Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

IT-Guy

MrPudding wrote: »

I actually have Irish twins. They both appear to have a soul, but seem to have the ability to ditch it at will, should it suit them.

Quite correct. When a killing is lawful, or otherwise does not fulfil the criteria for it to be considered murder, then it is not murder. Murder, by definition, can never be necessary. So whilst your statement is correct, it is not correct for the reason you think.

Have you considered the possibility that people use the term foetus because it is, you know, the correct term to use?

Also, can you put us out of our misery and tell us who you are a re-reg of? It is a pain having to wait until you open the pointless thread protesting your innocence in the prison forum after your inevitable site ban.

MrP

RE use of the term foetus, I think Myg should read the Huff' Post article you linked to in the thread about the NJ statute of limitations. Would love to hear his/her apologetics for that case.

kylith

_Myg wrote: »

- One thing about issues as tense as this, infact most issues; as well, it attracts the people who think they are pro-life, but are actually not. You will find this on both sides of the fence here. They are simply shameless shills and emotional saboteurs who will sit there, waiting for a chance to prove the other side's cause.

I haven't heard anything about the pro-choice side mailing faeces to people, issuing death threats, spitting on TDs, or harassing them in the middle of the night. The side that is claiming superior morality appears to have none at all.

- I don't know if its a politician's right to privacy or not, is there some law which prevents people who serve the greater good of the public from being bothered at the late hours?

I believe its known as 'common courtesy', 'human decency', or in the language of the youths of today 'not being a dick'. Have YD heard of these concepts?

The rest of us don't seem to have that luxury, and we don't even claim to be serving others in such an official and supported manner. If your boss tells you at 2am you gotta do something, if you want to keep your job; you better do it! That's the different between serving others and being served.

Can you link to the citation that states that an employer can demand that an employee work outside of their rostered hours? I've never heard of this before. Thanks in advance.

The church itself isn't exactly a nationalistic entity, so if it decides that it wants to re-assert what is right/wrong, it doesn't mean its anti-democratic, but to say "anti-woman" as well; thats hurtful.

And true. Here's a list of anti-woman statements from the bible:
http://www.nobeliefs.com/DarkBible/darkbible7.htm

Here's the Catholic church saying recently that women priests are as bad as paedophiles
I have to say that for an organisation that you say doesn't hate women, they kind of seem to really hate women.

The secular world will/would do much worse to women if they had their way and they are starting to gain much more ground on that regard in the manner of controlling and perverting people's upbringing.

Any evidence of that?

- So, just because the church believes in second chances and mercy for all, protecting child molesters, means you can go ahead down this road toward murdering children? While it is true that living with the reality of being abused is worse then death for some; and this may be a standard to how all abused people feel, there is never a cause to further destruction because of destruction.

No. Not 'because they church believes that pederasts deserve a second chance it's ok to murder children': because the church has proven itself to be anything but a paragon of morality, see their massive paedophile cover-up, they have forfeited the right to call themselves any sort of moral authority on anything.

_Myg wrote: »

Even with all our medicine and augmenting tech, sometimes we just can't save everyone. Its better to accept it then to over-react and try to make the situation worse. If we could save everyone, there would be no issue; right?

Because we can't save everyone we shouldn't make the effort to save those that we can? We should allow a woman's pregnancy to kill her and do nothing to save her life because we couldn't save the foetus too?

_Myg wrote: »

Murder is never necessary.

Would you not kill a person to save someone else's life? If a mugger had a knife to your mother's throat and you knew that you could kill him and save her you would leave her to die?

MrPudding

kylith wrote: »

Would you not kill a person to save someone else's life? If a mugger had a knife to your mother's throat and you knew that you could kill him and save her you would leave her to die?

I hate to be a pedant* but that would not be murder. I may start a campaign to recognise the correct use of the term murder, as its misuse really irritates me. As I said in the post above, he is correct to say murder is never justified, but not for the reason he thinks.

MrP



















*May be a lie.

kylith

MrPudding wrote: »

I hate to be a pedant* but that would not be murder. I may start a campaign to recognise the correct use of the term murder, as its misuse really irritates me. As I said in the post above, he is correct to say murder is never justified, but not for the reason he thinks.

MrP

*May be a lie.

Point taken. Following that logic terminating a pregnancy which is putting a woman's life at risk cannot be called murder either.

MrPudding

kylith wrote: »

Point taken. Following that logic terminating a pregnancy which is putting a woman's life at risk cannot be called murder either.

Exactly.

MrP

lazygal

I wish people would start using the term 'floodgates' correctly. They are designed to control the flow of something, not open fully to allow something to happen freely.

ShooterSF

_Myg wrote: »

Babies are always innocent, how can that be questioned?

Yeah! It would take some disgusting sicko to suggest that babies are born with sin right? Right???

Bannasidhe

lazygal wrote: »

I wish people would start using the term 'floodgates' correctly. They are designed to control the flow of something, not open fully to allow something to happen freely.

Can we add 'natural' to the list. 'Natural' means occurs in Nature. This does not mean it is a 'good' thing or a thing we want in our lives.
Earthquakes are natural, leprosy is natural, Malaria is natural - actually starvation is natural too.

MrPudding

Found this when reading the story about that waste of oxygen, Rick Perry.

MrP

kylith

MrPudding wrote: »

Found this when reading the story about that waste of oxygen, Rick Perry.

MrP

One of my relatives was recently heard to say of Praveen 'He'll be getting some money now'. I conceded that he would probably get compensation, but "how could money compensate for the loss of your wife?"

"Ah, sure for those fellas [i.e. Indians] it can".

Sometimes I'm very ashamed of my family.

MrPudding

kylith wrote: »

One of my relatives was recently heard to say of Praveen 'He'll be getting some money now'. I conceded that he would probably get compensation, but "how could money compensate for the loss of your wife?"

"Ah, sure for those fellas [i.e. Indians] it can".

Sometimes I'm very ashamed of my family.

Yeah, some of my family have opinions I am fairly embarrassed about. Because I am amongst friends here I feel comfortable enough to tell you that one of my uncles is a daily mail reader. We had a rather tense afternoon in the pub where he went through story after story about law issues he had read in that excuse for a paper whilst I explained the actual truth. Of course he didn't believe me...

MrP

Bannasidhe

kylith wrote: »

One of my relatives was recently heard to say of Praveen 'He'll be getting some money now'. I conceded that he would probably get compensation, but "how could money compensate for the loss of your wife?"

"Ah, sure for those fellas [i.e. Indians] it can".

Sometimes I'm very ashamed of my family.

There was a thread on that very topic.

Zombrex

_Myg wrote: »

Murder is never necessary.

You might want to tell that to Jesus




zing!

Richard Bingham

I recently saw a comment about the suicide of a pregnant woman last year which put me thinking about how the new legislation will work. There is an account of some of the evidence given at the Coroners inquest here http://www.independent.ie/irish-news...-28903436.html

Six days before her death, Mrs Byrne and her husband attended an appointment with consultant psychiatrist at the Rotunda, Dr John Sheehan. She told him that she felt "part of her life was missing" because she had no daughter.

"She said that she planned the current pregnancy hoping for a baby daughter but found out at 20 weeks she was having twins and that they were both boys. She said that she was devastated," he said.

Her mood was low, particularly in the evening, and she described a loss of interest and not feeling "maternal".

She told him she felt overwhelmed by the prospect of having four boys but did not express any intention to take her own life, he said.

If this legislation had been passed before the death of Anna Byrne and if she had looked for an abortion due to her suicidality, which according to the evidence was because of the sex of her unborn babies, would it have been granted?

lazygal

I don't see the reason for suicidal feelings being a factor. If a woman is pregnant and there's a risk to her life for physical or psychological reasons, she's entitled under the constitution to a termination. Do you think some suicidal feelings are more or less valid in seeking abortion under those grounds of threat to life? Is one physical reason 'better' than another?

Richard Bingham

lazygal wrote: »

I don't see the reason for suicidal feelings being a factor. If a woman is pregnant and there's a risk to her life for physical or psychological reasons, she's entitled under the constitution to a termination. Do you think some suicidal feelings are more or less valid in seeking abortion under those grounds of threat to life? Is one physical reason 'better' than another?

Its not about what I think about some suicidal feelings being more or less valid. I asked an open question about how this will operate. The risk of loss of life from self destruction is anticipated because of the risk of suicide.

If a woman is suicidal because she has been told the child is going to be of a sex other than the one she hoped for, then I'm wondering will an abortion be granted i.e. would this have helped Anna Byrne?

lazygal

Richard Bingham wrote: »

Its not about what I think about some suicidal feelings being more or less valid. I asked an open question about how this will operate. The risk of loss of life from self destruction is anticipated because of the risk of suicide.

If a woman is suicidal because she has been told the child is going to be of a sex other than the one she hoped for, then I'm wondering will an abortion be granted i.e. would this have helped Anna Byrne?

Unless you happen to be a psychiatrist assessing pregnant women on whether they are suicidal, I'd let the professionals do their job on cases like that.

Richard Bingham

lazygal wrote: »

Unless you happen to be a psychiatrist assessing pregnant women on whether they are suicidal, I'd let the professionals do their job on cases like that.

With respect Lazygal, there is no requirement in life or on boards, to only speak on matters in which you hold a university degree. You don't know that I'm not a psychiatrist, and I don't know that you're not a dietician even though only yesterday you were commenting on the reasons for childhood obesity.

Why should I be able to vote on it if I can't even discuss it, or perhaps you think that I shouldn't be able to vote on it?

lazygal

Richard Bingham wrote: »

With respect Lazygal, there is no requirement in life or on boards, to only speak on matters in which you hold a university degree. You don't know that I'm not a psychiatrist, and I don't know that you're not a dietician even though only yesterday you were commenting on the reasons for childhood obesity.

Why should I be able to vote on it if I can't even discuss it, or perhaps you think that I shouldn't be able to vote on it?

I don't know why the reason a woman who's pregnant and seeking abortion because of a risk to her life is something I or anybody else should speculate on, why is it not up to the women and her doctors to decide on a course of action? Why are you wondering if a pregnant woman who's killed herself would have been able to get an abortion, when no one can say if she could have, because she's dead? Why would you vote on it, only TDs and senators will vote on the bill? What exactly are you referring to 'voting' on anyway?

Flier

Lots of 'if's' in this case.
If she did commit suicide (the coroner returned an open verdict), if she did want an abortion (there's no evidence for that), if the legislation had been passed.
It's really impossible and unfair to comment on individual cases, where we don't know all (hardly any) of the facts.
I will say this though. The constitution and the legislation affords a right to a termination of pregnancy, not an abortion.
Even if the legislation had been passed, and she had sought an abortion on the grounds of risk of suicide at 20 weeks, and that abortion had been granted, then a husband would have his wife, and 2 children would have their mother. There are very few easy answers in this debate. It is never black and white.

Probably best that these decisions are best left to the woman, advised by her doctors, and her trusted friends and family.

_rebelkid

Don't you just love the calm and peaceful anti-choice side?

Wait... that doesn't sound right...

via this journal article:

WATERFORD TD JOHN Halligan has revealed that an email containing a death threat was sent to his office this morning in the wake of his comments about the increasingly heated abortion debate earlier this week.


Halligan said it was not the first time he had been threatened and intimidated by what he said were pro-life campaigners.
“They came to my door in the middle of the night and pushed leaflets through the letterbox and they corralled me while I was out walking with my partner on a beach in Tramore,” he said.

28064212

Richard Bingham wrote: »

If this legislation had been passed before the death of Anna Byrne and if she had looked for an abortion due to her suicidality, which according to the evidence was because of the sex of her unborn babies, would it have been granted?

Assuming it was suicide, and she had looked for an abortion, then yes, of course. I don't see how the reason for suicidal feelings should have any bearing on the decision.

Bannasidhe

Richard Bingham wrote: »

With respect Lazygal, there is no requirement in life or on boards, to only speak on matters in which you hold a university degree. You don't know that I'm not a psychiatrist, and I don't know that you're not a dietician even though only yesterday you were commenting on the reasons for childhood obesity.

Why should I be able to vote on it if I can't even discuss it, or perhaps you think that I shouldn't be able to vote on it?

Why if it is isn't Richard Bingham - former Elizabethan president of Connacht and all round nasty piece of work. How lovely to have you here on boards, while you are here may I ask you why you hanged those children in 1586?

Actually, having spent many years researching you Richard - may I call you Dick?- I had a look at your other posts and noticed you posted the exact same thing here in A&A and Politics - surely if you wish clarification of a legal point - as you seem to do here - you should have gone to Legal Discussion?

Richard Bingham

lazygal wrote: »

Why would you vote on it, only TDs and senators will vote on the bill? What exactly are you referring to 'voting' on anyway?

In the referendum. Some people think that the citizens of the country should be asked to vote again but I don't necessarily think so.

Richard Bingham

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Why if it is isn't Richard Bingham - former Elizabethan president of Connacht and all round nasty piece of work. How lovely to have you here on boards, while you are here may I ask you why you hanged those children in 1586?

Actually, having spent many years researching you Richard - may I call you Dick?- I had a look at your other posts and noticed you posted the exact same thing here in A&A and Politics - surely if you wish clarification of a legal point - as you seem to do here - you should have gone to Legal Discussion?

Thanks Bannasidhe. I didn't know that. Very informative.

Also the real name of Lord Lucan, coincidentally also an alleged murderer, although when I picked the name I didn't do it out of any attempt to link it to the discussion. Anyway this is all a bit off topic.

Its curious that you feel the need to attack me, seeing as I haven't even declared whether I am pro or anti abortion. I am just teasing out how this will work. I believe that when politicians pass laws they consider how they will be implemented. It seems a sensible thing to do so I assume our government has considered this.

Why would I want a clarification of a legal point - it's not law yet.

Richard Bingham

28064212 wrote: »

Assuming it was suicide, and she had looked for an abortion, then yes, of course. I don't see how the reason for suicidal feelings should have any bearing on the decision.

Thanks 28064212. This is how a discussion works. You may be absolutely correct. Maybe the psychiatrists won't look behind the reason for the persons suicidal ideation although I am certain that they will ask the person why they are suicidal. If a woman is being interviewed by a psychiatrist and she says she is suicidal I doubt very much is he will just move on, I would think he is very likely to ask her why and that he will note the reason.

Comments welcome and I promise not to attack anyone even if they don't agree with my view (whatever that is).

28064212

Richard Bingham wrote: »

Thanks 28064212. This is how a discussion works. You may be absolutely correct. Maybe the psychiatrists won't look behind the reason for the persons suicidal ideation although I am certain that they will ask the person why they are suicidal. If a woman is being interviewed by a psychiatrist and she says she is suicidal I doubt very much is he will just move on, I would think he is very likely to ask her why and that he will note the reason.

I'm sure the psychiatrist will ask. It wouldn't change anything related to the decision this legislation is covering. If a psychiatrist determines that a patient is suicidal, and that an abortion is an appropriate treatment, then the reasons she's feeling suicidal are entirely irrelevant to whether she is entitled to one. Whether that reason is related to the gender of the unborn, or whether the leprechauns that live in her garden told her to kill herself, has no bearing on the abortion decision

Bannasidhe

Richard Bingham wrote: »

Thanks Bannasidhe. I didn't know that. Very informative.

Also the real name of Lord Lucan, coincidentally also an alleged murderer, although when I picked the name I didn't do it out of any attempt to link it to the discussion. Anyway this is all a bit off topic.

Its curious that you feel the need to attack me, seeing as I haven't even declared whether I am pro or anti abortion. I am just teasing out how this will work. I believe that when politicians pass laws they consider how they will be implemented. It seems a sensible thing to do so I assume our government has considered this.

Why would I want a clarification of a legal point - it's not law yet.

I am sorry if it looked like an attack - just commenting on your interesting choice of user name as it is the name of an actual child murderer - the Lucan's were descended from George Bingham, Richard's brother.

As for querying why you posted the same question here and in politics as your first ever posts on boards - well, I 'm just interested in why you asked the same question twice and if the reason you joined was to ask that question.

I do think discussion of who would be 'entitled' to an abortion under the proposed legislation is one for the legal eagles over in Legal Discussion or given the case you have cited perhaps ask those who have knowledge of assessing sucidiality how they would interpret the proposed legislation in this case. There is probably a forum where psychiatrists hang out...

But, in my opinion, the situation is that whether or not this poor woman would have been deemed eligible under the proposed legislation would have been determined by the panel of experts as outlined in the proposed legislation and not made public.

Essentially, its is none of our business really...one either believes she should have had that entitlement should she have wished to avail of it - or she shouldn't have.

Richard Bingham

_rebelkid wrote: »

Don't you just love the calm and peaceful anti-choice side?

Wait... that doesn't sound right...

via this journal article:

I condemn any violence, vandalism, intimidation or abuse of anyone on behalf of either side, on boards.ie or in real life.

I don't know why John Halligan is going to the media about a death threat. I expect he should be going to the Gardai. Must be trying to make a political point.

The fact that some people (pro or anti) haven't got the intelligence to make their argument without resorting to intimidation, doesn't mean that the argument is wrong.

If a pro choice person did something bad does anyone seriously think it would damage the argument for abortion. Of course not.

ShooterSF

Richard Bingham wrote: »

I condemn any violence, vandalism, intimidation or abuse of anyone on behalf of either side, on boards.ie or in real life.

I don't know why John Halligan is going to the media about a death threat. I expect he should be going to the Gardai. Must be trying to make a political point.

The fact that some people (pro or anti) haven't got the intelligence to make their argument without resorting to intimidation, doesn't mean that the argument is wrong.

If a pro choice person did something bad does anyone seriously think it would damage the argument for abortion. Of course not.

If you read the article you'd see the gardai have been contacted about it.