Alliance For Choice

by Seáinín Thu Aug 14, 2003 19:28

when we're talking about killing babies?

by pat c Thu Aug 14, 2003 19:31

Its not killing babies, its destroying anything from a bunch of cells to a non-viable foetus.If its babies then how come churchs dont baptise miscarriages?

by Anonymous Thu Aug 14, 2003 19:36

Bloody hell Seanin, for once, do I find myself in agreement?

There is surely, at the very least, an equal claim for the terminology to be "execution" or "extermination".

Though in a way I guess its far worse, for adults who get executed get a trial, and in 99% of cases have "actually done" something horrifically wrong.

by Anonymous Thu Aug 14, 2003 19:39

Pat - And what are we (i.e. the guys & gals living outside the womb) other that a bunch of cells??

Regards.

by The Insider Thu Aug 14, 2003 20:42

Well, take your typical "bunch of cells" in the womb, compare them to a human being, you'll see the difference.

by and his cancerous residues Thu Aug 14, 2003 20:53

follow that line of thought through, and let's also outlaw masturbation, and any sex or sex act that does not reproduce another human being.

pity that the pathetic philosophical outlook of that terrible religion still plagues this country. give it time, though, people are starting to wake up.
in one sense, i do see Catholics on their supply and demand argument. what's a priest to do without all of those little children?

great to see this activist group getting things going in the right direction.

by Gaz - libertarian socialist Thu Aug 14, 2003 20:59

every woman has the right to choose an abortion when faced with a crisis pregnancy irrespective of the reasons for the abortion. thousands of Irish women have abortions in England every year at present. Women worldwide have always sought to control their fertility through abortion no matter how difficult it is for them to get access to abortion and they probably always will. This is because it is essential for women to be able to control their own fertility and not to be reduced to the level of their biological function as child-bearers only if they are to achieve true equality and liberation.

At present the Irish Constitution with the the Eight Amendment reduces women to being equal only to a completely dependent foetus and it tries to condemn women to become unwilling incubators. To compare an adult woman or teenage girl with responsibilities, social relationships, personal plans, and so on to a completely dependent foetus is unacceptable. The foetus has no independent existence without the woman and the decision about an abortion or a continuation of the pregnancy must be the woman's decision and no one else's.

Women choose to have abortions for all kinds of reasons: poverty, bad health, too many other children, because of rape or incest or simply because they do not want to have a child at that point in their lives. all these reasons are valid. Women should not have to answer to anyone, not the church,not the state or even to doctors for their decision.

The question of free access is a very important one. At present only those women who can afford both the travel costs and the operation costs can get an abortion. Abortion facilities must be made available here in Ireland and they must be free as all medical services should be.

The hypocrisy of allowing women to go to England for abortions is no longer acceptable to many Irish people. Apart from all other considerations, having to raise the money for the travel and to go isolated and afraid to another country adds untold trauma to what should be a fairly simple medical procedure. Abortion facilities must be made available in Ireland free and without restricted access.

The right to choose means the right to choose not to have a child or to have a child in circumstances where that means that neither mother nor child suffer materially or socially for that decision.

Anti-abortionists say that abortion is murder. We reject this argument. The foetus is a potential life only - it is not comparable to the life of a person of any age or ability who interacts socially and functions independently. We don't deny that abortion takes the life of a potential human being. The right to choose means that it is the woman's right to choose whether to bring that potential life to full term or not given the circumstances of her life. we should demand that right and be active in the campaign for abortion rights in this country over the coming months.

http://struggle.ws/wsm/abortion.html

by Ahh poor lickle spuc fucks Fri Aug 15, 2003 00:08

Who beat the 2 SPUC FUCKS on University st? Get mammy to kiss it better.

by Sean Keegan Fri Aug 15, 2003 08:16

In the US a woman can receive an abortion even into the ninth month, assuming she can find one of the abortion providers who specialize in late-term abortions. Do our Irish pro-abortionists want this ?

by Anonymous Fri Aug 15, 2003 11:28

Good question Sean - whatever about crisis pregnancies such as rape or where the mother's life is under threat which are impossible situations to decide upon - what about in cases other that these? Even before nine months. Should abortion/execution be just available on demand?

Re The Insider & "Bunch of Cells" argument:-

"Well, take your typical "bunch of cells" in the womb, compare them to a human being, you'll see the difference."

I'm looking at the difference, and all I see is "more" cells in the body outside the womb than the body inside the womb. And indeed as the body outside the womb gets older it begins to start losing its cells and disintegrating.

Not being condescending, but should we kill off anybody who lives over a 100, as they have less cells and their formations are all distorted?

So the only difference I see is more. Am I missing out on something?

Regards.

by KT Fri Aug 15, 2003 12:22

(and your fellow feotus fetishists),
if you don't want an abortion then don't have one. It's as simple as that.

by David Rynne Fri Aug 15, 2003 13:08

Humanity is much more than the bodies we inhabit (not in the religous sense) Our Personality is what makes us a person. A collection of cells in the form of a human embryo is not cognitive, it does not have a soul/mind (soul is equal to mind in the philosophical sense)
just as we feel it's ok to "pull the plug" on a grown person whos brain has ceased to function should it be the same to terminate the collection of cells that exist without a mind, feelings or emotions.
I don't think the real issue (one un-muddied by false religous dogma) is whether or not abortions should be allowed or not, it should be up until what point in the pregnancy should they be allowed. I think early term terminations should be perfectly acceptable but late term abortions are not. The line must be drawn somewhere to decide when the mind exists and as such when a person exists. This could be as simple as when brain waves are first detected, or more complicated waiting until a certain level of brain activity is apparent.
The arguement for potentiality is severely flawed. An embryo might have the potential to grow into a life, but it also has the potential to die, and those potentialities are inextricably linked with the conditions created by the mother, what food she eats, whether she smokes does drugs etc...

by angry liberal - labour party Fri Aug 15, 2003 13:35 renrir666 at hotmail dot com ----------------------------- -----------------------------

there are so many arguments in favour of legalising abortion in ireland.firstly i'm not even in favour of abortion but i recognise that pro-choice isn't pro-abortion.allowing people the choice doesn't mean they will take it.secondly,allowing for financial circumstances i don't think the majority of women who make the difficult decision to have an abortion are put of by the need to take a ferry to holyhead,the hypocrisy of no choice in ireland saves lives is right there.thirdly it is a potential life and pro-life people never dwell on the fact that they are forcing people to be pregnant despite thier wishes.finally people should be allowed to do as they please as long as it doesn't affect another HUMAN being,the only people i see that an abortion affects is the family and friends not self righteous knee-jerk catholic opinion.

by bernadette mary Fri Aug 15, 2003 16:51

Why have an abortion if you're too poor, been raped/sexually abused, homeless, on smack/crack and can't afford/don't want kiddies, you can always give them up for adoption, to respectable pillar of society kiddie fiddlers or social service care home pimps.

by Anonymous Fri Aug 15, 2003 16:53

Re: KT - I wish it was as simple as that

Re: David Rynne

Interesting and plausible points you raise indeed David.

However I disagree, but as with with most abortion debates (bit like God v Science) I don't think any side can "prove" their answer to be the correct answer, and these debates can go on forever.

To me when a sperm and egg are fused in fertilization, become one, a single cell / zygote / embryo is formed from which "all" other cells form.

Surely it is at this moment that a new life can unambiguously and without confusion been said to have been formed??

I think even you accept that life is formed before birth but at a later stage.

But surely this later stage is filled with confusion and is very hard to define exactly when.

Surely it is at the moment of fetilization when the man's sperm and the woman's egg have fused that life has begun?

A fuller more scientific explanation of what I have said is contained in the below link to (interestingly) a libertarian site:-

http://www.l4l.org/library/mythfact.html

No doubt you will come back and refute my claims with various arguments and as I said it will be impossible for either of us to fully prove our arguments.

What I would ask you is that would you not agree that it is very difficult to exactly determine/prove when human life has begun?

And in the face of such difficulties if we abort/execute life within the womb at any stage then we “may” actually be killing a human life?

__________________________________________________________________________________

The full explanation and details of what I was talking about above is contained in the below libertarian website.

http://www.l4l.org/library/mythfact.html

"When do human beings begin"
by Diane N. Irving, M.A., Ph.D

by Ray Fri Aug 15, 2003 17:17

Anonymous (or can I just call you Mike?), you say this is a very difficult question, and one where neither side can 'prove' their position.
If this is the case, then surely you agree that its something where each individual has to make up their own mind on what is right.
This is the pro-choice position. It is up to each woman who is faced with a crisis pregnancy to decide for herself what the right course of action is. If they think abortion is murder, then they won't choose abortion.
You are free to have an opinion on the subject, and to try to convince others of your position. But when even you accept that you can't prove your position, why would you feel you have the right to force that position on anybody else?

by Chekov Fri Aug 15, 2003 17:24

"However I disagree, but as with with most abortion debates (bit like God v Science) I don't think any side can "prove" their answer to be the correct answer, and these debates can go on forever."

There is a difference of opinion in the population. Somebody must decide in each individual case. The 'supposed' baby obviously can't have an input. The only other person directly involved is the mother. Therefore the mother must decide, anything else would amount to somebody imposing their authority on her body = pro-choice.

2 other things, anonymous. The use of the term 'pro-abortion' is very inaccurate. I have never come across somebody who thinks abortion is a good thing. Many of the people who are pro-choice are also anti-abortion in that they would never make that choice themselves. They just feel that they can't make that choice for other people.

Then: "Surely it is at this moment that a new life can unambiguously and without confusion been said to have been formed??" Of course not. It is very ambiguous. The new 'life' is not independent in any way, if the mother dies it never existed in any meaningful way. I personally think viability is a much more meaningful stage to claim that new life exists, but that is hardly without ambiguity itself. Otherwise, why don't we have funerals for miscarriages (which are probably more common than births)? The fact that virtually nobody thinks that a miscarriage is equivalent (in terms of the tragedy) to a stillborn baby, and that virtually nobody thinks a stillborn baby is equivalent to a death after birth indicates that, like it or not, humans accept that life does not begin unambiguously at conception.

by The Insider Fri Aug 15, 2003 18:18

"I recognise that pro-choice isn't pro-abortion"

That's something SPIC should accept.

Banning abortion doesn't work anymore. We need to accept realities. Better to try and regulate and control the situation then pretend it doesn't happen at all.

by angry liberal - labour Fri Aug 15, 2003 18:36

i agre with the insider.i've never been in the situation myself so am reluctant to bark but i can't see that not allowing abortion here improves the situation by isolating the person and making it more dangerous.

by Anonymous Fri Aug 15, 2003 18:38

Re: Chekov

"To me" the issue is simple as well. Abortion = Murder.

However, as an issue that affects the whole of society and whether society has the right to impose its will on a mother's body, I think is anything but simple.

How you can say all this is "simple", whatever about anything else, I do not agree with you at all. The logic you use in your argument I think is deeply flawed. I do not think it was logical the way you just jumped onto your conclusion "therefore the mother must decide".

Don't have time to respond to the rest of your piece - will try tomorrow.

Respect.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Re: Ray

No, unfortunately, despite what I said, I do not agree that its something where each individual has to make up their own mind on what is right - so long as the majority of a nation's population think they shouldn't.

The problem is Ray, is that to me and over half of Ireland's population, is that I think abortion is murder, without a shadow of a doubt. But I think abortion is probably out of the realms of proof in the strictest sense of the word.

But if over half of the population believe it is murder - should they allow it happen? And we are not just talking about one murder, but rather, thousands, tens of thousands and indeed hundreds of thousands of murders.

My opinion is no and this has been the position of the state to date.

If however over half the population do decide that it should be allowable, then I will not stand in the way of this nor do I think I should.

Can I ask you do you personally believe abortion is murder (leave out issues of rape and where the mother's life is under threat)??

I do believe beer is calling......

Regards,

Anonymous.

by The Insider Fri Aug 15, 2003 19:19

"The problem is Ray, is that to me and over half of Ireland's population, is that I think abortion is murder, without a shadow of a doubt."

Eh, I doubt you can claim that with any authority.

No doubt, many people in Ireland don't think abortion is a good thing but if they really believed that abortion simply equals murder, there would be mass blockades of Irish Airports and Ports and all pregnant women would be banned from leaving the country. Simple as that.

The fact that there is no blockades of Irish ports and airports, the fact that nobody is calling for travel restrictions for pregnant Irish women travelling abroad, shows that most people don't believe what you say.

If they did believe, they'd be kicking up one almighty fuss.

by Anonymous Fri Aug 15, 2003 19:24

.

by devils advocate - in hope of informed debate. Fri Aug 15, 2003 22:35

Not pushing my own line or judging anyone, just trying to drag this out of the gutter.
If you are there to support someone in a crisis pregnancy and outline their options, then good for you. Too many girls and women are left in despair.

1. Seeing as the men can't get pregnant and the women are too old to be aborted themselves what do they really know about being aborted? If the child already has a brain and a heartbeat, does it not instinctively CHOOSE to die? If it has different DNA and a brain and stuff, is it not it's own body? And are 2 week old babies not also totally dependant on an adult to feed them and keep them warm?

2.and i know this will be unpopular... but if you want to argue the point either way. If in the rare occassion, the father wants the baby and the mother doesn't. What are your positions on a father's rights and how do they fit in with a father's responsibilities given that one normally goes with the other.

3. "surely a woman with responsibilities, a social life..etc"
good parents put themselves out to raise you did they not, so exactly where does the balance of convenience lie? Can the father use the same argument to walk away from responsibility or demand an abortion or are they just pricks?

4. Do both sides of this argument not agree at least that the real problems include:
~rapists (who get away too often in this country)
~poor sex education leading to carelessness
~unwilling men pushing the women into abortion
~a lack of support and compassion for single parents/parents to be which leads to the pressure and panic that they feel.

allowing Abortion in rape cases is not a full solution. The rape will not be forgotten and the conviction rate for reported rape is appalling.
Do we not need a major change in culture as well as a decision on abortion?


5. abortion procedures don't always go as planned.
there are people out there who survived an attempt to abort them in the womb. Can't recall the group's name but it's a very small membership.
Is there anyone in Ireland who survived these procedures? What do they think of abortion and how would they regard the parents for either deciding to have the abortion, or one parent abandoning or pressuring the other into the situation?

We are discussing something that seriously affects people in a vulnerable position. Why not broaden the argument to what compassion they are shown and what realistic choices they have.

Ask yourself if you can answer these questions for yourself, then we might have something resembling a debate on this issue, let's not pretend it's a black and white simple quick fix, and have a go at the usual suspects.

by missed me Fri Aug 15, 2003 22:52

Why not just castrate blokes or sterilise them, then there would be less unwanted pregnancies.

I'm not pro abortion i just beat spuck fucks because they are dreary sanctimonious hypocritic rose west type snobbitches.

Women should be offered a cesarian instead of natural child birth. Many women are afraid of the actual traumatic child birth process, so why not offer these worried women the chance to give birth through caesarian section. This would limit physical and mental trauma for already vunerable women and make them find the idea of pregnancy less daunting so they will be less inclined to choose abortion.

Women should also be offered steroids after giving birth in order to reduce the likely hood of post natal depression. Steroids build a women's strength up, enabling them to cope with crying babies and endure sleepless nights.
Amphetamines also do the same. Pregnant vunerable women should be given every possible drug and physical support to help them get over the birth process and the after effects of giving birth.

by ceasarians for the poor too Fri Aug 15, 2003 23:03

You don't see rich bitches choosing to give birth naturally, no they don't want their insides ripped out, having given birth to a baby and a prolapsed womb.

Allowing vunerable young women the chance to have a ceasarian, costs more in terms of hospital treatment, but means that we don't have to suffer physcial trauma such as a prolapsed womb, urinary incontinence, stitches and tearing. In the long run it saves in hospital costs, in terms of less therapy for incontinence, prolapsed wombs and social services don't have to constantly check up on a physically and mentally traumatised mother. Also our down below parts are intact, not damaged or wounded, giving us peace of mind that we will be able to use them in the near future.

by Sean Keegan Sat Aug 16, 2003 08:48

None of the pro-abortionists here have answered my question, so I will repeat it:

In the US a woman can receive an abortion even into the ninth month, assuming she can find one of the abortion providers who specialize in late-term abortions. Do our Irish pro-abortionists want this ?

And I will add another question:

Let us say that a kidnapper may be holding a child. We don't know for sure, there may be a child in the building with the kidnapper, or there may not be. Would the pro-abortionists say to the police "Go in with force, attack that building, even though there may be a child in there" ?
Notice that we are not even sure that there is a child or not. I don't know about the pro-abortionists, but in my case I would tell the police "Hold off, don't do anything drastic, there may be a child in there". This is my position on abortion. There may be a child in there (science is continually finding out more about stages of gestation). That's why I say take no action which emperils the child that may (I don't even have to be sure) killed in the process.

by Anonymous Sat Aug 16, 2003 11:03

Re: "Devils Advocate" - I totally agree with your closing scentence "let's not pretend it's a black and white simple quick fix". I think this is an extremely complicated issue to legislate and both sides have valid arguments.

Re: Sean Keegan - While your at it Sean let me ask a few more questions (cause I'm sick of doing all the answering! :) - Though with respect to the above "pro" contributors, they have stressed the importance that they are not "pro-abortion" but rather "pro-choice".

Questions:-

1. Should a man have no legal say whatsoever in whether his child is going to be executed/aborted or not? Why should the decision be left solely in a woman's hands? Those who are pro-choice - who already negate the choice for the life growing within the womb - what about the choices for a man?

2. Do pro-choice people here accept that the current ruling in Ireland is "fair", albeit that they might disagree with it and campaign to change it.

3. Let's say 90% of a population believe that execution/abortion services should not be provided for women. Would the pro-choice people then accept this verdict? (albeit continue to campaign for pro-choice)?

4. It can be said that if a society does not provide execution/abortion services - it is NOT actually infringing on woman's body or TAKING AWAY her choices or freedom.

It is merely not providing her the service or the assistance in the act that she wishes to be carried out.

If society is to be the provider of this service surely it has the "right" whether it wishes to provide this most controversial service or not??

If a woman wishes to try and kill her fetus by herself that it is a different matter.

by angry liberal - angry liberal party Sat Aug 16, 2003 12:51

i'd like to answer that

1.i think the father should have a say but i think the point is that nobody,mother or father is given a choice.

2.i admit to not fully getting the question-if i did think it was fair than why would i campaign against it?i do think it's unfair to to interfere in someones life on the issue of abortion.i think the current judicial rulings and referendums are a starting point in a process but not the "fair"i'm looking for.

3.i acknowledge that majority opinion does not support abortion under any circumstances but acknowledging isn't necesarily accepting.i think the majority are wrong and i think the point of a constitution is to protect minority opinion(roe v. wade).just because a majority believe doesn't make it true.

4.i accept your point that perhaps this society should not pay for abortion procedures as avalid and practical one but have two problems with it

(a)our law not only limits abortions here but are set against those seeking abortions abroad(in fact a persom can only legally get information because the x case made previous rulings against it redundant).so the issue of funding abortions here is valid but our ban on abortion extends beyond these shores and is awider issue.
(b)as to having to fund abortions here,i'm an atheist and yet i pay money towards the angelus and sunday mass being shown on tv.i'm not biggoted about it,it's ok by me but my point is that everyone in our country pay money towards things that are of no use to them or which they may even dislike eg.people who don't smoke pay money for throat cancer health care.i'll not bore you with a list.this is off point but i think that in the case of abortion being legalised the supreme court would insist on it being publically funded(as it did with most of it's other decisions regarding controversia procedures -fertility treatment for men or getting the snip as it is better known to some people.

i have questions.if the majority disagree does that mean that it is wrong?and if an independant court said that sbortion should be legalised despite the majority opinion would you see that as valid or must the situation be by reference to the majority only?

by Anonymous Sat Aug 16, 2003 14:10

Thanks for your answers "angry liberal".

1. The problem with your preferred system is that though the mother gets a choice - the life within the womb gets no choice (and the father has no legal choice as far as I am aware of in other countries).

2. What I am asking here is:- Obviously you think there should be choice and I am not arguing that in this point. What I am asking is that Irish society is split between those who don't believe women should be "given" a choice and those who believe they should be given a choice.

In such a split situation, surely in a democracy the only way to decide is to put it to a vote. Do you accept that this is the only fair way to decide?

If the majority of the population decide that women should be given a choice I will think this as fair - though will continue to try and convice others and lobby to try and overturn the majority.

4. I think you are missing what I am saying in my fourth question.

Probably at the crux of the pro-choice argument is that society does not have the right to infringe upon a woman's body. You repeated this point in your answer to my second question, "i do think it's unfair to to interfere in someones life on the issue of abortion"

What I am saying is that it can be said that if a society does not provide execution/abortion services - it is NOT actually infringing on a woman's body or TAKING AWAY her choices or freedom.

It is just not "providing" her with the choice. If a woman was to try and abort by her own means and was arrested for doing such, this would be direct infringement on her body. Or if she was arrested at a port trying to go to England, this would be direct infringment on her body.

This is a crucial difference and I would think the main reason travel rights are not infringed upon any more.



To try and answer your questions:-

"if the majority disagree does that mean that it is wrong?"

I think I have already basically answered this above. No it does not necessarily means it is wrong - it means that under such a split in opinion, the only way to fairly & decmocratically decide is to vote. If the majority decide no, then that is the way it should be until the next vote is taken.

Such decisions by majority voting is a very normal and widely accepted practice in any democracy.


"and if an independant court said that sbortion should be legalised despite the majority opinion would you see that as valid or must the situation be by reference to the majority only?"

No I would not see that as valid. I beleive a court or one single judge, should not have the over-riding right to decide upon such a grave, national question such as this.


Regards

by The Insider Sat Aug 16, 2003 16:01

"None of the pro-abortionists here have answered my question, so I will repeat it":

- That's because there's no such thing as a pro-abortionist, unless you consider those who own private abortion clinics and make profits from them. Pro-choice does not equate to advocating abortion.

In answer to your question, No, I don't want it. I don't think that particular extreme example should be allowed. But since that's only a very VERY rare occurance I'm not sure how relevant it is to the debate as a whole.

In fact, I don't want any woman to have an abortion. The only thing I want is for them to have a choice. I also want the raising of children in Ireland to be much easier (with state aided childcare, better child benefit, free schoolbooks etc etc.) so that less woman will choose to have an abortion. That's what I want. Freedom.

by angry liberal - labour Sat Aug 16, 2003 18:57

thanks for that,i rarely get a rational argument.


1.the father in ireland does actually have a legal status.in seeking an injunction against the mother having an abortion the father is among those who have a recognised right to apply for such an injunction(other parties include organisations such as spuc and the parents of a minor)this was established in the x case anda and b v.eastern health board.

2.obviously the majority in a democracy must hold sway but i feel the need to say that on some issues which are fundamental a minority opinion must be protected if passible(a majority of serbs or northern protestants have not always threated minorities well).

4.irish law does not allow for self abortion as you described.there can be no abortion unless it is deemed legal(this legality being set out in the x case).you look at it from the point of view of a negative rather than a positive ban,we just don't help not hinder.the problem is that only extremely rare circumstances are seen as allowing anything at all.we even ban people elping themselves unless they go abroad(which costs money and isolates the person)

do you foresee abortion ever being legalised here?

by Sean Keegan Sat Aug 16, 2003 20:12

Insider wrote: But since that's only a very VERY rare occurance I'm not sure how relevant it is to the debate as a whole.

...Well, it depends what you mean by rare. In the US the figures show that there are several thousand such abortions each year. "Partial Birth", it's called, where some of the baby is allowed to leave the womb. But not all, because in the few seconds it took for ALL the baby to leave the womb. the act would change from abortion to murder.

The idea that fairly rare occurrences make bad cases is, I would argue, quite specious. If we followed that we would buy the initial Catholic Church line, thankfully now changed, that since clerical child abuse only occurred in a tiny minority of cases that there was nothing to worry about !

The pro-abortion lobby is getting more and more contorted in the US. There is a case from California where a man is accused of a double murder, his wife and their unborn baby. The pro-abortion lobby have to claim that there was only one murder.

by David Rynne Mon Aug 18, 2003 00:40

And they should not be allowed. If we wish to live in a real democracy why can we not have real democratic decision making. If the issue seems to be when in a pregnancy is abortion acceptable/not acceptable then the proper way to decide would be to put all the information currently available in an unbiased way to the public and ask them to decide at what stage in a pregnancy a person exists.
Currently a great deal of suffering is being caused to real people because of the laws banning abortion. Is this pain worth less than the ideology that human life is so sacred that we cannot end it even in a merciful way? (also includes reference to the concept of euthenasia)

And i also find it slighty strange that many people who are "pro life" also support the death penalty and the invasion of Iraq/afghanistan etc.. It seems that many (not all) have bought into a (neo) conservative viewpoint and this is all encompassing including the obvious contradictions.

How can it be ok to drop "the mother of all bombs" and depleted uranium on a living breathing city in order to assasinate one man's regime under false pretences, but it's not ok for a frightened young woman to take control of her body and stop another life from growing within her and effectively transforming her life without permission.

by fe Mon Aug 18, 2003 10:30

that you are all so obviously male

by Anonymous Mon Aug 18, 2003 11:53

(Assuming you have not done so already of course)

by simon Fri Aug 22, 2003 04:07

many questions can be thrashed out to point and counter point. i am not 'pro-abortion' but the anti-abortion lobby fail to recognise that there are many circumstances where an abortion is quite possibly a necessity. If the mothers life is unquestionably in danger, rape, paedophilic rape etc. your take on the issue makes it impossible for these cases to be addressed. To not face up to the realities that occur is both ignorant and irresponsible.

and, a man has every right to have an opinion and discuss this issue and if you think not you are also ignorant and irresponsible

by fuinseog Fri Aug 22, 2003 20:57

It's an interesting one isn't it. Some people are very insistent they are against abortion but they are against anyone doing anything to stop abortion.

Insider says (s)he doesn't want women to have abortions. But if abortion is okay, then why not?

You say abortion is just removing a bunch of cells, making it sound like an appendectomy. Why would you be against that?

People who say they are "pro-choice, not pro-abortion" are I think making some sort of a distinction based on their natural aversion to killing.

by fuinseog Fri Aug 22, 2003 21:05

re: David Rynne above

Obviously anyone who supports the death penalty is not pro-life.

However, this seems to be an American issue as I'm not aware of anyone in Ireland who supports the death penalty. Clinton of course went for what has been called the double-death position: pro-abortion and pro-death penalty.
___________

I'm also interested by the degree to which the "pro-choice" argument is being phrased as anti-Catholic abuse. The other religions oppose abortion as well as do many atheists. Some of the postings amount to abuse which breaches indymedia guidelines and if it was directed at Jews, Muslims or gays would be deleted.

by simon Mon Aug 25, 2003 12:45

I have to consider myself pro-choice because aside from my natural aversion to killing of any kind and my self-satisfied assertion that I would never have to take part in a decision on whether my girlfriend would have an abortion i am aware of the realities where these decisions are often made. Whatever about my standpoint on the issue, there are too many cases where I cant allow my opinion strike out the choice of another. Especially when the mothers life is in danger. Many 'anti-abortionists' are too rigid and self-satisfied in their opinion to face up to the realities of the issue.

you cant have pro-active debate in an environment of prohibition, self-satisfaction and ignorance.