No, I don’t and we don’t.
Bye.
ETA: You really shouldn’t completely change your posts using the edit function. Makes my answers not make sense.
Anyway, I’m out.
No, not really. The fetus doesn’t begin to do all of those things until after most abortions are performed.
If you don’t have a problem with early abortions why are so you outraged? The anti-choice movement really is all about controlling women. It’s not about providing better birth control since most pro-life organizations are opposed to many forms of birth control. It’s not about helping women find safety nets as most pro-lifer pols are Republicans and they’re busy shredding such nets.
Combative is calling it murder or comparing the act to that of the Nazis. Combative is displaying pictures of dead fetuses. Combative is shooting doctors who perform abortions. You want combative? You need look no further than the anti-abortion movement.
What’s deliberately dishonest is a movement that pretends that fetuses are incubated in a sterile environment with no cost to the woman involved.
If you don’t find early abortions all that objectionable then what do you want? Many second trimester abortions are performed for the health of the mother. Do you really think you should get to substitute your judgement for that of a woman and her doctor?
I thought, based on the OP, that this would be a debate on the abortion law in Ireland, not the millionth thread on the abortion situation in the U.S. Now that would have been interesting.
You’re not going to let me out of here, are you? 
For the third or forth time, what I want is for people stop claiming that anti-abortionists want to tell women what to do with their own bodies. Their focus is on another body and most of them couldn’t care less what you do with your own. There are all sorts of laws telling people what they can’t do with their own bodies. You can’t use it to rob a bank, you can’t use it to write hot checks and you can’t use it to drive over someone with your car. And in every case I can think of, those laws exist to protect other people. It’s the same with anti-abortionists; they just don’t want you to be able to use your body to harm someone else. What is so difficult to understand about this?
That the someone else is INSIDE MY BODY?
This is not, I assure you, a trivial distinction.
What’s so difficult to understand? That part where the fetus is allowed to use its body to harm the mother.
The smiley faces indicate you are not serious and need not be taken seriously.
Well, the thread title says “How important are abortion rights?” Sometimes it happens that a thread will show up on the main page with the last post made by someone whose post you may be curious about. Then, if that post so moves you, you might offer your take on what that poster said. I know this because it’s what I just did. 
I haven’t read the OP, and again there’s nothing in the title to suggest anything about Irish abortion laws.
Having said that, I’m going to take another stab at getting out of here.
That’s doubly nonsense. First, because a fetus isn’t a person no matter how badly you want to pretend it is. And second, because the anti-abortionists have made it quite clear they care nothing for the fetus except as weapon to beat down women. These are the same people who wash their hands of all responsibility once the child they force into existence is born. Nor are they exactly known for their interest in promoting pre-natal care or in the welfare of mothers who can’t properly support their children.
They just want to force women to bear children against their will, in order to hurt them.
Without having answered anyone’s questions in a meaningful way? How unusual.
Sorry, but I do have to leave. I have dinner to eat and Archie Goodwin is threatening to kick my ass if I don’t pay him some attention.
I don’t know who that is, but I’ll just assume he leaves you far too busy to ponder the question “how is a person INSIDE my body different from a person OUTSIDE my body?” Because clearly it’s an incredibly difficult question.
Oh wait, it’s not. A person INSIDE my body has no right to be there. It depends on my goodwill, and nothing more.
http://www.counterpunch.org/schulte01202006.html Here you go. It was part of our culture and always on the back of our minds.
I mean no offense, but I don’t see how you can’t put your first and second-to-last sentences together and not get a contradiction. I don’t believe the claim is that anti-abortionists seek to utterly control what women do with their bodies. I have seen the claim that anti-abortionists seek to control what women do with their bodies in this specific situation out of a desire for control, rather than for the sake of the fetus, but in general terms only by Der Trihs. By and large, the general claim is that yes, it is accepted that anti-abortionists are primarily concerned with the fetus, and that as a result of their desire to protect it they seek to control what a women may do with her body in that specific situation.
I would not be adverse to describing myself, as an anti-bank robber, as a person who wanted therefore to tell people what to do with their bodies. I feel no particular issue with calling anti-abortionists people who want therefore to tell people what to do with their bodies. It may be a side-effect of the actual causal desire, it may be a generalised point, but it is still an accurate one.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/06/1/gr060108.html There were 829,000 abortions in 1967 when they were illegal. Abortions don’t end with a law. With this economy, I am sure there will be an increase in abortions the next few years.
I think maybe we should wait to debate this possibility after it happens. My point was assigning rights to something without a brain is absurd. Let’s not get into a “resolved: atheists are all wet if we know angels are running around” debate. In this universe fetuses don’t pipe up.
Well, the U.S. population is significantly higher now than it was in 1967, so if absolute numbers of abortions increase, it could be for that reason alone.
Well, absurd or not, whatever rights the fetus has can be in conflict with the rights the mother has. I’m okay with her winning any potential conflicts. I’ve yet to see any reason why she shouldn’t, nor any practical way to force her to play along with a fetal win.
Finding a €50 flight to Britain at short notice, and at the exact time you need to travel to fit your work schedule or whatever, can be extremely difficult.
Plus the cost of accommodation, transport to and from the airport (at either end) and particularly the cost of the abortion. It’s not free to people who aren’t on the NHS (or even to people who are, if they’re from the Six Counties) and can cost over €1000 the later the abortion takes place.
That’s prohibitive for a lot of women, especially these days. And of course there are women with immigration statuses that don’t allow them to come and go as they please.
Plenty of women seek the services of abortion counselling in Ireland, so there’s no reason to think they wouldn’t seek actual abortions in Ireland. I think the real issue here is that if it was legalised there would still be problems finding providers - especially when so many “public” hospitals are still run by the Church.
See the link in the OP. “Back alley” abortions these days are taking place via internet.
Anecdotally, there is also evidence of immigrant communities using traditional herbal methods to induce abortion.