Abortion

Pushtrak

Bullseye1 wrote: »

The suicide card is used alot in this argument to justify abortion on demand. Why don't people just admit that large portion of abortions are carried out for selfish reasons. How many are actually carried out because the woman has threatened to commit suicide? I'd imagine they are in the very small minority.

Methinks you have a blind spot. I'd wager that in cases where suicide was a serious consideration, it isn't something that would be threatened. It would be done.

Bullseye1

Pushtrak wrote: »

Methinks you have a blind spot. I'd wager that in cases where suicide was a serious consideration, it isn't something that would be threatened. It would be done.

I have no doubt there are women who are on the verge of suicide. And we should legislate for that. But the pro side would have you believe that every woman who wants the abortion would commit suicide. All they have to to is get on a plane to the UK.

HemlockOption

Bullseye1 wrote: »

I have no doubt there are women who are on the verge of suicide. And we should legislate for that. But the pro side would have you believe that every woman who wants the abortion would commit suicide. All they have to to is get on a plane to the UK.

But why should they have to?

dyawannagoonme

Bullseye1 wrote: »

So because people don't hold the same opinion as you and the poster above you the rest of the population is stupid or incapable of voting for a result that would suit your agenda? What's disappointing is the number of self centered egos who think they are above the rest of the population.

I'm more disappointed in the people who denied the legislation because it wasn't right with their religion. Legislation should not be decided on by religion simply because we live in a multicultural country with many religions. I found it quite annoying that people were expressing their opinion based on the religion's opinion. The last few pages of this thread have been an interesting read because we ditched the religion side and had a valid debate on abortion.

But yes you're right. What I said was stupid. People have their own opinion on abortion and it's nice to see we are debating the topic because it's worthy of a debate. Personally I can't see what's wrong with having the service there and the people who were for abortion using the service and the people who were against not using it.

Pushtrak

Bullseye1 wrote: »

I have no doubt there are women who are on the verge of suicide. And we should legislate for that. But the pro side would have you believe that every woman who wants the abortion would commit suicide. All they have to to is get on a plane to the UK.

Can you tell me what good comes from sending someone who already has enough to worry about to another country? It's like people here have a reaction as if just because it is allowed in this country it'd be on their conscience. Whereas because the problem is exported, it doesn't exist. It is so blinkered, and an apathetic response to those in need. I'm disgusted by it, frankly.

Bullseye1

HemlockOption wrote: »

But why should they have to?

I'm not saying they should. I'm anti abortion but pro-choice. A woman can do as she wishes as far as I am concerned. But I'm entitled to argue my point against abortion.

If we ever do provide abortion on demand in Ireland I don't want it to be down to the tax payer. Either the woman or her insurance should cover the cost.

Bullseye1

Pushtrak wrote: »

Can you tell me what good comes from sending someone who already has enough to worry about to another country? It's like people here have a reaction as if just because it is allowed in this country it'd be on their conscience. Whereas because the problem is exported, it doesn't exist. It is so blinkered, and an apathetic response to those in need. I'm disgusted by it, frankly.

The reason I mentioned flight to UK is because it's a choice and because it's currently illegal in this country. See my post above.

kylith

Atlantis50 wrote: »

Is a fetus with a beating heart and developing brainstem at 7 weeks merely a 'bunch of cells'?

One of the pictures here is a human fetus at about 7 week's development. Can you guess which one?

Des Carter wrote: »

What about the babies rights, the babies body and the babies life. Why doesnt the baby get a choice?

Because up to about 24 weeks the fetus can't live outside of the mother's body. It does not have a brain capable of understanding what you're talking about, lungs capable of getting oxygen from the air, a heart capable of suppling its body with blood properly. It is completely dependent on the mother's body. If something cannot survive without (and forgive the emotive wording - I use it purely in a descriptive sense) parasitising another creature (the mother) it can't be said to be alive in its own right? I don't think so.

HemlockOption

Bullseye1 wrote: »

I'm not saying they should. I'm anti abortion but pro-choice. A woman can do as she wishes as far as I am concerned. But I'm entitled to argue my point against abortion.

If we ever do provide abortion on demand in Ireland I don't want it to be down to the tax payer. Either the woman or her insurance should cover the cost.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that. After all the taxpayer is certainly not contributing to their (not insignificant) costs at the moment.

At this stage, I think we all have someone in our families, who has had an abortion - whether we are aware of them or not. They are our sisters, cousins, and perhaps even our mothers. And this is going to continue. Let's have a bit of compassion for them.

Des Carter

kylith wrote: »

If something cannot survive without (and forgive the emotive wording - I use it purely in a descriptive sense) parasitising another creature (the mother) it can't be said to be alive in its own right? I don't think so.

Well if a new born baby was left on its own without someone there to feed it shelter it and protect it how long do you think it would survive? not very long so it is incapable of surviving on its own. Does that mean its not human?

if someone needs a life support machine or other medical technologies to survive does that mean there not human?

of course not so why is this any different?

Des Carter

HemlockOption wrote: »

If you are against abortion in all circumstances, then you are a supporter of forced, compulsory pregnancy.

oh dont be ridiculous unless its as a result of rape it wasnt forced. The woman made the choice to have sex with full knowledge of the possible outcomes and so should take responsibilities for her actions (Same goes for men if they get a woman pregnant)

lividduck

Bullseye1 wrote: »

I'm not saying they should. I'm anti abortion but pro-choice. A woman can do as she wishes as far as I am concerned. But I'm entitled to argue my point against abortion.

If we ever do provide abortion on demand in Ireland I don't want it to be down to the tax payer. Either the woman or her insurance should cover the cost.

So you believe only the rich should be entitled to abortion?
Does that apply to all medical procedures?:mad:

HemlockOption

Des Carter wrote: »

oh dont be ridiculous unless its as a result of rape it wasnt forced. The woman made the choice to have sex with full knowledge of the possible outcomes and so should take responsibilities for her actions (Same goes for men if they get a woman pregnant)

By 'forced' - I meant if you can't have an abortion then you are forced to go through the pregnancy (or commit suicide).

efb

Should serious threads not be in humanities???

Ironically I find, the holy joes suck the life out of everything...

HemlockOption

Des Carter wrote: »

Well if a new born baby was left on its own without someone there to feed it shelter it and protect it how long do you think it would survive? not very long so it is incapable of surviving on its own. Does that mean its not human?

if someone needs a life support machine or other medical technologies to survive does that mean there not human?

of course not so why is this any different?[/QUOTE]

It is different because in the cases you have listed above, anyone could provide what is needed. In the case of pregnancy, only the woman who is pregnant can provide what is needed.

Dyr

Des Carter wrote: »

oh dont be ridiculous unless its as a result of rape it wasnt forced. The woman made the choice to have sex with full knowledge of the possible outcomes and so should take responsibilities for her actions (Same goes for men if they get a woman pregnant)

So if ya catch AIDs then and you can't afford the treatment then f**k you?

How about alcoholism?

How about the fattys with diabetes?

Smokers with lung cancer?

Ya can go and ****e with that argument cos the charlie churches who trot it out only apply it to the wimmenz having secks (dirty, disgusting, debauched, WRONG)

prinz

efb wrote: »

Should serious threads not be in humanities???
Ironically I find, the holy joes suck the life out of everything...

I've searched this thread for a few keywords..

god.....no results.

faith....no results...

catholic....one result (catholic church has run this country for too long, we need abortion yadda yadda)

religion.... two results (both saying religion needs to be removed from this argument)

Who exactly are the "holy joes" you are talking about?

Des Carter

HemlockOption wrote: »

By 'forced' - I meant if you can't have an abortion then you are forced to go through the pregnancy (or commit suicide).

It is different because in the cases you have listed above, anyone could provide what is needed. In the case of pregnancy, only the woman who is pregnant can provide what is needed.

Its called taking responsibilities for your actions if you dont want a child dont have unprotected sex. And even if you do you know there is still a chance and so it is your responsibility to go through the pregnancy (not including rape, mothers life in danger etc)

Dyr

prinz wrote: »

I've searched this thread for a few keywords..

god.....no results.

faith....no results...

catholic....one result (catholic church has run this country for too long, we need abortion yadda yadda)

religion.... two results (both saying religion needs to be removed from this argument)

Who exactly are the "holy joes" you are talking about?

Me bollix, Nearly all the resistance to abortion in this country is a result of holy joeism. When I was younger I was fairly anti church but i was also anti abortion. In retrospect it was just because the church has hammered the-de-poor-little-innocent-babbies line so hard into this country that it comes at you from your family, relatives and peers.

prinz

Bambi wrote: »

Me bollix...

Check this thread yourself. You have a point in wider society to be fair, but in terms of this thread arguing about holyjoes etc is a load of bollix in itself.

lividduck

Des Carter wrote: »

Its called taking responsibilities for your actions if you dont want a child dont have unprotected sex. And even if you do you know there is still a chance and so it is your responsibility to go through the pregnancy (not including rape, mothers life in danger etc)

Only a mental defective would claim that it is a womans "responsibility" to go through a pregnancy, **** happens, women get pregnant, abortion is a valid option, in the end it should only ever be the personal choice of the woman involved whether to continue an unwanted pregnancy or not.

philologos

Bambi wrote: »

Me bollix, Nearly all the resistance to abortion in this country is a result of holy joeism. When I was younger I was fairly anti church but i was also anti abortion. In retrospect it was just because the church has hammered the-de-poor-little-innocent-babbies line so hard into this country that it comes at you from your family, relatives and peers.

Why are so many non-Catholics (people who would have never been involved with the RCC) opposed to abortion then? Just curious?

Perhaps you can clear up what you mean by "the church" do you mean just the RCC or all Christianity or what else?

prinz is right to point out that one needn't be religious to see that there are fundamental ethical issues surrounding abortion.

Des Carter

Bambi wrote: »

So if ya catch AIDs then and you can't afford the treatment then f**k you?

How about alcoholism?

How about the fattys with diabetes?

Smokers with lung cancer?

Ya can go and ****e with that argument cos the charlie churches who trot it out only apply it to the wimmenz having secks (dirty, disgusting, debauched, WRONG)

Often Diabetes and weight issues are hereditory so Ill leave that out.

However for the rest of them they are lifestyle choices and I believe people can do and believe whatever they want as long as it does not harm anyone else. They also deserve help and treatment for their diseases. However abortion is taking a human life which is obviously harmfull to the child.

Bambi

Bambi wrote: »

Me bollix, Nearly all the resistance to abortion in this country is a result of holy joeism.

But the fact remains that the only (or at least the vast majority) of mentions of religion in this thread has been from people saying this thread has too much religion in it. No one brought religion into it.

HemlockOption

Des Carter wrote: »

Its called taking responsibilities for your actions if you dont want a child dont have unprotected sex. And even if you do you know there is still a chance and so it is your responsibility to go through the pregnancy (not including rape, mothers life in danger etc)

Surely the responsibility lies with both would-be parents?

There's many reasons why women have abortions. Very often single women are put under pressure from the would-be father who doesn't want a child.

But very often abortion is the most responsible decision for their particular circumstances.

Des Carter

lividduck wrote: »

Only a mental defective would claim that it is a womans "responsibility" to go through a pregnancy, **** happens, women get pregnant, abortion is a valid option, in the end it should only ever be the personal choice of the woman involved whether to continue an unwanted pregnancy or not.

If a woman has sex and ends up gettging pregnant it is her responsibility to the child to protect it and care for it through pregnancy the same way its the mans responsibility to help raise and look after the child when its born (which they often dont unfortunately)

Bullseye1

lividduck wrote: »

So you believe only the rich should be entitled to abortion?
Does that apply to all medical procedures?:mad:

So because people work their ass off and pay for insurance they are rich? :rolleyes:

No life threatening procedures should be available to all. I don't consider abortion life threatening in most cases. In those who are shown to be clear suicide cases then sure.

HemlockOption

Des Carter wrote: »

If a woman has sex and ends up gettging pregnant it is her responsibility to the child to protect it and care for it through pregnancy the same way its the mans responsibility to help raise and look after the child when its born (which they often dont unfortunately)

And even though you acknowledge that fact, you still think women should be forced to go ahead with unwanted pregnancies, often ending up in poverty ?

Des Carter

HemlockOption wrote: »

Surely the responsibility lies with both would-be parents?

There's many reasons why women have abortions. Very often single women are put under pressure from the would-be father who doesn't want a child.

I agree 110%. Your absolutely correct and I think it is completely wrong for fathers to abandon their children even if they dont want to be with the mother. I also agree that they should not under any circumstance preassure the mother into getting an abortion.

HemlockOption wrote: »

But very often abortion is the most responsible decision for their particular circumstances.

There are many couples who cant have babies and would love to adopt. Surely that would be better than an abortion.

Bullseye1

Des Carter wrote: »

I agree 110%. Your absolutely correct and I think it is completely wrong for fathers to abandon their children even if they dont want to be with the mother. I also agree that they should not under any circumstance preassure the mother into getting an abortion.



There are many couples who cant have babies and would love to adopt. Surely that would be better than an abortion.

What if the woman gets pregnant and he doesn't want a child?

hattoncracker

Des Carter wrote: »

HemlockOption wrote: »

Surely the responsibility lies with both would-be parents?

There's many reasons why women have abortions. Very often single women are put under pressure from the would-be father who doesn't want a child.

I agree 110%. Your absolutely correct and I think it is completely wrong for fathers to abandon their children even if they dont want to be with the mother. I also agree that they should not under any circumstance preassure the mother into getting an abortion.

HemlockOption wrote: »

But very often abortion is the most responsible decision for their particular circumstances.

There are many couples who cant have babies and would love to adopt. Surely that would be better than an abortion.

Thats not always the right decision. Women with unwanted pregnancies are not incubators..

Des Carter

HemlockOption wrote: »

And even though you acknowledge that fact, you still think women should be forced to go ahead with unwanted pregnancies, often ending up in poverty ?

There is always adoption and I also believe that the father should be forced to pay for half of the medical bills etc but thats going off topic a bit

Des Carter

Des Carter wrote: »

There is always adoption and I also believe that the father should be forced to pay for half of the medical bills etc but thats going off topic a bit

there isn't always adoption because married couples cannot adopt out their child

HemlockOption

Des Carter wrote: »

I agree 110%. Your absolutely correct and I think it is completely wrong for fathers to abandon their children even if they dont want to be with the mother. I also agree that they should not under any circumstance preassure the mother into getting an abortion.



There are many couples who cant have babies and would love to adopt. Surely that would be better than an abortion.

Although, you make it sound simple and clear-cut, unfortunately it is anything but. Just one example is that of a married woman in her forties with a grown up family who thinks she can no longer become pregnant but is horrified to find herself in that situation. How could she possibly consider adoption?

Des Carter

hattoncracker wrote: »

Thats not always the right decision. Women with unwanted pregnancies are not incubators..

Bullseye1 wrote: »

What if the woman gets pregnant and he doesn't want a child?

Ill just repost two of my older posts that explains my view

Des Carter wrote: »

oh dont be ridiculous unless its as a result of rape it wasnt forced. The woman made the choice to have sex with full knowledge of the possible outcomes and so should take responsibilities for her actions (Same goes for men if they get a woman pregnant)

Its called taking responsibilities for your actions if you dont want a child dont have unprotected sex. And even if you do you know there is still a chance and so it is your responsibility to go through the pregnancy (not including rape, mothers life in danger etc)

HemlockOption

HemlockOption wrote: »

Although, you make it sound simple and clear-cut, unfortunately it is anything but. Just one example is that of a married woman in her forties with a grown up family who thinks she can no longer become pregnant but is horrified to find herself in that situation. How could she possibly consider adoption?

she can't

Des the problem is that your argument is not pro life, it's "nyah nyah you had sex, live with it".
If it were pro life you'd insist on cases of rape being included because it's still a baby/foetus/whatever
and that kind of pro-punishment "deal with the consequences except by having an abortion because i don't like counting that as dealing with them" attitude is seriously backward

hattoncracker

Des Carter wrote: »

hattoncracker wrote: »

Thats not always the right decision. Women with unwanted pregnancies are not incubators..

Bullseye1 wrote: »

What if the woman gets pregnant and he doesn't want a child?

Ill just repost two of my older posts that explains my view

Des Carter wrote: »

oh dont be ridiculous unless its as a result of rape it wasnt forced. The woman made the choice to have sex with full knowledge of the possible outcomes and so should take responsibilities for her actions (Same goes for men if they get a woman pregnant)

Its called taking responsibilities for your actions if you dont want a child dont have unprotected sex. And even if you do you know there is still a chance and so it is your responsibility to go through the pregnancy (not including rape, mothers life in danger etc)

So does that mean I can ask for the father of my unborn child to surrender his rights to immigrate?

Des Carter

bluewolf wrote: »

there isn't always adoption because married couples cannot adopt out their child

Really? I was unaware of that. why not? sorry if its a little off topic.

Des Carter

Des Carter wrote: »

Really? I was unaware of that. why not? sorry if its a little off topic.

Don't know but that's how it is

probably some ancient "don't break up a family" rule

Bullseye1

Des Carter wrote: »

Ill just repost two of my older posts that explains my view

But pregnancy can occur even with contraception. Or the woman might tell her partner she is on the pill when in fact she isn't. He may have told her he doesn't want children and she goes against his wishes. It's not as straight forward as you make out.

Des Carter

HemlockOption wrote: »

Although, you make it sound simple and clear-cut, unfortunately it is anything but. Just one example is that of a married woman in her forties with a grown up family who thinks she can no longer become pregnant but is horrified to find herself in that situation. How could she possibly consider adoption?

the woman might tell her partner she is on the pill when in fact she isn't. He may have told her he doesn't want children and she goes against his wishes.

I am well aware that this whole topic is not black and white and there are all sorts of individual examples where there are problems but im just talking in an general overall sense.

hattoncracker

Des Carter wrote: »

HemlockOption wrote: »

Although, you make it sound simple and clear-cut, unfortunately it is anything but. Just one example is that of a married woman in her forties with a grown up family who thinks she can no longer become pregnant but is horrified to find herself in that situation. How could she possibly consider adoption?

I am well aware that this whole topic is not black and white and there are all sorts of individual examples where there are problems but im just talking in an general overall sense.

So you're generalising. Lovely.

How many women do you know who have had abortions?

HemlockOption

Des Carter wrote: »

I am well aware that this whole topic is not black and white and there are all sorts of individual examples where there are problems but im just talking in an general overall sense.

The reason why abortion is such a divisive subject is precisely because it involves real women in very difficult situations.

Des Carter

Bullseye1 wrote: »

But pregnancy can occur even with contraception. Or the woman might tell her partner she is on the pill when in fact she isn't. He may have told her he doesn't want children and she goes against his wishes. It's not as straight forward as you make out.

Sorry I phrased that all wrong it meant to read

Its called taking responsibilities for your actions if you dont want a child dont have unprotected sex. And even if you do use protection you know there is still a chance and so it is your responsibility to go through the pregnancy (not including rape, mothers life in danger etc)

hattoncracker

Des Carter, I really hope you never have a daughter with a crisis pregnancy because I would pity her.

Wild Bill

Folk here are probably more conditioned by the Church and way less "liberal" than they imagine!

A challenge: If you tick a "yes" against any of these you are merely a conservative fundamentalist that would happily fit into the Church - your objections are those of prejudice or taste - not rationality:

Pro-abortion but anti-euthanasia?

Pro-abortion but against legalizing multiple wives (but probably support gay marriage!)?

Pro-abortion but would shudder at the idea of terminating the severely mentally handicapped?

Pro-abortion on grounds of "women's choice" but horrified if the choice was based on sex or race rather than convenience?

And so on......

If you want a few more examples - gimme a call :cool:

prinz

hattoncracker wrote: »

Des Carter, I really hope you never have a daughter with a crisis pregnancy because I would pity her.

What an unnecessary, insulting thing to say to someone.

Des Carter

hattoncracker wrote: »

So you're generalising. Lovely.

How many women do you know who have had abortions?

HemlockOption wrote: »

The reason why abortion is such a divisive subject is precisely because it involves real women in very difficult situations.

1st off there is two women that I know of who has had an abortion and one is a very close friend actually. I have said already in this thread that I know how complex the subject is and I would never hold it against anyone or look down on them for it as it must be a really emotional and stressfull ordeal.

If we discuss each individual case we would be here forever my point is that the unborn baby is a human life and so must be protected so I think abortion should remain illegal as if it were allowed even in specific cases it would open the floodgates (thats how it satrted in england)

paddyandy

An Abortion can haunt you in your later years when you might think differently .

HemlockOption

prinz wrote: »

What an unnecessary, insulting thing to say to someone.

But maybe the views expressed by the poster you are defending were insulting to a lot of other posters ?