Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Abortion

Options
1…1112141617…24

Comments

  • Options
    #392
    derby7
    Registered Users Posts: 142 ✭✭derby7


    Abortion : no way.
    I've seen couples after the loss of a baby or child ! Not nice.
    I have 2 kids, I couldn't imagine killing them, at any stage in their lifecycle !
    Its a quick & dirty solution for modern society, sickening !


  • Options
    #393
    Dragan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,497 ✭✭✭✭Dragan


    derby7 wrote: »
    Abortion : no way.
    I've seen couples after the loss of a baby or child ! Not nice.
    I have 2 kids, I couldn't imagine killing them, at any stage in their lifecycle !
    Its a quick & dirty solution for modern society, sickening !

    In some ye olde civilisations a newborn baby would be examined at birth and discarded if any obvious physical flaws or abnormalities were discovered.

    I guess, what i am trying to say is, if you are going to make a point then try and make it accurately?


  • Options
    #394
    derby7
    Registered Users Posts: 142 ✭✭derby7


    Harsh Dragan.
    In some ye olde civilisations
    ....I'm not a historian, I'm not Jimmy McGee !! Am I to know everything in history before I post !! eeeek.
    a newborn baby would be examined at birth and discarded
    ....this is not abortion, is it ! ie. they were disgarded at birth !


  • Options
    #395
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Dragan wrote: »
    In some ye olde civilisations a newborn baby would be examined at birth and discarded if any obvious physical flaws or abnormalities were discovered.

    Or if times were bad. Or if they were the 'wrong' gender.
    derby7 wrote:
    ....this is not abortion, is it ! ie. they were disgarded at birth !

    The purpose is the exact same. Of course if you think abandoning a child to die of starvation or exposure is less brutal than termination at 6 weeks, please argue your case....


  • Options
    #396
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Nodin wrote: »
    Or if times were bad. Or if they were the 'wrong' gender.

    Hey, you can get gender selective abortions in Sweden. If you're generally okay with people choosing freely on abortions you should be okay with gender selective abortion right?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #397
    RaverRo808
    Closed Accounts Posts: 677 ✭✭✭RaverRo808


    Speaking as a parent,I find abortion disgusting,no matter the circumstance,every child is special and deserves a shot at life,there are dozens of couples out there unable to have children who would be more then willing to adopt unwanted children and give them a loving home,Im glad its still outlawed here


  • Options
    #398
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Hey, you can get gender selective abortions in Sweden. If you're generally okay with people choosing freely on abortions you should be okay with gender selective abortion right?

    I was merely expanding on the refutation of the idea that "Its a quick & dirty solution for modern society ".


  • Options
    #399
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    In its modern manifestation it is quick and dirty.


  • Options
    #400
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Jakkass wrote: »
    In its modern manifestation it is quick and dirty.

    So you're a death by starvation & exposure man then.


  • Options
    #401
    WillieCocker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 747 ✭✭✭WillieCocker


    Risk acceptance............


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #402
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Nodin wrote: »
    So you're a death by starvation & exposure man then.

    You mightn't have noticed. I'm not an anything man. I don't believe it is anyones right to decide whether a child should live or die, both inside the womb and outside.


  • Options
    #403
    derby7
    Registered Users Posts: 142 ✭✭derby7


    Free will is our greatest gift, killing (other humans, in this case) (& for no reason other than greed) is the greatest abuse of this gift.


  • Options
    #404
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Nodin wrote: »
    The purpose is the exact same. Of course if you think abandoning a child to die of starvation or exposure is less brutal than termination at 6 weeks, please argue your case....

    My word thats some straw man! I can tell you one 'huge' difference in the scenario's you posted. One is cruel and honest. One is cruel and dishonest. One knows that they are killing a child, and for whatever strange reasons accept that this is what they are doing. The other pretends that they are not killing a child, but rather, 'its not really a child, its a parasite or whatever'. Both are horrid of course!


  • Options
    #405
    Malari
    Registered Users Posts: 18,150 ✭✭✭✭Malari


    derby7 wrote: »
    Free will is our greatest gift, killing (other humans, in this case) (& for no reason other than greed) is the greatest abuse of this gift.

    Greed? And gift from who??? What are you talking about?


  • Options
    #406
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Jakkass wrote: »
    You mightn't have noticed. I'm not an anything man. I don't believe it is anyones right to decide whether a child should live or die, both inside the womb and outside.

    Thats just wonderful. However you might be better to spend more time promulgating that view than trying to score points off me for pointing out certain historical realities.


  • Options
    #407
    derby7
    Registered Users Posts: 142 ✭✭derby7


    Are you badgering me now Malari ?, and if you don't know what I am talking about, then don't let it concern you.

    edit:
    I'm disturbed by the fact that the majority of the current pollers have voted that they would kill a child/lifeform because it would inconvenience them. If I killed you (or whoever), because you inconvenience me, would you (ye) agree with that ??? I don't see the difference between the people who kill in Limerick/Dublin (etc) to the people who get rid of their inconvenience in the UK !!


  • Options
    #408
    O'Coonassa
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,318 ✭✭✭O'Coonassa


    Peyton Thoughtless Armband wrote: »
    Is it? What if she lies?

    That's tough. Should have been a better judge.

    But....just as men have to compensate women for rearing a child they wanted nothing whatsoever to do with, so too should women have to compensate men for destroying the potential child that they wanted.

    That's equality before the law IMO.

    Or perhaps they should just change the law so that men don't have to pay maintenance for a child they didn't want.


  • Options
    #409
    shqipshume
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,193 ✭✭✭shqipshume


    O'Coonassa wrote: »
    That's tough. Should have been a better judge.

    But....just as men have to compensate women for rearing a child they wanted nothing whatsoever to do with, so too should women have to compensate men for destroying the potential child that they wanted.

    That's equality before the law IMO.

    Or perhaps they should just change the law so that men don't have to pay maintenance for a child they didn't want.

    Thats just stupid comment.Like half of Irish guys pay maintenance without animosity as is.Where would you take the future.Maybe if there was hardened laws and men knew it for taking part in the act of having a child they might think twice about swinging it around so much in first place aswell.


  • Options
    #410
    Malari
    Registered Users Posts: 18,150 ✭✭✭✭Malari


    derby7 wrote: »
    Are you badgering me now Malari ?, and if you don't know what I am talking about, then don't let it concern you.

    edit:
    I'm disturbed by the fact that the majority of the current pollers have voted that they would kill a child/lifeform because it would inconvenience them. If I killed you (or whoever), because you inconvenience me, would you (ye) agree with that ??? I don't see the difference between the people who kill in Limerick/Dublin (etc) to the people who get rid of their inconvenience in the UK !!

    Badgering? I'm just asking you to explain your post. What, you think you can post anything and not be questioned?


  • Options
    #411
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    shqipshume wrote: »
    Thats just stupid comment.Like half of Irish guys pay maintenance without animosity as is.Where would you take the future.Maybe if there was hardened laws and men knew it for taking part in the act of having a child they might think twice about swinging it around so much in first place aswell.

    Why is it so much more acceptable to say this concerning men than saying it about women? Surely if they didn't want a child they could just abstain either.

    derby7: 38% is actually about the highest support pro-life has had on boards.ie. Still a sizeable percentage mind.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #412
    shqipshume
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,193 ✭✭✭shqipshume


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Why is it so much more acceptable to say this concerning men than saying it about women? Surely if they didn't want a child they could just abstain either.

    derby7: 38% is actually about the highest support pro-life has had on boards.ie. Still a sizeable percentage mind.

    And the answer is its the woman's fault because they took part?
    The comments is ridiculous and both parties are at fault.
    Then the argument could be for all guys oh i didnt want the baby!


  • Options
    #413
    O'Coonassa
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,318 ✭✭✭O'Coonassa


    shqipshume wrote: »
    Thats just stupid comment.Like half of Irish guys pay maintenance without animosity as is.Where would you take the future.Maybe if there was hardened laws and men knew it for taking part in the act of having a child they might think twice about swinging it around so much in first place aswell.

    To me if a man at the outset says he wanted a child then he should help to rear it. If he said he didn't then why should he? If we have a womans right to choose then so to we must have a mans right to choose.


  • Options
    #414
    shqipshume
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,193 ✭✭✭shqipshume


    O'Coonassa wrote: »
    To me if a man at the outset says he wanted a child then he should help to rear it. If he said he didn't then why should he? If we have a womans right to choose then so to we must have a mans right to choose.

    He should make sure he is covered up if he doesn't want kids.If not responsible enough on either side of the equation then they should not be having sex with random people and then passing the buck when they dont want to be apart of it.


  • Options
    #415
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    shqipshume: Women should know full well that if you have sex you risk becoming pregnant as should men. I would have thought that was rather clear. If one does not want to become pregnant the only 100% foolproof way is to abstain and say no.


  • Options
    #416
    shqipshume
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,193 ✭✭✭shqipshume


    Jakkass wrote: »
    shqipshume: Women should know full well that if you have sex you risk becoming pregnant as should men. I would have thought that was rather clear. If one does not want to become pregnant the only 100% foolproof way is to abstain and say no.

    And men who don't want to get caught in that predicament also say no ;) or else take responsibility for their actions also in the situation,but dont whinge about it when they get stuck paying some measly amount of money to help.


  • Options
    #417
    bronte
    Registered Users Posts: 11,331 ✭✭✭✭bronte


    Jakkass wrote: »
    shqipshume: Women should know full well that if you have sex you risk becoming pregnant as should men. I would have thought that was rather clear. If one does not want to become pregnant the only 100% foolproof way is to abstain and say no.

    A Woman should also have the right to a hysterectomy whenever she so chooses, but guess what? They restrict us on that too. :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #418
    derby7
    Registered Users Posts: 142 ✭✭derby7


    /off topic.....
    Badgering?
    We would be going off-topic with the OP's Q if we continued with your questioning.
    What, you think you can post anything and not be questioned?
    yes............well no obviously, doh!
    I'm just asking you to explain your post.
    Free will, ie. you can do what you want. This gift was given to you by God, or our Creator, or whoever. You can kill, or you can be civil & help one another. Now all that might sound very religiousy, but those are (some of) the choices, so.....do you now understand what free will is.

    /back on topic......


  • Options
    #419
    O'Coonassa
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,318 ✭✭✭O'Coonassa


    shqipshume wrote: »
    He should make sure he is covered up if he doesn't want kids.

    Well condoms can break. As I said in my earlier post if he doesn't want an abortion then he shouldn't put it inside that kind of woman. Women who want children or who would never abort them shouldn't go with the kind of men who don't want them or would want them aborted
    shqipshume wrote: »
    If not responsible enough on either side of the equation then they should not be having sex with random people and then passing the buck when they dont want to be apart of it.

    Well I'd agree with you on the whole but some people are liars and others are bad judges of character. A man can say he wants children and disagrees with abortion and then when pregnancy happens he can be revealed as a liar. So too a woman can say she wants a child and a children and disagrees with abortion but then when she gets pregnant can also be revealed as a liar. The liars should both compensate their victims or neither of them should. A law that only compensates one of them is unfair.


  • Options
    #420
    Malari
    Registered Users Posts: 18,150 ✭✭✭✭Malari


    derby7 wrote: »
    /off topic.....


    We would be going off-topic with the OP's Q if we continued with your questioning.


    yes............well no obviously, doh!


    Free will, ie. you can do what you want. This gift was given to you by God, or our Creator, or whoever. You can kill, or you can be civil & help one another. Now all that might sound very religiousy, but those are (some of) the choices, so.....do you now understand what free will is.

    /back on topic......

    Wow, you didn't explain greed. And a god has never given me any gift. But you're right, you are off-topic. Forget it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #421
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Malari wrote: »
    Wow, you didn't explain greed. And a god has never given me any gift. But you're right, you are off-topic. Forget it.

    I would have thought if you suppress anothers rights for ones own personal benefit it could be perceived as greed.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement