to not understand the logic behind Leo Varadkar abortion speach(36 Posts)
yes i understand hes pro choice but why would he believing there is nothing wrong with abortion want abortion to be 'rare' surely if you believed there is nothing wrong with abortion there would be no need for it to be rare. is there any other examples of someone believing an act to be okay then saying it should not happen a lot.
does him wanting it to be rare imply that in certain situations abortion is wrong?
aibu to think the rare part of his speech makes no logic
it was not just him that said it Hillary did as well correct.
He's a politician and has to try to appeal to the greatest number of people.
I think it's not an unusual viewpoint though. In an ideal world abortion wouldn't be needed because every unplanned pregnancy would be a happy surprise, and every baby would be healthy.
We're not in an ideal world though, so they're not.
I didn't read the article but surely it goes without saying that abortion should be rare? it's a final solution, but in most circumstances contraception should be the first barrier. Abortion is a choice women should be able to make freely but not something anyone would want to go through regularly.
Presumably because abortion is preventing potential life. I don't think its unreasonable, even if you agree with abortion being available, that you'd rather it not become very frequent.
Also because things are v rarely black and white, and views and opinions can be complex.
Also to contribute to passing repeal referendum.
Presumably, like most pro-choice people, he understands that for people that don’t want children prevention is generally cheaper, healthier and less disruptive, so would prefer that abortion is available but not often necessary. He may, like some pro-choice people also think that abortion is itself undesirable, but better than the alternative of forced pregnancy.
He may, like some pro-choice people also think that abortion is itself undesirable, but the only reason anyone would find abortion undesirable is because he believes the it is ending life of the fetus.
Steph Herold, the deputy director of the Sea Change Program – an organization that seeks to create a culture change around abortion and other stigmatized reproductive experiences like miscarriage and adoption – agrees. "It implies that abortion is somehow different than other parts of healthcare," she told me. "We don't say that any other medical procedure should be rare."
How is abortion not preventing life though or not ending life of the fetus? What is it if not that?
Lots of people who are pro-choice see fetuses (and blastocysts, etc) as on a spectrum from pretty much just a bunch of cells to the equivalent of a baby. Most people see the personhood of a developing fetus as growing along with that fetus and thus find later abortions less desireable than earlier ones. It’s hardly an unusual view.
Aside from that, lots of medical procedures “should” be rare - most that would mainly not be necessary if easy preventative measures were taken fall into that category. C-sections are also frequently talked about as being too common.
bluepears - what an odd argument. Of course we want all medical procedures to be rare. Who wants everyone to be ill so we can have lots of lovely procedures inflicted on us? Prevention has always been considered better than cure - hence public health campaigns, education, vaccinations, contraception, etc, etc.
If I had to choose between a world where there is an 110% effective type of contraception, plus perfect in utero cures for serious fetal conditions versus what we have now of course I would choose this imaginary world. I say this having had an abortion, and having felt huge relief after my abortion. I can't imagine anyone actively seeking an abortion if there was another option that gave them the same choices.
roubdabouttown yes but your analogy makes no sense the person already pregnant so a person being ill wouldn't not been given medicine theres and its not my argument i was quoting from the article either way there is no other context were you think an act is ok but then say it should be rare.
i dont understand hoe you can suggest some abortions are bad and some abortions are good surely if you are pro choice the mother has a right to her body no matter what the circumstances are.
I have not read the article, just referred to your weird comment about medical procedures. As for once you already are pregnant, I am pro choice up to the point at which a baby could survive outside the mother's womb, which is considerably earlier than the due date. I do not think it remotely illogical at that point to say she should not be allowed to kill her fetus.
I think you are trying to complicate things.
Ending a pregnancy is different for every person. There's no 'one answer'.
Did you actually read the article? He doesn't seem to be saying anything very controversial.
Of course pro-choice people would prefer abortions didn't happen. They carry a risk for the woman (a smaller risk than continuing the pregnancy, but a risk nevertheless) and a cost for the health service. Preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place is obviously preferable.
'Of course pro-choice people would prefer abortions didn't happen.' but i thought it was the choice of the mother not for him to imply that abortion is wrong isnt the risk of abortion the mothers choice im pro choice i dont think there is anything wrong with abortions in any circumstance
C-sections are also frequently talked about as being too common
I don't think it is a coincidence that the example you use is another procedure that is only done to women. I've never heard or read anyone express the opinion that e.g. balloon angioplasty is too common a procedure. It feels like to me, for the sort of medical procedures that men get, regardless of what life choices might have led them to needing this surgery, once they're actually in front of the consultant they'll be treated with respect and there will be no question of them receiving treatment. While with women's illnesses, there's still this burden of proving you're a good girl/feeling appropriately guilty for needing treatment.
bluepears - just because it's a choice you are allowed to make, it doesn't stop it sometimes being the end result of a lot of exceptionally stupid choices. Far better to teach people about safe sex and contraception to avoid unwanted pregnancy, and about consent and the right to say no, so that the need for abortions is minimised, than to just do abortions on a massive scale. All medical procedures carry a risk.
It being the choice of the woman at the point of her being pregnant doesn’t mean it wouldn’t be better to avoid it in the first place if she already knew she didn’t want children, since there are higher costs for that choice (in terms of risk and resources) than prevention. Most women who have had abortions would prefer to have not been pregnant in the first place.
I'm pro-choice but I can't find fault with wanting abortion to be rare.
Being rare means a child isn't aborted for financial reasons, medical reasons or abuse reasons. It would come down to the ultimate choice of "Do i want to be a mother?"
Eliminating the need for all the reasons I mentioned could only be a positive.
However I'm describing a society that's very far removed from the one we exist in and the one that's currently developing
Of course you can be pro-choice and think that in an ideal world abortion would be rare. In my - and I suspect his - ideal world, abortion would be rare because unwanted pregnancy would be rare; all women would have access to very reliable contraception. You can think that abortion is a completely morally acceptable solution, and you can even think that it doesn't involve any ending of human life, and still think that the best thing would have been for that woman never to have been pregnant at all.
Also, to teach people about conception and what symptoms might indicate a pregnancy, so that they are less likely not to realise until late on, when an abortion could do them more physical and emtional harm.
He didn't say all abortions should be rare, he said abortions after 12 weeks should be 'safe, legal and rare'. Presumably because, in this day and age, pregnancies should be able to be detected before 12 weeks in the majority of cases.
I thought his speech was good and it's very helpful that he's a doctor. I found this quote particularly heartening:
'In recent weeks many people, mainly men, have spoken about the personal journeys they have been on. But we should remember that the saddest and loneliest journey is made by the Irish women who travel to other countries in their thousands to end their pregnancies.'
'bluepears - just because it's a choice you are allowed to make, it doesn't stop it sometimes being the end result of a lot of exceptionally stupid choices. Far better to teach people about safe sex and contraception to avoid unwanted pregnancy, and about consent and the right to say no, so that the need for abortions is minimised, than to just do abortions on a massive scale. All medical procedures carry a risk.' i agree maybe im thinking to much into the word rare
You seem to be being deliberately obtuse
and slightly goady.
Pro-choice doesn’t mean you think abortions are great. They’re not; they’re horrible for the woman, have associated risks...and everything else previous posters have said.
Most people would prefer them to be rare. That’s not a judgment, just a statement of fact. Most people would prefer 100% reliable contraception, all ‘accidents’ to be happy ones, and for women to not have to go through the trauma of abortion.
There is nothing controversial about saying you’re pro-choice but would prefer abortions to be rare.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.