To support Timkins ‘Board’, one step must take place prior to its commencement:

All persons who voted for the establishment of the ‘board’ process must register with the ‘board’. Then, when a child becomes available, the register consulted and the next person on the list delivered the child, on an adoption basis.

No person who voted for the establishment of the ‘board’ can refuse to take a child in and will be accountable for the raising of that child, including all the usuals: food, clothing, schooling and university if the child desires.

Once this equitable solution to the forcing of women to have unwanted pregnancies is in place, will we see a fair outcome for those who were forced to undergo the trial.

Timkins – “personally think that abortion is a form of human murder,”
what you “personally think” is not the topic of the debate.

Whether a woman is acknowledged as a thinking individual capable of making decisions for her self is the “issue” which is at the heart of the abortion debate.

Inserting html links to some control freak’s homepage in support of your view does not impress me in the least, try www.caral.ca they have a good range of texts which cover historical realities compared to the diatribes of emotional balderdash which permeates the pro-life sites.

“recognize the foetus as being a mini-human,” the foetus has never been considered a “mini-human” – either socially or in law. Hence the “best interests of the embryo” has now and always has had “zero” status

Re “As highlighted in earlier postings, women are simply not taking enough responsibility for contraception, sterilization etc,”
Who elected you to be the one to determine “the level of responsibility for contraception” etc?

As for suggesting “Our abortion laws are a complete rort. Even pro-abortionists and feminists will say this, if asked over a beer.”
I see no massed pro-choice campaign being espoused to change the abortion laws - which tends to suggest you are simply “firing emotional bullets from the hip”.

To be honest, the idea of a “panel” went out with the star chamber and trial by fire. Please accept this as a fact, social engineering and meddling in the private lives of individuals does not have broad acceptance it once might have had, “society” has moved on, I suggest you try to ”catchup”.

Your “Panels” would be as popular today as the practice of eugenics and if implemented would soon be found to be as corrupt and indefensible as that “lost art”.

Col Rouge you go on about the first party well pro-life people want EQUAL consideration of all parties.

If you were consistent about the ‘right’s of the individual you would be advocating that the man wouldn’t have to pay child support.

I notice no Pro-choice have commented on that, concerning rights of the individual and responsibility. So Reason if we are looking for equitable solutions then you would back that men should not pay child support.

Back to my thought experiment along these lines of the supreme importance of the individual born humans infants, the mentally handicapped or impaired elderly don’t have personhood and are not individuals in that sense, so if my right as a individual in a society of equals is paramount, I should be able to have them killed used if it suits me.

BTW a zygote is considered human in embryology and I guess in Ireland is also considered human in law, all it takes is a stroke of a pen. Again if you are assaulted and have a miscarriage of a child you wanted Col R you would only want the man up for assault nothing more serious?

Panels are a thing of the past, well I suppose we should do away with ethics panels they are such a waste of time.

You certainly have no shame Col R as you are quite prepared to say others are emotional when your posts are full of cheap shots and emotional put downs.

Lastly Timkins as far as a panel to decide unless it is to decide whether the medical evidence shows that the woman’s life is at stake it isn’t necessary just make it illegal and put the money in the things already suggested, and as a means to have a healthy debate people like Col R aren’t interested in such things.

Col,
If there is a plane crash, should there be an investigation, or should it be said that it was just due to “pilot’s choice”.

If there is a house fire, should there be an investigation, or should it be said that it was just due to “occupant’s choice”.

If there is a bank robbery, should there be an investigation, or should it be said that it was just due to “robber’s choice”.

If there is an abortion, then should there be an investigation, or should it be said that it was just due to “woman’s choice”.

To repeat something earlier, only 50% of sexually active women are using contraception themselves (despite the range now available to them, and despite the fact that it is heavily subsidised and extremely cheap in this country, while in some other countries it is so expensive as to be out of the reach of most women), and the rate of sterilization is well below what it is in other countries and well below the rate of male sterilization etc.

Women are not taking enough responsibility for contraception and unintended pregnancy, (but anyone saying this very true fact will likely be called “misogynist”), and I think that there are abortionists who must walk to the bank ever day humming “Women’s Choice, Women’s Choice, Women’s Choice”. They are making very easy money from “Women’s Choice”

You have not produced any suggestions on how to reduce the rate of unintended pregnancy, or reduce the rate of abortion.

Neohuman,
I understand that panels are used if the intended abortion is over 20 weeks, but they seem to be held in secret, and I don’t know how often they agree with the abortion or not. I suppose they act as some type of deterrent for 20 wk + abortions, but I don’t think they are having much success in reducing the abortion rate overall.

“Women’s Choice” seems to rule, and tends to hamper any forward progress made in reducing the rate of unintended pregnancy, improving contraception, reducing abortion etc

Many couples use condoms as, when used correctly, they work quite well. Not as well as the pill or other methods, but quite well. The decision to use whatever method of contraception is the decision of the couple, but I dont see that failing to use a method where the chemical/hormonal balance of a woman's body is altered (in occasionally distressing ways) should be viewed negatively, so long as both parties are aware of what is going on. Naturally, I am not refering to situations where the woman says 'oh no, i'm on the pill', but is not. Although i suspect that would be rather rare.

Timkins, why would you WANT sterilisation rates to be higher? For men or women? I have seen you quote stats showing that men have more sterilsations than women, as though this is somehow shows women are being slack in their reproductive responsibilites? To tie a woman's tubes is a major medical procedure done under general anaesthetic. Vasectomies are day procedures, and, from what I understand, significally cheaper, and more possible to reverse. Sterilisation, for either party, is a huge step. It is mostly irreversible. Most people having abortions are younger women, who go on to later have children. Surely you would not be wanting them to reduce their chances of having a child later on?

Anyway, I'm just saying there are certainly no black and whites when it comes to sexual relationships

Timkin's golden shower of stats has become rather superflous to the reality of the argument/debate. Notice most women who have had their own experiences to share have now exited this forum. Little wonder Timkins. No point in arguing with someone sans womb and a rather large barrow to push for their own reasons. Thank you Col Rouge for your elucidite and sharp insights to this debate.