The Abortion debate – is legislation or culture more important?

Brenny

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 8, 2008
Messages
1,193
I’m adopted (I was a very inconvenient conception) and I voted Yes whilst holding my nose whilst my adopted sister and biological sister (both of them also inconvenient conceptions) voted No.

Now I deplore the notion that an inconvenient pregnancy – as oppose to a pregnancy that is not viable or which threatens the life of the mother – should be dealt with by taking a pill which will induce a miscarriage that will lead to a large amount bleeding and will possible cause the foetus to pass through the women so that she delivers it in a semi-recognisable form and I’m not too gone on stabbing an inconvenient foetus in the heart either.

So why did I vote Yes? Ultimately what I would like to see is less abortions being carried out on Irish women and I think we can achieve this by having more liberal legislation and better education. The Yes campaigners have been brilliant at making abortion sexy. God knows how they did this but every hip young thing out there is visibly in favour of the right to induce a miscarriage whereas half the people on No side smell of turf. Just check out this list of celebrities on the Yes side - Amy Huberman and Brian O’Driscoll, Chris O’Dowd, U2, Cillian Murphy, Hozier, Saoirse Ronan, Liam Cunningham, Cillian Murphy, Aisling Bea and Emmet Kirwan. Yeah, I know, you probably reached for the avocado on toast after reading that list but that list of celebrities sure beats the ones on the No side - Jim Corr (sweet Jesus), John Connors (sweet babie Jesus and all the saints in heaven boss), Mary from Crystal Swing (WTF), Michael Healy-Rae (turf), Dana (holy turf) and Mickey Harte (more fúcking turf). Seriously, if I was a young artist or writer out there today there’d be no better way to make yourself visible in the public sphere than by promoting the Yes campaign.

Well the Yes side won but what now, and I’m not talking about the legislation? Forget about the fatal foetal abnormalities, ectopic pregnancies and instances where the woman’s life is genuinely threatened. Those women will have to have an abortion but the number of them will be insignificant in comparison to the women with the healthy but inconvenient pregnancies; what happens with them?

We need to debate these situations. Talk more about adoption, about the positive adoption stories rather than the stuff from the dark ages when the nuns were running the baby factories. The vast majority of adoptions from the late 1960s onwards involved very young babies being brought up by families who loved them and they grew up no differently than anyone else. We need to tell the Legion of Mary crowd to fúck off and tell anyone with a flatcap to go bother some livestock. We need to hear more from philosophers and people like this guy
[video=youtube;Apt4iR6axnY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Apt4iR6axnY[/video]

The campaign to protect life-forms in the womb needs get an image make-over. We need to get young people thinking, we need to get young women thinking.

We need to embrace scientific progress in this regard, it is possible for doctors to sustain the life of a fetus at a very early stage now which further complicates the notion of a fetus simply being a 'potential for life.' What will happen when science makes it possible to sustain the life of a 12 week old fetus that the woman regarded as inconvenient?
 


talkingshop

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
26,677
I’m adopted (I was a very inconvenient conception) and I voted Yes whilst holding my nose whilst my adopted sister and biological sister (both of them also inconvenient conceptions) voted No.

Now I deplore the notion that an inconvenient pregnancy – as oppose to a pregnancy that is not viable or which threatens the life of the mother – should be dealt with by taking a pill which will induce a miscarriage that will lead to a large amount bleeding and will possible cause the foetus to pass through the women so that she delivers it in a semi-recognisable form and I’m not too gone on stabbing an inconvenient foetus in the heart either.

So why did I vote Yes? Ultimately what I would like to see is less abortions being carried out on Irish women and I think we can achieve this by having more liberal legislation and better education. The Yes campaigners have been brilliant at making abortion sexy. God knows how they did this but every hip young thing out there is visibly in favour of the right to induce a miscarriage whereas half the people on No side smell of turf. Just check out this list of celebrities on the Yes side - Amy Huberman and Brian O’Driscoll, Chris O’Dowd, U2, Cillian Murphy, Hozier, Saoirse Ronan, Liam Cunningham, Cillian Murphy, Aisling Bea and Emmet Kirwan. Yeah, I know, you probably reached for the avocado on toast after reading that list but that list of celebrities sure beats the ones on the No side - Jim Corr (sweet Jesus), John Connors (sweet babie Jesus and all the saints in heaven boss), Mary from Crystal Swing (WTF), Michael Healy-Rae (turf), Dana (holy turf) and Mickey Harte (more fúcking turf). Seriously, if I was a young artist or writer out there today there’d be no better way to make yourself visible in the public sphere than by promoting the Yes campaign.

Well the Yes side won but what now, and I’m not talking about the legislation? Forget about the fatal foetal abnormalities, ectopic pregnancies and instances where the woman’s life is genuinely threatened. Those women will have to have an abortion but the number of them will be insignificant in comparison to the women with the healthy but inconvenient pregnancies; what happens with them?

We need to debate these situations. Talk more about adoption, about the positive adoption stories rather than the stuff from the dark ages when the nuns were running the baby factories. The vast majority of adoptions from the late 1960s onwards involved very young babies being brought up by families who loved them and they grew up no differently than anyone else. We need to tell the Legion of Mary crowd to fúck off and tell anyone with a flatcap to go bother some livestock. We need to hear more from philosophers and people like this guy
[video=youtube;Apt4iR6axnY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Apt4iR6axnY[/video]

The campaign to protect life-forms in the womb needs get an image make-over. We need to get young people thinking, we need to get young women thinking.

We need to embrace scientific progress in this regard, it is possible for doctors to sustain the life of a fetus at a very early stage now which further complicates the notion of a fetus simply being a 'potential for life.' What will happen when science makes it possible to sustain the life of a 12 week old fetus that the woman regarded as inconvenient?
Somehow I think that any attempt to address the issue of abortion, or reduce the number of abortions, will be criticised as trying to "shame" women who have had and will continue to have abortions, and would be deeply frowned on...
 

William_O'Harris

Active member
Joined
Apr 25, 2017
Messages
143
I’m adopted (I was a very inconvenient conception) and I voted Yes whilst holding my nose whilst my adopted sister and biological sister (both of them also inconvenient conceptions) voted No.

Now I deplore the notion that an inconvenient pregnancy – as oppose to a pregnancy that is not viable or which threatens the life of the mother – should be dealt with by taking a pill which will induce a miscarriage that will lead to a large amount bleeding and will possible cause the foetus to pass through the women so that she delivers it in a semi-recognisable form and I’m not too gone on stabbing an inconvenient foetus in the heart either.

So why did I vote Yes? Ultimately what I would like to see is less abortions being carried out on Irish women and I think we can achieve this by having more liberal legislation and better education. The Yes campaigners have been brilliant at making abortion sexy. God knows how they did this but every hip young thing out there is visibly in favour of the right to induce a miscarriage whereas half the people on No side smell of turf. Just check out this list of celebrities on the Yes side - Amy Huberman and Brian O’Driscoll, Chris O’Dowd, U2, Cillian Murphy, Hozier, Saoirse Ronan, Liam Cunningham, Cillian Murphy, Aisling Bea and Emmet Kirwan. Yeah, I know, you probably reached for the avocado on toast after reading that list but that list of celebrities sure beats the ones on the No side - Jim Corr (sweet Jesus), John Connors (sweet babie Jesus and all the saints in heaven boss), Mary from Crystal Swing (WTF), Michael Healy-Rae (turf), Dana (holy turf) and Mickey Harte (more fúcking turf). Seriously, if I was a young artist or writer out there today there’d be no better way to make yourself visible in the public sphere than by promoting the Yes campaign.

Well the Yes side won but what now, and I’m not talking about the legislation? Forget about the fatal foetal abnormalities, ectopic pregnancies and instances where the woman’s life is genuinely threatened. Those women will have to have an abortion but the number of them will be insignificant in comparison to the women with the healthy but inconvenient pregnancies; what happens with them?

We need to debate these situations. Talk more about adoption, about the positive adoption stories rather than the stuff from the dark ages when the nuns were running the baby factories. The vast majority of adoptions from the late 1960s onwards involved very young babies being brought up by families who loved them and they grew up no differently than anyone else. We need to tell the Legion of Mary crowd to fúck off and tell anyone with a flatcap to go bother some livestock. We need to hear more from philosophers and people like this guy
[video=youtube;Apt4iR6axnY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Apt4iR6axnY[/video]

The campaign to protect life-forms in the womb needs get an image make-over. We need to get young people thinking, we need to get young women thinking.

We need to embrace scientific progress in this regard, it is possible for doctors to sustain the life of a fetus at a very early stage now which further complicates the notion of a fetus simply being a 'potential for life.' What will happen when science makes it possible to sustain the life of a 12 week old fetus that the woman regarded as inconvenient?
Let's give George Lazou free reign to support the Labour Party and research whatever he likes at Imperial College.
 

nicenin

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Messages
1,462
Culturally what you're going to have now is a significant block of persons who wholly disengage from and do not co-operate with the New Official Ireland on any level and in whatever form.

Our bodies may be here but it is no longer our home.
 

It Was

Well-known member
Joined
May 6, 2013
Messages
1,031
I’m adopted (I was a very inconvenient conception) and I voted Yes whilst holding my nose whilst my adopted sister and biological sister (both of them also inconvenient conceptions) voted No.

Now I deplore the notion that an inconvenient pregnancy – as oppose to a pregnancy that is not viable or which threatens the life of the mother – should be dealt with by taking a pill which will induce a miscarriage that will lead to a large amount bleeding and will possible cause the foetus to pass through the women so that she delivers it in a semi-recognisable form and I’m not too gone on stabbing an inconvenient foetus in the heart either.

So why did I vote Yes? Ultimately what I would like to see is less abortions being carried out on Irish women and I think we can achieve this by having more liberal legislation and better education. The Yes campaigners have been brilliant at making abortion sexy. God knows how they did this but every hip young thing out there is visibly in favour of the right to induce a miscarriage whereas half the people on No side smell of turf. Just check out this list of celebrities on the Yes side - Amy Huberman and Brian O’Driscoll, Chris O’Dowd, U2, Cillian Murphy, Hozier, Saoirse Ronan, Liam Cunningham, Cillian Murphy, Aisling Bea and Emmet Kirwan. Yeah, I know, you probably reached for the avocado on toast after reading that list but that list of celebrities sure beats the ones on the No side - Jim Corr (sweet Jesus), John Connors (sweet babie Jesus and all the saints in heaven boss), Mary from Crystal Swing (WTF), Michael Healy-Rae (turf), Dana (holy turf) and Mickey Harte (more fúcking turf). Seriously, if I was a young artist or writer out there today there’d be no better way to make yourself visible in the public sphere than by promoting the Yes campaign.

Well the Yes side won but what now, and I’m not talking about the legislation? Forget about the fatal foetal abnormalities, ectopic pregnancies and instances where the woman’s life is genuinely threatened. Those women will have to have an abortion but the number of them will be insignificant in comparison to the women with the healthy but inconvenient pregnancies; what happens with them?

We need to debate these situations. Talk more about adoption, about the positive adoption stories rather than the stuff from the dark ages when the nuns were running the baby factories. The vast majority of adoptions from the late 1960s onwards involved very young babies being brought up by families who loved them and they grew up no differently than anyone else. We need to tell the Legion of Mary crowd to fúck off and tell anyone with a flatcap to go bother some livestock. We need to hear more from philosophers and people like this guy
[video=youtube;Apt4iR6axnY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Apt4iR6axnY[/video]

The campaign to protect life-forms in the womb needs get an image make-over. We need to get young people thinking, we need to get young women thinking.

We need to embrace scientific progress in this regard, it is possible for doctors to sustain the life of a fetus at a very early stage now which further complicates the notion of a fetus simply being a 'potential for life.' What will happen when science makes it possible to sustain the life of a 12 week old fetus that the woman regarded as inconvenient?
As a fetus has no rights, the answer is anything you want. I guess if somebody does decide to support it's development up to viability no-one will know it wasn't really born and everyone will just assume it has the same rights as anyone else.
 

Mitsui2

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 13, 2009
Messages
32,380
Culturally what you're going to have now is a significant block of persons who wholly disengage from and do not co-operate with the New Official Ireland on any level and in whatever form.

Our bodies may be here but it is no longer our home.
The way the 8th amendment made a lot of Irishwomen feel, you mean?
 

Edo

Well-known member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
3,040
Culturally what you're going to have now is a significant block of persons who wholly disengage from and do not co-operate with the New Official Ireland on any level and in whatever form.

Our bodies may be here but it is no longer our home.
so the way most of the rest of us felt for the last 80 years of the theocracy.................shoe is on the other foot now isn't?

The irony, of course, is that there is nothing to stop you living the most conservative and reactionary life you want -nothing at all - you are free to be as nuts as you want ........... the difference is you can't shove it down other peoples throats and dictate their morals and lives - which is what you are going to miss most of all me thinks.........
 

recedite

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2010
Messages
1,583
I’m adopted (I was a very inconvenient conception) and I voted Yes whilst holding my nose
So you got carried away with the "feel good factor". Wannabe with the cool celebs, not on the side of the ones with the turfy aroma.
I'm sure there were a great many out there just like you.
Its a bit late now to be posting Christopher Hitchins videos about the rights to life of the unborn.
 

Finbar10

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 3, 2008
Messages
2,494
Some nice sentiments in the OP, which would echo the views of a lot of people, but IMO also naive. Words like "stable door open" and "horse bolted" come to mind. A NO vote would probably have resulted in a more constrained proposal within 18 months. As it is, in the short-term, TDs will "get behind the will of the people" (quoting M. Martin today regarding even FF TDs) and pass a fleshed-out essentially unchanged version of Simon Harris' Heads of Bill (probably fairly quickly too). TDs will be happy to largely ignore the issue after that. In 5 to 10 years, when abortion has become a bit more normalized and accepted within Irish culture, the legislation will be revisited again and probably loosened a bit more.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top