Pro-Choice Workshop (6 Viewers)

[Buzzo]

It's one of two major issues I think, and I don't think people try to skirt around it. Many people make huge efforts at addressing it. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'm not going to get into it here.

 

[oh shit]

It's not really loaded it's just that it is the essence of the debate but both kind of prefer to skirt around it.

it's the essence of the debate as dictated by prolife groups, the church, and the political class. the essence of the debate for those who most need abortion services tends to be more concerned with poverty, health, abuse, and other social problems that don't usually affect anyone actually in a position to make a change.
no one goes skipping into an abortion clinic.

 

[frona]

People who can't afford the expense currently involved in travelling to the UK for an abortion can't get one.

I suppose. Just ignore me. I'm just being rude. I get in trouble every time this topic comes up with both sides. I once got into a massive row with all my mates in college for not being pro-choice enough just because I suggested that it was not a decision to be taken lightly. For the record I am pro-choice, but whereas I am hugely intolerant of people who don't share my views on loads of things, I can perfectly understand why anyone would be anti-abortion.

 

[Mormon Nailer]

it's the essence of the debate as dictated by prolife groups, the church, and the political class. the essence of the debate for those who most need abortion services tends to be more concerned with poverty, health, abuse, and other social problems that don't usually affect anyone actually in a position to make a change.
no one goes skipping into an abortion clinic.

I agree to a point. But look at it another way - if poverty, health, abuse, and other social problems were sufficient justification for an abortion why are they not sufficient justification for infanticide? Would they be sufficient justification for a very late term abortion?

I think you are always led back to that basic question. At what point does the poverty, health, abuse, and other social problems etc. outweigh the cruelty of an abortion.

I what is aceptable in month 1 acceptable in month 9 - surely not, and if not what not?

If you want to be genuinely pro choice you can't skirt that issue, Talk of povery etc is emotive and talk of the illogicality of the curent law is fine too but they are all asides to that fundamental question.

 

[broken arm]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Mormon Nailer]

By the way - I'm just trying to tease out a hyphotethical question here - I'm not comparing abortion to infanticide or anything like that. So gently on the replies please.

 

[oh shit]

I agree to a point. But look at it another way - if poverty, health, abuse, and other social problems were sufficient justification for an abortion why are they not sufficient justification for infanticide? Would they be sufficient justification for a very late term abortion?

according to the royal college of obstetricians, health (of the baby) may well be grounds for infanticide, and they are calling on a serious debate in the UK to consider allowing euthanasia where the child would require a life time of care, with poor quality of life.

but really i don't think agree that you are looking at it another way. all you do by comparing the two situations is say "what if we consider abortion to be killing on a par with a fully developed baby". that's just rephrasing the same question. you can call it fundamental, but it's just not answerable by anything other than personal choice.

so let me rephrase my point. it's not the fundamental question to the millions of women who have had abortions and been absolutely fine with it. it's not fundamental to the millions who simply cannot choose to have one. and nor is it fundamental to those who have had an abortion and then wished they didn't. it's the potential for life that you mourn. what could have been. not the moral rights and wrongs about what happened to the cells/baby inside. because - again - how you perceive that is simply down to perception. at the minute in ireland, the state perceives for you.

 

[La La]

ive said it before, ill say it again. that zine about the Jane network is well worth a read.

 

[CITY BABY]

People who can't afford the expense currently involved in travelling to the UK for an abortion can't get one.

surely everyone can afford harum scarum records if engerland is too expensive

 

[Mormon Nailer]

"what if we consider abortion to be killing on a par with a fully developed baby". that's just rephrasing the same question. you can call it fundamental, but it's just not answerable by anything other than personal choice.

Not at all. Your'e putting words in my mouth here. I'm not comparing anything to anything else.

What I'm saying look at the same action performed at different points on a timeline. You say abortion is not on par with killing a fully eveloped baby - fine. What about 2 trimester? What about 3rd? what about when the foetus is viable? What about after the waters break before the baby is born?

There has to be some point along that timline where you say "No, not here, up to here but not here". How do you decide where that point is? That is my question. the answer may be different for everyone but it is certainly answerable.

 

[oh shit]

There has to be some point along that timline where you say "No, not here, up to here but not here". How do you decide where that point is? That is my question. the answer may be different for everyone but it is certainly answerable.

sorry for non-consensually putting something in your mouth

again, the question of when to disallow an abortion is, to my mind, not the fundamental issue. from my perspective 24 weeks is reasonable, given what is known about the average rate of development.

but i wouldn't base my argument on the unknowable conciousness of a foetus. i would argue that in a society where abortion is freely available, the time limit should be based not on the development of a foetus but on the emotional needs of the woman, ie allowing her sufficient time to decide if she wants to, and is able to, spend the next 18 years as the primary carer of another human being.

in the uk at the moment the limit is 24 weeks and this is largely because any later than that poses a serious health risk to the mother. in fact all abortions do - but as my friend once said to me "abortion - sucks the life right out of you"

 

[frona]

Word to most of what you said, oh shit.

Apart from the fact that out of all the people I've known who've had abortions none had any damage to their health. By what do base saying that it always poses a serious risk to women?

 

[broken arm]

is emotional need a normative goal?

 

[nlgbbbblth]

I'm pro-choice in the sense that if I was a woman, I probably wouldn't have an abortion but don't feel that I have the right to impose my opinion on everyone else.

It comes down to allowing people to be responsible for the decisions they make as opposed to imposing a set of rules that may not suit everybody.

Do people really consider themselves pro-abortion?
and if so, does that mean, they're totally opposed to having children?

 

[CITY BABY]

I'm pro-choice in the sense that if I was a woman, I probably wouldn't have an abortion but don't feel that I have the right to impose my opinion on everyone else.

It comes down to allowing people to be responsible for the decisions they make as opposed to imposing a set of rules that may not suit everybody.

Do people really consider themselves pro-abortion?
and if so, does that mean, they're totally opposed to having children?

bang on,bull. id consider meself anti-abortion but pro-choice,I dont think abortion should be seen as a contriception which I know women who've had so many its obviously what they think, but people,REAL PEOPLE, not fetuses should have complete control over their own destiny

 

[Janer]

I am pro abortion simply put because it's murder, the way I think meat is murder.

It's a handy contraception for people who have no responsibility and are lazy and selfish people.
No one makes these people have sex......

Even the morning after pill is dubious imo but hey!

 

[Janer]

bang on,bull. id consider meself anti-abortion but pro-choice,I dont think abortion should be seen as a contriception which I know women who've had so many its obviously what they think, but people,REAL PEOPLE, not fetuses should have complete control over their own destiny

what will happen to a feotues if untouched 99% of the time?

 

[Janer]

Word to most of what you said, oh shit.

Apart from the fact that out of all the people I've known who've had abortions none had any damage to their health. By what do base saying that it always poses a serious risk to women?

The baby can't say the same

 

[oh shit]

I am pro abortion simply put because it's murder, the way I think meat is murder.

It's a handy contraception for people who have no responsibility and are lazy and selfish people.
No one makes these people have sex......

Even the morning after pill is dubious imo but hey!

go fuck yourself moron

 

[Janer]

Have I a choice?
Off to work now.....cya later