Pro Life vs Pro Choice | Page 4 | Vital Football

Pro Life vs Pro Choice

No worries. I can’t really give an opinion other than my own. Which is a bit tainted because I’m frustrated with our government. (President and on down, the old white men I was referring to)
 
Cheers Siggy, moment of lost in translation maybe? From previous chats I don't think anyone actually disagrees (the posters who posted last night).

So all is cool, and not checked properly but it sounds like sense has won out in Ireland, 2/3rds still being spoken of and the 'no' campaign have conceded defeat I believe.

From your outlook, be interesting to see what/how this maybe changes things in the US as obviously the orange wotsit is doubling down on abortion over there and Ireland is becoming a new shining light for choice.

If I've got my heritage splits right ie Deep South v NY etc, it's not going to make much change Republican wise I wouldn't have thought, but might reinvigorate the Democrat side?

For Ireland specifically it's a seachange, especially if the % spoken about is so damning.

May 26 takes on even more significance!:utv:
 
I fully agree with SJH. These issues are complicated and not always easy to paint in black and white. VOTN and I both agree on the issue but come to different conclusions.

These issues are complex societal issues and so everyone in society deserves a say.

The 'its my body and I'll do what I like with it' stance strikes me as very close to 'you'll pry my gun from my cold dead hands'.
 
I can see where Siggie is coming from, in many ways. Women have had men telling them how to treat their bodies for centuries, so it is a backlash to this.

I am sure she realises that men would have a say, but in order to achieve equality, sometimes you swing too far the other way initially.

Irish women, in particular, have spoken. Let's now forget this notion that people are against abortion.
 
"The people have spoken" and that's fine. I believe in democracy. However, the next politician I hear using the word "compassion" or the term "we have matured as a nation" will ensure that his or her party will not have my vote at the next General Election!
Frankly, I resent the implication that "compassion" and "maturity" are the sole preserves of those who voted "yes".
I voted "no" not because I think we should have the clause in question in our Constitution (I voted against it in 1983) but because the proposed legislation was too liberal for my taste. In a way, neither choice was my preference.
I know there are hard cases (rape, incest, health of the woman, viability of the unborn) which the 8th amendment did not allow for, at least initially, and still does not recognise properly as yet, and they ought to be legislated for.
 
HeathfieldRoad1874 said:
Would it help if I told you that the rates of abortion won't change much, BBJ? The rate of mother's dying through illegal abortions will plummet, though, so in essence, this is saving lives.
Click to expand...

I'd like to think you're right, Heath.
And abortion canl never be eradicated (nor should it be for those hard cases) and that was one of the huge flaws in the 1983 Constitutional Amendment.
Incdentally, Irish women seeking abortions have been going to the UK for years so I'm not sure if the "back street"providers in these parts have had much business recently.
Sadly, I think they will go up if the experience of other countries (including the UK) is anything to go by. Even David Steel, the author of the 1967 Act, felt as long ago as 2007 that there were too many abortions.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/oct/24/politics.topstories3
 
BBJ said:
I'd like to think you're right, Heath.
And abortion canl never be eradicated (nor should it be for those hard cases) and that was one of the huge flaws in the 1983 Constitutional Amendment.
Incdentally, Irish women seeking abortions have been going to the UK for years so I'm not sure if the "back street"providers in these parts have had much business recently.
Sadly, I think they will go up if the experience of other countries (including the UK) is anything to go by. Even David Steel, the author of the 1967 Act, felt as long ago as 2007 that there were too many abortions.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/oct/24/politics.topstories3
Click to expand...

The Lancet did a big study, and they found that rates of abortion were about the same in Countries with and without legal abortion. That suggests there won't suddenly be a mad rush. After all, it's a last resort, not to be entered into lightly.
 
BBJ said:
I'd like to think you're right, Heath.
And abortion canl never be eradicated (nor should it be for those hard cases) and that was one of the huge flaws in the 1983 Constitutional Amendment.
Incdentally, Irish women seeking abortions have been going to the UK for years so I'm not sure if the "back street"providers in these parts have had much business recently.
Sadly, I think they will go up if the experience of other countries (including the UK) is anything to go by. Even David Steel, the author of the 1967 Act, felt as long ago as 2007 that there were too many abortions.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/oct/24/politics.topstories3
Click to expand...


I'm with BBJ here. I am neither for or against abortion. I used to be very pro life when I was much younger though could understand in certain cases why women made those choices. That view has mellowed over the years.

However your thinking is along mine, BBJ. That there is certain cases as you state that abortion should be allowed. It seems yet again that the principle of this debate and vote is right, however the semantics of it are ill thought out. Abortion should not be used as a contraception, as some women do, having quite a few abortions for that reason.

As I have got older, I have mellowed more. You will also be surprised to know that some of the mellowing came through a training course I went on through my church. I trained with a Christian outreach called REFLECT which is for crisis pregnancy including this. I trained as an advisory and support role.

Here's the link for those of you interested: https://reflectyork.co.uk/
The link is to our local service here in York.

it was through this I was able to take a more open compassionate (sorry BBJ for the use of that word) view, whilst having my own personal choices. I was able to learn to look at the wider picture, detach with love and remain neutral.

I finished the training however didn't continue into the advisory side, as I felt that the training had been given to me for another reason which was the growing realisation through the course that my youngest son was the result of crisis pregnancy. The course helped some of my own healing. I have continued to use my learning from this in other areas. Just not in this area.
 
There was a lot of nonsense spouted from the NO campaigners, that if abortion became readily available, women would be having them for any old reason.

Even one lunatic from the Irish Nationalist Party said women will be having them before they go on holiday so it doesn't ruin their trip or something to that effect. He also said that doctors that perform the abortion should be given the death penalty. So yeah, pro-life.

One of the huge factors for getting this law repealed was the case of Savita Halappanavar, who died 6 years ago after being denied an abortion in Ireland. What kind of society allows that to happen?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/27/ireland-abortion-law-named-after-savita-halappanavar

No one takes abortion lightly. There won't be a huge spike in abortions. The difference now is that Irish women can get the care they need in a crisis pregnancy, and don't have to travel to the UK for terminations which was going to keep on happening even if it had been a NO vote.
 
The thing for me is no woman sets out in life wanting an abortion and allowing for a margin of error 99.9% are making a choice they wish they'd never have to make.

In Ireland the irrefutable fact that some of died due the law in place is proof that the state has failed its citizens and no matter where you stand the state has failed if its citizen leave the country or take things without supervision.

Some people will get an abortion for reasons you don't agree with and they'll find a way no matter what you think so for me a persons opinion on the subject is irrelevant.

IMO people will overwhelming get an abortion for the right reasons.

Re: the Campaign - I was out of Ireland for all of it and I followed very little, I'll admit I only seen 'yes' propaganda (I am 28 so it's what I am going to see on FB) however I was on the yes side regardless. What I will say is that the no side seemed to have very little empathy and one Ronan Mullen articulated it perfectly with his denial of mental health. Not every no person would deny basic medical thought but thats the type of people you stand with.
 
I can't believe it is even still a debate in the so called modern world or that men think they have the right to stop women doing what they want with their bodies.

I would rather a women aborted than brought an unwanted child into the world, life is difficult enough.

I wouldn't give men the vote on this personally. I also find the controlling hand of some religions ridiculous, mainly because, again, it's a constraint used by men to control women.
 
The Fear said:
I can't believe it is even still a debate in the so called modern world or that men think they have the right to stop women doing what they want with their bodies.

I would rather a women aborted than brought an unwanted child into the world, life is difficult enough.

I wouldn't give men the vote on this personally. I also find the controlling hand of some religions ridiculous, mainly because, again, it's a constraint used by men to control women.
Click to expand...

I'd argue that it's a societal issue and should be decided upon by society at large.

Just like the gun control debate in the US, it's a difficult issue with valid arguments on both sides. Still, you wouldn't want only gun owners to have a vote in the referendum.
 
Totally different in my humble. This is forcing a women to do something with their body that they don't want to do. That's before you get to the extremist religious views (the views of the idiots like Jacob William Rees-Mogg) who don't think abortion should be allowed in any circumstances.

How dare a man tell a women carrying a badly disabled child who will only come into the world to suffer, or a women pregnant due to rape, that they can't abort?

I know there are sad cases where the man wants the child and the women doesn't. I remember JuanMourep talking about such circumstance, it must be awful. BUT it is still the women's body.
 
The Fear said:
Totally different in my humble. This is forcing a women to do something with their body that they don't want to do. That's before you get to the extremist religious views (the views of the idiots like Jacob William Rees-Mogg) who don't think abortion should be allowed in any circumstances.

How dare a man tell a women carrying a badly disabled child who will only come into the world to suffer, or a women pregnant due to rape, that they can't abort?

I know there are sad cases where the man wants the child and the women doesn't. I remember JuanMourep talking about such circumstance, it must be awful. BUT it is still the women's body.
Click to expand...

I agree with you but I don't think it's 'a man' telling 'a woman' what to do with her body.

We, as a society, set the laws and everyone is obliged to abide by them. Just like the laws on drugs, I don't agree with a great many of them but it's up to us as a society to define them, not just those taking drugs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.