Ireland ends abortion ban as 'quiet revolution' transforms country

[rooster59]

Ireland ends abortion ban as 'quiet revolution' transforms country

By Padraic Halpin and Conor Humphries

 

Women celebrate the result of yesterday's referendum on liberalizing abortion law, in Dublin, Ireland, May 26, 2018. REUTERS/Clodagh Kilcoyne

 

DUBLIN (Reuters) - Ireland's prime minister on Saturday hailed the culmination of "a quiet revolution" in what was once one of Europe's most socially conservative countries after a landslide referendum vote to liberalise highly restrictive laws on abortion.

 

Voters in the once deeply Catholic nation backed the change by two-to-one, a far higher margin than any opinion poll in the run up to the vote had predicted, and allows the government to bring in legislation by the end of the year.

 

"It's incredible. For all the years and years and years we've been trying to look after women and not been able to look after women, this means everything," said Mary Higgins, obstetrician and Together For Yes campaigner.

 

For decades, the law forced over 3,000 women to travel to Britain each year for terminations and "Yes" campaigners argued that with others now ordering pills illegally online, abortion was already a reality in Ireland.

 

The campaign was defined by women publicly sharing their painful experiences of leaving the country for procedures, a key reason why all but one of Ireland's 40 constituencies voted "Yes".

 

Prime Minister Leo Varadkar, who campaigned to repeal the laws, had called the vote a once-in-a-generation chance and voters responded by turning out in droves. A turnout of 64 percent was one of the highest for a referendum.

 

"Today is an historic day for Ireland. A quiet revolution has taken place," Varadkar, who became Ireland's first openly gay prime minister last year, said in a speech after the vote.

 

"Everyone deserves a second chance. This is Ireland's second chance to treat everyone equally and with compassion and respect. We have voted to look reality in the eye and we did not blink."

 

The outcome is a new milestone on a path of change for a country which only legalised divorce by a razor thin majority in 1995 before becoming the first in the world to adopt gay marriage by popular vote three years ago.

 

The once-mighty Catholic Church took a back seat throughout the campaign.

 

Abortion policies worldwide: https://tmsnrt.rs/2Lu7DM7

 

ASTONISHING MARGIN

 

Anti-abortion activists conceded defeat early on Saturday as their opponents expressed astonishment at the scale of their victory.

 

Lawmakers who campaigned for a "No" vote said they would not seek to block the government's plans to allow abortions with no restriction up to 12 weeks into a pregnancy.

 

"What Irish voters did yesterday is a tragedy of historic proportions," the Save The 8th group said. "However, a wrong does not become a right simply because a majority support it."

 

Voters were asked to scrap the constitutional amendment, which gives an unborn child and its mother equal rights to life. The consequent prohibition on abortion was partly lifted in 2013 for cases where the mother's life was in danger.

 

The country's largest newspaper, the Irish Independent, described the result as "a massive moment in Ireland's social history".

 

Campaigners for change, wearing "Repeal" jumpers and "Yes" badges, gathered at count centres, many in tears and hugging each other. Others sang songs in the sunshine outside the main Dublin results centre as they awaited the official result.

 

The large crowd cheered Varadkar as he took to the stage to thank them for "trusting women and respecting their choices".

 

Reform in Ireland also raised the prospect that women in Northern Ireland, where abortion is still illegal, may start travelling south of the border.

 

"The outcome of the referendum is an extremely worrying development for the protection of the unborn child in Northern Ireland," said Jim Wells, a member of Northern Ireland's socially conservative Democratic Unionist Party.

 

MIDDLE GROUND

 

No social issue had divided Ireland's 4.8 million people as sharply as abortion, which was pushed up the political agenda by the death in 2012 of a 31-year-old Indian immigrant from a septic miscarriage after she was refused a termination.

 

Campaigners left flowers and candles at a large mural of the woman, Savita Halappanavar, in central Dublin. Her parents in India were quoted by the Irish Times newspaper as thanking their "brothers and sisters" in Ireland and requesting the new law be called "Savita's law".

 

Deputy Prime Minister Simon Coveney said he believed a middle ground of around 40 percent of voters had decided en masse to allow women and doctors rather than lawmakers and lawyers to decide whether a termination was justified.

 

"For him, it's a different Ireland that we're moving onto," said Colm O'Riain, a 44-year-old teacher referring to his son Ruarai, born 14 weeks premature in November who was in his arms.

 

"It's an Ireland that is more tolerant, more inclusive and where he can be whatever he wants without fear of recrimination."

 

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-05-27

[canuckamuck]

The unborn babies were not as exuberant about the result.

[Samui Bodoh]

31 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

The unborn babies were not as exuberant about the result.

Try as I might, I am unable to refute this comment.

 

However, I think the comment above actually misses the point. I don't particularly like abortions, but I do feel that women themselves have to be the ones who decide whether to have one or not, not society as a whole. And it is this which I think is the issue; do women have the right to control their bodies? It is an easy question; yes, they do. 

 

This is an issue with all sorts of moral, religious, ethical and legal quandaries and quagmires, but is quite simple in the end.

 

I trust that women will do the right thing for themselves and their potential unborn child.

 

Period.

 

Edited May 27, 2018 by Samui Bodoh
Lack of coffee

[ChiangMaiLightning2143]

I don't like the idea of abortion but bans don't work, and anyone with a bit of money to travel can get it done in another country. 15-20 years after abortion was legalized crime went down dramatically in the US.   Instead people should have to prove they have a reasonable life plan can and afford to raise their kids.  Not too happy about social policies that encourage irresponsible breedings and the welfare state/big government paid for by my taxes.

[bristolboy]

8 minutes ago, ChiangMaiLightning2143 said:

I don't like the idea of abortion but bans don't work, and anyone with a bit of money to travel can get it done in another country. 15-20 years after abortion was legalized crime went down dramatically in the US.   Instead people should have to prove they have a reasonable life plan can and afford to raise their kids.  Not too happy about social policies that encourage irresponsible breedings and the welfare state/big government paid for by my taxes.

No worries. As I see it, anti-abortiionists, being mostly politically conservative, are only worried about the unborn until they are born. Once that happens, the babies can starve to death for all they care.

[Expatthailover]

Just shows how massively trump is out of synch with ordinary voters and in the pocket of god botherers and other assorted out of touch right wing loonies.

Ireland, still one of catholic church's  bastions of true believers absolutely flogged the old fogies who want3d to remove a fundamental right to women.

Great great result.

Nothing fake about it. 

[Expatthailover]

26 minutes ago, ChiangMaiLightning2143 said:

I don't like the idea of abortion but bans don't work, and anyone with a bit of money to travel can get it done in another country. 15-20 years after abortion was legalized crime went down dramatically in the US.   Instead people should have to prove they have a reasonable life plan can and afford to raise their kids.  Not too happy about social policies that encourage irresponsible breedings and the welfare state/big government paid for by my taxes.

The majority of women needing abortions dont 'have a bit of money ' though.

They end up having a cheap option in a country where there are no comebacks.

Breast augmentation is cheap in thailand compared with uk or usa. 

If a western woman has it done and it goes wrong she has buckleys of getting any compensation.

[canuckamuck]

51 minutes ago, Samui Bodoh said:

Try as I might, I am unable to refute this comment.

 

However, I think the comment above actually misses the point. I don't particularly like abortions, but I do feel that women themselves have to be the ones who decide whether to have one or not, not society as a whole. And it is this which I think is the issue; do women have the right to control their bodies? It is an easy question; yes, they do. 

 

This is an issue with all sorts of moral, religious, ethical and legal quandaries and quagmires, but is quite simple in the end.

 

I trust that women will do the right thing for themselves and their potential unborn child.

 

Period.

 

We all have the right to control our bodies, but also the responsibility to control our bodies. I can't use my body to kill yours. This is not about women's rights to control their body. It is about the definition of life and the rights of unborn people. People stuck inside of other people.

If you kill a pregnant women and her fetus, the world (and sometimes the law) considers that a double murder. If the women kills her own, meh, no big deal.

Edited May 27, 2018 by canuckamuck

[Samui Bodoh]

5 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

We all have the right to control our bodies, but also the responsibility to control our bodies. I can't use my body to kill yours. This is not about women's rights to control their body. It is about the definition of life and the rights of unborn people. People stuck inside of other people.

If you kill a pregnant women and her fetus the world (and sometimes the law) considers that a double murder. If the women kills her own, meh, no big deal.

As I noted above, I am quite sympathetic to... what I will call 'Right to life' people. Hmm... is there a better term? That is a serious question.

 

However, you posit that a fetus has all the rights of a person outside the womb; I disagree. I would say that the fetus becomes a person, and thus gains all the rights and responsibilities that entails, after they are born. Until then, I see it as merely an extension of the woman.

 

We'll have to agree to disagree.

 

Enjoy your Sunday!

[canuckamuck]

8 minutes ago, Samui Bodoh said:

As I noted above, I am quite sympathetic to... what I will call 'Right to life' people. Hmm... is there a better term? That is a serious question.

 

However, you posit that a fetus has all the rights of a person outside the womb; I disagree. I would say that the fetus becomes a person, and thus gains all the rights and responsibilities that entails, after they are born. Until then, I see it as merely an extension of the woman.

 

We'll have to agree to disagree.

 

Enjoy your Sunday!

Not all of the rights, but some of the basic ones.

And yes I sympathize with the dilemma as well. Enjoy your Sunday too.

[DM07]

3 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

The unborn babies were not as exuberant about the result.

Since unborn babies don't have the capacity to build or have or express an opinion because in the context of an abortion- discussion, they would scientifically not even qualify as "babies" but rather "lumps of cells" or "zygotes",  I don't think they matter!

[Andaman Al]

2 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

We all have the right to control our bodies, but also the responsibility to control our bodies. I can't use my body to kill yours. This is not about women's rights to control their body. It is about the definition of life and the rights of unborn people. People stuck inside of other people.

If you kill a pregnant women and her fetus, the world (and sometimes the law) considers that a double murder. If the women kills her own, meh, no big deal.

Then perhaps Men should display and hold equal responsibility by making sure they stop "planting" said babies in women who either don't want them or are two young to have them. It always seems to be the woman's fault, no mention of the man who no doubt was saying "it's alright I won't come, I'll just put it in a bit and won't move it...I promise."  ?.

 

If, as in the USA you want to hold women accountable and send them to prison if they have an abortion then cool, but sentence the man who planted it to the same sentence..........whether they pay hush money or not! (What will happen when it is disclosed about the DJT hushed up abortion?....no doubt all the T supporters and evangelicals will be saying.. forgive and forget). If prior to each sexual encounter a man and women were required to sign a document saying they agree to a life time commitment to any possible offspring that may result out of the next 4 mins of pleasure, I am sure rates of sexual intercourse would drop dramatically (and I would have had full sex only 4 times in my life)

 

A great step for Ireland and at last a ripping away from the abuses of the Catholic Church that have plagued the nation for 1500 years. The people have spoken, I am sure they are elated.

[dick dasterdly]

50 minutes ago, Andaman Al said:

Then perhaps Men should display and hold equal responsibility by making sure they stop "planting" said babies in women who either don't want them or are two young to have them. It always seems to be the woman's fault, no mention of the man who no doubt was saying "it's alright I won't come, I'll just put it in a bit and won't move it...I promise."  ?.

 

If, as in the USA you want to hold women accountable and send them to prison if they have an abortion then cool, but sentence the man who planted it to the same sentence..........whether they pay hush money or not! (What will happen when it is disclosed about the DJT hushed up abortion?....no doubt all the T supporters and evangelicals will be saying.. forgive and forget). If prior to each sexual encounter a man and women were required to sign a document saying they agree to a life time commitment to any possible offspring that may result out of the next 4 mins of pleasure, I am sure rates of sexual intercourse would drop dramatically (and I would have had full sex only 4 times in my life)

 

A great step for Ireland and at last a ripping away from the abuses of the Catholic Church that have plagued the nation for 1500 years. The people have spoken, I am sure they are elated.

"A great step for Ireland and at last a ripping away from the abuses of the Catholic Church that have plagued the nation for 1500 years. The people have spoken, I am sure they are elated."

 

Couldn't agree more.  It's wonderful to see that the Irish people are again taking into account real-life experience, over religious dogma ?.

[Guest]

I salute Ireland for moving to 20th century. 

[canuckamuck]

2 hours ago, DM07 said:

Since unborn babies don't have the capacity to build or have or express an opinion because in the context of an abortion- discussion, they would scientifically not even qualify as "babies" but rather "lumps of cells" or "zygotes",  I don't think they matter!

They matter quite a lot to most women, wanted or unwanted. Hard to imagine something that matters more.

[puck2]

6 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

The unborn babies were not as exuberant about the result.

......., especially when they have been "made by rape".

 

It seems you have forgotten that abortion was forbidden by law, in Ireland!

[Skeptic7]

7 hours ago, bristolboy said:

No worries. As I see it, anti-abortiionists, being mostly politically conservative, are only worried about the unborn until they are born. Once that happens, the babies can starve to death for all they care.

Spot on! These so-called "pro-life" religious hypocrites are pro-fetus ONLY and care not a squirt of piss about the unwanted unfortunates once born. 

 

HOORAY for Ireland! Long overdue. 

[Basil B]

My reasoning for supporting legal abortion is in the early 50s my mum was a nurse on a gyne ward, late afternoon the ward would fill up with emergency admissions the result of back street abortions, in those days there was no option to go to another country, it was back street knitting needle job, many of the emergency admissions never made it through the night but the women knew the risk but were so desperate.

[Dumbastheycome]

Despite objections and  moralizations it  will at least  help to  eliminate  at  very  least  the abuses of  the  preceding  unrealistic legal situation.

 

[geriatrickid]

Big whoop, an abortion under specified restrictive conditions will no longer be "illegal".

What do people think will change in practice? A change in the law doesn't mean that there will be access to the procedure. One doesn't know what the new law will say. People will just not open up an abortion clinic with a big sign that says come on over for a date with a hoover.  The procedure will need to be done in approved facilities such as a clinic or a hospital. Those facilities do not yet exist.

 

There are ways that opponents can interfere with the access to healthcare. One need only look at what some US states have done. Even in Canada  and Australia where abortion is legal, women outside of a big city cannot easily access the procedure. Some will say, now they can access the pills. Again, big deal. Yes, it helps some, but if a pharmacy doesn't stock the  drug, the women are out of luck. The pills are controlled OTC meaning one has to ask the pharmacist or public healthcare provider. If the person in need  comes up against someone opposed the procedure, it will be an unpleasant event.

 

My point is that the real fight starts now. It will be more difficult than the referendum because access to the procedure and medications will need to be guaranteed. Hopefully, the movement spreads to Northern ireland because abortion is absolutely forbidden there,. I also see that the only Irish district to have voted No was Donegal, the county  between NI and the ocean and the county that was infamous for its IRA safe havens. I won't be surprised if we see violence against abortion service providers as has occurred in North America.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, geriatrickid said:

Big whoop, an abortion under specified restrictive conditions will no longer be "illegal".

What do people think will change in practice? A change in the law doesn't mean that there will be access to the procedure. One doesn't know what the new law will say. People will just not open up an abortion clinic with a big sign that says come on over for a date with a hoover.  The procedure will need to be done in approved facilities such as a clinic or a hospital. Those facilities do not yet exist.

Doesn't Ireland have functional public healthtcare, like other European countries?

 

Women can simply walk to health centre or hospital. They tell the gynecologist  that they wish to get an abortion. The doctor talks with the patient for an while and makes sure she wants the abortion.

 

After that, she is sent to operation room or given abortion pills to go.

 

I don't see any reason to setup separate abortion clinics for a simple task like abortion.

 

[geriatrickid]

8 hours ago, oilinki said:

Doesn't Ireland have functional public healthtcare, like other European countries?

 

Women can simply walk to health centre or hospital. They tell the gynecologist  that they wish to get an abortion. The doctor talks with the patient for an while and makes sure she wants the abortion.

 

After that, she is sent to operation room or given abortion pills to go.

 

I don't see any reason to setup separate abortion clinics for a simple task like abortion.

 

Unfortunately, that is not how it works. Not in the Uk, not in Australia, not in Canada and  highly unlikely it will be that way in Ireland. The barriers and obstacles to women are many;

1. There must be a medical facility able and willing to perform the procedure.

The UK has one of the most liberal of laws, but even there, the women has to search to find a facility because only an approved facility is allowed to do the procedure;

Except as provided by subsection (4) of this section, any treatment for the termination of pregnancy must be carried out in a hospital vested in the Secretary of State for the purposes of his functions under the National Health Service Act 2006 or the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978 or in a hospital vested in a National Health Service trust] or an NHS foundation trust or in a place approved for the purposes of this section by the Secretary of State.

The facility has to apply to perform the procedure, and it is unlikely there will be many hospitals asking to do the procedure.

 

2. A physician is allowed to decline to perform a procedure based upon religious conviction. No physician can be compelled to perform an abortion. Not in France, not in the UK, not in Australia, not in Canada etc.  If you think physicians will be lined up for the job in Ireland you are mistaken.  In Canada, where there is abortion on demand, it is exceptionally difficult for a woman to obtain a mid to late term abortion because the physicians   able to do it are few and far between. Even in the established abortion clinics, there is a shortage of staff.  No one wakes up and says, wow I am excited to perform an abortion. No one, not even the doctors who do them now. Abortion procedures rank right up there with geriatric care and physical care of the  severely mentally disabled. There is an extreme shortage of trained and qualified staff.

 

3. You are of the belief that the  hormone pills intended to prevent the attachment of the fertilized egg to the uterus will be easily accessible.  If the experience elsewhere is anything to go by, the pills will be difficult to obtain unless there is a specific law that forces  pharmacies to carry the product and to make them readily available OTC. This is the big problem in some US states; women can't get the  pills. I doubt Ireland's religious zealots will behave any differently than their US  counterparts. 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

10 hours ago, geriatrickid said:

Big whoop, an abortion under specified restrictive conditions will no longer be "illegal".

What do people think will change in practice? A change in the law doesn't mean that there will be access to the procedure. One doesn't know what the new law will say. People will just not open up an abortion clinic with a big sign that says come on over for a date with a hoover.  The procedure will need to be done in approved facilities such as a clinic or a hospital. Those facilities do not yet exist.

 

There are ways that opponents can interfere with the access to healthcare. One need only look at what some US states have done. Even in Canada  and Australia where abortion is legal, women outside of a big city cannot easily access the procedure. Some will say, now they can access the pills. Again, big deal. Yes, it helps some, but if a pharmacy doesn't stock the  drug, the women are out of luck. The pills are controlled OTC meaning one has to ask the pharmacist or public healthcare provider. If the person in need  comes up against someone opposed the procedure, it will be an unpleasant event.

 

My point is that the real fight starts now. It will be more difficult than the referendum because access to the procedure and medications will need to be guaranteed. Hopefully, the movement spreads to Northern ireland because abortion is absolutely forbidden there,. I also see that the only Irish district to have voted No was Donegal, the county  between NI and the ocean and the county that was infamous for its IRA safe havens. I won't be surprised if we see violence against abortion service providers as has occurred in North America.

A lot of hanging your hopes on restricting women’s rights on blah blah ha.

 

The vote was a landslide victory for yes.

 

Make no mistake this has not been unnoticed by citizens and politicians. 

 

Also you forget, Ireland is in the EU and under jurisdiction of the EU court on matters of human rights.

 

You, the pope and all those who believe you have the right to deny women dominion over their own bodies can go bury your heads.

Edited May 28, 2018 by Chomper Higgot

[stevenl]

48 minutes ago, geriatrickid said:

Unfortunately, that is not how it works. Not in the Uk, not in Australia, not in Canada and  highly unlikely it will be that way in Ireland. The barriers and obstacles to women are many;

1. There must be a medical facility able and willing to perform the procedure.

The UK has one of the most liberal of laws, but even there, the women has to search to find a facility because only an approved facility is allowed to do the procedure;

Except as provided by subsection (4) of this section, any treatment for the termination of pregnancy must be carried out in a hospital vested in the Secretary of State for the purposes of his functions under the National Health Service Act 2006 or the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978 or in a hospital vested in a National Health Service trust] or an NHS foundation trust or in a place approved for the purposes of this section by the Secretary of State.

The facility has to apply to perform the procedure, and it is unlikely there will be many hospitals asking to do the procedure.

 

2. A physician is allowed to decline to perform a procedure based upon religious conviction. No physician can be compelled to perform an abortion. Not in France, not in the UK, not in Australia, not in Canada etc.  If you think physicians will be lined up for the job in Ireland you are mistaken.  In Canada, where there is abortion on demand, it is exceptionally difficult for a woman to obtain a mid to late term abortion because the physicians   able to do it are few and far between. Even in the established abortion clinics, there is a shortage of staff.  No one wakes up and says, wow I am excited to perform an abortion. No one, not even the doctors who do them now. Abortion procedures rank right up there with geriatric care and physical care of the  severely mentally disabled. There is an extreme shortage of trained and qualified staff.

 

3. You are of the belief that the  hormone pills intended to prevent the attachment of the fertilized egg to the uterus will be easily accessible.  If the experience elsewhere is anything to go by, the pills will be difficult to obtain unless there is a specific law that forces  pharmacies to carry the product and to make them readily available OTC. This is the big problem in some US states; women can't get the  pills. I doubt Ireland's religious zealots will behave any differently than their US  counterparts. 

 

You're making up problems that don't exist. And comparing it to individual US states is simply ludicrous.

[pedro01]

On 5/27/2018 at 8:54 AM, Samui Bodoh said:

As I noted above, I am quite sympathetic to... what I will call 'Right to life' people. Hmm... is there a better term? That is a serious question.

 

However, you posit that a fetus has all the rights of a person outside the womb; I disagree. I would say that the fetus becomes a person, and thus gains all the rights and responsibilities that entails, after they are born. Until then, I see it as merely an extension of the woman.

 

We'll have to agree to disagree.

 

Enjoy your Sunday!

 

This is a very shallow view of the argument. It implies an abortion at 8.5 months is OK. 

 

A full term pregnancy is 39/40 weeks. 

 

Almost 60% of kids born at 24 weeks now live. Kids are viable from about 23 weeks on.

 

The latest abortions are done at around 32 weeks - at that point, the method is to use forceps to grab the babies legs and pull it out with the exception of the head. An instrument is then stabbed into the babies head and spread to make a hole. A suction tube is then inserted to suck out the babies brain. The head is then crushed and the rest of the baby pulled out.

 

At 24 weeks, it's a bit easier, they pull the babies limbs off within the womb before crushing the skull. 

 

In a Hysterotomy, a C-Section is performed and a living baby is removed. They leave it to die or the abortionist kills it. They actually have a live child extracted that they then have to kill. Not saying the child would survive for long but if you consider the survival rate at 24 weeks, this is all quite horrific.

 

They also use poisoning - in 2nd & 3rd trimester which gives the child a brain hemorrhage and convulsions before it dies.

 

My view is that it's not so much about whether they be allowed but how late they be allowed. There's videos on line showing late abortions and it's pretty gruesome. 

[DM07]

22 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

They matter quite a lot to most women, wanted or unwanted. Hard to imagine something that matters more.

Okay: it doesn't matter, what they think and if they are exuberant!

Happy now?

[Chomper Higgot]

22 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

They matter quite a lot to most women, wanted or unwanted. Hard to imagine something that matters more.

All of a sudden a man arguing against women’s rights leans on statement on what matters to women.

 

Doh!

 

 

[canuckamuck]

30 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

All of a sudden a man arguing against women’s rights leans on statement on what matters to women.

 

Doh!

 

 

I am arguing for the rights of children, and babies are a big deal, especially to pregnant people.

[dick dasterdly]

1 hour ago, pedro01 said:

 

This is a very shallow view of the argument. It implies an abortion at 8.5 months is OK. 

 

A full term pregnancy is 39/40 weeks. 

 

Almost 60% of kids born at 24 weeks now live. Kids are viable from about 23 weeks on.

 

The latest abortions are done at around 32 weeks - at that point, the method is to use forceps to grab the babies legs and pull it out with the exception of the head. An instrument is then stabbed into the babies head and spread to make a hole. A suction tube is then inserted to suck out the babies brain. The head is then crushed and the rest of the baby pulled out.

 

At 24 weeks, it's a bit easier, they pull the babies limbs off within the womb before crushing the skull. 

 

In a Hysterotomy, a C-Section is performed and a living baby is removed. They leave it to die or the abortionist kills it. They actually have a live child extracted that they then have to kill. Not saying the child would survive for long but if you consider the survival rate at 24 weeks, this is all quite horrific.

 

They also use poisoning - in 2nd & 3rd trimester which gives the child a brain hemorrhage and convulsions before it dies.

 

My view is that it's not so much about whether they be allowed but how late they be allowed. There's videos on line showing late abortions and it's pretty gruesome. 

As far as I know, 12 weeks is the cut-off limit 99% of the time, but I haven't checked the statistics.

 

If I'm right, why on earth are you going on about a tiny minority of 'special circumstances' cases carried out at 24 weeks as if this is 'the norm'?

 

At the point that most abortions are carried out (less than 12 weeks), the fetus doesn't have a functioning brain or nervous system?  I stand to be corrected if this is not the case.

[dick dasterdly]

52 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

All of a sudden a man arguing against women’s rights leans on statement on what matters to women.

 

Doh!

 

 

 

18 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

I am arguing for the rights of children, and babies are a big deal, especially to pregnant people.

I'm a woman, and went through the nightmare of an abortion - made worse by the (presumably) catholic matron on the ward.....

 

You're right - women don't undergo an abortion lightly.