• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Abortion Referendum

OK, so let's look at rape.

(a) who calls this? Does a woman have to prove it was rape, because it can take over a year for a case to come to court, and then only something like 2% of rape complaints end in a conviction.

So what? If a woman is sexually assaulted we don't need a trial to determine that. Just as we don't need to know if the suspect was guilty in a murder case if we want to determine there was a murder. We have evidence of the crime. You are not, I hope, doubting that rape exists are you? That would be idiotic.

(b) does this include rape by a husband? Likewise, how does a woman prove rape, given the length of time it takes to charge and convict, if the man pleads not guilty.

Again, it is amazing that you think rape by the husband would not count. You said, "Is a pregnancy really forced on women?" In the case of rape, even by the husband, yes it is!

(c) why wait until a pregnancy test shows pregnancy? If the 'morning after pill' is not available, then there is nothing to stop a woman asking for a 'scrape' (the lining of the womb scraped)employed to solve a whole range gynaecological problems?

And how is that not murder in your book? If it is murder to have an abortion (and I believe morning after pills are illegal in Ireland), then you are advocating murder by other means. Instead of "why not have a scrape?" why not have an abortion? What's the frigging difference?

(d) what percentage of pregnancies are due to rape?

Irrelevant to my point. You asked, " Is a pregnancy really forced on women?" and I point out that yes, in some cases, it is forced on a woman.

(e) do you believe that people conceived of rape (whether husband and wife, date rape or stranger rape) are lesser citizens than 'wanted' babies?

Nope. Nothing I have said suggests that. I am pointing out that you are wrong with your rhetorical question, "Is a pregnancy really forced on women?" Yes, it is. In some cases.

I have already stated in my post: "Let’s say in cases where it is forced on women - rape - and the foetus has yet to develop a central nervous system."

I specifically added that to close off any sophistry about how children born of rape are lesser humans. I am in favour of abortion on demand up to a certain point. When it comes to the foetus having no brain or central nervous system there is no ethical conundrum regarding life from the feotus's perspective, because there is no perspective.

Bear in mind, the question posed was, whose rights was the other poster referring to, when he or she said that everybodys' rights are important and have to be balanced, therefore he or she was joyous at the 'yes' vote.

I don't know. Wriggle all you like, because I was addressing your question, "Is a pregnancy really forced on women?"

Can you really answer that even in cases of rape, pregnancy is not forced on a woman?
 
Don't worry, I'm sure Brexit will fix that.

Brexit won't change it at all. My mother was born in the Republic of Ireland and her father was born in Ireland when it was part of the United Kingdom. I believe this is what allows her status as a British subject.
 
I get that people strongly believe in abortion on demand. However, I am sceptical of some of the reasoning. People speak of being 'joyous', for example.

Obviously, it should be available for health reasons (including psychological health) as it is a medical procedure.

Is it actually available for health reasons? In many cases, no it is not.

Do you also believe that women with foetuses that develop no brain should also bring their feotus to term?

That's what they currently have to do.
 
I get that people strongly believe in abortion on demand. However, I am sceptical of some of the reasoning. People speak of being 'joyous', for example.

Obviously, it should be available for health reasons (including psychological health) as it is a medical procedure.
:rolleyes:
 
I get that people strongly believe in abortion on demand. However, I am sceptical of some of the reasoning.
The reasoning is that if people don't ask for (demand) an abortion they probably don't want one. If they demand one they have probably considered the options and do.

If they want rid of the parasite growing inside them I am in favour of allowing them to get rid of it. If it can survive on its own great. If not, so be it.
 
If they want rid of the parasite growing inside them I am in favour of allowing them to get rid of it. If it can survive on its own great. If not, so be it.

Clear where you are on this, any reason to not just say what you mean?
 
The vast majority of congenitally deformed foetuses are spontaneously miscarried.
So what? You can't just brush the awkward and extreme cases under the carpet and ignore the fact the law makes it impossible for women to do anything to fix the situation just because most of the time the problem fixes itself.

This is exactly the kind of stupid nonsense we no longer have to deal with and instead we can have sensible legislation to deal with the actual situations that actually happen that pregnant women actually have to deal with instead just doing what you're doing and shrugging your shoulders and doing nothing about it because most of the time it doesn't happen. Christ, what an attitude!

I presume that in your cousin's case, the deformity only became apparent once the pregnancy was quite advanced. In those cases, even if an abortion is carried out, there is still the heartbreak of having to to through an induced delivery, anyway.
You assume wrong.

There seems to be this idea that somehow the tragedy of a baby suffering from a congenital condition is the fault of 'sexism' which can be solved by abortion on demand.
Well, living in Ireland, and having listened to the arguments from both sides of the debate, I've never once come across this bizarre strawman of an argument from anyone except you. What on earth are you talking about?

Who ever claimed that congenital conditions were the fault of sexism? No-one ever blamed my cousins situation on anything other than rotten bad luck. A situation with no-one to blame for existing in the first place, but plenty of people to blame for because she couldn't have the situation quickly, safely and legally

Truth is, your cousin's situation was always going to be a very sad one.
The fact that sad situations are always going to exist is a rather pathetic and heartless excuse for enforcing an extremist set of laws that prevent anything from being done about the sad situation and just shrugging your shoulders and forcing the victim to put up with the situation and the suffering for months on end.

Forcing a woman to carry a non-viable foetus for months, to go through with the entire pregnancy and give birth to some pointless non-viable baby with extreme medical problems which nothing could be done for, which if gone to plan would and should have been a joyous occasion for her and her husband, to give birth to it, etc. just because 'it would have been sad anyway'. That's a genuinely cruel and callous attitude to have for people in that situation.

What she should have been allowed to do was to have the pregnancy terminated as soon as the foetus's medical condition was allowed, so she could get on with her life and plan and prepare for the family she wanted, instead being forced to endure the horrific situation she did.

How can you actually have such a casual attitude to defending these kind of situations? To force a woman to go through with an entire pregnancy carrying a brain-damaged thing inside her which will never survive after the pregnancy, on the basis that it mostly doesn't happen? Jesus Christ.

You can't allow these situations to just continue just because they're rare, or awkward to deal with, or generally sort themselves out, etc. When laws are unable to deal with the fringe cases and rare cases, we don't just shrug our shoulders and think that's just the way things are, instead of we change the law, we campaign to change the law, and we've done so successfully in Ireland, remove the extreme legal barriers to abortion to allowing for it to be replaced with sensible legislation for safe and legal termination of pregnancy, instead of the ******** that currently exists.

Good riddance to the 8th amendment.
 
I don't, I am pro- the woman's choice only and always. Trust this is clear enough!!!!!!
 
Certainly not.

I am questioning people's mindless support of abortion on demand. If they haven't given it much thought, then they are just being trendy.

Have you ever looked at countries where abortion is legal?
Because it is here in the Netherlands, has been for decades now, and your fantasies about abortion on demand are quite far from the truth.

Yes they do happen, even in cases where the parents are just not ready for a child, but it's not a 'go get groceries and an abortion' level event.
There is counselling, there is discussion with the mother and father if she wants.

But in the end, it is the mother that has the choice.
I'm sure that in an ideal world a 16 year old who got pregnant by a drunken one-night stand, or a couple about to split up due to arguments with a mistake would carry the pregnacy to term and then angels and happiness for ever, with all those children growing up in a Dickensesque form of happy poverty or a rom-com getting the parents back together.

But that is usually not the case. Why is it such a problem for people to decide, not yet, and wait until they are at an emotionally more able time?
 
There seems to be this idea that somehow the tragedy of a baby suffering from a congenital condition is the fault of 'sexism' which can be solved by abortion on demand.
I'd like see a citation for this claim. There's a lot of oddball ideas being thrown around in this thread about what people campaigning for safe and legal abortion actually believe and why they're campaigning.

I've never come across the idea that congenital diseases are the result of sexism and it just seems to be evidence that your views on the issue are entirely divorced from reality.
 
[deleted] Sorry, I inadvertently uploaded here a duplicate of a post I made to Abortion, sex, and assumption of risk thread.
 
Last edited:
No, but the Repeal side were acting as though abortion made 90s Russia the most gender equal nation ever, for some reason. Treating Abortion as this golden bullet for gender equality did not turn out well in reality.

I haven't heard the repeal side mention Russia even once.

No, but it was the general tone of "abortion will usher in a golden age of gender equality!".

Sentryman, your original post can only be interpreted reasonably as you thinking that the Repeal campaign were actually citing Russia in the 1990s as an example of what they were trying to achieve, when as Strawberry has pointed out, Russia never entered into the debate at all. Nobody mentioned Russia or cited it as an example of what happens if abortion laws are liberalised. If you want to enter it into the debate as an example of why abortion laws do or don't result in something, then go ahead, but don't try and make it sound like the Repeal campaign were using Russia as some sort of positive example.

And I've never heard the Repeal campaign argue that removing the 8th amendment will "usher in a golden age of gender equality" or anything like that at all. I've heard many people who voted Yes to repeal the 8th amendment give their positions for why they voted yes, and no-one had anything remotely like this as a rationale for what they voted. Where on earth are these bizarre strawmen of the Repeal campaign coming from? They bear no resemblance to anything actually happening or being said here in Ireland.

Given the disgusting lies and distortions coming from the No campaign, it wouldn't surprise me if you've fallen for some flimsy caricature of the Repeal campaign dreamt up by the No nutters.
 
Certainly not.

I am questioning people's mindless support of abortion on demand. If they haven't given it much thought, then they are just being trendy.

That is the problem, right there. Because you, personally, have a different outlook on the situation, you presume that others are just being "trendy."

I'm sure that some women might not care, they might use abortion as a "last resort" birth control method. But you seem to suggest that no one gives it a thought. Simply based on YOUR beliefs.

ETA: People often "mindlessly" follow certain trends. You dismiss the people who don't do that, and I find that sad.
 
Last edited:
And I've never heard the Repeal campaign argue that removing the 8th amendment will "usher in a golden age of gender equality" or anything like that at all. I've heard many people who voted Yes to repeal the 8th amendment give their positions for why they voted yes, and no-one had anything remotely like this as a rationale for what they voted. Where on earth are these bizarre strawmen of the Repeal campaign coming from? They bear no resemblance to anything actually happening or being said here in Ireland.

Given the disgusting lies and distortions coming from the No campaign, it wouldn't surprise me if you've fallen for some flimsy caricature of the Repeal campaign dreamt up by the No nutters.

It's "putting the cart before the horse." No one is arguing that this will "usher in gender equality." Quite the opposite- it's recognizing gender equality.
 
Committing to an abortion almost always involves a heartbreaking, agonizing, and deeply personal decision by the pregnant woman made only after deep thought and much consideration. It is the pregnant woman who is most knowledgeable as to her current circumstances and the lives that she and a child would face. It is the pregnant woman who will have to carry the embryo to term. It is the pregnant woman who will be responsible for the child at birth, and typically, for decades thereafter. It is the pregnant woman whose own religion, and whose own moral views of abortion, are the most relevant.

How dare some sanctimonious politician or some dried-up religious fraud accuse her of lacking the intelligence or morality or thoughtfulness to make her own decision! How dare they imply that it is a casual, selfish decision on the part of the woman. How dare they attempt to impose their own views on her when they have no understanding of her circumstances and are not committing to any personal obligations themselves. Interestingly, when anti-abortion advocates have been faced with an unwanted pregnancy in their own lives, there are many cases where they have become pro-abortion- at least in secret even as they have continued to spew their anti-choice rhetoric publicly.

Inherent in the desire of many who wish to impose/retain anti-choice laws is the concept that pregnant woman cannot be trusted to make the correct, moral decision themselves. This is why I see much of the anti-choice debate as originating from a sexist bias and being based, consciously or not, on a need to control women (and of course for purely political gain). It is fundamentally insulting to woman. And ironic, because inherent to this belief is the idea that these very same "selfish" and "untrustworthy" woman, when forced against their judgement to become moms, can then be trusted to fulfill that awesome and massive responsibility in a wonderful and highly praiseworthy manner.
 
Last edited:
Committing to an abortion almost always involves a heartbreaking, agonizing, and deeply personal decision by the pregnant woman made only after deep thought and much consideration. It is the pregnant woman who is most knowledgeable as to her current circumstances and the lives that she and a child would face. It is the pregnant woman who will have to carry the embryo to term. It is the pregnant woman who will be responsible for the child at birth, and typically, for decades thereafter. It is the pregnant woman whose own religion, and whose own moral views of abortion, are the most relevant.

How dare some sanctimonious politician or some dried-up religious fraud accuse her of lacking the intelligence or morality or thoughtfulness to make her own decision! How dare they imply that it is a casual, selfish decision on the part of the woman. How dare they attempt to impose their own views on her when they have no understanding of her circumstances and are not committing to any personal obligations themselves. Interestingly, when anti-abortion advocates have been faced with an unwanted pregnancy in their own lives, there are many cases where they have become pro-abortion- at least in secret even as they have continued to spew their anti-choice rhetoric publicly.

Inherent in the desire of many who wish to impose/retain anti-choice laws is the concept that pregnant woman cannot be trusted to make the correct, moral decision themselves. This is why I see much of the anti-choice debate as originating from a sexist bias and being based, consciously or not, on a need to control women (and of course for purely political gain). It is fundamentally insulting to woman. And ironic, because inherent to this belief is the idea that these very same "selfish" and "untrustworthy" woman, when forced against their judgement to become moms, can then be trusted to fulfill that awesome and massive responsibility in a wonderful and highly praiseworthy manner.

Thank you. All of this post is so self-evident that it shouldn’t need making, but to some it obviously does. The idea that abortion is “recreational” is deeply repugnant.
 
It may be a surprise to some that in Australia abortion is still illegal in some states - Queensland is one of those.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-05-29/queensland-abortion-laws-review-underway/9807590

Under the Criminal Code Act, which dates back to 1899, a woman who "unlawfully" has an abortion in Queensland can be sent to prison for up to seven years.*
According to the act, anyone "unlawfully" performing an abortion can be jailed for up to 14 years.
In 2016, a 12-year-old girl had to get the permission of the Queensland Supreme Court to have an abortion.
In 2010, a couple in Cairns was prosecuted for terminating their pregnancy, but later acquitted.

Surprise, surprise, The Australian Christian Lobby are against any reforms.
 
As a matter of interest, do the "rights of others" include the rights of the unborn foetus, or the father of it?

Or are only highly vocal women who want, "a woman's right to choose" the only voices we should listen to?

That slogan in itself implies a doctor is being 'sexist' if an abortion is refused, because of the law or because of personal ethics, and that the woman's predicament is because of this dreadful 'sexist' society.

But hang on, what is the premise based on? Is a pregnancy really forced on women?
As emphasized above by me, yes, ONLY the involved woman should be able to decide and make the choice. I have believed that since the mid-late 1950s based on local newspaper reports on that and unwed mother's facilities. Yes, that means I was around ten years old then. During the fourth grade I did as little work as I could pass on while reading the entire World Book and a number of Horatio Alger books (both in the classroom). For those thinking that odd, it was the year after the one where I was tested for reading speed and was at 800 some wpm with 90 (some odd) % accuracy on questions on the reading. Took me some time to realize that was unusual.
 
Thank you. All of this post is so self-evident that it shouldn’t need making, but to some it obviously does. The idea that abortion is “recreational” is deeply repugnant.


Repugnant indeed, but in return we are expected to be nice and respectful of the loony beliefs of these folk, lest they be offended.
 

Back
Top Bottom