Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

bumper234

Galvasean wrote: »

Upping their campaign would be impressive. You can barely walk 20 yards in Dublin city center without seeing a poster or encountering the fetus-mobile.

Honestly i work literally city center and often walk down o'connell st or up Grafton and round Stephens green on my break and never see them. Maybe they avoid me? Punched one several years ago (satisfying to say the least)

jill_valentine

bumper234 wrote: »

Honestly i work literally city center and often walk down o'connell st or up Grafton and round Stephens green on my break and never see them. Maybe they avoid me? Punched one several years ago (satisfying to say the least)

There was a ton of them around Cork Street, although some seem to have mysteriously evaporated in some kind of reverse miraculous apparition.

bumper234

jill_valentine wrote: »

There was a ton of them around Cork Street, although some seem to have mysteriously evaporated in some kind of reverse miraculous apparition.

Cork st ffs thats miles away. Anyone see them during the week please post here and let me know i might go film them for the laugh

shruikan2553

bumper234 wrote: »

I work around d city centre I wonder will they be upping their campaign as it gets closer? Not had one of those aborted foetus pics shoved in my face in a while.

They can start doing little plays showing abortions. A woman on a table gives birth to a doll from smyths. The doctor takes the doll to table saw. The parts are then thrown to a pack of satanists who perform a ritual for gay marriage. They will inform the crowd of 100k that this will happen to every first born child in the country because the government are being controlled by the minority of baby killers

Nodin

shruikan2553 wrote: »

They can start doing little plays showing abortions. A woman on a table gives birth to a doll from smyths. The doctor takes the doll to table saw. The parts are then thrown to a pack of satanists who perform a ritual for gay marriage. They will inform the crowd of 100k that this will happen to every first born child in the country because the government are being controlled by the minority of baby killers

...its like a mid 80's metal gig.

B0jangles

Nodin wrote: »

...its like a mid 80's metal gig.

Scare metal?

aloyisious

There are a few still up around Leeson St and Stephen's Green promoting last Sat's Demo. I see a few small Ads stuck to lamp-posts promoting the morning-after pill torn up around the city centre.

Grab All Association

xD

maguic24

eireannBEAR wrote: »

no?? hang on a minute!!! you do understand that abortions are not granted in ireland for rape thats illegal,maybe you should take to the street do you think you could muster up 30,000 to march with you i doubt it.

Answer the questions that are put to you and quit changing the subject!!!

oldrnwisr

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Okay, but I was talking about the 20-24 weeks stage when the foetus can feel pain. The stage when it is still possible to have abortions in the UK.

That baby was a 24 week premature born baby. Aborting him/her is barbarity IMO.

Just a couple of points FYI BB,

Firstly, while there are some differing opinions within the medical community about fetal pain (mostly due to differing ethical views), the current consensus is that a) limited evidence exists regarding fetal pain i.e. development of thalamic structures, effect of anaesthesia etc. and b) the foetus is highly unlikely to feel pain before the third trimester 24 weeks.

Fetal Pain: A Systematic Multi-Disciplinary Review of the Evidence


Secondly, using 2010 UK abortion statistics as an example, there were 189,574 total abortions. Of this, a total of 2744 abortions were carried out over 20 weeks. This figure further breaks down as 1936 under ground C (mental health) and 792 under ground E (there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped). Further, of this total of 2744, only 147 were performed over 24 weeks, all of which were performed under ground E. So the evidence we have suggests that any abortions performed at a point where the foetus could feel pain were performed because of other mitigating factors.

While the US statistics are not nearly so detailed, the number of abortions performed at 21 weeks or more is of a similar rate (1.4% vs. 1.02%) to those performed in the UK.

UK Abortion Statistics 2010

US Abortion Surveillance 2001

If there was new evidence to suggest that fetal pain was experienced earlier, then it could be argued for changing the legislation but a) it would only account for approximately 1% of all abortions and b) there would still be extenuating circumstances i.e. medically necessary situations where abortions would need to be performed.

SebBerkovich

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Just a couple of points FYI BB,

Firstly, while there are some differing opinions within the medical community about fetal pain (mostly due to differing ethical views), the current consensus is that a) limited evidence exists regarding fetal pain i.e. development of thalamic structures, effect of anaesthesia etc. and b) the foetus is highly unlikely to feel pain before the third trimester 24 weeks.

Fetal Pain: A Systematic Multi-Disciplinary Review of the Evidence


Secondly, using 2010 UK abortion statistics as an example, there were 189,574 total abortions. Of this, a total of 2744 abortions were carried out over 20 weeks. This figure further breaks down as 1936 under ground C (mental health) and 792 under ground E (there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped). Further, of this total of 2744, only 147 were performed over 24 weeks, all of which were performed under ground E. So the evidence we have suggests that any abortions performed at a point where the foetus could feel pain were performed because of other mitigating factors.

While the US statistics are not nearly so detailed, the number of abortions performed at 21 weeks or more is of a similar rate (1.4% vs. 1.02%) to those performed in the UK.

UK Abortion Statistics 2010

US Abortion Surveillance 2001

If there was new evidence to suggest that fetal pain was experienced earlier, then it could be argued for changing the legislation but a) it would only account for approximately 1% of all abortions and b) there would still be extenuating circumstances i.e. medically necessary situations where abortions would need to be performed.

That was interesting, thanks.
Always love seeing posts from you showing up.

Brown Bomber

Esoteric_ wrote: »

Just because somebody is pro-choice, that does not mean that they believe in late term, partial birth abortions. I sure as hell don't. IF I were to ever have an abortion (I don't want to ever have any myself, but if I were raped I would not be able to carry a rapist's baby, that is the only circumstance in which I would personally have one), I wouldn't have one past 16 weeks, which, iirc, is when the heartbeat starts.

This is a very noble position IMO. However, just because someone is pro-choice doesn't mean that they are against partial birth abortions either - the Obamas for example.

Brown Bomber

Tlachtga wrote: »

Wtf is wrong with you. Do you get off on looking up that sort of stuff?

Highly offensive comment and utterly ridiculous.

You appear to not understand the conversation.

In a discussion between two sides where 1- is plainly and unequivocally against the barbarity of slicing open an unborn child's head, sucking out their brain and crushing their skulls at an age when they have a fighting chance of survival outside the womb or tearing them from the womb limb by limb and 2 - Isn't condemning it

Then group 2 is the is far more likely to "get off" on these kinds of abortions.

eireannBEAR

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Highly offensive comment and utterly ridiculous.

You appear to not understand the conversation.

In a discussion between two sides where 1- is plainly and unequivocally against the barbarity slicing open an unborn child's head, sucking out their brain and crushing their skulls at an age when they have a fighting chance of survival outside the womb and 2 - Isn't condemning it

Then group the is far more likely to "get off" on these kinds of abortions.

notice how it was not deleted.

bumper234

eireannBEAR wrote: »

notice how it was not deleted.

And your point is?

SebBerkovich

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Highly offensive comment and utterly ridiculous.

You appear to not understand the conversation.

In a discussion between two sides where 1- is plainly and unequivocally against the barbarity slicing open an unborn child's head, sucking out their brain and crushing their skulls at an age when they have a fighting chance of survival outside the womb and 2 - Isn't condemning it

Then group the is far more likely to "get off" on these kinds of abortions.

what if the slicing isn't done "barbarity" - what if it was -
"the clinical slicing open"
would that be ok with you?

eireannBEAR

bumper234 wrote: »

And your point is?

oh i guess its ok,in your world to insinuate that this poster gets off on dead baby corpses,i do apologize.

Chattastrophe!

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You appear to not understand the conversation.

In a discussion between two sides where 1- is plainly and unequivocally against the barbarity slicing open an unborn child's head, sucking out their brain and crushing their skulls at an age when they have a fighting chance of survival outside the womb and 2 - Isn't condemning it

Based on what you've just said, I would argue that you do not seem to understand it.

I am pro-choice. Not just in cases of genetic defects or rape - I am firmly pro-choice regardless of the circumstances of the pregnancy, and I believe that every woman should have control over what happens to her own body.

I am also - in your words - plainly and unequivocally against abortions of any kind when it comes to a stage where a healthy foetus is of a gestational age that they would be viable outside of the womb.

I don't know any pro-choice person who favours late-term abortions in any but the most extreme of circumstance. That's not to say that such people don't exist - but they're certainly a small minority.

Bringing late-term abortions into it is completely irrelevant because that's not what the discussion is about.

bumper234

eireannBEAR wrote: »

oh i guess its ok,in your world to insinuate that this poster gets off on dead baby corpses,i do apologize.

If i posted pictures of naked ladies with their ta ta's out it would be a positive indication that i like (and even "get off") to naked ladies with their ta ta's out.

If someone posted pics of 20 year old's dressed in school girl outfits i would think that there is a good chance that they get off on these pics.

Do you see where this is going? For all we know maybe the poster does get off on those images. I don't know the poster personally so i cannot say for sure what he/she "gets off" on but if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck......

lazygal

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Highly offensive comment and utterly ridiculous.

You appear to not understand the conversation.

In a discussion between two sides where 1- is plainly and unequivocally against the barbarity of slicing open an unborn child's head, sucking out their brain and crushing their skulls at an age when they have a fighting chance of survival outside the womb or tearing them from the womb limb by limb and 2 - Isn't condemning it

Then group 2 is the is far more likely to "get off" on these kinds of abortions.

I know women who had what you'd call late term abortions - for the sake of their lives or those of their babies, and in all cases everyone got all necessary medical help. Over the weekend a woman I know had her pregnancy terminated at 29 weeks to deliver her twins for medical reasons. I myself had a very late term abortion at 39 weeks, and its looking like I'll be having another later in the summer.
Abortion of a pregnancy is not partial birth abortion or killing a viable foetus. I don't 'get off' on the late abortion of my pregnancy. If I hadn't had the proceedure me and my child would both have died or at the very least I would have suffered catastrophic internal injury in the course of labour and delivery.

Can you acknowledge that a late term abortion of pregnancy is not partial birth abortion, or anything like it, and that women need access to late term abortion of pregnancy to save their lives and those of the foetus?

eireannBEAR

bumper234 wrote: »

If i posted pictures of naked ladies with their ta ta's out it would be a positive indication that i like (and even "get off") to naked ladies with their ta ta's out.

If someone posted pics of 20 year old's dressed in school girl outfits i would think that there is a good chance that they get off on these pics.

Do you see where this is going? For all we know maybe the poster does get off on those images. I don't know the poster personally so i cannot say for sure what he/she "gets off" on but if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck......

would you attack the poster if this were a holocaust thread and he posted a picture of the death camps?? i think not his information was educational,i dont see how pictures of naked women even come in to this.

bumper234

eireannBEAR wrote: »

would you attack the poster if this were a holocaust thread and he posted a picture of the death camps?? i think not his information was educational,i dont see how pictures of naked women even come in to this.

Who is attacking a poster? Please show where i have attacked the poster. Yet again you twist things around to fit your idealistic agenda.

Dades

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Highly offensive comment and utterly ridiculous.

The fault here lies in you posting a horrific, sensationalist account of something that is so far removed from what most people here are advocating (for a choice), as to be offensive in itself.

eireannBEAR wrote: »

notice how it was not deleted.

Notice how BB's post, despite being a graphically cynical strawman, was not deleted either.

eireannBEAR

dades after looking back through the thread it appears the mod or mods have completely cleaned it up. i will unfollow now. thank you.

Brown Bomber

lazygal wrote: »

I know women who had what you'd call late term abortions - for the sake of their lives or those of their babies, and in all cases everyone got all necessary medical help. Over the weekend a woman I know had her pregnancy terminated at 29 weeks to deliver her twins for medical reasons. I myself had a very late term abortion at 39 weeks, and its looking like I'll be having another later in the summer.
Abortion of a pregnancy is not partial birth abortion or killing a viable foetus. I don't 'get off' on the late abortion of my pregnancy. If I hadn't had the proceedure me and my child would both have died or at the very least I would have suffered catastrophic internal injury in the course of labour and delivery.

Can you acknowledge that a late term abortion of pregnancy is not partial birth abortion, or anything like it, and that women need access to late term abortion of pregnancy to save their lives and those of the foetus?

You have my sympathies. And sincerely apologise if I have unintentionally caused you any further pain. I should make this clear - there are extreme cases when abortion is necessary.

What I am talking about are cases such as a friend of my wives who found out ( and I apologise if this not the PC term in English as I am translating directly) a "waterheaded" baby. She decided that this would be an inconvenience to her life and didn't fit in with her ideal of a baby (as a fashion accessory). She had a late term abortion with the intention of getting pregnant again with a "normal" baby -like she had kept the receipt and was returning a pair of shoes she didn't like.

This really disgusted me when I seen one of these such babies on a home makeover type show. He had a loving mother and was one of the happiest children I've seen.

Lingua Franca

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Highly offensive comment and utterly ridiculous.

You appear to not understand the conversation.

In a discussion between two sides where 1- is plainly and unequivocally against the barbarity of slicing open an unborn child's head, sucking out their brain and crushing their skulls at an age when they have a fighting chance of survival outside the womb or tearing them from the womb limb by limb and 2 - Isn't condemning it

Then group 2 is the is far more likely to "get off" on these kinds of abortions.

You appear to not understand the conversation.

In a discussion between two sides where 1- is plainly and unequivocally posting incredible, disprovable and graphic torture porn and 2 - Is pointing out that it does not happen.

It's crystal clear who is enjoying searching up and posting (discredited) graphic accounts and pictures from pro life sites and ignoring all evidence disproving them in order to post even more.

Since we all know, you included, that you are being disingenuous, you should drop the "buuuut I'm only defending de innocent bayyyybees from de eeeeevil pro-partial birth aborts!" act so we can get on with a grown up discussion.

Brown Bomber

Tlachtga wrote: »

Based on what you've just said, I would argue that you do not seem to understand it.

I am pro-choice. Not just in cases of genetic defects or rape - I am firmly pro-choice regardless of the circumstances of the pregnancy, and I believe that every woman should have control over what happens to her own body.

I am also - in your words - plainly and unequivocally against abortions of any kind when it comes to a stage where a healthy foetus is of a gestational age that they would be viable outside of the womb.

I don't know any pro-choice person who favours late-term abortions in any but the most extreme of circumstance. That's not to say that such people don't exist - but they're certainly a small minority.

Bringing late-term abortions into it is completely irrelevant because that's not what the discussion is about.

Right then, so you therefore believe that abortions at 24 weeks, as are legal in the UK should be banned?

lazygal

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You have my sympathies. And sincerely apologise if I have unintentionally caused you any further pain. I should make this clear - there are extreme cases when abortion is necessary.

What I am talking about are cases such as a friend of my wives who found out ( and I apologise if this not the PC term in English as I am translating directly) a "waterheaded" baby. She decided that this would be an inconvenience to her life and didn't fit in with her ideal of a baby (as a fashion accessory). She had a late term abortion with the intention of getting pregnant again with a "normal" baby -like she had kept the receipt and was returning a pair of shoes she didn't like.

This really disgusted me when I seen one of these such babies on a home makeover type show. He had a loving mother and was one of the happiest children I've seen.

Not everyone wants to continue being pregnant. I know woman who after a nuchal fold test showed markers for Downs Syndrom decided to terminate pregnancies because they had a child with the syndrome and knew what a tough road it was ahead. What about termination in the case of a multiple pregnancy, where to save the lives of some, the termination of prengnacy of one or more foetuses takes place, should all be put at risk of dying instead?
Would you be willing to undertake a risky proceedure lasting nine months to make sure someone you've never met will stay alive, and decline other medical or dentail treatment, endure lifestyle restrictions and possibly undergo surgery to make sure the person stays alive, even if they will be severely disabled? What about the rest of the family, should they have to take on the stress of a child needing constant care? I know a little about how medical problems can impact on those around the patient, and now I have a family of my own I know there's certain things I will not impose on my other children, among which is a burden of care for their silbings.

Brown Bomber

Lingua Franca wrote: »

You appear to not understand the conversation.

In a discussion between two sides where 1- is plainly and unequivocally posting incredible, disprovable and graphic torture porn and 2 - Is pointing out that it does not happen.

It's crystal clear who is enjoying searching up and posting (discredited) graphic accounts and pictures from pro life sites and ignoring all evidence disproving them in order to post even more.

Since we all know, you included, that you are being disingenuous, you should drop the "buuuut I'm only defending de innocent bayyyybees from de eeeeevil pro-partial birth aborts!" act so we can get on with a grown up discussion.

Get on with your denial more like.

IT-Guy

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You have my sympathies. And sincerely apologise if I have unintentionally caused you any further pain. I should make this clear - there are extreme cases when abortion is necessary.

What I am talking about are cases such as a friend of my wives who found out ( and I apologise if this not the PC term in English as I am translating directly) a "waterheaded" baby. She decided that this would be an inconvenience to her life and didn't fit in with her ideal of a baby (as a fashion accessory). She had a late term abortion with the intention of getting pregnant again with a "normal" baby -like she had kept the receipt and was returning a pair of shoes she didn't like.

This really disgusted me when I seen one of these such babies on a home makeover type show. He had a loving mother and was one of the happiest children I've seen.

Do you mean babies born with hydrocephalus? Without knowing the individual case, hydrocephalus can have complications beyond what some people may feel capable of dealing with, including mental disability and death. However strongly you feel about the kid you saw on tv, it would be unwise to think all cases of hydrocephalus have such a positive outcome.

And BB, do yourself and the rest of us a favour, please lay off the comparisons between abortions and returning goods with a receipt or babies as fashion accessories, it's infantile, demeans your entire argument and comes across as offensive.