Abortion rights

[banana]

The Republic of Ireland will soon be going to referendum to decide whether to legalise abortion. A brief overview of the current situation here, with the core law up for repealing as follows:

Quote

The Eighth Amendment was inserted into the Constitution after a referendum in 1983. The amendment guarantees to protect as far as practicable the equal right to life of the unborn and the mother. It prohibits abortion in almost all cases. It states: “The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.”

This is an interesting framing - where do you stand on the equal right to life of the unborn child and the mother?

Should the state be involved at all?

What of the situation where the mother wants an abortion, but the father wants and agrees to post-birth unilaterally care for the child?

Spoiler

Previous Great Triggering discussions (Sponsored by @The Moonster) for your enjoyment:

• Addiction - medical reality vs. willpower?

• Islam - co-existence, terrorism and reformation

• Taxation is theft

• Voting Vote

 

Edited April 25, 2018 by banana

[Guest JTS98]

I think both sides in the abortion debate have reasonable arguments.

Women should obviously have a certain element of freedom about what they do with their body when pregnant, but the rights of the father and the wean must be protected.

The problem, as with so much in life these days, is the two sides' portrayal of each other as evil. There's nothing wrong with wanting to protect unborn children and there's nothing wrong with wanting to protect pregnant women. As long as the two sides continue to view each other with such hostility, we'll get nowhere on this.

 

[LincolnHearts]

1 hour ago, JTS98 said:

I think both sides in the abortion debate have reasonable arguments.

Women should obviously have a certain element of freedom about what they do with their body when pregnant, but the rights of the father and the wean must be protected.

The problem, as with so much in life these days, is the two sides' portrayal of each other as evil. There's nothing wrong with wanting to protect unborn children and there's nothing wrong with wanting to protect pregnant women. As long as the two sides continue to view each other with such hostility, we'll get nowhere on this.

 

That pretty much nails it tbf.

[Cardinal Richelieu]

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". 

[nsr]

Is there an option for being a parent but my views not having changed as a result?

[Rugster]

12 minutes ago, nsr said:

Is there an option for being a parent but my views not having changed as a result?

Exactly this.

[Ross.]

41 minutes 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". 

I admire them to an extent. Anyone who can call themselves pro life and see no irony involved in killing doctors and nurses outside clinics is a special kind of stupid.

FWIW, I'm with Cartmans mum. Abortion up to the 40th trimester should definitely be a thing.

[NotThePars]

banana must be back here as the feds are monitoring r/incels atm.

[Mark Connolly]

1 hour ago, nsr said:

Is there an option for being a parent but my views not having changed as a result?

That's probably in question 2.

[Shandon Par]

Really don't see what business men and/or the state have telling women what they should/shouldn't be doing with their bodies. It can't be an easy decision for any woman to decide to abort and any man wanting to force her to give birth needs to have a word with himself. 

[Gaz]

2 minutes ago, Shandon Par said:

Really don't see what business men and/or the state have telling women what they should/shouldn't be doing with their bodies. It can't be an easy decision for any woman to decide to abort and any man wanting to force her to give birth needs to have a word with himself. 

To play devil's advocate:

Man and woman, happy relationship, conceive a child. Both are looking forward to the baby.

Something happens, they split up six weeks later. Woman doesn't want the baby, man does.

Does the man still need to "have a word with himself" for wanting what is, after all, his child as much as the mothers?

[Shandon Par]

1 minute ago, Gaz said:

To play devil's advocate:

Man and woman, happy relationship, conceive a child. Both are looking forward to the baby.

Something happens, they split up six weeks later. Woman doesn't want the baby, man does.

Does the man still need to "have a word with himself" for wanting what is, after all, his child as much as the mothers?

Yes. He's clearly an infantile misogynist  and a control freak. The lady is obviously better off without him. 

[throbber]

Yes. He's clearly an infantile misogynist  and a control freak. The lady is obviously better off without him. 

The moral dilemma is whether or not the woman has the right to kill the unborn baby inside her or not. It’s not just about the woman’s body when there is a child involved in the situation.

[Benjamin_Nevis]

The moral dilemma is whether or not the woman has the right to kill the unborn baby inside her or not. It’s not just about the woman’s body when there is a child involved in the situation.

There is no child. It is a collection of cells until born, at which point it becomes a legal person. It's up to the woman whether or not she wishes to spend a few months in pain, discomfort and in more severe cases, endangering her life, not her ex.

[welshbairn]

1 hour ago, NotThePars said:

banana must be back here as the feds are monitoring r/incels atm.

Serious business.

[Savage Henry]

30 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

Serious business.

Be quiet, Chad.

[Mark Connolly]

14 minutes ago, jupe1407 said:

29 minutes ago, throbber said:

The moral dilemma is whether or not the woman has the right to kill the unborn baby inside her or not. It’s not just about the woman’s body when there is a child involved in the situation.

There is no child. It is a collection of cells until born, at which point it becomes a legal person. It's up to the woman whether or not she wishes to spend a few months in pain, discomfort and in more severe cases, endangering her life, not her ex.

Which also raises the question of how you classify a foetus over 24 weeks. It's not a person, but abortions after 24 weeks are (in general) illegal.

The problem with the issue is that people try to see it in black and white, when almost every part of every argument is a distinct shade of grey.

[chomp my root]

2 hours ago, Ross. said:

 

FWIW, I'm with Cartmans mum. Abortion up to the 40th trimester should definitely be a thing.

I don't consider them 'real' people until they're 30 anyway. Abortion up until then should definitely be an option.

[Estragon]

1 hour ago, Shandon Par said:

Really don't see what business men and/or the state have telling women what they should/shouldn't be doing with their bodies. It can't be an easy decision for any woman to decide to abort and any man wanting to force her to give birth needs to have a word with himself. 

Sing it sister

[Miguel Sanchez]

3 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". 

Then they fucked it by not being pro-life at all, as you'll find a large crossover between the militantly "prolife" and militantly anti-socialist segments of the population who can much more accurately be described as "pro-birth," wherein abortion is unacceptable but they will consistently wail at any sort of welfare aimed at single/vulnerable mothers/parents.