Abortion

[Carbonox]

http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2015/02/04/purvi-patel-convicted-feticide-neglect-dependent/

Is this the beginning of the criminalization of abortion?

 

[DK]

http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2015/02/04/purvi-patel-convicted-feticide-neglect-dependent/

Is this the beginning of the criminalization of abortion?

Religious conservatives have been trying to find ways of making obtaining an abortion infeasible through methods (like coming up with insane regulations for clinics like what Texas threatened to do) since time immemorial. All this does is drive abortion underground and make it unsafe.

 

[Imari]

Religious conservatives have been trying to find ways of making obtaining an abortion infeasible through methods (like coming up with insane regulations for clinics like what Texas threatened to do) since time immemorial. All this does is drive abortion underground and make it unsafe.

Exactly. Wire clothes hangers and knitting needles are always available, and never safe.

 

[FoolKiller]

http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2015/02/04/purvi-patel-convicted-feticide-neglect-dependent/

Is this the beginning of the criminalization of abortion?

No. The entire case hinged around her ordering illegal drugs and then dumping a live baby. They couldn't make the drugs charges stick, but the baby dumping did.

Religious conservatives have been trying to find ways of making obtaining an abortion infeasible through methods (like coming up with insane regulations for clinics like what Texas threatened to do) since time immemorial. All this does is drive abortion underground and make it unsafe.

Um, if anything this was already an underground abortion. No one was charged for having an abortion through proper medical procedures.

Last I checked, no one allows it to be legal to dump a vital baby in a dumpster. That was what she was convicted of doing. If anything, this is a case that would discourage underground abortions, as doing so and having it result in a vital newborn is grounds for criminal charges if you still dispose of the fetus.

Now, what actually happened is still a mystery, as the article makes it seem that the prosecution managed to convince the jury of weak evidence. Of course, this isn't the most unbiased source and the evidence could have been much more substantial than they make it sound.

 

[HenrySwanson]

So Ireland is holding a referendum on its abortion law this month.

A step forward for the country with one of the most restrictive laws on abortion in Europe?

 

[Johnnypenso]

So Ireland is holding a referendum on its abortion law this month.

A step forward for the country with one of the most restrictive laws on abortion in Europe?

Or a step backwards, depending on which side of the referendum you are on. Should men even be allowed to vote on abortion since, most likely, they won't have any say at all in whether their unborn child is aborted should abortion on demand become legal? Should women not of child bearing age be allowed to vote?

 

[Liquid]

Much like equal marriage, I don't think this is something which even should go to a public vote.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Much like equal marriage, I don't think this is something which even should go to a public vote.

Why not? If 66% of Irish politicians were against both equal marriage and unfettered access to abortion would you say the same thing? If they were for it would you say the same thing?

 

[Liquid]

Why not? If 66% of Irish politicians were against both equal marriage and unfettered access to abortion would you say the same thing? If they were for it would you say the same thing?

I didn't say that I don't think anything should change, I just feel that something like recognising abortion or equal marriage rights doesn't need the rubber stamp of a public vote. It is something which simply should be.

Although I accept that conservative politicians would do all they can to prevent such things and a greater scope poll would demonstrate the contrary flavour of the public, rights are not subject to a vote. Or at least, they shouldn't be but that's perhaps being too idealistic in the real world.

Edit: For what it's worth, I've been in favour of repealling the eight amendment ever since I found out that the eighth amendment existed.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Just noticed that @FoolKiller was the last poster before the bump. Sad feelings

Why not? If 66% of Irish politicians were against both equal marriage and unfettered access to abortion would you say the same thing? If they were for it would you say the same thing?

If people's cultural or religious beliefs prevent them from using abortion services then that's fair enough. Their views shouldn't impinge on the ability of others to use that service. Holding a referendum on the issue gives the opportunity for whichever side "loses" to feel that a view was forced onto them. They'd be sort-of right.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I didn't say that I don't think anything should change, I just feel that something like recognising abortion or equal marriage rights doesn't need the rubber stamp of a public vote. It is something which simply should be.

Although I accept that conservative politicians would do all they can to prevent such things and a greater scope poll would demonstrate the contrary flavour of the public, rights are not subject to a vote. Or at least, they shouldn't be but that's perhaps being too idealistic in the real world.

Edit: For what it's worth, I've been in favour of repealling the eight amendment ever since I found out that the eighth amendment existed.

Should abortion in the 9th month just "be"? How about right before the due date? 8th month? 7th month? Should the father get a say? Does the child have any rights if it would be able to survive outside the womb? Do children only have rights outside the womb?

 

[SlipZtrEm]

I don't think you'll find many pro-choice people who advocate for third-trimester abortions. But hey, I recognize that's the low-hanging fruit for the other side.

 

[Famine]

If 66% of Irish politicians were against both equal marriage and unfettered access to abortion

"If"?

 

[Johnnypenso]

I don't think you'll find many pro-choice people who advocate for third-trimester abortions. But hey, I recognize that's the low-hanging fruit for the other side.

It's the appropriate counter argument, IMO, to abortion should just "be". It's far too complicated an issue to just "be".

"If"?

I have no idea how the politicians are lined up. Didn't they just sanction gay marriage a few years ago?

 

[Swift]

Edit: For what it's worth, I've been in favour of repealling the eight amendment ever since I found out that the eighth amendment existed.

Interesting, why?

 

[Liquid]

Interesting, why?

Despite not being explicitly worded that way, it has resulted in Irish doctors valuing the lives of the unborn over that of the mother.

Many women have suffered physical and mental trauma trying to get an abortion in another territory, usually Great Britain. Many women have died painful and needless deaths where doctors cannot treat them because of the eighth amendment.

Offering women the chance to get an abortion does not take away from those men or women who do not wish to get an abortion. It is just that; an option, not an obligation.

 

[TexRex]

Should men even be allowed to vote on abortion since, most likely, they won't have any say at all in whether their unborn child is aborted should abortion on demand become legal? Should women not of child bearing age be allowed to vote?

To whatever outcome it may lead, I agree with this.

That said, since I highly doubt anyone whose views on the matter run counter to mine will voluntarily excuse themselves from voting simply because they don't possess these characteristics, I certainly wouldn't either.

 

[Johnnypenso]

To whatever outcome it may lead, I agree with this.

That said, since I highly doubt anyone whose views on the matter run counter to mine will voluntarily excuse themselves from voting simply because they don't possess these characteristics, I certainly wouldn't either.

Agree with what? I offered up some questions, I didn't make any statements.

 

[TexRex]

Agree with what? I offered up some questions, I didn't make any statements.

Fine then, I agree that the questions should be asked.

 

[Imari]

Should abortion in the 9th month just "be"? How about right before the due date? 8th month? 7th month? Should the father get a say? Does the child have any rights if it would be able to survive outside the womb? Do children only have rights outside the womb?

So just because there are tough questions to be answered we shouldn't even try? What point are you trying to make here?

It's the appropriate counter argument, IMO, to abortion should just "be". It's far too complicated an issue to just "be".

Not really, because that's not even the logical conclusion of that chain of thought. That would be that post-birth abortions should just be. "Aborting" a 24 year old would be the same as aborting pre-birth, right?

Of course, that's not how it actually works. There's a line in the sand drawn at birth, and sensible people recognise that even though it's arbitrary it's still a functional system.

 

[Johnnypenso]

So just because there are tough questions to be answered we shouldn't even try? What point are you trying to make here?

It's far too complicated an issue to just "be"

 

[Swift]

Despite not being explicitly worded that way, it has resulted in Irish doctors valuing the lives of the unborn over that of the mother.

Many women have suffered physical and mental trauma trying to get an abortion in another territory, usually Great Britain. Many women have died painful and needless deaths where doctors cannot treat them because of the eighth amendment.

Offering women the chance to get an abortion does not take away from those men or women who do not wish to get an abortion. It is just that; an option, not an obligation.

Thanks I'm not familiar with that constitution.

 

[Imari]

It's far too complicated an issue to just "be"

I saw suggestions that it shouldn't be up to a popular vote, which I agree with. That's a long way from laissez faire abortion where anyone can do whatever they like.

The suggestion that abortion should "just be" I read as that women should have a fundamental right to control over their own bodies, which is pretty hard to argue with if you subscribe to anything like the sort of human rights that led to the abolition of slavery. I think you're deliberately oversimplifying to try and make a reasonable argument for personal freedoms seem like anarchism. A right to personal freedom doesn't conflict with sensible regulations around how that can be implemented.

Take the oft parroted right to bear arms. You can have that right as well as sensible regulations around what arms you may bear. A right to an abortion doesn't mean that it's legal to set up Imari's Mobile Homeopathic Knitting Needle Abortion and Hot Dog Cart, there can still be sensible regulations around how abortions should be supplied just like other medical operations.

 

[TexRex]

I saw suggestions that it shouldn't be up to a popular vote, which I agree with.

That's what I thought when I remarked in agreement, however I have since come to the realization that it may not have been a sincere suggestion (or set of questions), but rather a statement that the vote should not be restricted to whom it directly pertains. At least that's the conclusion I've drawn from subsequent comments from the individual with whom I previously agreed.

 

[winet]

I don't think you'll find many pro-choice people who advocate for third-trimester abortions. But hey, I recognize that's the low-hanging fruit for the other side.

The USA is one of seven countries in the world that allows abortions after 20 weeks not to mention everyone who is favor of abortion has already been born.

 

[TexRex]

everyone who is favor of abortion has already been born

You don't say...

 

[Johnnypenso]

I saw suggestions that it shouldn't be up to a popular vote, which I agree with. That's a long way from laissez faire abortion where anyone can do whatever they like.

The suggestion that abortion should "just be" I read as that women should have a fundamental right to control over their own bodies, which is pretty hard to argue with if you subscribe to anything like the sort of human rights that led to the abolition of slavery. I think you're deliberately oversimplifying to try and make a reasonable argument for personal freedoms seem like anarchism. A right to personal freedom doesn't conflict with sensible regulations around how that can be implemented.

Take the oft parroted right to bear arms. You can have that right as well as sensible regulations around what arms you may bear. A right to an abortion doesn't mean that it's legal to set up Imari's Mobile Homeopathic Knitting Needle Abortion and Hot Dog Cart, there can still be sensible regulations around how abortions should be supplied just like other medical operations.

I'm deliberately asking questions, which, in this forum, means you are making a statement. It's a convenient way of not answering questions, simply point fingers at the person asking questions and then berate them for their "opinions" phrased as questions. It's a common forum tactic, not just here. It's fascinating to watch actually.

 

[Imari]

I'm deliberately asking questions, which, in this forum, means you are making a statement. It's a convenient way of not answering questions, simply point fingers at the person asking questions and then berate them for their "opinions" phrased as questions. It's a common forum tactic, not just here. It's fascinating to watch actually.

You mean that you'd actually expect other people to answer those questions, but you're not going to attempt to address any of them yourself first? Or even lead it with some relevant opinion or information?

I dunno man, doing it your way just seems like trolling. Usually if you want other people to engage with their opinions on a question or topic you at least lead in with some of your own first. Otherwise you're not contributing anything yourself, just handballing it to others to carry the conversation. That's not how a reasonable dialogue works.

I mean look at these posts:

Or a step backwards, depending on which side of the referendum you are on. Should men even be allowed to vote on abortion since, most likely, they won't have any say at all in whether their unborn child is aborted should abortion on demand become legal? Should women not of child bearing age be allowed to vote?

Why not? If 66% of Irish politicians were against both equal marriage and unfettered access to abortion would you say the same thing? If they were for it would you say the same thing?

Should abortion in the 9th month just "be"? How about right before the due date? 8th month? 7th month? Should the father get a say? Does the child have any rights if it would be able to survive outside the womb? Do children only have rights outside the womb?

That's 12 questions and a simple observation that arguments have two sides in three consecutive posts. This isn't the behaviour of someone who is trying to spark discussion, this is someone who is either writing statements with a question mark at the end or trolling. That might not be what you intended, but that's what the structure of your posting implies.

Since you're deliberately asking questions, allow me to ask one in return. What is it that you hope to achieve by doing so?

If your goal is something that I'm happy to be a part of, I'd be glad to take a shot at answering your questions.

 

[Johnnypenso]

You mean that you'd actually expect other people to answer those questions, but you're not going to attempt to address any of them yourself first? Or even lead it with some relevant opinion or information?

I dunno man, doing it your way just seems like trolling. Usually if you want other people to engage with their opinions on a question or topic you at least lead in with some of your own first. Otherwise you're not contributing anything yourself, just handballing it to others to carry the conversation. That's not how a reasonable dialogue works.

I mean look at these posts:





That's 12 questions and a simple observation that arguments have two sides in three consecutive posts. This isn't the behaviour of someone who is trying to spark discussion, this is someone who is either writing statements with a question mark at the end or trolling. That might not be what you intended, but that's what the structure of your posting implies.

Since you're deliberately asking questions, allow me to ask one in return. What is it that you hope to achieve by doing so?

If your goal is something that I'm happy to be a part of, I'd be glad to take a shot at answering your questions.

I ask questions because I'd like to see the answers. I don't answer them myself because I'll just be barraged with requests for links and quotes and defending my answers when all I'm looking for is to see what someone else has to say on the subject. If I wanted to give my opinion, I'd just come along and give my opinion. You should know this by now, I've come along and given my opinions freely on countless occasions and countless subjects on countless threads. After freely sharing my opinions for years on dozens and dozens of topics, your implication that I'm trolling by simply asking questions is both insulting and ludicrous at the same time. Don't bother answering the questions by the way, I've completely lost interest in this discussion in this forum.

 

[winet]

You don't say...

I am a master of the obvious