Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

Sarky

Don't say that too loudly, the pope might get wind of it and crack down on them for giving good advice and not treating the pregnant girls with contempt.

Bannasidhe

Sarky wrote: »

Don't say that too loudly, the pope might get wind of it and crack down on them for giving good advice and not treating the pregnant girls with contempt.

Or worse - Mr W might write an opinion piece.

seamus

Some of the crap you girls had to go through in school.

At an all boys school, there was never any talk of abortion or the likes. Our talks were along the lines of, "If you stick your mickey in something, it will fall off". To be fair though despite being a catholic school, the mandatory sex talk did include a recommendation to wear condoms, though peppered heavily with, "It's better to wait until it's with someone you really love". I guess they knew straight up that telling a room full of boys not to have sex until marriage would have been met with loud ridicule.
The downside was that we were 16 by the time they did the talk, so about 3 years too late. At that stage, we'd already made up our minds as to the circumstances under which we'd use our mickeys, i.e. every circumstance.

My wife on the other hand in her convent school across the road can recall a number of long lectures on abortion, as well as the obligatory showing of "Not without my daughter", followed by a not so subtle discussion about "Muslim" marriage practices.

Sin City

seamus wrote: »

Some of the crap you girls had to go through in school.

At an all boys school, there was never any talk of abortion or the likes. Our talks were along the lines of, "If you stick your mickey in something, it will fall off". To be fair though despite being a catholic school, the mandatory sex talk did include a recommendation to wear condoms, though peppered heavily with, "It's better to wait until it's with someone you really love". I guess they knew straight up that telling a room full of boys not to have sex until marriage would have been met with loud ridicule.
The downside was that we were 16 by the time they did the talk, so about 3 years too late. At that stage, we'd already made up our minds as to the circumstances under which we'd use our mickeys, i.e. every circumstance.

My wife on the other hand in her convent school across the road can recall a number of long lectures on abortion, as well as the obligatory showing of "Not without my daughter", followed by a not so subtle discussion about "Muslim" marriage practices.

True, not much mention of abortions in my school, though we were taught to use condoms by the priest teaching us, and were also told to use real condoms and not a tayto bag tied with an elastic band. (seriously)

IT-Guy

Yeah we had very little sex-ed in our school, the closest it came to anything like it was covering the human reproductive system in biology and a talk from a civics teacher on personal hygiene including how to clean your penis to avoid the build up of smegma. Nothing on condoms or abortion though. The only abortion material I ever saw was the video Silent Scream shown to me by a 'friend' of the family when I was about 16 or so. Anyone remember this inaccurate pile of dung?

doctoremma

IT-Guy wrote: »

The only abortion material I ever saw was the video Silent Scream shown to me by a 'friend' of the family when I was about 16 or so. Anyone remember this inaccurate pile of dung?

It was shown to our whole class when we were maybe 12 years (Catholic School in UK). If I remember, the teacher didn't really say anything on the subject himself, he just said it was a video that he'd been sent and wanted to see what the fuss was about. In hindsight, this was clearly bobbins. But at the time, we didn't really question why he was playing a video he hadn't already vetted and wanted to show. Having said that, I don't remember any of the content.

I also remember some poem about abortion going around for ages, passed in class and playground, written from the POV of the aborted child. The last line was about going to theatre to see Danny la Rue "who was pretending to be a woman, just like my mother was" (that's obviously stuck with me!). The content was pretty graphic (buckets and blood etc) and these days, it would be removed from a pupil immediately. However, again in hindsight, I can see why a Catholic school might turn a blind eye for a bit or pretend not to know what was happening.

Tipsygypsy

IT-Guy wrote: »

Yeah we had very little sex-ed in our school, the closest it came to anything like it was covering the human reproductive system in biology and a talk from a civics teacher on personal hygiene including how to clean your penis to avoid the build up of smegma. Nothing on condoms or abortion though. The only abortion material I ever saw was the video Silent Scream shown to me by a 'friend' of the family when I was about 16 or so. Anyone remember this inaccurate pile of dung?

According to the girl (who did her leaving last year) I spoke to last night it (the video the silent scream) was shown to her in school sometime during her leaving cert cycle - thats within the last 2 years folks.

IT-Guy

Tipsygypsy wrote: »

According to the girl (who did her leaving last year) I spoke to last night it was shown to her sometime during her leaving cert cycle - thats within the last 2 years folks.

:eek:

Wow, just wow. That piece of propaganda has been doing the rounds since the early 80s and it's inaccuracies have been highlighted and criticized, it's frustrating to think it's still being shown today.

Zombrex

Sin City wrote: »

As do the millions of other sperms you relase, yet they are not aborted. Again I get what you are saying but I dont see it like that, maybe I should as it effects me but someother sperm could have been a faster swimmer than me too and that also would renender me non existant. Its that fact that implantation and fertilization occurs that we can say for certain that life is in the making and any premeditated artifical inteription of this action is whats wrong and it is from here we can talk about potential life.

There are a million and one things that can stop a pregnancy after fertilization and after implantation. 8 out of 10 fertilized eggs are naturally terminated by the woman's own body.

How is this any different than the million and one things that can prevent a sperm from ever being anything other than a sperm.

The reality is that you don't know a potential person will ever become a person until they actually do. Declaring then that some potential persons are valuable but some potential persons aren't is nonsensical.

coffee_cake

IT-Guy wrote: »

:eek:

Wow, just wow. That piece of propaganda has been doing the rounds since the early 80s and it's inaccuracies have been highlighted and criticized, it's frustrating to think it's still being shown today.

It's not even inaccurate, it's an out-and-out hoax. Completely manufactured

IT-Guy

bluewolf wrote: »

It's not even inaccurate, it's an out-and-out hoax. Completely manufactured

Really? Got a linky for that, would love to read up on it?

Sin City

Zombrex wrote: »

There are a million and one things that can stop a pregnancy after fertilization and after implantation. 8 out of 10 fertilized eggs are naturally terminated by the woman's own body.

How is this any different than the million and one things that can prevent a sperm from ever being anything other than a sperm.

The reality is that you don't know a potential person will ever become a person until they actually do. Declaring then that some potential persons are valuable but some potential persons aren't is nonsensical.

Yes, anything can happen naturally to a pp
They key word is natural


Any attempt at artificaly terminating a pregnacy would rob a pp at that chance of life

Bannasidhe

Sin City wrote: »

Yes, anything can happen naturally to a pp
They key word is natural


Any attempt at artificaly terminating a pregnacy would rob a pp at that chance of life

Which bring us back to there are times when not terminating a pregnancy would rob a woman of her life.

Sin City

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Which bring us back to there are times when not terminating a pregnancy would rob a woman of her life.

And legally that is alright, which he have established

28064212

Sin City wrote: »

And legally that is alright, which he have established

Constitutionally it's alright. It's still illegal, which is the whole problem

Bannasidhe

Sin City wrote: »

And legally that is alright, which he have established

Legal smegal (:p) how you feel about that?
Do you think in the circumstances where a woman's life is in danger abortion should be available in Ireland?

Sin City

28064212 wrote: »

Constitutionally it's alright. It's still illegal, which is the whole problem

My apologise, Constitutionally its there

Improbable

Potential people. I don't think potential people should have priority over actual current people.

Sin City

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Legal smegal (:p) how you feel about that?
Do you think in the circumstances where a woman's life is in danger abortion should be available in Ireland?

How I feel , conflicted


Let me ask you this

Say the child was almost fit to be born, was more or less a fully formed baby, just adding on the last few pounds and ounces before birth, perfectly healthy but suddenly a scenario arose where the birth would kill the mother

Which would you save?

doctoremma

Sin City wrote: »

How I feel , conflicted


Let me ask you this

Say the child was almost fit to be born, was more or less a fully formed baby, just adding on the last few pounds and ounces before birth, perfectly healthy but suddenly a scenario arose where the birth would kill the mother

Which would you save?

You didn't ask me but I'll answer.

First, I'd ask the mother which she'd rather and honour that choice (assuming she is of sound mind). If it came to point where I had to make an uninformed choice, I'd save the mother.

28064212

Sin City wrote: »

How I feel , conflicted


Let me ask you this

Say the child was almost fit to be born, was more or less a fully formed baby, just adding on the last few pounds and ounces before birth, perfectly healthy but suddenly a scenario arose where the birth would kill the mother

Which would you save?

Whoever the mother chose to save. Why should I get to choose for her?

Sin City

doctoremma wrote: »

You didn't ask me but I'll answer.

The mother. It's self-defence at that point.

Im it not up on the legal side of things, but can you claim self defence if the baby itself is not trying to kill you as in its not an attack by the baby but by the body?

doctoremma

Sin City wrote: »

Im it not up on the legal side of things, but can you claim self defence if the baby itself is not trying to kill you as in its not an attack by the baby but by the body?

He he, I removed the "self-defence" bit in an edit but not quick enough! Um, the act of being pregnant is going to kill you so you have every right to stop the act of being pregnant. If a mugger is going to kill you, you have every right to stop the mugging, even if that means the mugger dies.

Sin City

28064212 wrote: »

Whoever the mother chose to save. Why should I get to choose for her?

Mother is unconscious or under anesthetic who would you choose and why
Remember the child can survive independently at this stage if taken out

doctoremma

Sin City wrote: »

Mother is unconscious or under anesthetic who would you choose and why
Remember the child can survive independently at this stage if taken out

Well then, neither needs to die?

Bannasidhe

Sin City wrote: »

How I feel , conflicted


Let me ask you this

Say the child was almost fit to be born, was more or less a fully formed baby, just adding on the last few pounds and ounces before birth, perfectly healthy but suddenly a scenario arose where the birth would kill the mother

Which would you save?

I'm not sure how common that scenario is - why would a C-section not work if the child is that developed?

But to answer your question: Conflicted as you say. But unless I was the woman involved it's not my decision. The woman (hopefully with the support of those who love her) would have to make that awful decision. If it was me - I'd choose to live.

If it was a choice between your wife and your unborn child? Who would you choose?

See, this is why we need clear legislation and not this 'export for foreign solutions' situation we currently have.

seamus

Sin City wrote: »

How I feel , conflicted
Let me ask you this

Say the child was almost fit to be born, was more or less a fully formed baby, just adding on the last few pounds and ounces before birth, perfectly healthy but suddenly a scenario arose where the birth would kill the mother

Which would you save?

You're posing an unrealistic hypothetical.

If it's "fit to be born", then either way the child would have to be removed as a whole entity, so why would you not try to remove it alive?

There's not really any case where giving birth to a live child is more dangerous than giving birth to a dead one. So if someone has already gotten to the stage where the child is big enough to be born, then aborting it at that stage will not serve any purpose.

Sin City

doctoremma wrote: »

He he, I removed the "self-defence" bit in an edit but not quick enough! Um, the act of being pregnant is going to kill you so you have every right to stop the act of being pregnant. If a mugger is going to kill you, you have every right to stop the mugging, even if that means the mugger dies.

Even though personhood exists the only thing is the baby is still in the womb, but could be birthed anyday naturally is a baby in everyway except its still inside

We are well passed the permitted limit for abortions

Sin City

seamus wrote: »

You're posing an unrealistic hypothetical.

If it's "fit to be born", then either way the child would have to be removed as a whole entity, so why would you not try to remove it alive?

There's not really any case where giving birth to a live child is more dangerous than giving birth to a dead one. So if someone has already gotten to the stage where the child is big enough to be born, then aborting it at that stage will not serve any purpose.

It may not be a real life scenario just a hypothtical to see where people stand.

Ok lets say somehow the baby and the mother share one vital organ (somehow)
removal would kill the mother. removing said organ from baby by terminating it would save the mother (again I know unrealistic but thinking on the hop here just humour me)

Bannasidhe

Sin City wrote: »

Even though personhood exists the only thing is the baby is still in the womb, but could be birthed anyday naturally is a baby in everyway except its still inside

We are well passed the permitted limit for abortions

Sin, I'm sorry but you seem to have not only moved the goal posts - you have paved the playing pitch.