the case of savita- i am a bit confused


Hi Bronte/Truthseeker, I've no problem with you taking issue with my comment, but you seem to have gone off on a tangent. I have said that calling us hypocritical for not providing abortion clinics even though our near neighbours do is nonsense. People go to prague and amsterdam and use prostituts legally, and drugs in some cases, and it is only a case of getting a cheap flight, but you are hardly suggesting that we should adopt our laws to mirror our european counterparts merely because travel is so free and easy?
I also said that if abortion is to be allowed then it should be because the people want it, so let a referendum decide. I think there is a good chance of the right to choice being passed now, but let everyone decide on the matter.
One final point, a woman can choose to decide on what is right for her, but how can she alone choose what is right for her family? Do you believe that men have no rights in this matter?
 
Last edited:
Betsy Og said:
On the quote above, sure we could legalise murder, after all it happens whether its illegal or not, it might make it safer if the gunman didnt have to speed off breaking all sort of traffic laws and endangering those he didnt intend to kill.......
Click to expand...

The difference there is that there is universal agreement that murder is immoral and wrong (or at least I hope there is!).

But no so with abortion and many of the most modern and progressive countries in the world have some form of it in place. Women who choose abortion are not imposing their morality on anyone but themselves (I dont believe a clump of cells is a person or a child).
 

I pretty much agree with everything you say. Its not a black and white situation. For the record I would agree with legalising prostitution and drugs too.

Very hard call on the mens rights, we discussed it a few days ago. I do think men should have an input but fail to see how it would work in practice and ultimately as its the womans body it has to be her choice what happens to it.
 
we are doing too much rambling, this is the savita case so we should stick to the point. the interview on primetime last is compelling as is the discussion afterwards. the main point was made be a legal person. look at it on rte player. I cant remember the exact words but it along the lines of " the question of abortion did not enter into the decision that had to be made, ie save one life and not lose two"
 
truthseeker said:
For the record I would agree with legalising prostitution and drugs too.
Click to expand...

Apologies for this final tangential point (I think I've said my piece on abortion at this stage), re legalising drugs I couldnt agree to this going beyond spamspamspam. Again its the harm thing - and even on that point I dont think we can be too blase about spamspamspam, modern stuff apparently having far higher THC levels than that of say the 1960's so that its now being closely linked to depression, schizophrenia etc.. So spamspamspam does some harm but I gather its the main volume of trade and profit and to legalise it would take the wind out of the sails of the worst scum the country is harbouring. So on balance I think it would be worthwhile.

However I dont think you could convince me that highly addictive and destructive drugs like cocaine and heroin should ever be legal - look at how we get on with alcohol - and we're used to that, & a reasonable amount of alcohol is no great harm and maybe even some indirect good (social outlet). Re class A drugs, I couldn't see there being any outcome other than more junkies, more od'ing, maybe not even less crime (more junkies needing a hit, albeit presumably a bit cheaper than now).
 

Maybe it can just be filed under 'life aint fair' I can't see how it can be put into practice either, but it means that a mans ability to become a father rests on a womans decision.
 
MrMan said:
Maybe it can just be filed under 'life aint fair' I can't see how it can be put into practice either, but it means that a mans ability to become a father rests on a womans decision.
Click to expand...

Well, in fairness doesn't it anyway, with or without abortion? A man can't decide to be a father and impose motherhood on a woman.
 
I’m against abortion in most cases. I’m completely against late term abortions. I don’t accept the “it’s a woman’s body so she gets to choose” argument. It’s also a child’s life. It’s not ok to kill your child after it’s born and it’s not ok to kill it before it’s born. When does a clump of cells become a child? I don’t know the answer to that but after the first trimester it’s getting close.
My opinion is not based on religious grounds; I’m an atheist and so do not believe in any god, gods or deities.

I think the Indian ambassador and Indian people in general have a bloody cheek getting bolshie about this. Their own country has the cast system, very high levels of abortion of female babies, honour killings and general abject poverty and massive social injustice. It is utter hypocrisy for them to moralise to us about this tragic case.
I find the whole discussion around this sickening. This is a tragic case which should have just been dealt with in the hospital, just as similar cased are dealt with every week all over the country. If anyone thinks that doesn’t happen they are very naive.
We should legislate for the X case, if only to stop the vacuum being filled with the extremists from both sides. The less we see of Youth Defence type people and the extremists on the other side the better.
 

I think you're arguing things that aren't even being put on the table as part of the discussion.

I've rarely seen anyone being supportive of a completely liberal abortion law (i.e. one without any caveats). As such have people actually analysed the statistics on late-term abortions? Even those states where they have the most liberal (i.e. purely on the woman's wish without any need for a medical opinion or confirmation) have limitations on how late you can go. And within those confines, most states record extremely low percentages of women having abortions that late into a pregnancy. I think most states are below 1%, I seem to recall the US is around 1%.

The reasons for the late-term varies and heallth reasons actually features quite low in that. In a lot of cases the issue of stigma of both the pregnancy and abortion meant they just kept delaying the decision.

But, again, where in the debates is there a call to have such late-term abortions? Surely this makes it a moot point purely brought in to colour the debate with images of viable babies being "murdered".

I agree on India, but then who cares what they think, the pressure is comming from Irish Citizens and that was happening long before India reacted.

Abortion isn't the only issue that needs discussing. For example, given it isn't an option here, if the state is imposing this ban, then shouldn't the state have support(s) in place to provide options and assistance for people to go through with the pregnancy? This is a problem in some countries, like the US and the UK (to a certain extent) where lack of viable and effect support through and post pregnancy mean that for some abortion is the only viable option.

It's all well and good to say "tough" and that the individual got themselves into that situation, but that doesn't achieve anything. Countries with good social support and good child welfare systems and have legalised abortion (such as Canada) do not have such an issue with either late-term or excessively high uptake of abortion.

But, they still have it as an option. An option with caveats.
 
Latrade said:
Well, in fairness doesn't it anyway, with or without abortion? A man can't decide to be a father and impose motherhood on a woman.
Click to expand...

I meant when a man and woman choose to have a baby together, she can pull the plug on it if she chooses, he can't.
I would have presumed that posters would accept that I wasn't looking for men to impose motherhood on women.
 
MrMan said:
Maybe it can just be filed under 'life aint fair' I can't see how it can be put into practice either, but it means that a mans ability to become a father rests on a womans decision.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I hear you. It is a unfair side effect of biology.

There are also cases where men are not told women are pregnant at all and miss fatherhood even though the child is born, which is wrong too.

I was thinking about some kind of consent form that the father would sign, but sure wouldnt some women just claim it was the result of a one night stand and that they didnt know who the father was etc...

I will continue to ponder it.

Maybe someday the ability to remove a foetus from the womb and fully develop it in a laboratory until it becomes an adoptable baby will render the entire abortion debate redundant and also solve the issue for fathers who can choose to raise such a baby alone without the womans body being needed for the pregnancy?
 
MrMan said:
I meant when a man and woman choose to have a baby together, she can pull the plug on it if she chooses, he can't.
I would have presumed that posters would accept that I wasn't looking for men to impose motherhood on women.
Click to expand...

I know, I apologise for being facetious.


There will always be potential situations that no one is entirely comfortable with. But in countries that have legalised abortion, how often do those situations come up? How often do couples in the UK plan a pregnancy only for the woman to "pull the plug" without the concent and or knowledge of the father?

My guess is that it is extremely infrequent. So should the small chance of that situation occurring mean that no woman has the right to choose? In my opinion; no.

But then (as a father myself) I think that my influence has to be proportional. Ultimately if the mother, for whatever reason, is convinced she cannot continue with the pregancy should the decision be 50/50? I don't have to carry the child for 9 months, a child I don't want. What kind of psychological effect would that have? I don't have to have my career put on hold or even effected (maternity and pregnancy discrimination still makes up the greatest proportion of labour court and equality cases).

The impact isn't equal.
 
A heart beat from 22 days, brainwaves from 42 days and fully formed @ 13 weeks. Perhaps Youth Defence type people are why we don't have a liberal abortion regime, including the type of late term abortions which you are completely against.
Purple said:
I find the whole discussion around this sickening. This is a tragic case which should have just been dealt with in the hospital, just as similar cased are dealt with every week all over the country.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately certain elements within political circles and their media friends have turned a tragedy into an international circus to further their agenda.
 
michaelm said:
A heart beat from 22 days, brainwaves from 42 days and fully formed @ 13 weeks. Perhaps Youth Defence type people are why we don't have a liberal abortion regime, including the type of late term abortions which you are completely against.
Click to expand...

Youth defence are extremists who see this complex issue in good V bad terms. I find them offensive.

42 days, 6 weeks. After that, for me, it's getting into the unacceptable range. After 13 weeks it's a baby and killing it is, in my opinion, wrong. There are situations where exceptions should be made but they are exceptional.

If it's a case of save the mother or the child then it's save the mother, every time. But that's the situation now. It may or may not be the law but it's what happens.
 
michaelm said:
A heart beat from 22 days, brainwaves from 42 days and fully formed @ 13 weeks.
Click to expand...

How is any of that relevant? A woman has a heartbeat, brainwaves, consciousness and a life that may or may not include having to care for other children. The biology of a forming cluster of cells is an interesting thing to study, but it hardly outweighs the life of an individual who is already in the world, living an independent existence.

Im interested to know what you would like the solution to be where a woman has an unwanted pregnancy.

Should she press ahead with an unwanted pregnancy, have permanent changes to her body, interrupt her career or study, give birth and either (a) give the child up for adoption which no doubt carries a massive emotional impact that may last for the rest of her life (and still doesnt remove the problem of the actual pregnancy) or (b) raise a child that she doesnt want or may not be able to afford (which again doesnt remove the problem of the pregnancy).

What is your solution?
 
truthseeker said:
How is any of that relevant? The biology of a forming cluster of cells is an interesting thing to study, but it hardly outweighs the life of an individual who is already in the world, living an independent existence.
Click to expand...
Strawmen notwithstanding, it was simply a response to Purple's, perhaps rhetorical, question.
truthseeker said:
Im interested to know what you would like the solution to be where a woman has an unwanted pregnancy.
Click to expand...
Really? Hardly. 1. Have the child. 2. either (a) raise the child or (b) give the child up for adoption.
 
michaelm said:
Strawmen notwithstanding, it was simply a response to Purple's, perhaps rhetorical, question.Really? Hardly. 1. Have the child. 2. either (a) raise the child or (b) give the child up for adoption.
Click to expand...

Ok. But the woman doesnt want to do either of those things. Whats the solution? Are you happy enough to condemn women to doing things they dont want to do?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register