Keep abortion out of Ireland

Sonics2k

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.

See, now what you've done here is shown that money has been donated.

Atlantic Philanthropies have indeed supported Ireland, but I don't see any mention of Abortion here. I would like to see an actual link to back up your statement.

And yes, George Soros has given some $100 million to the Human Rights Watch, but it looks to me like you haven't actually checked how much of that money went where.

So please. Back up your statements that the Pro-Choice side is better funded over all, with actual comparisons between the two sides.

Delirium

the only thing I could find about pro-choice getting massive funding was on the Youth Defence website

28064212

qrrgprgua wrote: »

So basically you are calling me a liar.

Lol, this should be good. Are you calling me a liar when I say that George Bush and the WBC donated multiple billions of dollars to the anti-abortion side? I asked you to produce evidence for your claims. That is not calling you a liar, that's asking you to produce evidence for your claims.

Although I admit I'm still confused how you managed to mistakenly assume the pro-life lobby has ever been on the winning side of a referendum in this country, not once, not twice, but three times in less than 60 days. Despite being told on all three occasions just how totally and utterly wrong you were on each and every occasion

PS: See those links in my post? That's my evidence for my claims. I made the claim, so I produced evidence to back it up. That's how it works in a debate, not unverifiable claims with no proof

Yzf R6

FullblownRose wrote: »

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.

You have to agree that there are a certain amount of women that go out ,get pregnant,and don't even tell the other half,they just go straight for the boat and who cares what the father of the child thinks,it's an easy way out for some women.

FullblownRose

Yzf R6 wrote: »

You have to agree that there are a certain amount of women that go out ,get pregnant,and don't even tell the other half,they just go straight for the boat and who cares what the father of the child thinks,it's an easy way out for some women.

This is pure speculation based on how it looks from the outside- only the couple involved know the full details. I'd prefer not to judge someone harshly.

qrrgprgua

28064212 Lol, this should be good. Are you calling me a liar when I say that George Bush and the WBC donated multiple billions of dollars to the anti-abortion side? I asked you to produce evidence for your claims. That is not calling you a liar, that's asking you to produce evidence for your claims.

Although I admit I'm still confused how you managed to mistakenly assume the pro-life lobby has ever been on the winning side of a referendum in this country, not once, not twice, but three times in less than 60 days. Despite being told on all three occasions just how totally and utterly wrong you were on each and every occasion

PS: See those links in my post? That's my evidence for my claims. I made the claim, so I produced evidence to back it up. That's how it works in a debate, not unverifiable claims with no proof

Feeneys "philanthropy" has well funded the pro-abortion camp. That is not an allegation. That is a FACT. and not I won't be hypertexting and linking googled sites. Because its not my opinion that he does it. Its the reality.

Yzf R6

FullblownRose wrote: »

This is pure speculation based on how it looks from the outside- only the couple involved know the full details. I'd prefer not to judge someone harshly.

Not just speculation,this actually happend to a friend of mine and he only found out through a mutual friend of theirs.Quick run down,they knew each other over a year-they met several times in clubs-they went home together one night-she falls pregnant and doesn't inform him-takes a trip on the boat-2 months later he finds out through their friend.Would you justify her actions now your aware of the facts of this one case,while it may not be common it's not unheard of that these things actually happen.

28064212

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Feeneys "philanthropy" has well funded the pro-abortion camp. That is not an allegation. That is a FACT. and not I won't be hypertexting and linking googled sites. Because its not my opinion that he does it. Its the reality.

Very well, if that's the level of discourse you wish to enter into...

George Bush and the Westboro Baptist Church's "charity" has well funded the anti-abortion camp. That is not an allegation. That is a FACT. and not [sic] I won't be hypertexting and linking googled sites. Because its not my opinion that they do it. Its the reality.

Sonics2k

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Feeneys "philanthropy" has well funded the pro-abortion camp. That is not an allegation. That is a FACT. and not I won't be hypertexting and linking googled sites. Because its not my opinion that he does it. Its the reality.

Then your claims are nothing but BS I'm afraid.

You have made a claim, you now have to back it up. This is how a debate works.

You cannot claim something is a fact just by saying it is a fact. You need to prove it, this is how things work in the 21st century.

qrrgprgua

28064212 wrote: »

Very well, if that's the level of discourse you wish to enter into...

George Bush and the Westboro Baptist Church's "charity" has well funded the anti-abortion camp. That is not an allegation. That is a FACT. and not [sic] I won't be hypertexting and linking googled sites. Because its not my opinion that they do it. Its the reality.

Great.. Nothing new. Did it just dawn on you that most Republicans are also conservatives and many Christians?

I will let you in on a little secret.. Jed Bush his brother also funds anti-abortion groups....

qrrgprgua

Sonics2k wrote: »

Then your claims are nothing but BS I'm afraid.

You have made a claim, you now have to back it up. This is how a debate works.

You cannot claim something is a fact just by saying it is a fact. You need to prove it, this is how things work in the 21st century.

So you are saying that Atlantic Philanthropies does not fund abortion campaigns?

Is that statement BS?

Yes or no?

qrrgprgua

Feeney and Atlantic Philanthropies


Link 1.

LINK 2

And I quote

We defend reproductive rights of women, including abortion. We will continue to fund women's groups and organizations who look to promote these rights.

28064212

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Great.. Nothing new. Did it just dawn on you that most Republicans are also conservatives and many Christians?

I will let you in on a little secret.. Jed Bush his brother also funds anti-abortion groups....

The implication was that they fund the Irish anti-abortion groups. But you don't seem to be really getting the point, so I'll spell it out for you.

I can make absolutely any outlandish claim here. I can claim the anti-abortion side is entirely run by evil corporations and the pro-choice side is made up mostly of rainbows and unicorns. I can claim that the RCC is anti-abortion because they're secretly using child labour to mine diamonds and need the abandoned babies. I can even claim that the people behind Youth Defence are lizard-people and are trying to get humanity to over-populate the world so we die out faster. And every one of those claims has exactly the same weight as yours until you actually produce some evidence

Sonics2k

No, I never said they didn't. I said I couldn't see it and asked you to back it up.

Was that so hard?

Now we go back to your previous claim. The one we initially asked you to back up.

qrrgprgua wrote: »

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

Where is your source of information for this?

I am more than willing to admit both sides are well funded, but I want the proof of this claim.

Sonics2k

I'm also curious about your first link to http://www.atlanticphilanthropies.org/news/ulster-abortion-plan-shelved-keep-peace

This is basically a copy paste from a Guardian article from 2008, where the MP's of Northern Ireland had been forced to briefly cease the implementation of the same Abortion rights the rest of the United Kingdom has, under the fear it would make the peace process worse and cause more aggression and violence.

How is this helpful to you at all?

FullblownRose

Yzf R6 wrote: »

Not just speculation,this actually happend to a friend of mine and he only found out through a mutual friend of theirs.Quick run down,they knew each other over a year-they met several times in clubs-they went home together one night-she falls pregnant and doesn't inform him-takes a trip on the boat-2 months later he finds out through their friend.Would you justify her actions now your aware of the facts of this one case,while it may not be common it's not unheard of that these things actually happen.

Firstly, I can't justify or condemn her action, it's not my place to do so but I'm sure that was awful for your friend. I am sure it seems really heartless to someone in your friend's position. I don't know what was going through *her* mind either, or how she felt, or what she anticipated his reaction would be..the fact that he heard about it through someone else is sad too. I can't comment on her action but I am sorry to hear about something like happening *in the way it happened*.

FullblownRose

I don't see the issue with funding either way. Women will have abortions, the earliest abortions usually incurred a fee of some kind too. Abortion isn't the tool of eugenicists, as far as I can discern anyway. If it was and this could be proven then the eugenicists should be apprehended, but safe abortion is still necessary and always will be.

qrrgprgua

FullblownRose wrote: »

I don't see the issue with funding either way. Women will have abortions, the earliest abortions usually incurred a fee of some kind too. Abortion isn't the tool of eugenicists, as far as I can discern anyway. If it was and this could be proven then the eugenicists should be apprehended, but safe abortion is still necessary and always will be.

Sadly abortion is a tool. In the US its focus on the poor and black population... They are the groups who most abort. In china its on female's as they are the most aborted... Sad reality of one child policy.... But you have a 2nd child if you pay the 6000 euro fee :-). In the uk its goverment policy to advise parents to abort defective aka disable children.

Of course its about eugenics.. What else is it. Weeding out the weak.

Abortion can't be safe... The child always ends up dying.

doctoremma

qrrgprgua wrote: »

In the uk its goverment policy to advise parents to abort defective aka disable children.

Evidence or retract.

So you may as well just retract.

qrrgprgua

doctoremma wrote: »

Evidence or retract.

So you may as well just retract.

Doctor in London to my wife after she has german measles. His exact words when asked what could be done. " you may want to consider a termination"

doctoremma

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Doctor in London to my wife after she has german measles. His exact words when asked what could be done. " you may want to consider a termination"

That does not in any way constitute evidence of a government policy to recommend an abortion if a child will be born disabled. Try again? Maybe a quick look through the Con-Lib policy handbooks would be a good place to start?

In fact, your anecdote doesn't even constitute evidence of an individual recommending an abortion, let alone a government.

qrrgprgua

doctoremma wrote: »

Evidence or retract.

So you may as well just retract.

Doctor in London to my wife after she has german measles. His exact words when asked what could be done. " you may want to consider a termination"


Why does the uk offer prenatal testing ?

Research from the U.K. suggests that for most women -- more than 90 percent studied -- would have an abortion if she knew she were having a baby with Down syndrome. Thus the test.....

MaxSteele

Abortion is legal in every other western or developed nation with Poland being the one with exceptions. India, Central Asia i.e Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, India, China, S Africa, Tunisia, Turkey, Vietnam, Thailand, The US, Canada. Abortion is legal.

Basically any woman here seeking an abortion is spoiled for choice abroad. Literally. All it takes is a plane ticket.

You don't agree with it ? Fine. That's your belief. But if someone who has used all pre cautions, doesn't feel ready financially, emotionally and for age/maturity reasons .. well then it's not your business what they do with a life changing decision. It's quite embarrassing to think we're the only developed country still debating an issue which is more a nuisance than an actual deterrent for women.

doctoremma

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Why does the uk offer prenatal testing ?

Prenatal testing isn't just for Down Syndrome. All manner of problems can detected through a variety of examinations, to allow the parents the ability to make a fully informed choice about the future. Many treatment/surgical options can be put into place with such diagnoses e.g. emergency heart surgery after birth.

And your evidence please, that there is a government policy to recommend abortion to the parents of a child likely to be born disabled?

Qualitymark

Even if a doctor recommended abortion to the parents of a child who's likely/certain to be born disabled, it's up to the parents to make the choice. They're the ones who are going to be bringing up the child.

Festus

This link from the NHS, a UK Government sponsored and funded organization, makes for interesting reading.

It would appear that if you opt for a late term abortion you have the option of holding your baby after the delivery and giving them a name, or having a photo taken if you don't want to see him or her after the birth but may want to later.

doctoremma

Festus wrote: »

It would appear that if you opt for a late term abortion you have the option of holding your baby after the delivery and giving them a name, or having a photo taken if you don't want to see him or her after the birth but may want to later.

Why of particular interest? Late term abortions are rare and usually performed under extremely emotional circumstances for very distressing reasons. It seems reasonable that a couple might choose to see their child if they wish?

philologos

Festus wrote: »

This link from the NHS, a UK Government sponsored and funded organization, makes for interesting reading.

It would appear that if you opt for a late term abortion you have the option of holding your baby after the delivery and giving them a name, or having a photo taken if you don't want to see him or her after the birth but may want to later.

You know, it's really really tragic reading stuff like that, and to think that's how people deal with this in the real world.

28064212

Festus wrote: »

This link from the NHS, a UK Government sponsored and funded organization, makes for interesting reading.

It would appear that if you opt for a late term abortion you have the option of holding your baby after the delivery and giving them a name, or having a photo taken if you don't want to see him or her after the birth but may want to later.

Are you saying that option should not be provided? Women who procure an abortion should be told "no, you can't hold it, name it or get a photo"?

philologos

28064212 wrote: »

Are you saying that option should not be provided? Women who procure an abortion should be told "no, you can't hold it, name it or get a photo"?

The problem is that it undermines the belief that the unborn child is not actually a child. Or as some pro-choicers would argue, not even alive prior to a termination.

28064212

philologos wrote: »

The problem is that it undermines the belief that the unborn child is not actually a child.

It doesn't actually, unless you hold that belief in in the first place.

Are you saying they should not provide the option?

qrrgprgua

philologos wrote: »

You know, it's really really tragic reading stuff like that, and to think that's how people deal with this in the real world.

Yes.. Its a sad world. One thing is knowing you child may die because of a condition... Another choosing to kill it.

doctoremma

philologos wrote: »

The problem is that it undermines the belief that the unborn child is not actually a child. Or as some pro-choicers would argue, not even alive prior to a termination.

As above, abortions at this stage are usually the result of a desperate situation where most parents would definitely view their child as a child. Rather remarkably, some people access abortions despite believing their child is child.

philologos

28064212 wrote: »

It doesn't actually, unless you hold that belief in in the first place.

Are you saying they should not provide the option?

Most pro-choicers on boards.ie would argue that.

Personally, I'm pro-life and as a natural consequence of that I wouldn't be able to offer this option unless this was live threatening to the mother. I genuinely believe that people should not be condemned to death prior to living.

doctoremma wrote: »

As above, abortions at this stage are usually the result of a desperate situation where most parents would definitely view their child as a child. Rather remarkably, some people access abortions despite believing their child is child.

The problem is the stage is irrelevant, the same human life has been growing and developing since day 1.

Sonics2k

I personally, think that would be a bit weird and bizarre.

But, when thinking about it I can see the point of it. It could be a comfort factor, or a way of connecting with a child that they lost for one reason or another.

I have heard of cases where a child that was miscarried, or died during birth, has been named by the parent and even had photo's taken.

philologos

Sonics2k: There is a stark difference between an abortion and a miscarriage.

28064212

philologos wrote: »

Most pro-choicers on boards.ie would argue that.

Would argue what? If you believed it was not a life, the option of having a photo/holding it/naming it would not change your mind. If you believed it was a life, the option of having a photo/holding it/naming it would not change your mind.

Sonics2k

I'm completely aware of that, I really am.

In fact this whole issue is not one I take lightly, hence why I continue to return.

I simply said I can see why a person would want to do it, if the option was given, as it apparently the case.
What the NHS is doing is, in it's own way, a kind gesture for the mental health of the parent, allowing them the option of seeing their child.

Again, it all comes down to choices, options and free will. I already said I wouldn't like to do it, but there are people who would.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

Sonics2k

Because this is mainly based around late-term abortions Plowman. The child now has brainwaves, a heartbeat, movement and so on.

For fear of repeating myself, I support early-term abortion under strict circumstances.

doctoremma

philologos wrote: »

Most pro-choicers on boards.ie would argue that.

I don't know ANY pro-choicers who would argue it. It's a ridiculous argument if they do, based only on semantics.

philologos wrote: »

The problem is the stage is irrelevant, the same human life has been growing and developing since day 1.

The stage is not irrelevant to the parents nor to the law makers. Choosing an early stage abortion 'on demand' is a very different choice to parents faced with losing a profoundly-disabled child who was dearly wanted.

philologos

Sonics2k wrote: »

Because this is mainly based around late-term abortions Plowman. The child now has brainwaves, a heartbeat, movement and so on.

For fear of repeating myself, I support early-term abortion under strict circumstances.

It's still the same human life. That's why I think excuse making on the grounds of development is poor.

On the same logic, I could claim that a life is not truly alive until it can juggle 6724 pomegranates, while unicycling up Mt Kilamanjaro while singing a harmonic Slovenian sonnet.

We all know that is arbitrary. Just as the standard that you've suggested is.

We know biologically that the foetus is alive, we don't need these arbitrary standards to tell us.

28064212 wrote: »

Would argue what? If you believed it was not a life, the option of having a photo/holding it/naming it would not change your mind. If you believed it was a life, the option of having a photo/holding it/naming it would not change your mind.

They would argue the false claim that the foetus is actually not a human life.

qrrgprgua

doctoremma wrote: »

I don't know ANY pro-choicers who would argue it. It's a ridiculous argument if they do, based only on semantics.


The stage is not irrelevant to the parents nor to the law makers. Choosing an early stage abortion 'on demand' is a very different choice to parents faced with losing a profoundly-disabled child who was dearly wanted.

There is a world of difference loosing a child and choosing to abort your child.

doctoremma

qrrgprgua wrote: »

There is a world of difference loosing a child and choosing to abort your child.

Evidence for the UK government policy that recommends abortion in the case of a disabled child?

Festus

28064212 wrote: »

Are you saying that option should not be provided? Women who procure an abortion should be told "no, you can't hold it, name it or get a photo"?

Not at all and it would be preferable for the option to be made available for all abortions and not just late term.

Festus

doctoremma wrote: »

The stage is not irrelevant to the parents nor to the law makers. Choosing an early stage abortion 'on demand' is a very different choice to parents faced with losing a profoundly-disabled child who was dearly wanted.

One of the problems is that profound disablement is not the criteria. There are many trisomy 21 individuals who lead fulfilling lives for example.

Festus

doctoremma wrote: »

Evidence for the UK government policy that recommends abortion in the case of a disabled child?

The fact that the NHS presents it as an option is a clear indicator of government sentiment.

The fact that the UK law allows abortion for eugenic reasons is another.

28064212

Festus wrote: »

The fact that the NHS presents it as an option is a clear indicator of government sentiment.

They also present abortion as an option for babies that do not have any problems. Does that mean the government policy is to abort every baby?

doctoremma

Festus wrote: »

The fact that the NHS presents it as an option is a clear indicator of government sentiment.

No it isn't. The NHS is a government-funded body which acts semi-autonomously within the legal framework provided by a government. The UK government has created a law which allows abortion at different stages under different circumstances. The NHS interprets this law as befits its care of duty to its patients.

Do you (or GRGGGAUA letters) have any evidence that it is UK government policy to recommend abortion for disabled children?

Of course you don't, because it's not true. It's not government policy at all and nor should it be. When you look carefully at the statement, you'd see how ridiculous it is. Do you think other countries/UN would allow it to pass as government policy? Do you think the people would vote for a party with such policies? Debate is one thing, a bit of passion and anger can be OK, but hysteria and hyperbole make people look stupid.

Re eugenics: you keep using that word but I do not think it means what you think it means.

FullblownRose

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The manner in which you deal with the emotional side of any abortion is none of anyone's business. On the one hand people complain if a woman is seen to be insouciant or matter of fact about it, on the other hand people make an issue out of the desire to see or hold the baby in the case of a late term abortion.