Time to repeal the abortion ban in Ireland

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.
 
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.
 

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.
Click to expand...

+1
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
Do you think that Irish women should be prevented from travelling abroad to have an abortion?
 
Bronte said:
Do you think that Irish women should be prevented from travelling abroad to have an abortion?
Click to expand...


i don't think they should be prevented from travelling, and what you do in another country depends on their laws.
 
truthseeker said:
Isnt that just back to 'an Irish solution to an Irish problem' line of thinking?
Click to expand...

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.
 
truthseeker said:
Isnt that just back to 'an Irish solution to an Irish problem' line of thinking?
Click to expand...
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.
 

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,...).
 


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?
 

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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 

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

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.
Click to expand...

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

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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register