Abortion rights

[tamthebam]

15 hours ago, Cardinal Richelieu said:

In the USA, the anti-abortion lobby played an absolute blinder by renaming themselves "Pro-Life" ... thereby inferring that anyone who is against them is "Anti-Life". 

maybe the anti-gun lobby should call themselves "Pro Life" too. 

[invergowrie arab]

3 hours ago, Granny Danger said:

The OP is a c**t and the world would be a better place if he had been aborted.

It doesn’t surprise me in the least that this misogynistic w****r has started a thread like this.

 

Can't really better this.

I really hope it is pure ignorance that drives this sort of thing.

If you knew about the arguments being had in Ireland right now which are not about planned abortions but the ability of doctors to perform life saving abortions on women, where you get stories of women having to be drugged whilst in labour and put on planes from Dublin to Liverpool to save their lives and still made into a mens rights issue you would have to be a special kind of fucked up.

[chomp my root]

42 minutes ago, Honest Saints Fan said:

Because its not a viable baby until 24 weeks gestation. 

In the same way as you can't have sex until you're 16 or can't drink until you're 18 etc. At least in this country. All these things including abortion are arbitrary.

[welshbairn]

1 hour ago, banana said:

Should the baby have the same right? If not, why not?

Define right.

[ayrmad]

59 minutes ago, Honest Saints Fan said:

Because its not a viable baby until 24 weeks gestation. 

That's absolute twaddle.

[Lisa Cuddy]

1 hour ago, chomp my root said:

In the same way as you can't have sex until you're 16 or can't drink until you're 18 etc. At least in this country. All these things including abortion are arbitrary.

 

1 hour ago, ayrmad said:

That's absolute twaddle.

You're both wrong. 

The age of viability is established by research and advances in medicine that have given a baby born at 24 weeks a good chance of survival. We know those chances increase later than that, but we also know that a child born prior to that has a reduced chance of survival, and that if they do survive they also have a higher likelihood of a life long or life limiting condition related to prematurity. 

Did you actually think doctors just made that up? 

[Guest JTS98]

4 hours ago, Shandon Par said:

The state doesn’t intervene in male reproduction though. The whole notion seems like a hangover from a bygone era where women should know their place and do what they’re told. The whole discussion keeps going back to men and trying to compare it to what men feel about it, what their rights and responsibilities are and none of that really matters as men are not the ones carrying the kid and putting their mind and bodies through the wringer. 

Poor argument here, for me. And the type of argument that only serves to shut down discussion rather than improve it.

Women should obviously have a huge say in what happens, but they are carrying a child that half belongs to another human being and that should not just be shouted down. What if the father is desperate for the child to be born?

Also, at one point all of us were that 'collection of cells'. In all other situations we treat the protection is life as paramount, yet not when that is inconvenient for the parent? Seems flawed to me. Why should the wean have its life taken away through no fault of its own?

I'm not 100% anti-abortion, not by a long shot. But this argument that it's a women's choice and anything else is misogyny is a really poor one. A student union argument. And, like I said, simply designed to end conversation rather than improve it.

 

[Sergeant Wilson]

3 hours ago, JTS98 said:

What if the father is desperate for the child to be born?

 

 

Tough, them's the breaks.

[throbber]

16 hours ago, Shandon Par said:

"You've had a bit of my jizz inside you therefore I demand equal rights on what you should or shouldn't do with your body/life/future". That's a very Game of Thrones-esque attitude to the womenfolk throbbs. 

I wasn't saying that from the perspective of a man telling a woman what to do though. You are coming out with the argument that its up to women what they do with their bodies and not up for men/the state to tell them what to do with them, which is true until there is a third party involved (ie the unborn child) that they are wanting to kill. Thats where it becomes other peoples business as they have concerns for the unborn child. 

[The Equalizer]

8 hours ago, banana said:

Thread delivering, well played everyone 

No-one has directly addressed the framing of this law, though. Should the unborn child and the mother have equal right to life? If so, why? If not, why not?

Just fix the poll and f**k off you trumpet.

You have started a thread with potential. Don't ruin it by contributing anything more.

[chomp my root]

5 hours ago, Lisa Cuddy said:

 

You're both wrong. 

The age of viability is established by research and advances in medicine that have given a baby born at 24 weeks a good chance of survival. We know those chances increase later than that, but we also know that a child born prior to that has a reduced chance of survival, and that if they do survive they also have a higher likelihood of a life long or life limiting condition related to prematurity. 

Did you actually think doctors just made that up? 

The decision as to if and if so when abortion is a legal one based on medical advice but the decision is made by people so changeable. Its not like the medical profession change their view on a subject over time either.  In Ireland its illegal, that decision is made by people and the debate is whether to change it.

[Benjamin_Nevis]

4 hours ago, JTS98 said:

Women should obviously have a huge say in what happens, but they are carrying a child that half belongs to another human being and that should not just be shouted down. What if the father is desperate for the child to be born?

 

Tough shit.

He faces none of the risks, discomfort, potential dangers etc etc in carrying a child, therefore he doesn't, and indeed shouldn't get a say. 

[Shandon Par]

4 hours ago, JTS98 said:

Poor argument here, for me. And the type of argument that only serves to shut down discussion rather than improve it.

Women should obviously have a huge say in what happens, but they are carrying a child that half belongs to another human being and that should not just be shouted down. What if the father is desperate for the child to be born?

Also, at one point all of us were that 'collection of cells'. In all other situations we treat the protection is life as paramount, yet not when that is inconvenient for the parent? Seems flawed to me. Why should the wean have its life taken away through no fault of its own?

I'm not 100% anti-abortion, not by a long shot. But this argument that it's a women's choice and anything else is misogyny is a really poor one. A student union argument. And, like I said, simply designed to end conversation rather than improve it.

 

You’re backing up my argument, not countering it. Just reads like I touched a nerve with you. All you’re saying is “what about the man’s rights?”. It’s a typical modern trait of entitlement. It’s a very private, personal matter and tough decision that I’d say should be left to the woman and the medical professionals.

[Lisa Cuddy]

1 hour ago, chomp my root said:

 Its not like the medical profession change their view on a subject over time either. 

No, they very much do as new research and evidence become available.

I also have an issue with the poll options, since I'm here. None of them cover my views. A termination is not something I could ever do myself, however that does not mean I apply my personal stance to other women. It is absolutely a woman's right to choose. 

[ayrmad]

7 hours ago, Lisa Cuddy said:

 

You're both wrong. 

The age of viability is established by research and advances in medicine that have given a baby born at 24 weeks a good chance of survival. We know those chances increase later than that, but we also know that a child born prior to that has a reduced chance of survival, and that if they do survive they also have a higher likelihood of a life long or life limiting condition related to prematurity. 

Did you actually think doctors just made that up? 

No I'm not, there are children who've survived long before 24 weeks therefore "not viable before 24 weeks" is absolute twaddle. 

[Netan Sansara]

3 minutes ago, ayrmad said:

No I'm not, there are children who've survived long before 24 weeks therefore "not viable before 24 weeks" is absolute twaddle. 

And there's plenty of children born after 24 weeks that don't survive. Using statistical outliers to justify your view this is rubbish is an inherently flawed argument.

[Rugster]

10 hours ago, whiskychimp said:

I agree it's the woman's choice but.....

You've had a bit of my jizz inside you therefore I should be financially responsible for a child you've chosen to have against my wishes.

 

Just to play the other side of this.

Should have thought of that before having sex then. 

[Honest Saints Fan]

8 minutes ago, ayrmad said:

No I'm not, there are children who've survived long before 24 weeks therefore "not viable before 24 weeks" is absolute twaddle. 

If a birth takes places before 24 weeks and the baby dies it is classed as a miscarriage. You are not entitled to maternity leave. It's extremely unlikely doctors would medically intervene in a birth before 24 weeks. It's not absolute twaddle. It's a fact. Your pregnancy is not classed as viable until you hit 24 weeks.

[welshbairn]

11 minutes ago, ayrmad said:

No I'm not, there are children who've survived long before 24 weeks therefore "not viable before 24 weeks" is absolute twaddle. 

A handy chart. Survival does not imply a healthy baby.

https://www.verywellfamily.com/premature-birth-and-viability-2371529

[chomp my root]

54 minutes ago, Lisa Cuddy said:

No, they very much do as new research and evidence become available.

I also have an issue with the poll options, since I'm here. None of them cover my views. A termination is not something I could ever do myself, however that does not mean I apply my personal stance to other women. It is absolutely a woman's right to choose. 

Yes, that was kind of my point, in this instance the current view might be the 24 weeks mark, it might change. Even if it didn't, public opinion could push parliament to change the law.  Medical opinion is only part of the debate, take alcohol for example. We all know what the research suggests (currently) but its not set in law how much we can drink each week. It would be a vote loser if a party tried to restrict our alcohol intake directly (as opposed to using covert efforts like high tax). My point is that the laws on abortion can (and have been) changed. Whether you agree with the legislation is the debate here it seems.