[Abortion Thread] (YET ANOTHER POLL!) Taking measure.

[The New California Republic]

Irish President Michael D Higgins has signed the bill that legalises abortion in the Republic of Ireland.

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

Irish President Michael D Higgins has signed the bill that legalises abortion in the Republic of Ireland.

Huzzah! Progress! And in a Catholic bastion, too.

[The Free Joy State]

Irish President Michael D Higgins has signed the bill that legalises abortion in the Republic of Ireland.

I'm very glad to hear this progress has been made for the women of Ireland.

[The V O I D]

Good on Ireland for finally moving forward.

[Ghost Land]

Irish President Michael D Higgins has signed the bill that legalises abortion in the Republic of Ireland.

BOOO!

On a more serious note, I'm surprised it was banned until now anyway, considering how socially liberal most of Europe is. Either way, even despite living in a country where abortion has been legal since 1973, I'm still very much pro-life and am thus disappointed in Higgins' decision.

[The V O I D]

Irish President Michael D Higgins has signed the bill that legalises abortion in the Republic of Ireland.

BOOO!

On a more serious note, I'm surprised it was banned until now anyway, considering how socially liberal most of Europe is. Either way, even despite living in a country where abortion has been legal since 1973, I'm still very much pro-life and am thus disappointed in Higgins' decision.

How are human rights a mistake? Please explain.

[Ghost Land]

BOOO!

On a more serious note, I'm surprised it was banned until now anyway, considering how socially liberal most of Europe is. Either way, even despite living in a country where abortion has been legal since 1973, I'm still very much pro-life and am thus disappointed in Higgins' decision.

How are human rights a mistake? Please explain.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I never said human rights were a mistake; then again, I don't consider the ability to get an abortion a human right unless going through with the pregnancy would put the mother or baby's life in danger, or maybe in the case of PROVEN rape. "I don't like you" isn't a valid reason for killing someone who has been born, so why is it a valid reason for killing your own unborn baby? Come on now.

[The New California Republic]

I don't consider the ability to get an abortion a human right unless going through with the pregnancy would put the mother or baby's life in danger, or maybe in the case of PROVEN rape.

Are you aware of how long it takes on average to prove a rape? The child will be born and in preschool by the time that happens.

"I don't like you" isn't a valid reason for killing someone who has been born, so why is it a valid reason for killing your own unborn baby? Come on now.

That isn't the reason that women have an abortion at all. Personally liking or disliking them doesn't come into it, partially on account that the fetus isn't a person.

[The V O I D]

How are human rights a mistake? Please explain.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I never said human rights were a mistake; then again, I don't consider the ability to get an abortion a human right unless going through with the pregnancy would put the mother or baby's life in danger, or maybe in the case of PROVEN rape. "I don't like you" isn't a valid reason for killing someone who has been born, so why is it a valid reason for killing your own unborn baby? Come on now.

It isn't because she doesn't like the fetus. It is because she does not want to be pregnant. It is because she did not consent to being pregnant. And it is because she has a right to dictate whether or not she wants to be such, and has a right to correct it if she is pregnant the moment she ceases the desire to be.

The reasons behind her desire to not be pregnant are irrelevant; all that matters is that she doesn't want to be. I didn't need to put words in your mouth; your statements proved that you think human rights are a bad thing by trying to portray them as such.

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

How about ‘You are using my body without my consent and this is not acceptable?’

That’s a damn good reason to use all necessary force against born persons, and it doesn’t even require this silly presumption of malice you up and pinned on the woman like a donkey tail.

[Ghost Land]

How about ‘You are using my body without my consent and this is not acceptable?’

That’s a damn good reason to use all necessary force against born persons, and it doesn’t even require this silly presumption of malice you up and pinned on the woman like a donkey tail.

Where is there a "silly presumption of malice" in my posts? Keep in mind that there is a very simple, 100% effective way of avoiding getting pregnant in the first place: not having sex to begin with. There are also many forms of contraception and barrier methods that are over 90% effective. Plain and simple, the ability to get an abortion is NOT a "human right". It is not listed anywhere in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and as such cannot be presumed to be anywhere near the same caliber as the right to food, the right to an education, or any of the other 28 listed. I was having a genuinely really good day until I came into this thread and found myself getting flamed for the sole reason of being pro-life. I believe that life begins very shortly after conception, and this is easily confirmed by basic science and Google searching too; a 27-week-old (or whatever) fetus is still sentient to an extent. While it is true that it's still only crudely developed, consider that the human brain isn't fully developed until around age 24-25, and I doubt anyone in this thread would support killing born children up to that age for the sole reason of being "unwanted". Plain and simple, getting an abortion, especially in the latter stages of pregnancy, is virtually wholly selfish, and no amount of flaming can make me think otherwise. And everything I said in the quoted portion of this post I made on this subject still applies:

A quick Google search will reveal that fetuses begin having brain function about 43 days in, can hear from about 23 weeks in, and can detect light via its eyes from about 16 weeks in (having virtually fully developed eyes by 26 weeks). I'd imagine most fetuses just prior to an abortion are some combination of confused, alarmed, or terrified for their own lives.

I'm not going to let myself get dragged too far into this cesspit of a thread, considering it's late and I don't particularly like posting too much here in NSG anyway.

[Attempted Socialism]

The Irish abortion bill was pretty much expected after the constitutional referendum, though. IIRC, the law was written before the referendum, so that everyone knew what the government was proposing as a replacement for the ban.

How are human rights a mistake? Please explain.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I never said human rights were a mistake; then again, I don't consider the ability to get an abortion a human right unless going through with the pregnancy would put the mother or baby's life in danger, or maybe in the case of PROVEN rape. "I don't like you" isn't a valid reason for killing someone who has been born, so why is it a valid reason for killing your own unborn baby? Come on now.

This kind of logic never made sense to me. If you consider abortion to be killing a baby (Even though that's a mockery of both language and legal definitions), what is it about a rape that suddenly makes it okay to kill a third entity? If the foetus becomes a person at conception, why does it lose its rights because one parent was a rapist?
Either you're evil because you're prepared to condemn what you consider a person for the crimes of their parents, or you're incredibly hypocritical because you move the goalposts for the one instance where you can't defend your oppression of womens rights, or you're incredibly evil, lazy and hypocritical because you're making serious, life-and-death decisions for actual people without comprehending the most basic things about the discussion.
To PROVE rape would also add the complication that PROVEN rapes can take more than 9 months in the court system, and all available statistics point to a huge dark number of rapes that are not reported and when they are, not pursued by law enforcement. Are you going to personally compensate any victim of a PROVEN rape for the months or years they've been forced to carry their PROVEN rapist' offspring, and then personally kill the (after e.g. 9 months of trial) child of a PROVEN rapist? Or do you expect your fellow taxpayers to pay? Or the PROVEN rapist?
My earlier, more indepth comments on the same broad subject of punishing foetuses for the crimes of their parents:

Personhood and exceptions
Some anti-choice activists allow for a single line of exceptions: “Rape, incest and life of the mother.” This seems to be from a political analysis that these cases are especially onerous, and it is hard to argue to an electorate that a woman has to bear a child forced upon her by a rapist. However, this quickly runs into an issue, namely that these same advocates also often proclaim life or personhood to start at conception. This means that anti-choice advocates need to square the rights of foetuses based on the method of their conception, rather than any criteria based on rights. For this exception alone, under their definition of personhood, persons can lose their rights based on the acts of their parents, and (Again under their definition of personhood) be legally killed without an investigation, something we do not allow anywhere else.
For any more sensible personhood definition, this is not an issue.

Reconsidering rape, incest and life of the mother
The stated logic from anti-choice advocates with these exceptions is often to avoid punishing women for actions beyond their control. A woman may be a victim of rape or incest, and it would be too onerous to demand that she carries the result of a crime to term; likewise with a pregnancy putting the life of the woman at risk. Women who have sex without protection, or where protection fails, are considered to be responsible for and having consented to the pregnancy – often with some kind of implicit shaming for the perceived promiscuousness or lack of responsibility. Accepting these exceptions will afford legislators some degree of apparent empathy, and possibly protect them from counterclaims about punishing the victims.
However, such exceptions build on foundational considerations of personhood that directly contradict other common anti-choice claims: First and foremost, allowing rape victims access to abortion is conceding a common pro-choice idea, namely that consent is crucial. A woman who did not consent to sex did not consent to becoming pregnant, and ought not be burdened with a rapist’ foetus. Furthermore, it acknowledges that a woman’s consent to sex (Which so far, by the earlier ‘logic’, means consent to pregnancy) matters more than a claim of ‘right to life’ by the foetus.
Insofar that hypothetically consensual incest exists (I.e. that not all incest is also rape, by definition) an exception for incest offers a further point: Aborting in such a case would be to avoid congenital diseases and disorders, in other words that medical reasons also supersede a foetus’ ‘right to life’. It also enables punishing what anti-choice advocates consistently claims to be a person to be punished for the hypothetically consensual acts of their parents; a thoroughly evil concept.
Lastly, ‘life of the mother’ also accepts, explicitly, that when on a balanced scale, weighing one ‘life’ against the life of a woman, the life of a woman, an actual person, weighs the most.
Any anti-choice advocate who accepts these three exceptions implicitly also accept the logic behind two of the major reasons why abortions occur, namely lack of consent to becoming pregnant, and medical reasons for either foetus or woman. This directly undermines the logic of such anti-choice advocates, as their ‘right to life’ is now subject to the woman’s consent and life, and the foetus’ congenital diseases and disorders. A woman withdrawing consent supersedes the ‘right to life’ for any anti-choice advocate who thinks these three exceptions are fair.
Their advocacy is directly antithetical of a logical underpinning to their claimed position.

[The New California Republic]

I was having a genuinely really good day until I came into this thread and found myself getting flamed for the sole reason of being pro-life.

Flaming? Where? If you think that someone is flaming then file a report in Moderation, instead of trying to use it as a weapon in a debate.

[Ghost Land]

-snip-

Personally, I do agree with some of your comments, hence why I said "maybe" in the event of a proven rape, which was pretty much just added to my post as a concession to the pro-choice side. I failed to consider how long it takes to prove a rape, and by no means am I advocating for any form of "I don't like it" as a valid reason for abortion. If anything, your post actually pushed me farther into the pro-life camp.

Cheers!

(And that will be my last post in this thread tonight, or, for that matter, ever.)

[The New California Republic]

(And that will be my last post in this thread tonight, or, for that matter, ever.)

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Attempted Socialism]

-snip-

Personally, I do agree with your comments, hence why I said "maybe" in the event of a proven rape, which was pretty much just added to my post as a concession to the pro-choice side. If anything, your post actually pushed me farther into the pro-life camp, and I very much appreciate your insight.

Cheers!

Your "concession" regaring rape, or the life of the mother, is really a demolishment of your own argument. It's the admission that you don't think foetuses are persons, and that you don't even know enough to recognise your own argument when put in slightly formal terms. Of the three options I put to you, you apparently picked #3. I don't think you agree with my comments, rather, I think you misunderstand both my comments and the position you hold.

(And that will be my last post in this thread tonight, or, for that matter, ever.)

I'm sure someone will miss you.

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

How about ‘You are using my body without my consent and this is not acceptable?’

That’s a damn good reason to use all necessary force against born persons, and it doesn’t even require this silly presumption of malice you up and pinned on the woman like a donkey tail.

Where is there a "silly presumption of malice" in my posts?

In the fact that you think 'I don't like it' is the reason most women get an abortion. While not a direct statement in and of itself, such a comment implies that a woman is willing to kill for the sake of convenience, when in reality it is most assuredly anything but.

Keep in mind that there is a very simple, 100% effective way of avoiding getting pregnant in the first place: not having sex to begin with.

So the fuck what? Just because sex happens to lead to pregnancy does not inherently mean that pregnancy is the sole purpose of sex.

There are also many forms of contraception and barrier methods that are over 90% effective.

Cool story, brow.

Plain and simple, the ability to get an abortion is NOT a "human right". It is not listed anywhere in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and as such cannot be presumed to be anywhere near the same caliber as the right to food, the right to an education, or any of the other 28 listed.

Article 3 disagrees with you. What can be more fundamentally one's own property than one's own body?

I was having a genuinely really good day until I came into this thread and found myself getting flamed for the sole reason of being pro-life.

Delusions of persecution. Sad.

I believe that life begins very shortly after conception, and this is easily confirmed by basic science and Google searching too; a 27-week-old (or whatever) fetus is still sentient to an extent.

Cool irrelevant story.

While it is true that it's still only crudely developed, consider that the human brain isn't fully developed until around age 24-25, and I doubt anyone in this thread would support killing born children up to that age for the sole reason of being "unwanted".

Cool strawman, brony.

Plain and simple, getting an abortion, especially in the latter stages of pregnancy, is virtually wholly selfish, and no amount of flaming can make me think otherwise.

Again with the delusions of persecution. Sad. Also another strawman, considering the fact that abortions 'in the latter stages of pregnancy' are 99.9% due to medical emergencies or crippling fetal abnormalities.

And everything I said in the quoted portion of this post I made on this subject still applies:

A quick Google search will reveal that fetuses begin having brain function about 43 days in, can hear from about 23 weeks in, and can detect light via its eyes from about 16 weeks in (having virtually fully developed eyes by 26 weeks). I'd imagine most fetuses just prior to an abortion are some combination of confused, alarmed, or terrified for their own lives.

I'm not going to let myself get dragged too far into this cesspit of a thread, considering it's late and I don't particularly like posting too much here in NSG anyway.

Your imagination and what actually transpires are not even remotely in concordance. A fetus just prior to an abortion, specifically during the span that most abortions occur, is incapable of any form of cognitive function whatsoever. It cannot feel, it cannot think, it does not possess the means to sense its surroundings or anything at all for that matter. It is for all functional intents and purposes an inert lump of flesh that is drawing sustenance from a fully formed human being that may or may not have issue with this situation.

Personally, I find myself amused that you claimed you were being flamed, yet you're the one throwing emotionally charged names like 'cesspit' around. Sad, but still amusing.

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

-snip-

Personally, I do agree with some of your comments, hence why I said "maybe" in the event of a proven rape, which was pretty much just added to my post as a concession to the pro-choice side. I failed to consider how long it takes to prove a rape, and by no means am I advocating for any form of "I don't like it" as a valid reason for abortion. If anything, your post actually pushed me farther into the pro-life camp.

Cheers!

(And that will be my last post in this thread tonight, or, for that matter, ever.)

Yesssssssss, hide in your comfort zone.

[Katganistan]

This is a necessary step for human rights in Ireland. Hopefully they too will provide the supports that make abortion a last resort (education, access to birth control, etc.)

[The Free Joy State]

This is a necessary step for human rights in Ireland. Hopefully they too will provide the supports that make abortion a last resort (education, access to birth control, etc.)

The government has gotten rid of their former ban on the sale of contraception in the Republic or Ireland. As of Mar, they were looking at potentially providing free contraception (in the event of the repeal of the Eighth Amendment).

As that's now gone... finger-crossed.

EDIT: As of August (after the referendum), Irish pharmacists had submitted a proposal to the Minister of Health proposing a scheme to allow women to obtain hormonal contraception for free, without a doctors' prescription, from a specially trained pharmacist to help prevent unwanted pregnancy. The article about it reads:

There is no clinical reason why women should still require a prescription for oral or transdermal contraceptives. The oral contraceptive is one of the safest and most well-studied medicines available. The renowned medical journal, the Lancet, has long recommended non-prescription availability; there are numerous studies showing that it is safe for women to obtain contraceptives without a doctor’s prescription and that women will still visit doctors for gynaecological exams and screening for cervical cancer and sexually transmitted infections.

But I'm not sure any response has been made yet.

[Richtlant]

When you abort a baby you basically execute innocent person without any accusation or trial. Well, I think that I can say now that if you approve such things you are worse than Stalin who was worse than Hitler. Just kidding, you aren't worse than Stalin. But seriously folks, don't do abortion, it's bullshit.

[Kowani]

Oh look, victory.

[The New California Republic]

When you abort a baby you basically execute innocent person without any accusation or trial.

Fetuses aren't people.

Well, I think that I can say now that if you approve such things you are worse than Stalin who was worse than Hitler. Just kidding, you aren't worse than Stalin. But seriously folks, don't do abortion, it's bullshit.

Why?

[San Lumen]

When you abort a baby you basically execute innocent person without any accusation or trial. Well, I think that I can say now that if you approve such things you are worse than Stalin who was worse than Hitler. Just kidding, you aren't worse than Stalin. But seriously folks, don't do abortion, it's bullshit.

What right do you have to tell someone what they can and cannot do with their body? What about rape or incest?

A fetus is not a person. Did you know that for reasons unknown many fertilized eggs never implant in the uterus? I guess any women whose had more than one period is a serial killer

How dare you force a rape or incest victim to have their assailant's child

[Richtlant]

When you abort a baby you basically execute innocent person without any accusation or trial.

Fetuses aren't people.

Well, I think that I can say now that if you approve such things you are worse than Stalin who was worse than Hitler. Just kidding, you aren't worse than Stalin. But seriously folks, don't do abortion, it's bullshit.

Why?

Yes they are people and there is no way you can disproof that. I mean, what you think, that they are some sort of aliens or plants?

Why what? You quoted too many sentences. Idk which one do you mean. Or does that why apply to all of them?