed as a result of FGM. However, with abortion, the specific intention is to terminate the life of the child. 

Perhaps you could expand on the different moral considerations - morally, why would you want to see abortion in Ireland (given that it happens in other countries) but not FGM (which also happens in other countries)?



truthseeker said:


> You misunderstand, there is a difference between massive medical intervention and a mammal feeding its young.



I don't misunderstand at all, thanks. Your words were "Until it is old enough to survive outside of the womb on its own it is not a person (to me)". A 3-month (or probably even a 6-month or a 9-month) old child is totally dependant on its carers, and will not survive without feeding/dressing/warming by its carers. But let's narrow it down then - it is not that unusual for full-term (or near term) newborn babies to go into the NICU (neonatal ICU)  and require fairly massive medical interventions to keep them alive. Do you consider a newborn baby in NICU to be a person?


----------



## Yachtie (27 Oct 2009)

liaconn said:


> But is it more selfish to abort the baby than to allow it be adopted by people who long for a child and will give it a great life?


 
In reality, how many underage mothers from under-privileged areas put their children up for adoption? Very few! Instead many of them bring a child into life of poverty and set a very poor example by missing out on education and personal growth by often sponging off the state / tax payer. That's why most adopted children come from abroad, not from Ireland.  



csirl said:


> The logical extension of this line of thinking is that if someone becomes unemployed, their children should be put down.
> 
> The problem is that it isnt left to the individual to make the choice. You often here the pro-abortion lobby trotting out the "its my body" line. The ignore the fact that the individual that suffers the gravest consequences - the unborn child is a human being in its own right with its own body. Again, the extension of the "its my body" logic would be that its ok to e.g. kill a poor person because you need a heart transplant from them because "its my body" that is in need.


 
No offence, but I find those comparisons ridiculous. Everyone's circumstances change at some point in their lives without being given much choice. My thoughts were more about people who willingly chose to have children where there is a known high risk of genetic disorder(s), long term poverty without much prospect of improvement, etc. I know of a family of disabled parents who have already lost two children to genetic disorders they were warned about and are now expecting their third which was confirmed to have spina bifida. It just doesn't feel fair to a poor child.

In terms of 'it's my body', it is the mother who suffers the most. I am not there just yet but from what I've seen and been told at ante-natal classes, childbirth is one of if not the most painful things a woman can experience. Before that, try 6 moths of utter discomfort where your skin feels too small, there is no comfortable position for anything and spending half the night in the bathroom. I was lucky to escape morning sickness altogether but even without it, pregnancy has been incredibly uncomfortable for me. It's my body that is suffering. My son is snug as a bug with nothing to worry about. Then when the child is born, think of sleepless nights, cracked nipples and all the rest. It should be a woman's choice whether she wants to go through all that. Some women are simply not interested in having children, don't crave unconditional love of a child or simply don't feel either physically or emotionally able to cope with such enormous change. 

There are so many scenarios which do not involve killing poor people on the streets or putting down children whose parents are out of work for a week or two. I already stated that I am pro-choice and am very passionate about this issue in general. For those reasons alone, I wish people of both sides took a minute to think with only scientific and social facts in mind. Only then we can have a fair and balanced debate.


----------



## liaconn (27 Oct 2009)

Yachtie said:


> In reality, how many underage mothers from under-privileged areas put their children up for adoption? Very few! Instead many of them bring a child into life of poverty and set a very poor example by missing out on education and personal growth by often sponging off the state / tax payer. That's why most adopted children come from abroad, not from Ireland.


 
The point you made was that it's 'selfish' of someone to have a baby when they can't afford it or are not in a position to look after it and that it was far less selfish to have an abortion. My point is that, if selfishness is the concern, then the solution is to have the baby and allow it to be brought up by someone else. I just don't buy this idea that people have an abortion out of selflessness and because they don't want the baby to be brought up in poverty. There are other solutions that don't involve abortion. They do, however, involve inconvenience and emotional suffering for the mother, but I don't think this is a reason to terminate the pregnancy as I think the unborn baby has the right to life.


----------



## Caveat (27 Oct 2009)

Complainer said:


> Your words were "Until it is old enough to survive outside of the womb on its own it is not a person (to me)". A 3-month (or probably even a 6-month or a 9-month) old child is totally dependant on its carers, and will not survive without feeding/dressing/warming by its carers. But let's narrow it down then - it is not that unusual for full-term (or near term) newborn babies to go into the NICU (neonatal ICU) and require fairly massive medical interventions to keep them alive. Do you consider a newborn baby in NICU to be a person?


 
Or look at it the other way.

I Know this is an emotional subject so no offence to anyone intended, but in general, stillborn babies are often given a funeral.  

I've never heard of this happening in the case of miscarriages though.  Clearly many people make distinctions then for whatever reason.


----------



## liaconn (27 Oct 2009)

I think this thread is straying into dangerous areas.


----------



## truthseeker (27 Oct 2009)

Complainer said:


> Perhaps you could expand on the different moral considerations - morally, why would you want to see abortion in Ireland (given that it happens in other countries) but not FGM (which also happens in other countries)?


 
I dont want to drag this off topic but FGM is a culturally accepted practice in some cultures. Usually it is carried out for cultural/spiritual beliefs. In most cases its less a case of informed consent as the woman involved is a minor, and more a case of a community accepted norm, with a widespread belief that terrible things will happen if its not done. Im not in favour of any practice carried out in the name of religion or spirits or demons etc...Nor am I in favour of body mutilation practices carried out on minors.
However if an adult female wanted to have FGM performed upon her in Ireland I would support her choice to do so.

Abortion is a choice made by an adult female - and I support her choice to do so. No doubt this will draw comments of 'what about abortion for a 16 year old minor etc....'. In that specific case then the minors parent would be responsible for medical decisions (as they are today).



Complainer said:


> I don't misunderstand at all, thanks. Your words were "Until it is old enough to survive outside of the womb on its own it is not a person (to me)". A 3-month (or probably even a 6-month or a 9-month) old child is totally dependant on its carers, and will not survive without feeding/dressing/warming by its carers.


 
This is really just being pedantic, obviously if a newborn is neglected they will die. Im not talking about neglect. A newborn will not die as a result of just being outside of the womb but a fetus will. The very nature of its potential for life is dependant on being inside a womb.



Complainer said:


> But let's narrow it down then - it is not that unusual for full-term (or near term) newborn babies to go into the NICU (neonatal ICU) and require fairly massive medical interventions to keep them alive. Do you consider a newborn baby in NICU to be a person?


 
Perhaps massive is the wrong word to use, if you consider an ICU massive medical intervention. I should have used the term extraordinary medical intervention, including highly sophisticated labs, scientists, teams of doctors, fake wombs etc... 

The 'norm' for a newborn or near newborn is that their potential for life is not dependant on being in the womb.


----------



## Bronte (28 Oct 2009)

liaconn said:


> They do, however, involve inconvenience and emotional suffering for the mother, but I don't think this is a reason to terminate the pregnancy as I think the unborn baby has the right to life.


 
What about in the case of rape or incest? What about the situation where the foetus is not viable?  Do you think a pregnancy in these situations is an inconvenience?


----------



## csirl (28 Oct 2009)

> In terms of 'it's my body', it is the mother who suffers the most.


 
???? I dont think you could compare "cracked nipples" etc. with death in terms of suffering.


----------



## liaconn (28 Oct 2009)

Bronte said:


> What about in the case of rape or incest? What about the situation where the foetus is not viable? Do you think a pregnancy in these situations is an inconvenience?


 

They're extreme situations. I was replying to Yachtie's general points where she mentioned the inconveniences of pregnancy. And I did acknowledge there was emotional suffering involved in an unwanted pregnancy, which you have conveniently left out of your post. To be honest, I've stated my point of view and I don't want to get into a stand off on this. I think this thread is just going to go around and around in circles.


----------



## Caveat (28 Oct 2009)

It's not a nice tangent or subject but I think I made a valid and relevant point (post #83)

Do those opposed to abortion have any comment?


----------



## truthseeker (28 Oct 2009)

Caveat said:


> It's not a nice tangent or subject but I think I made a valid and relevant point (post #83)
> 
> Do those opposed to abortion have any comment?


 
Caveat that was a relevant point, I am not opposed to abortion but will offer my view anyway.

With a stillborn baby there is a physical entity that is visible to people. With a miscarriage (depending on what stage it happens) there may not be anything definable that looks like a body, it could be so small that its virtually invisible or indistinguishable to an untrained medical eye. 

I believe that the human brain finds it difficult to confer personhood in real situations like this where they can see nothing definable as a person, whereas when speaking about a fetus in the womb a mental image is formed of a 'baby' - even though the reality of what is being spoken of has no bearing on the mental image.


----------



## liaconn (28 Oct 2009)

The Church doesn't deny a funeral to miscarried babies. Parents are free to request a funeral. Parents of miscarried children usually don't request a funeral and where they do, I think they usually want it kept very private and held in the hospital Chapel.


----------



## truthseeker (28 Oct 2009)

liaconn said:


> Parents of miscarried children usually don't request a funeral and where they do, I think they usually want it kept very private and held in the hospital Chapel.


 
Does that happen often? I only know of one case personally and they were not offered a funeral, but a blessing service by the hospital chaplin.


----------



## Caveat (28 Oct 2009)

liaconn said:


> The Church doesn't deny a funeral to miscarried babies. Parents are free to request a funeral. Parents of miscarried children usually don't request a funeral and where they do, I think they usually want it kept very private and held in the hospital Chapel.


 
I think you might be missing the point - it's not a matter of the church denying or agreeing to anything.

What I'm talking about is the "it's a life" argument.

An 8 week miscarriage or an 8 week abortion.

Miscarriage is not treated in the same way as a stillbirth either by the parents or by society in general. The general anti-abortion stance should dictate that they are.


----------



## liaconn (28 Oct 2009)

truthseeker said:


> Does that happen often? I only know of one case personally and they were not offered a funeral, but a blessing service by the hospital chaplin.


 
To be honest, I'm not sure how often it happens. I don't think it's usually called a funeral but a Mass of the Angels which is a funeral mass that can be said for a, stillborn, miscarried or aborted baby, or even for a very young Child who has died.


----------



## liaconn (28 Oct 2009)

Caveat said:


> I think you might be missing the point - it's not a matter of the church denying or agreeing to anything.
> 
> What I'm talking about is the "it's a life" argument.
> 
> ...


 
Caveat

I'm not a theologian but I think the view is that very, very young children don't need a Mass as they have died in a state of grace. People of stillborn children probably choose to have a Mass as there is a body to bury. With a miscarriage this is often not the case.


----------



## Bronte (28 Oct 2009)

liaconn said:


> They're extreme situations. .


 I think my point was crass in such a serious topic, so I'm withdrawing it, with apologies to Liaconn.


----------



## Complainer (28 Oct 2009)

Caveat said:


> Miscarriage is not treated in the same way as a stillbirth either by the parents or by society in general. The general anti-abortion stance should dictate that they are.


What happens after miscarriage is very much down to the couple concerned. In many cases, there is simply no option to have a funeral, regardless of the couple's wishes as there are no physical remains to be buried. It is (as you have pointed out) an occasion of huge trauma and pain for many couples, and not an occasion where people will be at their most logical or controlled. There is no physical benefit to the child/foetus in carrying out a funeral.

An abortion is a very different situation.


----------



## Caveat (28 Oct 2009)

Complainer said:


> What happens after miscarriage is very much down to the couple concerned. In many cases, there is simply no option to have a funeral, regardless of the couple's wishes as there are no physical remains to be buried.


 
This is not always the case.



> There is no physical benefit to the child/foetus in carrying out a funeral.


 
Strange way of putting it. 



> An abortion is a very different situation.


 
Of course it is, but if an aborted foetus of e.g. 12 weeks is a 'life' or even a 'baby' (as many would argue) I don't see how a miscarriage of 12 weeks should be regarded any differently - but it certainly seems to be. 

The funeral was just an example but indicative of the difference in attitude between miscarriages and stillbirths. TBH, whether or not there are much physical remains to be buried shouldn't have anything to do with it IMO.

_Edit: Anyway, I said a few pages ago that I wasn't going to get into this again and I'm sorry I did. _

_I've nothing more to add (again)_


----------



## truthseeker (28 Oct 2009)

Caveat said:


> _Edit: Anyway, I said a few pages ago that I wasn't going to get into this again and I'm sorry I did. _
> 
> _I've nothing more to add (again)_


 
Im back to what I said in post#8:


> it is a matter of opinion for an individual when they believe life begins


 
No matter where this debate goes, this is what is always comes back to and there is no way of budging either side.

Im done too.


----------



## liaconn (28 Oct 2009)

Me also.  As the person who posed the original question is no longer allowed post, perhaps it is time to close this thread?


----------



## Complainer (28 Oct 2009)

Caveat said:


> Strange way of putting it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I may not have explained myself well. The point I was trying to make is that a miscarriage is not a planned event. When it happens, it really doesn't matter to anyone what the response is - whether there is a funeral or not etc. There is no change to the outcome regardless.

An abortion is quite different. It is a planned event, and the outcome is terminal for the baby/foetus involved.


----------



## MrMan (29 Oct 2009)

truthseeker said:


> So in that case its ok for women to have abortions, just not in the same country in which they live, work, pay their taxes.
> Well if its ok for them to do it - why not let them do it in their own country instead of having the expense and hassle of travel?
> It seems to me that employing a moral relativism argument is just a way of pushing the problem elsewhere.
> 
> Something is either morally acceptable to you or it isnt. If abortion in the UK or anywhere else is morally acceptable to you then why should it be morally unacceptable to you in Ireland? I dont get it?



It is ok for people to obey the laws of the land that they are in. This is currently a legal issue and the morals are too complicated to ever get to a real answer. If it comes up for a vote again it may well be legalised here, but until that day we should respect the laws.
Your argument is straying between morals and law and there is no place for both as law is black and white. Your argument would suggest that we should have capital punishment here because its in other countries, allow 13 yr olds to marry etc.


----------



## truthseeker (30 Oct 2009)

MrMan said:


> Your argument is straying between morals and law and there is no place for both as law is black and white.


 
Of course there is a place for both. The whole point of this thread is 'should abortion be legalised in Ireland' - the answer to that question depends on the moral attitude of the majority - to suggest there is no place for both is ridiculous and a turn around on your previous comment of:



MrMan said:


> This thread in my opinion should be about whether you and I as individuals feel that abortion should be legal.


 



MrMan said:


> Your argument would suggest that we should have capital punishment here because its in other countries, allow 13 yr olds to marry etc.


 
No, my argument suggested that if you (or anyone else) as an individual does not have a moral problem with a woman travelling for an abortion then it makes no sense to have a moral problem with her having one in Ireland.

Capital punishment, 13 year old marriages etc... are all different issues. An opinion on whether or not abortion should be legalised in Ireland does not mean that every law in every other country should be implemented in Ireland - to suggest such is a straw man.


----------



## michaelm (30 Oct 2009)

truthseeker said:


> No, my argument suggested that if you (or anyone else) as an individual does not have a moral problem with a woman travelling for an abortion then it makes no sense to have a moral problem with her having one in Ireland.


I agree with the point above. Geography and legalities are irrelevant. If something is wrong it's wrong, legal status notwithstanding.


----------



## MrMan (30 Oct 2009)

truthseeker said:


> Of course there is a place for both. The whole point of this thread is 'should abortion be legalised in Ireland' - the answer to that question depends on the moral attitude of the majority - to suggest there is no place for both is ridiculous and a turn around on your previous comment of:
> 
> *As ridiculous as it may seem to you I would still contend that when law is written, the moral aspect steps aside. My belief on whether abortion should be legal stems from when we are dealing with 3 living people (father, mother and child) and not whether or not it is right or wrong to abort.*
> 
> ...


*This is just where your previous points seemed to be heading.

*


----------



## Yachtie (30 Oct 2009)

truthseeker said:


> no, my argument suggested that if you (or anyone else) as an individual does not have a moral problem with a woman travelling for an abortion then it makes no sense to have a moral problem with her having one in ireland.


 


michaelm said:


> i agree with the point above. Geography and legalities are irrelevant. If something is wrong it's wrong, legal status notwithstanding.


 
+1


----------

