Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

Options
1…3536384041…330

Comments

  • Options
    #1112
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    I think there should be some mechanism where if the father wishes he can abdicate all his rights and responsibilities of the child.However, such a mechanism would have to be stringently implemented. Probably something like having an independent psychologist, GP and social worker sign off on it. Or something. :confused:


  • Options
    #1113
    doctoremma
    Registered Users Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    Neewbie_noob wrote: »
    If a woman gets pregnant outside marriage (or inside for that matter). The baby should have to be carried to term.
    Even if the baby is desperately sick? Even if the pregnancy will make the mother sick? Even after rape by a stranger, or rape by a Dad?
    Neewbie_noob wrote: »
    UK abortion providers should not serve any Irish Passport holders or anyone coming from the 6 counties - where the termination of innocent babies is also prohibited.
    Unworkable. Is there a legal precedent for having to abide by your "home" laws when in another country (where said law doesn't exist)?


  • Options
    #1114
    Rev Hellfire
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,346 ✭✭✭Rev Hellfire


    Would that also include ANY parenting situation? Even if abortion wasn't discussed or he didn't want an abortion?
    Do you mean generally changing regulations so that any man can leave his partner/child and abdicate all responsibility?

    Or do you just mean in cases where there is official legal recognition somehow that he wanted her to have an abortion?
    Abortion doesn't enter into it for the male, that's the woman's decision.
    If the male agreed then they are bound to support it.

    Assume married couples agree by default and unmarried don't.


  • Options
    #1115
    eviltwin
    Registered Users Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    Neewbie_noob wrote: »
    The fairest and most equitable solution is as follows:

    If a woman gets pregnant outside marriage (or inside for that matter). The baby should have to be carried to term. She has the following options:
    • Give the baby up for adoption (with the consent of the gentleman)
    • Give the baby up for foster care for a few years (with the express legal consent of the gentleman)
    • Keep the baby and carry to term and raise it herself with the gentleman
    • If the mother of the child doesn't want to have anything to do with her own flesh and blood then, instead of aborting it the man should be able to have sole guardianship over the child

    UK abortion providers should not serve any Irish Passport holders or anyone coming from the 6 counties - where the termination of innocent babies is also prohibited.

    Importation of abortifacients such as pills to indice miscarriage after a week or tow gestation should be a punishable offence, such as the importation of narcotics. It really is a simple solution.


    You are very naive if you really think this type of policing would stop a woman having an abortion.

    First of all women travel all over the world all the time, abortions are legal in many other countries besides the UK. Those women could be going on a holiday, on business, to a family event...how exactly do you propose on filtering out the minor percentage whose journey is to have an abortion?

    Secondly you can ring a clinic and make an appointment, they don't ask for proof of where you reside - unless you want to ask Mr Cameron to make this a proviso for abortions in the Uk :rolleyes: So how will you enforce such a ruling ( can't see Mr Cameron being too bothered with our laws enough to enforce it tbh )

    Thirdly even if by some insane chance any of this happened there is nothing to stop a woman going on Google and looking up ways to induce abortion at home, its actually quite easy to find ways of doing it. Failing that there will always be someone somewhere who will do the job for a price.

    Abortion is a reality, accept it.


  • Options
    #1116
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Jernal wrote: »
    I think there should be some mechanism where if the father wishes he can abdicate all his rights and responsibilities of the child.However, such a mechanism would have to be stringently implemented. Probably something like having an independent psychologist, GP and social worker sign off on it. Or something. :confused:

    There is such a mechanism already enshrined in Irish Law. It's Section 6 of The Guardianship of Infants Act, 1964 (4) ( which states '
    ' The mother of an illegitimate infant shall be guardian of the infant.'
    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1964/en/act/pub/0007/sec0006.html).

    This legally allowed unmarried father's to abdicate all responsibility for their children by making the mother the sole legal parent. It was only later that the courts began to insist on unmarried father's paying maintenance - they do not impose any other responsibilities. No unmarried father is ordered by the court to see their child just help to financially support them once paternity has been medically established.

    Now, this particular doozie of a bit of legislation which was just such a get out clause for men, as you suggest is needed, is now, apparently, a feminist plot (according to the likes of John Waters) to prevent unmarried father's from having legal rights to their kids.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1117
    ehcocmeo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 85 ✭✭ehcocmeo


    Sarky wrote: »
    The choice needs to be available. It's really that simple.


    The right to life it not a right based on Religious principles, its a basic human right.

    The choice does NOT been to be available. Support and help is need, not a suction pipe.


  • Options
    #1118
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    ehcocmeo wrote: »
    The right to life it not a right based on Religious principles, its a basic human right.

    The choice does NOT been to be available. Support and help is need, not a suction pipe.

    Right because all babies are extracted with a plunger and left to die. :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #1119
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    ehcocmeo wrote: »
    The right to life it not a right based on Religious principles, its a basic human right.

    The choice does NOT been to be available. Support and help is need, not a suction pipe.

    Is the right to control what happens your own body not also a basic human right?


  • Options
    #1120
    ehcocmeo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 85 ✭✭ehcocmeo


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Is the right to control what happens your own body not also a basic human right?

    Your body yes. But the body of the Child is not YOUR body.


  • Options
    #1121
    fatmammycat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,208 ✭✭✭fatmammycat


    ehcocmeo wrote: »
    Your body yes. But the body of the Child is not YOUR body.

    Yep, but the blastocyst/fetus is IN the fully grown woman's body. So still up to her what she does with her body.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1122
    eviltwin
    Registered Users Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    ehcocmeo wrote: »
    Your body yes. But the body of the Child is not YOUR body.

    Legally there is no distinction between mother and unborn baby until quite late in the pregnancy, the law does not recognise a miscarriage as a death for example therefore how can we have this contradiction? If I have an abortion at 8 weeks I am taking a life and yet if I have a miscarriage at the same time or even weeks later its not a death? :confused:


  • Options
    #1123
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    ehcocmeo wrote: »
    Your body yes. But the body of the Child is not YOUR body.

    Can't have it both ways. If there is a fetus IN MY body why should it's rights trump my rights?


  • Options
    #1124
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    ehcocmeo wrote: »
    Your body yes. But the body of the Child is not YOUR body.

    So it's be an invader then, there, without express permission or willing participation of the host.


  • Options
    #1125
    ehcocmeo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 85 ✭✭ehcocmeo


    fatmammycat wrote: »
    Yep, but the blastocyst/fetus is IN the fully grown woman's body. So still up to her what she does with her body.


    Still a child, separate human body. Its not the woman's body, its a Child.

    A Child develops for 280 days.

    Women was jailed for doing a home abortion.. So obviously her body theory does not stand up.


  • Options
    #1126
    eviltwin
    Registered Users Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    ehcocmeo wrote: »
    Still a child, separate human body. Its not the woman's body, its a Child.

    A Child develops for 280 days.

    Women was jailed for doing a home abortion.. So obviously her body theory does not stand up.

    She had a home abortion at 39 weeks, hardly the same thing.


  • Options
    #1127
    ehcocmeo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 85 ✭✭ehcocmeo


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Can't have it both ways. If there is a fetus IN MY body why should it's rights trump my rights?


    A Real mother, a Real woman would never ask that question.


  • Options
    #1128
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    ehcocmeo wrote: »
    Still a child, separate human body. Its not the woman's body, its a Child.

    A Child develops for 280 days.

    Women was jailed for doing a home abortion.. So obviously her body theory does not stand up.

    At which point does the fetus's right take precedence over the woman whose womb it needs for survival?


  • Options
    #1129
    ehcocmeo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 85 ✭✭ehcocmeo


    eviltwin wrote: »
    She had a home abortion at 39 weeks, hardly the same thing.


    Why not..? When does the women relinquish control of HER body and accept responsibility for the pregnancy?


  • Options
    #1130
    eviltwin
    Registered Users Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    ehcocmeo wrote: »
    A Real mother, a Real woman would never ask that question.

    How would you know what a real woman or mother would think? Do you not think women who have already had children don't have abortions? Do you not think women who in other circumstances would go ahead with the pregnancy not have abortions?


  • Options
    #1131
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    ehcocmeo wrote: »
    A Real mother, a Real woman would never ask that question.

    I beg your pardon???

    How dare you!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1132
    fatmammycat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,208 ✭✭✭fatmammycat


    ehcocmeo wrote: »
    Still a child, separate human body. Its not the woman's body, its a Child.

    A Child develops for 280 days.

    Women was jailed for doing a home abortion.. So obviously her body theory does not stand up.

    A Woman takes years to develop, but it is still her body. As to your example, the fetus in this case was almost full term, but you'll find the law sets limits to late term abortions. That's democracy for you.


  • Options
    #1133
    fatmammycat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,208 ✭✭✭fatmammycat


    ehcocmeo wrote: »
    A Real mother, a Real woman would never ask that question.

    A real Troll uses Real Capitals it seems.


  • Options
    #1134
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    ehcocmeo wrote: »
    Still a child, separate human body. Its not the woman's body, its a Child.

    A Child develops for 280 days.

    Without it's host the foetus would die - the two are inexorably linked...especially within the abortion debate which is based on which takes precedence and when, the right to life or the right to bodily autonomy.
    ehcocmeo wrote: »
    Women was jailed for doing a home abortion.. So obviously her body theory does not stand up.

    That woman aborted her pregnancy at 39 weeks...abortion is not legal in the UK at 39 weeks...have you any evidence of anyone being prosecuted for inducing an abortion say in the first 12 weeks?

    ehcocmeo wrote: »
    A Real mother, a Real woman would never ask that question.

    I ask that and I'm both a real mother and a real woman...a true scotswoman, you might say... ;)


  • Options
    #1135
    ehcocmeo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 85 ✭✭ehcocmeo


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    At which point does the fetus's right take precedence over the woman whose womb it needs for survival?

    Neither take rights over the other. BOTH should be respected.
    For this reason if a womans life is at risk (ie cancer) all efforts are done to Save BOTH, if the baby dies it was as a result of trying to save BOTH.


  • Options
    #1136
    eviltwin
    Registered Users Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    ehcocmeo wrote: »
    Why not..? When does the women relinquish control of HER body and accept responsibility for the pregnancy?

    Because the vast majority of abortions take place in the first trimester, the legal cut off is 24 weeks in the UK, plenty of time to organise an abortion especially for a woman who is living there.

    Besides which the body of that child was never found, she refuses to tell the authorities what she did with him, probably that is part of the reason the sentence was so harsh.

    Its also worth noting the judge in that case is a well known pro-lifer so he was hardly likely to take a sympathetic view.


  • Options
    #1137
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    ehcocmeo wrote: »
    Neither take rights over the other. BOTH should be respected.
    For this reason if a womans life is at risk (ie cancer) all efforts are done to Save BOTH, if the baby dies it was as a result of trying to save BOTH.

    Are you talking to me? Oh, I'm afraid I'm far to busy being an UnReal Woman and an UnReal Mother and an UnReal Grandmother to give you any attention.


  • Options
    #1138
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Are you talking to me? Oh, I'm afraid I'm far to busy being an UnReal Woman and an UnReal Mother and an UnReal Grandmother to give you any attention.

    Wow Ban I never knew you were so awesome. Unreal, like!
    (I swear! I'm not studying one of your modules this year!)


  • Options
    #1139
    ehcocmeo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 85 ✭✭ehcocmeo


    fatmammycat wrote: »
    A real Troll uses Real Capitals it seems.

    So anyone who has a different opinion here is a troll.

    Abortion is the murder of a Human being. The Obamas have been a pain to stress their "health choices women should be allowed to choose" to say they support abortion.

    I presume because Abortion is in this forum it is because you take exception this the religious respect for life. Christian defend life V Atheists respect choices?

    The bottom line, and the Child can be buried under whatever term you like, a Child is a Child from Conception.

    Our society has decided to hand our human rights to democracy. Handing human rights to be determined by what people think does not always end well. The objectively of humanity from conception is a reality not an opinion.


  • Options
    #1140
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Jernal wrote: »
    Wow Ban I never knew you were so awesome. Unreal, like!
    (I swear! I'm not studying one of your modules this year!)

    You should see me in my robes - I can leap building in a single bound.*










    *provided said buildings are constructed of lego and not more than 1 metre high.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1141
    fatmammycat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,208 ✭✭✭fatmammycat


    ehcocmeo wrote: »
    So anyone who has a different opinion here is a troll.

    Abortion is the murder of a Human being. The Obamas have been a pain to stress their "health choices women should be allowed to choose" to say they support abortion.

    I presume because Abortion is in this forum it is because you take exception this the religious respect for life. Christian defend life V Atheists respect choices?

    The bottom line, and the Child can be buried under whatever term you like, a Child is a Child from Conception.

    Our society has decided to hand our human rights to democracy. Handing human rights to be determined by what people think does not always end well. The objectively of humanity from conception is a reality not an opinion.

    Lots of people have different opinions here, and express them without resorting to passive aggressive insults. Troll like behaviour on the other hand gets called out. To me abortion is not murder, and it is certainly not the killing of any child. It is the termination of a pregnancy. Your 'bottom line' is that, yours.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement