Keep abortion out of Ireland

StudentDad

qrrgprgua wrote: »

I am Nobody. That's the point. Nobody has the right to decide the existence of a Child that already exists. Its morally wrong to kill another human being.

When discussing Abortion again I always seem to wind up going in circles here. It's simple - your moral compass is entirely yours - not for you to impose on anyone else. Just because YOU feel that abortion is wrong is entirely YOUR choice. Not everyone agrees with your ENTIRELY subjective stance. I do appreciate you feel strongly about this matter. However, your feelings are irrelevant in the face of another individuals right to live their lives the way THEY feel they should live.

At the end of the day - your opinion on abortion is just that - an opinion.

In the UK and other jurisdictions abortion is a legally sanctioned procedure. It is not murder nor is it the killing of a human being.

SD

philologos

StudentDad wrote: »

At the end of the day - your opinion on abortion is just that - an opinion.

In the UK and other jurisdictions abortion is a legally sanctioned procedure. It is not murder nor is it the killing of a human being.

SD

Something can be legal, and still killing. Killing is a biological definition, it isn't a legal one.

It's biologically factual that the embryo is a human life from conception. That's the basis I'm working from.

qrrgprgua

StudentDad wrote: »

When discussing Abortion again I always seem to wind up going in circles here. It's simple - your moral compass is entirely yours - not for you to impose on anyone else. Just because YOU feel that abortion is wrong is entirely YOUR choice. Not everyone agrees with your ENTIRELY subjective stance. I do appreciate you feel strongly about this matter. However, your feelings are irrelevant in the face of another individuals right to live their lives the way THEY feel they should live.

At the end of the day - your opinion on abortion is just that - an opinion.

In the UK and other jurisdictions abortion is a legally sanctioned procedure. It is not murder nor is it the killing of a human being.

SD

What jurisdictions do does not make it morally right. Is it morally right kill a person because they are Gay .. In Iran their jurisdiction says yes... What about China and the laws they impose on their people... Are they morally right? Look South Africa and they laws they had 30 years ago..

Killing another human being is wrong. Many Women that are not remotely relgious or have any connections to a Church have regretted their choices. How many times have I heard "Not a day goes by, though, when I don't regret my abortion."

When you see the likes of Chuch Feeney give a million dollars to the National Womens council and Medical Pharma companies donating its easy to see that Abortion is at the end of the day another industry of the free market.

Lets not forget its a 6 billion dollar industry in the USA alone.. Don't kid yourself thinking its helping women make free choices about their body. Who is forming these opinions and who is profiting from them? A lot of companies making money from this. And not just in the states.. Look around the world.

Once we pull the rug from humanities most basic right.. The right to life. We remove dignity from that person.


"My opinion" is totally irrelevant in this discussion. The right to life and the respect for life is basic humanity.

gimmebroadband

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Once we pull the rug from humanities most basic right.. The right to life. We remove dignity from that person.


"My opinion" is totally irrelevant in this discussion. The right to life and the respect for life is basic humanity.

Exactly!! When one justifies abortion, then the next step is euthanasia, genocide etc.

Sonics2k

Wait, you're against Euthanasia as well?

Surely that's complete free will?

FullblownRose

Report button?!

philologos

Sonics2k wrote: »

Wait, you're against Euthanasia as well?

Surely that's complete free will?

Of course it isn't. It's very difficult to determine free will in that situation actually. Pressures from others can influence people to make a decision like that.

There are also better solutions such as pallative care for alleviating suffering for patients.

Encouraging people to kill themselves isn't a good solution in comparison to alleviating the pain and ensuring that they can live the rest of their lives in relative comfort.

Sonics2k

What about those who choose it themselves, such as Sir Terry Pratchett?

I'd say you should watch Choosing to Die by Pratchett, which was an incredible watch.

In some cases, such as Pratchett, he has made a concious decision to get euthanized before his disease basically destroys his mind and self.

@mods, I'm aware this is off-topic, but let's admit it, the thread isn't going anywhere anyway, but if you wish to maybe make a new thread, I'd be up for it.

qrrgprgua

Sonics2k wrote: »

What about those who choose it themselves, such as Sir Terry Pratchett?

I'd say you should watch Choosing to Die by Pratchett, which was an incredible watch.

In some cases, such as Pratchett, he has made a concious decision to get euthanized before his disease basically destroys his mind and self.

@mods, I'm aware this is off-topic, but let's admit it, the thread isn't going anywhere anyway, but if you wish to maybe make a new thread, I'd be up for it.

Thread is on abortion... If you want to debate suicide open another one.

philologos

The point is if there is a vulnerability of people being pressured or bullied into euthanasia by family members, friends or even others, then in my view it should be firmly illegal. There are much better and safer means of dealing with end-of-life issues than euthanasia, why not use them?

qrrgprgua

Feck it... Suicide is wrong... Its a cancer the kills families,. I know... Those who kill themselves are selfish... BUT sometimes the hole and the world they live in is so black its hard for those who have not experienced it to understand.

I hate the suicide debate because at the end of the day.... What can u do when you find your brother hanging in a shed.....

Sonics2k

philologos wrote: »

The point is if there is a vulnerability of people being pressured or bullied into euthanasia by family members, friends or even others, then in my view it should be firmly illegal. There are much better and safer means of dealing with end-of-life issues than euthanasia, why not use them?

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Feck it... Suicide is wrong... Its a cancer the kills families,. I know... Those who kill themselves are selfish... BUT sometimes the hole and the world they live in is so black its hard for those who have not experienced it to understand.

I hate the suicide debate because at the end of the day.... What can u do when you find your brother hanging in a shed.....

I agree with you both, to an extent. But I say that as someone who has in the past attempted suicide, and lost far too many friends to it.

But again, I am speaking purely of those with a severe, terminal or severely damaging illnesses.

As a personal example. One of my best friends grandfather went through the process three years ago. He had been diagnosed with a severe tumour on his brain, it was inoperable, incurable and had a major impact on his moods, as well his memories for increasing periods of time.

He made the choice to end his life in what he considered a dignified way, after informing his family and friends, as well as celebrating his life in what ways he could.
It was either going to be that, or suffer immensely both mentally and physically for a few more months (maybe a year at best) and actually lose his memories of his family.

Instead, he passed away while holding his sons hand, smiling faintly knowing that his family was happy with his choice, and knowing how much he loved them.

What is so wrong with this?

lmaopml

I know it's slightly off topic - but on the issue of suicide....More men than women commit suicide. People who have attempted suicide and lived to explain, usually have the same thing to say, 'People would be better off without me, nobody would miss me, I'm not worth a whole lot the world will still turn etc. etc.' -

I think it's really important for men in particular to pay attention to that small voice that taps them on the shoulder when they are looking at a friend or family member, and feel the urge to approach somebody, and not be shy about asking them, 'Is everything ok? - You have somewhere to go you know if you need to talk at all, I'm here...' etc. Even if it's only a few small kind words.

It's much easier for females because we talk lots and lots and lots to eachother, but men tend to bottle things up. It's good to be aware and you never know when a small kind word or genuine interest, especially from a male friend can have a dramatic effect on a person. Men need to not so much get in touch with their 'feminine' side..lol....but just be more aware of what it is to be a man in the world with other men too imo.

Females love you and all that stuff, and are always there, but there is nothing quite like the understanding of a good friend or listening ear from somebody who speaks the same language and a person one can identify with.

Suicide is on the up - It's truly something worthy of highlighting, and not to be morbid about, but to educate eachother on to be on the lookout for, and to look out for eachother too.

philologos

Sonics2k wrote: »

I agree with you both, to an extent. But I say that as someone who has in the past attempted suicide, and lost far too many friends to it.

But again, I am speaking purely of those with a severe, terminal or severely damaging illnesses.

As a personal example. One of my best friends grandfather went through the process three years ago. He had been diagnosed with a severe tumour on his brain, it was inoperable, incurable and had a major impact on his moods, as well his memories for increasing periods of time.

He made the choice to end his life in what he considered a dignified way, after informing his family and friends, as well as celebrating his life in what ways he could.
It was either going to be that, or suffer immensely both mentally and physically for a few more months (maybe a year at best) and actually lose his memories of his family.

Instead, he passed away while holding his sons hand, smiling faintly knowing that his family was happy with his choice, and knowing how much he loved them.

What is so wrong with this?

The problem is it is one case. If it is a possibility that it could be abused, and people could be manipulated into it, then it should remain firmly illegal. I also think you would agree, that just because one has attempted suicide at one point in the past doesn't necessarily mean that they would do so again.

You've not touched on my points about pallative care which is a real alternative to euthanasia.

28064212

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Because as we have seen in history what the people decide is not always morally right.

So once again you brought into the discussion a point that was totally wrong to support your position, but once you found out it was wrong, you decided it wasn't relevant.

Unless a "fact" would alter your thinking if the reverse was what was actually true, don't bring it up

qrrgprgua

28064212 wrote: »

So once again you brought into the discussion a point that was totally wrong to support your position, but once you found out it was wrong, you decided it wasn't relevant.

Unless a "fact" would alter your thinking if the reverse was what was actually true, don't bring it up

The Fact is..... Once you pull the rug from humanity. Devalue life. Only give value to a baby if its supported by someone's "opinion" then humanity is subjective to the thought on the day..

We hold that there is an objective innate value in human life from conception. And nobody has the right to remove this objective value.

We don't respect other people opinions on this. You can't be a pro-choice Christian in this area, against abortion personally but allowing it to happen.

So you can allow the argument go round and round. But at the end of the day abortion is murder.

28064212

qrrgprgua wrote: »

The Fact is..... Once you pull the rug from humanity. Devalue life. Only give value to a baby if its supported by someone's "opinion" then humanity is subjective to the thought on the day..

We hold that there is an objective innate value in human life from conception. And nobody has the right to remove this objective value.

We don't respect other people opinions on this. You can't be a pro-choice Christian in this area, against abortion personally but allowing it to happen.

So you can allow the argument go round and round. But at the end of the day abortion is murder.

*Sigh* The only person causing the discussion to go round and round is you. You brought up mortality stats and democracy, then tried to claim they were irrelevant. I never challenged you on your opinion on the innate value of human life. It's when you try to claim "facts" that you should know are false as somehow supporting your argument, even though you consider them to be irrelevant.

If your most recent post is in fact your argument, then make it at the start.

qrrgprgua

Thats what this thread is about. Defending the objective value of the person.

Abortion would bring nothing positive to this Island. north and south we will stand against it.

The Master.

its nice to have the option i think. Irish families even now are ridiculously large and im sure many women would jump at the chance of an abortion.
I dont agree with the anti-abortion billboards i see now. its unfair to say that the option to keep a baby is a better one when really it is unknown if it is or not. the billboard should read " theres always other options"

marienbad

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Thats what this thread is about. Defending the objective value of the person.

Abortion would bring nothing positive to this Island. north and south we will stand against it.

If only all the murders kidnappings kneecapings onthis island had aroused the same ire.

philologos

marienbad wrote: »

If only all the murders kidnappings kneecapings onthis island had aroused the same ire.

Didn't they ultimately?

That's well off topic by the by.

marienbad

philologos wrote: »

Didn't they ultimately?

That's well off topic by the by.

No they did'nt (imho) and yes it is well off topic , but I was just responding to the specific phrasing of ''defending the value of the human person''

It seems we defend some ''values'' with much greater emphasis than others

philologos

How is this relevant to the discussion we're currently having? Unless you're claiming that we're to blame for the Troubles?

marienbad

philologos wrote: »

How is this relevant to the discussion we're currently having? Unless you're claiming that we're to blame for the Troubles?

That would depend on who you mean by ''we'' philologos don't you think ?

But as I said I was responding to a specific point on the ''objective value of the person'' . We seem to have the ability to value some ''persons'' over others.

philologos

I think it is a red herring. It's entirely legitimate for people to argue that we should be concerned for life even if others treated it with contempt in the past. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't consider it seriously.

I mean we in the most literal sense. Am I responsible for the Troubles? No. Even though I only lived through a tiny segment of it naturally I regard it a contemptuous event, and I don't see any good reason to bring it into this thread.

qrrgprgua

The Master. wrote: »

its nice to have the option i think. Irish families even now are ridiculously large and im sure many women would jump at the chance of an abortion.
I dont agree with the anti-abortion billboards i see now. its unfair to say that the option to keep a baby is a better one when really it is unknown if it is or not. the billboard should read " theres always other options"

The pro-abortion camp is far better funded than the pro-life groups who posted the billboards. Its about balance.

If you look at the search engines pro-abortion groups have well funded to have their paid links first

Abortion is a multi-billion dollar industry. Its not a service offered to help women. Its a procedure that has profits... And behind the profits are people pushing their industry.

Abortion is murder... Putting money before humanity.

marienbad

qrrgprgua wrote: »

The pro-abortion camp is far better funded than the pro-life groups who posted the billboards. Its about balance.

If you look at the search engines pro-abortion groups have well funded to have their paid links first

Abortion is a multi-billion dollar industry. Its not a service offered to help women. Its a procedure that has profits... And behind the profits are people pushing their industry.

Abortion is murder... Putting money before humanity.

I doubt that grrgprgua , the overseas funds that poured into this country during the referenda campaigns was quite staggering . And it is absolutely not about balance , it is about enshrining one view in law.

How many abortions have been prevented by all this ? How many women have made that journey to England since that first referendum in 1983 ?
100 thousand ? 200 thousand ? more ?.

All so we can continue to live in this fantasy land that there are no abortions in Ireland , instead of diverting the time energy and money to tackling the root causes of the issue.

marienbad

philologos wrote: »

I think it is a red herring. It's entirely legitimate for people to argue that we should be concerned for life even if others treated it with contempt in the past. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't consider it seriously.

I mean we in the most literal sense. Am I responsible for the Troubles? No. Even though I only lived through a tiny segment of it naturally I regard it a contemptuous event, and I don't see any good reason to bring it into this thread.

All I can say to that philogos is to read my post again , if than analogy bothers you I can just as easily give another . Again I repeat look at my reply in specific relation to what prompted it.

philologos

The analogy is just poor. Events like that should make us more willing to value life.

marienbad

philologos wrote: »

The analogy is just poor. Events like that should make us more willing to value life.

Whatever, philogos, I am not going to get bogged down in it. If you think it is a red herring stop pursuing it.

My point is simply we seem to value some lives more than others.

philologos

My point is really simple. If bad things happen, that should make us more opposed to them. It shouldn't make us roll over and accept them.

marienbad

philologos wrote: »

My point is really simple. If bad things happen, that should make us more opposed to them. It shouldn't make us roll over and accept them.

who could possible disagree with that ? the fact is though that it dos'nt seem to or only selectively.

qrrgprgua

marienbad wrote: »

who could possible disagree with that ? the fact is though that it dos'nt seem to or only selectively.

Ok.. Get Start another thread on it. This one is about abortion.

marienbad

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Ok.. Get Start another thread on it. This one is about abortion.

Ok..then how about answering my post on funding ?

28064212

qrrgprgua wrote: »

The pro-abortion camp is far better funded than the pro-life groups who posted the billboards. Its about balance.

If you look at the search engines pro-abortion groups have well funded to have their paid links first

Abortion is a multi-billion dollar industry. Its not a service offered to help women. Its a procedure that has profits... And behind the profits are people pushing their industry.

More "facts"? Really? Source them, then post them. Unless of course, they're totally irrelevant to your argument

FullblownRose

qrrgprgua wrote: »

The pro-abortion camp is far better funded than the pro-life groups who posted the billboards. Its about balance.

If you look at the search engines pro-abortion groups have well funded to have their paid links first

Abortion is a multi-billion dollar industry. Its not a service offered to help women. Its a procedure that has profits... And behind the profits are people pushing their industry.

Abortion is murder... Putting money before humanity.

W.O.W, for one, aren't a profit making organisation- they waive the charge for the abortion pill if a woman cannot pay for it. They rely on donations to fund the service and the abortion ships. It is very much there to help women. It's there to fulfill a need for safe abortions, because the government is not meeting this need. Opproximately 12 women per day travel abroad for an abortion, not including the women who don't state Ireland as their country of origin, and more women again are performing abortions at home. It shouldn't be necessary but it is.

qrrgprgua

FullblownRose wrote: »

W.O.W, for one, aren't a profit making organisation- they waive the charge for the abortion pill if a woman cannot pay for it. They rely on donations to fund the service and the abortion ships. It is very much there to help women. It's there to fulfill a need for safe abortions, because the government is not meeting this need. Opproximately 12 women per day travel abroad for an abortion, not including the women who don't state Ireland as their country of origin, and more women again are performing abortions at home. It shouldn't be necessary but it is.

Who makes NorLevo.. Who is that company allied to? Who has an investment in HRA Pharma? Who is "Donating to W.O.W?

Of course abortion is an industry. Those performing the abortions don't do it for free, Nurses and receptionists don't do it for free. Medical supply companies don't send in supplies for free. Ok maybe the women does not pay.. maybe its covered by NHS... Why? because its cheaper to get rid of disabled child then to provide services for disabled. Thats why 80% of downs pregnancies are aborted.

There is always a financial incentive behind abortion, somebody always makes money from it. Its an industry and there are vested interests keeping it all at the expense of innocent.

Sonics2k

Are you gonna post the links to those statements of fact or not?

Or do we have to wait for oldrnwsr to come along and disprove your claims again, only to leap on to your back up statement of "It doesn't matter" or similar?

qrrgprgua

Sonics2k wrote: »

Are you gonna post the links to those statements of fact or not?

Or do we have to wait for oldrnwsr to come along and disprove your claims again, only to leap on to your back up statement of "It doesn't matter" or similar?

You need links to prove that abortion is an industry that makes a profit? You do the homework to show its not.

Sonics2k

qrrgprgua wrote: »

The pro-abortion camp is far better funded than the pro-life groups who posted the billboards. Its about balance.

If you look at the search engines pro-abortion groups have well funded to have their paid links first

Abortion is a multi-billion dollar industry. Its not a service offered to help women. Its a procedure that has profits... And behind the profits are people pushing their industry.

Abortion is murder... Putting money before humanity.

No, I want links for this statement. You have been asked a few times now to provide links, and have completely failed to do so on each occasion.

28064212

qrrgprgua wrote: »

You need links to prove that abortion is an industry that makes a profit? You do the homework to show its not.

Firstly, the onus is on the person making the claim to back it up. Secondly, your claim wasn't that abortion makes a profit. Your claims were:

• The pro-abortion camp is far better funded than the pro-life groups who posted the billboards
• Abortion is a multi-billion dollar industry
• Its a procedure that has profits... And behind the profits are people pushing their industry

It's up to you to source those claims. Given you have a history of false claims, you'll have to excuse people not taking yours at your word.

And thirdly, if it turns out that your claims are false (again), and that you're just pulling "facts" out of nowhere (again), is it going to alter your position one iota? Somehow I doubt it, so why are you bringing up issues that have nothing to do with your argument?

Yzf R6

I would be anti in the cases of little slappers using it as a means of birth control without a second thought,and yes this does happen,I even heard one casually talking about it as if she went for a dental appointment,these people make me sick.

qrrgprgua

Sonics2k wrote: »

No, I want links for this statement. You have been asked a few times now to provide links, and have completely failed to do so on each occasion.

Are you saying that US Billionaires are not funding the push for abortion in Ireland?

28064212

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Are you saying that US Billionaires are not funding the push for abortion in Ireland?

How could they possibly prove that? It's up to you to provide proof that at least one or more is.

Sonics2k

No, I am asking you to verify your statement that the Pro-Abortion side is better funded.

I am not saying people are not funding or supporting them, but I am also not making the claim that anti-abortion do not receive funding.

Are you saying that US billionaires are not funding the anti-abortion side in Ireland?

Back up your claims.

FullblownRose

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Who makes NorLevo.. Who is that company allied to? Who has an investment in HRA Pharma? Who is "Donating to W.O.W?

Of course abortion is an industry. Those performing the abortions don't do it for free, Nurses and receptionists don't do it for free. Medical supply companies don't send in supplies for free. Ok maybe the women does not pay.. maybe its covered by NHS... Why? because its cheaper to get rid of disabled child then to provide services for disabled. Thats why 80% of downs pregnancies are aborted.

There is always a financial incentive behind abortion, somebody always makes money from it. Its an industry and there are vested interests keeping it all at the expense of innocent.

Of course the medical staff in abortion clinics are paid for their work. Everyone is remunerated for their work in all avenues of life.

FullblownRose

Yzf R6 wrote: »

I would be anti in the cases of little slappers using it as a means of birth control without a second thought,and yes this does happen,I even heard one casually talking about it as if she went for a dental appointment,these people make me sick.

Slappers? So, these slappers get themselves pregnant all on their own?

There's no reason she should have sounded anything but casual, women don't have to flagellate themselves with guilt to suit eavesdroppers.

qrrgprgua

Sonics2k wrote: »

No, I am asking you to verify your statement that the Pro-Abortion side is better funded.

I am not saying people are not funding or supporting them, but I am also not making the claim that anti-abortion do not receive funding.

Are you saying that US billionaires are not funding the anti-abortion side in Ireland?

Back up your claims.

Atlantic Philanthropies has long funded the Council for Civil Liberties which commissioned a report costing 200,000 euros trying to lobby the UN to push Ireland to introduce abortion. Atlantic Philanthropies has given over 7 million euros. This is just one revenue stream to pro-abortion camp.

Soros gave 100 million to Human Rights Watch, which also arrived to Ireland. That organisation commissioned a report "A State of Isolation: Access to Abortion for Women in Ireland"

Pro-abortion groups are well funded.

28064212

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Atlantic Philanthropies has long funded the Council for Civil Liberties which commissioned a report costing 200,000 euros trying to lobby the UN to push Ireland to introduce abortion. Atlantic Philanthropies has given over 7 million euros. This is just one revenue stream to pro-abortion camp.

Soros gave 100 million to Human Rights Watch, which also arrived to Ireland. That organisation commissioned a report "A State of Isolation: Access to Abortion for Women in Ireland"

Pro-abortion groups are well funded.

None of that is true. Furthermore, George Bush and the Westboro Baptist Church gave eleventy billion dollars to the anti-abortion side

...

See what I did there? I posted some text which has absolutely no backing and claimed what I was saying was true. If you can't produce evidence, don't make claims

qrrgprgua

28064212 wrote: »

None of that is true. Furthermore, George Bush and the Westboro Baptist Church gave eleventy billion dollars to the anti-abortion side

...

See what I did there? I posted some text which has absolutely no backing and claimed what I was saying was true. If you can't produce evidence, don't make claims

So basically you are calling me a liar.