Abortion

Turtwig

lugha wrote: »

Can you cite any other behaviour where individuals reason something to be absolutely wrong but actually agitate to ensure that such behaviour is not prohibited by law?

Religious belief : all other religions are absolutely wrong but many believers, thankfully, would still support freedom for all those religions to believe whatever they wish.

Ickle Magoo

tomtherobot wrote: »

Just being confusing doesn't blow anything out of the water :eek: I don't know what you're saying, I really don't please explain?

The whole "bunch of cells" argument is terrible - I'm a bunch of cells, my dog is a bunch of cells...who and when you choose to vocally announce that information in no way makes comment on the fact that we are, in fact, a bunch of cells.

The abortion debate isn't about bunches of cells, it's about establishing a timeline for personhood and more importantly whether the right to live should supersede the right to a woman's bodily autonomy.

tomtherobot wrote: »

I don't know enough about these contraceptions to argue on them with you, that doesn't take from my argument that there is an intuitive logic that an unborn child is alive.

Which is a lovely sound-bite but doesn't touch on any of the hugely complex issues within the abortion debate like establishing what "alive" means and at what point post-conception does a "child" actually exist, never mind that little nugget of how you propose to force women to be pregnant against their wish and will.

tomtherobot

lugha wrote: »

Well if you say that you wouldn’t force a rape victim to give birth, for me that means that if it was your call, you would permit (by not preventing it) an abortion. So it amounts to the same thing. You are contemplating an exception which I think you absolutely would not do if a foetus had equal weighting with a born child. Would you argue that you would not force a mother (as a result of rape) to keep her child alive if (in the unlikely event I hope!) she could not come to terms with the child of her raper being in the world?

And in the same vein, whilst there are some in the pro-life ranks who would label abortion as murder, few would label the woman as a murderer. In part of course, because they have the savvy to know that that will do little for their cause.

But also, I would say, because they don’t really think that. Despite their rhetoric sometimes, few pro-lifers really do see women who choose abortion as premeditated child killers, which would of course place them along side the ranks of the likes of Myra Hindley or Ian Huntley. That for me, is a latent admission that they honestly do not equate an early stage foetus with post-birth child.

I'm sorry it does not amount to the same thing. I'm not going to forcefully prevent her from having an abortion because i think it would be futile (she would have one anyway) and would just add to her suffering. Again, i wouldn't try to forcefully prevent somebody from chosing suicide as i believe it would be futile and just add to their suffering.

I don't see your argument about the post birth child, are you saying we should kill the children of rapists? Just the one's conceived during rape or those outside of it also?

And I think (would hope) that most anti-abortionists don't consider rape-victims as premeditated murderers but would say that the only choice in this case is the horrible choice the rapist made.

tomtherobot

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

The whole "bunch of cells" argument is terrible - I'm a bunch of cells, my dog is a bunch of cells...who and when you choose to vocally announce that information in no way makes comment on the fact that we are, in fact, a bunch of cells.

The abortion debate isn't about bunches of cells, it's about establishing a timeline for personhood and more importantly whether the right to live should supersede the right to a woman's bodily autonomy.

My hair is a bunch of cells, i don't grieve when it's cut because i know it's not alive. I think 'bunch of cells' is a fair term because surely that's what pro-abortionists want us to think, that an unborn child is a bunch of cells?

When you say 'timeline for personhood' what do you mean? Is anything post-conception and pre-childbirth, not a person? Are you saying, it's alive but not a person? Is it human life but not a person or just life but not a person? I don't get what you're saying please clarify.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Which is a lovely sound-bite but doesn't touch on any of the hugely complex issues within the abortion debate like establishing what "alive" means and at what point post-conception does a "child" actually exist, never mind that little nugget of how you propose to force women to be pregnant against their wish and will.

Let me guess it's too complex for me to understand so conveniently lets leave it that you're right? Please, just explain yourself? And i never, ever said i would force a women to be pregnant against their wish and will, where the hell did you get that from?

cynder

tomtherobot wrote: »

lugha wrote: »

Well if you say that you wouldn’t force a rape victim to give birth, for me that means that if it was your call, you would permit (by not preventing it) an abortion. So it amounts to the same thing. You are contemplating an exception which I think you absolutely would not do if a foetus had equal weighting with a born child. Would you argue that you would not force a mother (as a result of rape) to keep her child alive if (in the unlikely event I hope!) she could not come to terms with the child of her raper being in the world?

And in the same vein, whilst there are some in the pro-life ranks who would label abortion as murder, few would label the woman as a murderer. In part of course, because they have the savvy to know that that will do little for their cause.

But also, I would say, because they don’t really think that. Despite their rhetoric sometimes, few pro-lifers really do see women who choose abortion as premeditated child killers, which would of course place them along side the ranks of the likes of Myra Hindley or Ian Huntley. That for me, is a latent admission that they honestly do not equate an early stage foetus with post-birth child.

I'm sorry it does not amount to the same thing. I'm not going to forcefully prevent her from having an abortion because i think it would be futile (she would have one anyway) and would just add to her suffering. Again, i wouldn't try to forcefully prevent somebody from chosing suicide as i believe it would be futile and just add to their suffering.

I don't see your argument about the post birth child, are you saying we should kill the children of rapists? Just the one's conceived during rape or those outside of it also?

And I think (would hope) that most anti-abortionists don't consider rape-victims as premeditated murderers but would say that the only choice in this case is the horrible choice the rapist made.

Rape victims are just that victims I can understand why one would choose an abortion, the person wouldn't be in their right mind, they could feel, dirty and disgusted carrying around that baby could be 9 months of torture. I see another thread where the woman killed her rapist and she is 5 months pregnant with his child.


But I myself would not abort the baby if I was raped. Would I keep.it, I dont know I think I would but my husband wouldn't raise the child so that would be the end of the relationship. But I don't ever plan in getting raped and I have a good contraceptive .

My cousin was raped and her baby is now 5 no one sees him as the rape child, his her baby he is loved by all members of her family and is a full member of the family. He will never know how his life came about.

Ickle Magoo

tomtherobot wrote: »

My hair is a bunch of cells, i don't grieve when it's cut because i know it's not alive. I think 'bunch of cells' is a fair term because surely that's what pro-abortionists want us to think, that an unborn child is a bunch of cells?

Firstly, pro-abortion is also a terrible term...I don't know anyone who is pro-abortion. I know lots of people who think the choice should be there, many regardless of their personal feelings on abortion.

Secondly, we ARE all bunches of cells - at no point has anybody found some magical property about us that isn't in our DNA and thus our cell biology.

tomtherobot wrote: »

When you say 'timeline for personhood' what do you mean? Is anything post-conception and pre-childbirth, not a person? Are you saying, it's alive but not a person? Is it human life but not a person or just life but not a person? I don't get what you're saying please clarify.

What do you think? Does personhood exist from the second of conception? Is a zygote a child? Is it life or potential life? The whole abortion debate exists because nobody can answer those questions with any degree of certainty.

tomtherobot wrote: »

Let me guess it's too complex for me to understand so conveniently lets leave it that you're right?

Or...you could go and find out about the contraception, the MAP, the abortion debate complexities for yourself rather than just throwing out cute soundbites.

tomtherobot wrote: »

Please, just explain yourself? And i never, ever said i would force a women to be pregnant against their wish and will, where the hell did you get that from?

What do you think the alternative is to legal abortion if not enforced pregnancy? Surely the argument can't be that she has the choice to travel to the UK so nobody is forcing anyone?

tomtherobot

I'm sorry before this goes any further I feel you should apologize for what you've accused me. I've misquoted somebody earlier in this debate and i've apologized and tried to get things back on track. You have accused me of something awful, that I would force pregnancy on someone, which is what, rape?

tomtherobot

tomtherobot wrote: »

I'm sorry before this goes any further I feel you should apologize for what you've accused me. I've misquoted somebody earlier in this debate and i've apologized and tried to get things back on track. You have accused me of something awful, that I would force pregnancy on someone, which is what, rape?

This is for Ickle Magoo just to be clear

Ickle Magoo

tomtherobot wrote: »

I'm sorry before this goes any further I feel you should apologize for what you've accused me. I've misquoted somebody earlier in this debate and i've apologized and tried to get things back on track. You have accused me of something awful, that I would force pregnancy on someone, which is what, rape?

While you are looking up the MAP, contraceptives and the other abortion complexities, I'd suggest you also avail of a dictionary:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/enforced

That you can accuse people of being pro-abortion and killing children then take exception to the phrase enforced pregnancy is deliciously ironic tho.

I'm out - not feeding you any more.

Lingua Franca

This is not a thread, it is a soapbox.

tomtherobot

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

While you are looking up the MAP, contraceptives and the other abortion complexities, I'd suggest you also avail of a dictionary:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/enforced

That you can accuse people of being pro-abortion and killing children then take exception to the phrase enforced pregnancy is deliciously ironic tho.

I'm out - not feeding you any more.

I don't know why you keep forcing these 'complexities', sure there are complexities in other arguments but that need not take from their core principles. For example, i can see it's a difficult decision to know when to remove life support in some circumstances because we have to establish whether the person is alive or dead, which can be difficult. This doesn't mean that we can't establish that freely choosing to kill somebody is wrong.

Also, on the one hand, you've accused me of 'cute soundbites' but a few posts back i was being tactless?????

It has been explained reasonably earlier in this thread why the term pro-abortion is used. A good example given in it's justification, is that we use pro and anti - death penalty. Being pro-death penalty does not mean death-penalty for everyone. If you wish to use an alternative applicable term please do so.

As regarding, saying that abortonists kill unborn children thats quite a logical and reasonable thing to say if you believe that an unborn child has life. We're allowed to believe that right?

Where I have a serious problem is what you've accused me of, which is absolutely horrible. I see no justification or offer of apology.

Turtwig

Well, seeing as no one even attempt to answer it in my earlier streamly post. :

If life begins at conception, why doesn't death begin at total decay?

Reality_Check1

Jernal wrote: »

Well, seeing as no one answered it in my earlier streamly post.

If life begins at conception, why doesn't death begin at total decay?

biological processes are occurring from the moment you are conceived that form you as a person. These all abruptly halt upon death - apart from decay of course

tomtherobot

Just to further clarify, it's not that I:

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

take exception to the phrase enforced pregnancy

It's that im hugely insulted you claim that i:

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

propose to force women to be pregnant against their wish and will.

Reality_Check1

Also can someone from the anti abortion side answer me this from earlier. Why are you so opposed to resources being made available that increases a womens options when she has an unwanted pregnancy? Im not saying marching them all up with no choice in the matter just having the option available

Turtwig

Reality_Check1 wrote: »

biological processes are occurring from the moment you are conceived that form you as a person. These all abruptly halt upon death - apart from decay of course

Part of the decay is caused by certain biological processes e.g intestinal bacteria still doing its job.
So which specific processes make you a person and which don't?

gozunda

tomtherobot wrote: »

I haven't fully read up on the debate you've been having here but I think this issue has already been covered. I'm anti-abortion because I believe the unborn child has life. I have the utmost sympathy for those parents (and the child) if that child dies through miscarriage. It is a horrible situation and my heart goes out to them.

Well thats ok thats YOUR opinion and I can respect that. However whilst an unborn fotus may have "life" from a specific stage of development and at birth it may even be capable of independent life, whether it can be considered apart from the mother at any stage before viability is at best debatable.

tomtherobot wrote: »

....

I think it's a telling acid test for the pro-abortionists to ask them would they tell the grieving parent's of a child lost through miscarriage that it wasn't really a child, just a lifeless bunch of cells.

No its not and not what you said in the first Quote above btw....that is a complete lack of tact with a heavy dose of ignorance. Your trerm "pro-abortionists" is a disambiguation. Those who are pro-choice that experience a miscarriage are not by definition anti baby they simply aknowledge that choice is the responsibility of the individual. There is a distinct difference. If someone miscarries very early on in the pregnancy (when abortion is allowed) where the emotional impact may be less than miscarriage than when the foetus is fully developed (And when abortion is not allowed) The difference between a Zygote, Blast Cyst Embryo and a predelivery Foetus is aknowledged in medical science.

cynder wrote: »

Baby is a person to the mother,she can feel it kick, hiccup, move around, see it in the scan kicking its legs, sucking its thumb, dancing inside the womb. Hearing its little heart beat. It's magical and to lose that, it's not just about the future when baby is out and about. Having the baby growing inside you is amazing. You even talk to it, sing to it, tell it stories. The fetus is a person a little boy or little girl and your telling me it that contradiction wouldn't even come up.... Bull.
Have you seen a 12 week scan an 8 week scan a 15 week scan a 18, 19 week scan. A bunch of cells?

A delivered baby may be a person in its own right but as above before viability whether it can be considered apart from the mother is debatable. Yes as the foetus grews in complexity there is an increasing complexity of movement and sexual development. The development as stated moves through distinct stages however to say that on conception that this is immediatly equal and equivalent to a delivered baby is at best disingenuous

tomtherobot wrote: »

....

I don't know enough about these contraceptions to argue on them with you, that doesn't take from my argument that there is an intuitive logic that an unborn child is alive.

It may be to your good self...but using the terms unborn - child - alive in a single sentence lacks logic imo (see above).

Reality_Check1

Jernal wrote: »

Part of the decay is caused by certain biological processes e.g intestinal bacteria still doing its job.
So which specific processes make you a person and which don't?

Im pro choice by the way but a few hours after conception cells begin to divide until you have 3 separate germ layers. From these layers we garner all our physical attributes. SO I guess any biological process that occurs in the body from the moment of conception to the time you stop breathing make you a person. Bacteria arent part of the host they simply live in harmony inside them so the work they carry out shouldnt be considered imo

Reality_Check1

tomtherobot wrote: »

I think it's a telling acid test for the pro-abortionists to ask them would they tell the grieving parent's of a child lost through miscarriage that it wasn't really a child, just a lifeless bunch of cells.

The above seems to be your main argument. When people are grieving you tell them what they need to hear despite your personal beliefs

Ickle Magoo

tomtherobot wrote: »

...You have accused me of something awful, that I would force pregnancy on someone, which is what, rape?

Go back and read what I said...was it:

propose to force women to be pregnant against their wish and will

propose to force women to get pregnant against their wish and will

Hats off to you though - you've done a much more thorough job of discrediting yourself than I ever could. :cool:

Mickeroo

Reality_Check1 wrote: »

The above seems to be your main argument. When people are grieving you tell them what they need to hear despite your personal beliefs

There's no point, thats already been explained to them by several posters. They'll just repeat as if what you just said makes no sense.

Turtwig

Reality_Check1 wrote: »

Im pro choice by the way but a few hours after conception cells begin to divide until you have 3 separate germ layers. From these layers we garner all our physical attributes. SO I guess any biological process that occurs in the body from the moment of conception to the time you stop breathing make you a person. Bacteria arent part of the host they simply live in harmony inside them so the work they carry out shouldnt be considered imo

Sorry to be probing you with questions, but I think this is the best way to go for the moment.

But that's a bit circular. Think of it this way, if we met aliens, how would you know whether to class them as persons or not? What criteria would you make that judgement call on.

If the bacteria and other cells that contribute the decay processes didn't do their initial jobs you wouldn't be alive in the first place.

cynder

Reality_Check1 wrote: »

Also can someone from the anti abortion side answer me this from earlier. Why are you so opposed to resources being made available that increases a womens options when she has an unwanted pregnancy? Im not saying marching them all up with no choice in the matter just having the option available

What resources ? 1 resource abortion, that option is there for any woman in irekand, hop on a boat to UK. sorted. Why does it have to be on the doorstep? It shouldn't be used as a contraceptive, it's vile that people use abortion as a contraceptive.


Personally killing an unborn baby is disgusting, the only way I could understand someone who decided to get rid is if they were raped or they would die because of the pregnancy. Personally I wouldn't get rid. I value the life of the unborn above my own. Just as I value my children's lives above my own. A true mother's love should know no bounds, while they are in your belly or out if it.

Reality_Check1

Jernal wrote: »

Sorry to be probing you with questions, but I think this is the best way to go for the moment.

But that's a bit circular. Think of it this way, if we met aliens, how would you know whether to class them as persons or not? What criteria would you make that judgement call on.

If the bacteria and other cells that contribute the decay processes didn't do their initial jobs you wouldn't be alive in the first place.

dunno bout the aliens but we only need the bacteria when we live in a certain environment. Yes Human life as we know it could not exist without bacteria but people with immune system that are so oppressed have been known to live in sterile bubbles similar to conditions of the womb (as in its a sterile bacteria free environment) does that make them any less of a human?

kinda gone way off topic here

tomtherobot

Reality_Check1 wrote: »

Also can someone from the anti abortion side answer me this from earlier. Why are you so opposed to resources being made available that increases a womens options when she has an unwanted pregnancy? Im not saying marching them all up with no choice in the matter just having the option available

Just to clarify this debate and the OP were about post-abortion counseling

Reality_Check1 wrote: »

The above seems to be your main argument. When people are grieving you tell them what they need to hear despite your personal beliefs

But if pro-abortion really was your personal belief you would have to believe that they need to hear it. It's the only option with that belief and this situation.

gozunda wrote: »

Well thats ok thats YOUR opinion and I can respect that. However whilst an unborn fotus may have "life" from a specific stage of development and at birth it may even be capable of independent life, whether it can be considered apart from the mother at any stage before viability is at best debatable.

Relevance? Surely we value all human life?

gozunda wrote: »

No its not and not what you said in the first Quote above btw....that is a complete lack of tact with a heavy dose of ignorance.

Please explain the difference in what i said in these quotes, without just calling me ignorant? I don't see a lack this lack of tact, this is clearly not my belief, clearly not how i would console somebody in this awful situation.

gozunda wrote: »

Your trerm "pro-abortionists" is a disambiguation. Those who are pro-choice that experience a miscarriage are not by definition anti baby they simply aknowledge that choice is the responsibility of the individual. There is a distinct difference. If someone miscarries very early on in the pregnancy (when abortion is allowed) where the emotional impact may be less than miscarriage than when the foetus is fully developed (And when abortion is not allowed) The difference between a Zygote, Blast Cyst Embryo and a predelivery Foetus is aknowledged in medical science.

Please explain surely pro-choice is a much greater disambiguation (if you wanna compare disambiguations ). I up for using another term is you want to offer a suitable alternative?

gozunda wrote: »

It may be to your good self...but using the terms unborn - child - alive in a single sentence lacks logic imo (see above).

I don't understand your opinion, are you saying that because medical science distinguishes between different stage of pregnancy, some or all, are not 'alive'?

tomtherobot

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Go back and read what I said...was it:

propose to force women to be pregnant against their wish and will

propose to force women to get pregnant against their wish and will

Hats off to you though - you've done a much more thorough job of discrediting yourself than I ever could. :cool:

What?? You're clutching at straws?, you're just showing me your interpretation of a difference in those two statements. Surely you can see that both are hugely insulting given that i don't hold either of these views.

I made this clear to you several times, if you're not going to have the decency to apologize at least have the decency to stop these pathetic excuses.

Reality_Check1

cynder wrote: »

What resources ? 1 resource abortion, that option I'd already here, hop on a boat to UK sorted. Why does it have to be on the doorstep? It shouldn't be used as a contraceptive, it's vile that people use abortion as a contraceptive.

1. Dedicated centers who deal with unplanned pregnancy. I realise there are online resources for this as well as phone services but it might be nice to talk to a professional face to face who isn't your GP.

2. An actual center for carrying out the procedure. Im sure it is a stressful enough time without having to go to a foreign country in an unfamiliar environment with unfamiliar people looking after you. At least if these procedures took place in dedicated centres in Ireland you may already have come face to face with someone to discuss your options.

3. A counselling service after the event. I believe we already have one of these available ran by the HSE.

I dont think anyone would use it as a regular contraceptive given the nature of the whole thing but I dont think the option should be made available to those who find themselves in a once off predicament

Reality_Check1

tomtherobot wrote: »

But if pro-abortion really was your personal belief you would have to believe that they need to hear it. It's the only option with that belief and this situation.

I dont think anyone is pro abortion Im pro choice and the terms are certainly different

tomtherobot

Lingua Franca wrote: »

This is not a thread, it is a soapbox.

Fair enough but i have to say my take on the abortion issue has softened somewhat.

While i still believe that abortion is killing i can now see that a sizable amount of people on the pro-abortion side genuinely believe they are doing some good by the unborn child.

Even though I can't understand it, I can also see that a lot of these people also see an unborn child as somehow not fully a human life. As such i don't think they are callously disregarding a life but ignorant of it's existence.

cynder

Reality_Check1 wrote: »

cynder wrote: »

What resources ? 1 resource abortion, that option I'd already here, hop on a boat to UK sorted. Why does it have to be on the doorstep? It shouldn't be used as a contraceptive, it's vile that people use abortion as a contraceptive.

1. Dedicated centers who deal with unplanned pregnancy. I realise there are online resources for this as well as phone services but it might be nice to talk to a professional face to face who isn't your GP.

2. An actual center for carrying out the procedure. Im sure it is a stressful enough time without having to go to a foreign country in an unfamiliar environment with unfamiliar people looking after you. At least if these procedures took place in dedicated centres in Ireland you may already have come face to face with someone to discuss your options.

3. A counselling service after the event. I believe we already have one of these available ran by the HSE.

I dont think anyone would use it as a regular contraceptive given the nature of the whole thing but I dont think the option should be made available to those who find themselves in a once off predicament

The only way someone would be familiar with the centre or the people is if they go there more than once, it's still going to be a foreign experience.

There is a cura and positive options and maybe a few other places and every woman In Ireland can go see another gp other than their own.

Why would someone need counseling if it's something they really wanted?



If there not 100% sure they shouldn'tgo ahead and do it, they should not be encouraged to do it.

tomtherobot

Regarding thanks from Ickle Magoo

So far the vast majority of people and this thread have remained civil and respectful, it's a shame that an experienced boards user like you would be the one dragging it to insults and petty-baiting.

Reality_Check1

cynder wrote: »

The only way someone would be familiar with the centre or the people is if they go there more than once, it's still going to be a foreign experience.

Id like to think that before any procedure was carried out there would need to be an initial consultation to discuss a persons options and the procedure carried out on a subsequent day. Even that kind of interaction would be beneficial to a lady

cynder wrote: »

There is a cura and positive options and maybe a few other places and every woman In Ireland can go see another gp other than their own.

All of which will discuss the option of termination, recommend a centre to attend in England and advise on the best place to seek counselling upon their return

cynder wrote: »

Why would someone need counseling if it's something they really wanted?

If there not 100% sure they shouldn'tgo ahead and do it, they should not be encouraged to do it.

I think its pretty clear why someone would need counselling. Im not sure if you posting the above suggests that you are ignorant to that issue or are trying to play devils advocate

cynder

tomtherobot wrote: »

Lingua Franca wrote: »

This is not a thread, it is a soapbox.

Fair enough but i have to say my take on the abortion issue has softened somewhat.

Even though I can't understand it, I can also see that a lot of these people also see an unborn child as somehow not fully a human life. As such i don't think they are callously disregarding a life but ignorant of it's existence.

The way I see it is they tell themselves this over and over to lesson the impact of their actions. Its a bunch of cells it doesn't matter. It isn't alive, it doesn't have feelings, it's nothing, Its a bunch of cells it doesn't matter,it isn't alive, it doesn't have feelings, it's nothing. They tell themselves over and over soon enough they start to believe it, but then they do it and are consumed with guilt and need counseling.

The due date comes, the 1st birthday comes, the what ifs arise, if baby was here now what would I be doing, can go on for years.



It could have been alive if given a chance, those what ifs could have been.

You cant undo it. but to make everyone feel better we will call the baby a bunch
of cells.

cynder

Reality_Check1 wrote: »

cynder wrote: »

The only way someone would be familiar with the centre or the people is if they go there more than once, it's still going to be a foreign experience.

Id like to think that before any procedure was carried out there would need to be an initial consultation to discuss a persons options and the procedure carried out on a subsequent day. Even that kind of interaction would be beneficial to a lady

cynder wrote: »

There is a cura and positive options and maybe a few other places and every woman In Ireland can go see another gp other than their own.

All of which will discuss the option of termination, recommend a centre to attend in England and advise on the best place to seek counselling upon their return

cynder wrote: »

Why would someone need counseling if it's something they really wanted?

If there not 100% sure they shouldn'tgo ahead and do it, they should not be encouraged to do it.

I think its pretty clear why someone would need counselling. Im not sure if you posting the above suggests that you are ignorant to that issue or are trying to play devils advocate

Enlighten me! Why would someone need counseling? If it's only a bunch of cells? Because the premature demise of the bunch of cells triggers a chain reaction that will follow them through to their own demise. If they really wanted it gone they shouldn't need counseling. You dont need counseling if you get your tonsils removed.

If cura and positive options already provide a service why do we need another one?

You can talk about the ins and outs of abortion on the day or with positve options, and or gp before trip to UK.

Millicent

cynder wrote: »

What resources ? 1 resource abortion, that option is there for any woman in irekand, hop on a boat to UK. sorted. Why does it have to be on the doorstep? It shouldn't be used as a contraceptive, it's vile that people use abortion as a contraceptive.


Personally killing an unborn baby is disgusting, the only way I could understand someone who decided to get rid is if they were raped or they would die because of the pregnancy. Personally I wouldn't get rid. I value the life of the unborn above my own. Just as I value my children's lives above my own. A true mother's love should know no bounds, while they are in your belly or out if it.

So you're seriously against abortion but are happy to see women sent to England for one, so long as it's not on your doorstep?

That's one of the most ridiculous and self-serving arguments I've heard against abortion in a long time.

cynder

Millicent wrote: »

cynder wrote: »

What resources ? 1 resource abortion, that option is there for any woman in irekand, hop on a boat to UK. sorted. Why does it have to be on the doorstep? It shouldn't be used as a contraceptive, it's vile that people use abortion as a contraceptive.


Personally killing an unborn baby is disgusting, the only way I could understand someone who decided to get rid is if they were raped or they would die because of the pregnancy. Personally I wouldn't get rid. I value the life of the unborn above my own. Just as I value my children's lives above my own. A true mother's love should know no bounds, while they are in your belly or out if it.

So you're seriously against abortion but are happy to see women sent to England for one, so long as it's not on your doorstep?

That's one of the most ridiculous and self-serving arguments I've heard against abortion in a long time.

No one can stop them from going to the UK they choose to go Why would I be happy to see women kill the unborn babies down the road from me? if it comes to it I'll vote no again...

I don't see the sense it making the choice to kill an unborn baby the easy way out. If a woman travels to the UK she must really want it gone and is not doing it on a whim.



Every woman has a choice a choice to travel and terminate the pregnancy, no I wouldn't like to see it on my own doorstep. I'm entitled to that opinion and Ireland passed the no vote in the last 2 referendums so I'm not alone. I do believe since the last referendums that more people are open to the idea of abortion some only under exceptional circumstances and others as a form of contraception.

If if ever does get passed in Ireland so be it, but I won't be availing of it. I won't be putting up posters but I will continue to hold my views thats it's a baby, a life that is being terminated.

Dyr

cynder wrote: »

No one can stop them from going to the UK they choose to go Why would I be happy to see women kill the unborn babies down the road from me? if it comes to it I'll vote no again...

I don't see the sense it making the choice to kill an unborn baby the easy way out. If a woman travels to the UK she must really want it gone and is not doing it on a whim.

I imagine you wouldn't actually get to see them killing unborn babies. Maybe just try to picture it in your head if you want

Ickle Magoo

cynder wrote: »

No one can stop them from going to the UK they choose to go

You can criminalise every aspect of abortion - including travelling to procure an abortion or helping someone else travel to procure an abortion...the Irish people voted in a referendum in 1992 to protect the rights to travel and information...so it's not so much a case of anti-abortion as abortion nimbyism.

cynder

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

cynder wrote: »

No one can stop them from going to the UK they choose to go

You can criminalise every aspect of abortion - including travelling to procure an abortion or helping someone else travel to procure an abortion...the Irish people voted in a referendum in 1992 to protect the rights to travel and information...so it's not so much a case of anti-abortion as abortion nimbyism.

I personally can't criminalise anything.

Ickle Magoo

cynder wrote: »

I personally can't criminalise anything.

Of course not - that wouldn't be very democratic...

Pace2008

tomtherobot wrote: »

Even though I can't understand it, I can also see that a lot of these people also see an unborn child as somehow not fully a human life. As such i don't think they are callously disregarding a life but ignorant of it's existence.

Ignorant or callous, what a flattering dichotomoy. I wonder, why is it that you view a zygote as a full human life when it comes to the issue of termination, but you and every other pro-lifer on the planet don't give a hoot about the tens of millions of zygotes - human beings in your eyes - which are flushed out of the womb after they fail to implant?

gozunda

cynder wrote: »

.....

Why would someone need counseling if it's something they really wanted?

If there not 100% sure they shouldn'tgo ahead and do it, they should not be encouraged to do it.

Maybe it would because the type of attitudes that have appeared on this thread - calling people who make a choice "killers" etc and then saying they have no smpathy to anyone who finds themselves in this situation. There are many the reasons that may have contributed to those who select termination as an option and are forced to go abroad for it., whether this was because of rape, abuse, incest, violent partner or danger to the health of the mother. Just as there are many reasons why someone may find themselves in need of counselling after an abortion.
Its not necessarily a clear black and white descision but based on a balance of circumstances and personal decision.

gozunda

tomtherobot wrote: »

....

Relevance? Surely we value all human life?

Do we? Not to sure about that tbh. But do explain your definition of "we" and what you understand by the term "Life" with relevance to these issues.

tomtherobot wrote: »

Please explain the difference in what i said in these quotes, without just calling me ignorant? I don't see a lack this lack of tact, this is clearly not my belief, clearly not how i would console somebody in this awful situation.

As pointed out thats not what you said.....See Below

Originally Posted by tomtherobot

I think it's a telling acid test for the pro-abortionists to ask them would they tell the grieving parent's of a child lost through miscarriage that it wasn't really a child, just a lifeless bunch of cells.

tomtherobot wrote: »

Please explain surely pro-choice is a much greater disambiguation (if you wanna compare disambiguations ). I up for using another term is you want to offer a suitable alternative?

I would be grateful if you would come up with your own argument and not simply rephrase what I in fact said. No I do not agree. Pro-abortion is not a an accepted expression - you are using it as a term of abuse thrown at those who call themselves "Pro-Choice". I will stick with that which is an accepted term. I can think of some non accepted terms for those that choose to ignore the complexities of these issues but refrain myself.

tomtherobot wrote: »

I don't understand your opinion, are you saying that because medical science distinguishes between different stage of pregnancy, some or all, are not 'alive'?

Yes. It is apparent that your concept of "Alive" and gestation of a human through full development in the womb is somewhat contrary to others accepted opinion. maybe you will be good enough to give us a definition of what you believe "alive" is in terms of Zygote through to Foetal development and at what point this "alive" actually happens in your opinion

cynder

gozunda wrote: »

cynder wrote: »

.....

Why would someone need counseling if it's something they really wanted?

If there not 100% sure they shouldn'tgo ahead and do it, they should not be encouraged to do it.

Maybe it would because the type of attitudes that have appeared on this thread - calling people who make a choice "killers" etc and then saying they have no smpathy to anyone who finds themselves in this situation. There are many the reasons that may have contributed to those who select termination as an option and are forced to go abroad for it., whether this was because of rape, abuse, incest, violent partner or danger to the health of the mother. Just as there are many reasons why someone may find themselves in need of counselling after an abortion.
Its not necessarily a clear black and white descision but based on a balance of circumstances and personal decision.

By that then murderers should be given counseling in prison for the heinous Crimes they committed.



If a woman is raped she would need counseling anyway, as would a woman who escapes a violent relationship, as would someone who wants kid, but can't get pregnant because it could kill her. These women should be in counseling, You picked the 3 that I could understand however you didn't pick the woman who uses it as a contraceptive . Funny that!

nozzferrahhtoo

cynder wrote: »

Baby is a person to the mother,she can feel it kick, hiccup, move around

That depends entirely on the stage of development. Most miscarriages occur before 3 months and you can feel very little of these things at that stage. I am talking about how the mother can become emotionally invested in the IDEA of a baby, her new future and much more even at this early stage.

tomtherobot wrote: »

So losing a baby is the same as losing a car?

If you say so. I sure did not however so lets not put words in my mouth shall we.

cynder

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

cynder wrote: »

Baby is a person to the mother,she can feel it kick, hiccup, move around

That depends entirely on the stage of development. Most miscarriages occur before 3 months and you can feel very little of these things at that stage. I am talking about how the mother can become emotionally invested in the IDEA of a baby, her new future and much more even at this early stage.

tomtherobot wrote: »

So losing a baby is the same as losing a car?

If you say so. I sure did not however so lets not put words in my mouth shall we.

I was taken into hospital at 8 weeks pregnant, I was very sick and was hospitalized for 7 days, I saw the scan she was 8 week's, a little bean with little stubs for arms and legs moving very quickly. I saw her, she was very much real, very much alive.

That little bean turns 13 next week...

EmzBoBo

Irishchick wrote: »

Abortion is never medically necessary and to say it is is just a down right lie!

No medical illness is cured by abortion.

If a pregnant woman becomes pregnant the doctor will treat the mother and do his/her best to save the unborn child. Sometimes they are successful, and sometimes they are not. Then procedure's such as a D&C need to performed to remove the dead unborn child.

This is widely performed in this country and is not an abortion.

Read this article, and don't just rule it out because its on a youth defence website. Its a very interesting article.

http://www.youthdefence.ie/latest-news/leading-irish-cancer-specialist-abortion-not-necessary-to-save-mom/

So that's cancer ruled out.

As for pre-eclampsia and ectopic pregnancies again the doctors will do all they can to save both but will intervene if the mother's life is in danger.

Again this is a medical treatment, not an abortion. Pro choice groups dont mention this though as it destroys their whole campaign as they know alot of women don't realise these facts.

Professor emeritus (amoug other OB GYN's) have been quoted saying that there is no risk to the mother that can be avoided by abortion.

I'm not going to get into an arguement with you. However, I just want to point out a few things:

1: I will be ruling that YD article (or indeed any article by them and/or their sister companies - Life Institute etc.) as invalid arguements, for the pure and simple reason that anytime I've ever actually tried to ask questions to them/their supporters, all I've ever gotten is a mouthfull of abuse, accompanied by the usual "Abortion is murder" screeches (and yes, I do mean screeches).

2: Their is absolutely NO LINK on their page to any PEER REVIEWED MEDICAL JOURNALS (or, indeed, any other unbiased information), to prove their point, and they refuse point blank to provide any links to medical journals etc, that would supposidly prove their point, they'll only ever link back to their own page, and lets face it, their page is very biased in favour of their own arguement.

3:

Abortion campaigners, she (Rebecca Roughneen of Youth Defence) said, are brazenly engaging in "dishonest scaremongering" with the present media blitz. "They're repeating the same lie over and over again in an attempt to make the public believe

.... bit rich comming from them tbh, pot/kettle much?

4:

Ireland, with its pro-life protections intact, enjoys one of the world's lowest rates of maternal mortality in the world.

...Now that, IS, in fact, a "downright lie" - in 2012, Rep.of Ireland was listed as the 15th (out of 22 countries in Europe) safest place to have a child in, and countries listed above us actually have legalised abortion! (Can't find the document at the moment, will post it later if I get a chance).... hardly the "safest place in the world to have a child" that YD like to harp on about...


Be pro-life if you want to be, I'm pro-choice, but have one or two friends that are pro-life, and we can all (politely) just agree to disagree on this particular issue.

Colmustard

Jernal wrote: »

Partly right.
Not all the embryos are inconsistent though. Some are malformed alright but the womb will tend to reject a significantly greater number of viable embryos than is needed simply to minimise its chances of carrying a malformed one to term.The whole thing is mind boggling inefficient. If one is to take the extreme pro-life view that life begins at conception then you're talking 220+ million deaths per year.
(Keep in mind that cancer is <10 million. )

HUH

Deaths of what??

But 220 million a year, that is nearly a billion every 4 years and as population increases that figure will also increase. So abortion is saving the planet by culling the population.

When you think about it, as a global specie, overpopulation is killing this planet and is our greatest threat to the survival of humanity, global warming is not just sun creams a heatwave and a drought. Global warming is the greatest threat to all life this planet has ever experienced, the Permian–Triassic extinction event was caused by global warming and it wiped out 90% of all life, which was the greatest extinction event that has ever happened on Earth.

So that would make abortion the moral and responsible choice. There should be more, a lot more, or more birth control, which prevents a billion or so human lives a year.

lugha

Jernal wrote: »

Religious belief : all other religions are absolutely wrong but many believers, thankfully, would still support freedom for all those religions to believe whatever they wish.

Religious belief is a private matter and should have nothing to do with how we arrange our civic laws. If that is the best example you can come up with, it rather reinforces my point.

tomtherobot wrote: »

I'm sorry it does not amount to the same thing. I'm not going to forcefully prevent her from having an abortion because i think it would be futile (she would have one anyway) and would just add to her suffering. Again, i wouldn't try to forcefully prevent somebody from chosing suicide as i believe it would be futile and just add to their suffering.

Would you forcefully prevent a mother from killing a born child? I think you would (you certainly should!). And for me this demonstrates that you see a foetus as less than a born child. You have repeatedly made the argument that the need for post-abortion counselling demonstrates that a foetus is more than a bunch of cells. Thus you accuse others of understating the worth of a foetus but you overstate it.

nozzferrahhtoo

cynder wrote: »

I was taken into hospital at 8 weeks pregnant, I was very sick and was hospitalized for 7 days, I saw the scan she was 8 week's, a little bean with little stubs for arms and legs moving very quickly. I saw her, she was very much real, very much alive. That little bean turns 13 next week...

Thats nice for you but it has nothing to do with anything I have been saying.