Abortion

cynder

Tipsygypsy wrote: »

Cynder wht hospital was she in that offered her an abortion? And how many weeks along was she?

cynder wrote: »

They didn't want to slice and dice their baby, they had hope, they gave her a chance, she didn't suffer. The doctors were great, she just went to sleep peacefully.

Also 'Slice and Dice', was that their terminology or is it yours? Because I dont think I've ever read any phrasing as insensitive and I have no doubt that there are women reading this who have had terminations for medical reasons similar to your friend who certainly did not want to 'slice and dice' their babies either. Im quite appalled.

She was in the second trimester when the baby was found to have a faulty heart and was offered a termination.

up for anything

Sponge25 wrote: »

Can a girl have an abortion in Ireland if she's gonna die or has been raped etc? I know there's no abortion clinics but has it ever happened!?

For all your questions you could try this first!

Sponge25 wrote: »

Anyone who isn't judgmental about rape ought to be locked up! Isn't it something everyone hates?

All doctors agree at some point the baby is viable outside the womb, I thought this was common sense? Some babies are born as early as 6.5months etc! Probably younger for all I know and survive!

Edit: the earliest baby born was 21 weeks and five days and looked remarkably healthy! So no one can argue that the baby isn't viable outside the womb unless it's born! That's not the point at all, the point is the baby is VIABLE and ALIVE but inside the womb, terminate the baby and you kill a living baby! Just cause it's not outside the womb doesn't mean it's not alive!

Edit: Also people who are having abortions DID consent to being pregnant by having sex!

You being judgmental about rape was in response to your comment

Originally Posted by Sponge25
Ofcourse there's no distinction but I can't help feeling a girl who doesn't sleep around is raped by a stranger is far worse than a junkie who sleeps with 10 men a day for money is raped, it's just one more man for the junkie but the girl who doesn't sleep around and a good girl would be ruined!

You have quite a an old fashioned mindset going on there - your ideas about good girls and bad girls (you could try using the more all encompassing word women instead of girls) are positively stupid.

I wasn't arguing that the fetus isn't viable outside the womb - I was asking you how you would get the fetus out of an unwilling woman in order for it to be viable?

As for your edit: If every female who has sex consents to being pregnant in your world - why do most of them use contraception?

Tipsygypsy

cynder wrote: »

She was in the second trimester when the baby was found to have a faulty heart and was offered a termination.

What hospital?

cynder

Tipsygypsy wrote: »

cynder wrote: »

She was in the second trimester when the baby was found to have a faulty heart and was offered a termination.

What hospital?

Original hospital was limerick, she think got transfered but I'm not 100% sure where, it's hard enough to know your babies going to die without getting into the nitty gritty, she had the baby in limerick. Buried her at home.

She went on to have another healthy baby.

Lingua Franca

cynder wrote: »

They didn't want to slice and dice their baby, they had hope, they gave her a chance, she didn't suffer. The doctors were great, she just went to sleep peacefully.

Would you say that this guy wanted to "slice and dice" his baby?

Tipsygypsy

cynder wrote: »

Original hospital was limerick, she think got transfered but I'm not 100% sure where, it's hard enough to know your babies going to die without getting into the nitty gritty, she had the baby in limerick. Buried her at home.

She went on to have another healthy baby.

Whatever hospital offered her an abortion would have been breaking the law as it stands in Ireland in doing so. This is why so many women whose babies have fatal fetal abnormalities HAVE to travel to England for treatment. I have heard many many stories like this and never ever heard of anyone being offered an abortion in Ireland. THe hospitals and OBs are all afraid to do so because they could very well face prosecution. THis is why I would like to know where she was offered it.

gozunda

cynder wrote: »

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

So you rate anyone who seeks a termination no matter what the cause whether it be rape, incest, mental health etc as a "Murderer"?

Cynder - your posts would appear to lack empathy with anyone who is not of your mindset. I note you have detailed about your father beating up your mother - I am not a qualified professional but is it a possible influence in your apparent lack of empathy towards others?

I also note you say you (quite rightly) love your children but then direct hatred towards those who does not share similar outlooks by calling them murders/killers even where they chose a termination in a jurisdiction where this procedure is legal.

I am aware that many of the pro-lifers on here are christans - I am unsure whether you are not but a useful one for those that are, is:

Do not judge so that you will not be judged” Matthew 7:1

which brings me to your next point:

cynder wrote: »

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!

How exactly do you know the number of women and the real reasons they seek a termination? Yes there are those whose own contraception has failed and due to other issues (which are not ours to speculate about) who then seek a termination. The ridiculous idea that an average woman could afford regular termination / abortion facilities as a means of contraception is risible.

Just because someone is raped etc does not mean they are recieving counseling - even though they should. The rape and the decision to undergo a termination is not one and the same thing. The change in hormones in a womans body alone can result in huge emotional changes.

The saying I like and I believe you would be wise to ponder on is as follows:

Pity is best taught by fellowship in woe - Samual Taylor Coleridge

. You may well love your kids but in all honesty I wouldn't wish you as a friend or neighbour with the lack of empathy towards others displayed in your posts.

tomtherobot

Pace2008 wrote: »

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?

Tens of millions of people have lived and died before me, live and die right now and will (hopefully) live and die in the future. I have no meaningful awareness of their lives so i won't grieve them, it doesn't mean they're not alive. So callous or ignorant it is.

gozunda wrote: »

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

gozunda wrote: »

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.

Lingua Franca wrote: »

http://topnews.in/law/files/living-baby.jpg (Frieda Mangold)

Aye, she's looking well there. :rolleyes: Survival rates for micro-preemies are notoriously terrible. These babies are born before many important organs have formed and it's a desperate and painful and frequently futile struggle to keep them alive. Using a miraculous survival as an example is ridiculous.

Ok, so there's a number of these types of arguments being put forward. These are what I would classify as politician type responses, in so much that it's just an attempt to switch the debate and make it obtuse. We all know how difficult it is in medical ethics (not science) to ascertain when life begins and death occurs (when the plug should be pulled). This does not make killing ok. If im in court for killing somebody i can't say "im sorry your honour but i don't fully understand the point at which life ends, so I did nothing wrong"

As anyone who understands logic can appreciate it is futile to engage in this argument, at this point, but by all means start a new thread. If you don't agree that human life exists before birth why should i be arguing with you at what point life occurs?

gozunda wrote: »

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.

Again this has been covered, what you're arguing for is counseling for tragic situations, not post-abortion counseling per se. Also, you've given another perfect example of how those that claim to be 'pro-choice' are so quick to run to examples where there has been no choice; rape, violence, abuse, medical emergency etc.

Lingua Franca

tomtherobot wrote: »

Ok, so there's a number of these types of arguments being put forward. These are what I would classify as politician type responses, in so much that it's just an attempt to switch the debate and make it obtuse. We all know how difficult it is in medical ethics (not science) to ascertain when life begins and death occurs (when the plug should be pulled). This does not make killing ok. If im in court for killing somebody i can't say "im sorry your honour but i don't fully understand the point at which life ends, so I did nothing wrong"

As anyone who understands logic can appreciate it is futile to engage in this argument, at this point, but by all means start a new thread. If you don't agree that human life exists before birth why should i be arguing with you at what point life occurs?

Tell me, how did you extrapolate all of that from my post responding to someone saying that a baby born at 21 weeks 5 days "looked remarkably healthy"? Do you even read this thread and attempt to understand posts or just look for opportunities to go "Ha!"? Don't bother answering, by the way, your post history will contradict you.

gozunda

tomtherobot wrote: »

.....

Ok, so there's a number of these types of arguments being put forward. These are what I would classify as politician type responses, in so much that it's just an attempt to switch the debate and make it obtuse. We all know how difficult it is in medical ethics (not science) to ascertain when life begins and death occurs (when the plug should be pulled). This does not make killing ok. If im in court for killing somebody i can't say "im sorry your honour but i don't fully understand the point at which life ends, so I did nothing wrong"

So bringing in proper scientific terminoly instead your use of emotive and disingenuous phraseology of child/baby/alive/life without proper definition is political? No it is not . Definitions are there to help clarfiy the process of
human development. Bringing in examples of courtroom dramatics doesnt help this discussion either.

tomtherobot wrote: »

Anyone who understands logic can appreciate it is futile to engage in this argument, at this point, but by all means start a new thread. If you don't agree that human life exists before birth why should i be arguing with you at what point life occurs?

Eh? Surely that is one of the most essential parts of
the discussion on the termination of pregnancy? Your logic may not be understood or appreciated by others
but then I would hold that your logic is deeply flawed.

tomtherobot wrote: »

Again this has been covered, what you're arguing for is counseling for tragic situations, not post-abortion counseling per se. Also, you've given another perfect example of how those that claim to be 'pro-choice' are so quick to run to examples where there has been no choice; rape, violence, abuse, medical emergency etc.

Would you deny counselling for those that request it - no matter what the reason? If someone needs counselling then it should be provided as required. I dont understand what your problem is. You do not know the exact reasons that someone has had a termination and yet you would choose to sit as judge and jury and condem them. Shame on you....

Pace2008

tomtherobot wrote: »

Tens of millions of people have lived and died before me, live and die right now and will (hopefully) live and die in the future. I have no meaningful awareness of their lives so i won't grieve them, it doesn't mean they're not alive. So callous or ignorant it is.

Sorry, maybe I didn't make myself clear. I'm not talking about grieving the loss of these individuals, I'm talking about providing them with the right to live.

You disagree with abortion as you believe a anything that comes post-fertilisation is a person with a right to live. You haven't stated it explicitly but I'm sure it goes without saying that you believe sick children (and people in general) deserve to be cared for in order to prolong their existence. I'm sure if people claimed otherwise you'd be disagreeing with in a similar (probably much stronger) manner than you are with the "pro-abortionists" on this thread.

So why are you apathetic towards the death of unimplanted zygotes when abortion is taken out of the question? Why do you and the rest of the pro-lifers think it's alright to let millions and millions of human beings die every year without ever getting a chance at life, and not do anything about it?

gozunda

I aknowledge this somewhat of an aside but as I had mentioned this previously I would like to give this as an example of how dead infants whether full term or otherwise were viwed until recent times in this country. it hardly amounted to "respect for human life" imo...

In 2007, the (Catholic)International Theological Commission announced there was "hope for the salvation of children who have died without baptism". Though this upheld the concept of limbo, priests were finally allowed to bless limbo graves and bury the unbaptised in church grounds.

.....

There are countless mass infant graves scattered around Ireland, left
unmarked, unconsecrated and containing hundreds of bodies.

. They are a legacy of Roman Catholic tradition, which stipulated that
babies who died before being baptised did not go to heaven, but to an in-between
state known as limbo.

. Baptism, it decreed, corrected humanity's original sin in falling away
from God. As a consequence, children who died at birth were forbidden to be buried on consecrated ground and denied a funeral service.

. Instead they were buried in anonymous plots known as "cillín". Veiled
in secrecy, mired in shame, the burials usually took place in the middle of the night along cemetery boundaries to get the babies as close to sacred ground as possible.

. In 2007, the International Theological Commission announced there was
"hope for the salvation of children who have died without baptism". Though this upheld the concept of limbo, priests were finally allowed to bless limbo graves and bury the unbaptised in church grounds.

tomtherobot

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Tell me, how did you extrapolate all of that from my post responding to someone saying that a baby born at 21 weeks 5 days "looked remarkably healthy"? Do you even read this thread and attempt to understand posts or just look for opportunities to go "Ha!"? Don't bother answering, by the way, your post history will contradict you.

I didn't say that these arguments originated with your post just that they are being put forward and your post is an example:

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Survival rates for micro-preemies are notoriously terrible. These babies are born before many important organs have formed and it's a desperate and painful and frequently futile struggle to keep them alive. Using a miraculous survival as an example is ridiculous.

I think you'll also find I've kept a consistent argument going throughout this debate. I don't know what you mean by contradictions in my post history, example?

gozunda wrote: »

So bringing in proper scientific terminoly instead your use of emotive and disingenuous phraseology of child/baby/alive/life without proper definition is political? No it is not . Definitions are there to help clarfiy the process of
human development.

I did not say that the use of scientific terminology alone is political but nonetheless i would still argue that in this case it is. A theory of knowledge approach would argue that there are different forms of knowledge; scientific, life experience, common sense, ethical etc etc So it is reasonable to suggest that giving primacy to one form of knowledge over another is political. We all know that a baby grows in stages so there is no need here for the terminology, unless it's just meant to dehumanize? Also, while were at it, i'm not sure you have an understanding of the distinctions between science and ethics?

gozunda wrote: »

Bringing in examples of courtroom dramatics doesnt help this discussion either.

It was more than an example of courtroom dramatics, it was an analogy and i think you know that. By comparing your argument to a hypothetical ridiculous one, I was inferring the weakness in your argument. It's a common and accepted debating approach so i'd say it does help the discussion.

gozunda wrote: »

Eh? Surely that is one of the most essential parts of
the discussion on the termination of pregnancy? Your logic may not be understood or appreciated by others
but then I would hold that your logic is deeply flawed.

Again you're just changing the topic, we both know the original debate was on whether we can intuitively reason that an unborn child is alive. It is clearly not an essential part of that debate to say that the child is alive at one point or another before being born. If you would like to broaden or change the debate to one on where life begins, or the nature of life itself, then please start a new debate or thread.

gozunda wrote: »

Would you deny counselling for those that request it - no matter what the reason? If someone needs counselling then it should be provided as required. I dont understand what your problem is. You do not know the exact reasons that someone has had a termination and yet you would choose to sit as judge and jury and condem them. Shame on you....

Any other politician-like spin you'd like to put on this? Again you know from the outset the debate regarding counseling was whether it was hypocritical for pro-abortonists to demand state funded post-abortion counseling. It is a very different argument as to whether anyone that requests counseling should get it. Should criminals get counseling if it just facilitates them to commit more crime? Again this leads to a whole different debate and i feel you're well aware of that.

tomtherobot

gozunda wrote: »

I aknowledge this somewhat of an aside but as I had mentioned this previously I would like to give this as an example of how dead infants whether full term or otherwise were viwed until recent times in this country. it hardly amounted to "respect for human life" imo...
.....

What, an aside, from you? :eek:

tomtherobot

Pace2008 wrote: »

Sorry, maybe I didn't make myself clear. I'm not talking about grieving the loss of these individuals, I'm talking about providing them with the right to live.

You disagree with abortion as you believe a anything that comes post-fertilisation is a person with a right to live. You haven't stated it explicitly but I'm sure it goes without saying that you believe sick children (and people in general) deserve to be cared for in order to prolong their existence. I'm sure if people claimed otherwise you'd be disagreeing with in a similar (probably much stronger) manner than you are with the "pro-abortionists" on this thread.

So why are you apathetic towards the death of unimplanted zygotes when abortion is taken out of the question? Why do you and the rest of the pro-lifers think it's alright to let millions and millions of human beings die every year without ever getting a chance at life, and not do anything about it?

Anyone else here want to change the debate to one which centers around when life begins, if so please start a new thread? But i'd have to ask why you can't just engage me on the original hypothesis?

gozunda

tomtherobot wrote: »

I did not say that the use of scientific terminology alone is political but nonetheless i would still argue that in this case it is. A theory of knowledge approach would argue that there are different forms of knowledge; scientific, life experience, common sense, ethical etc etc So it is reasonable to suggest that giving primacy to one form of knowledge over another is political. We all know that a baby grows in stages so there is no need here for the terminology, unless it's just meant to dehumanize? Also, while were at it, i'm not sure you have an understanding of the distinctions between science and ethics?

You say you did AND you didn't - which is it? Correct terminolgy is essential if you are not going to end up talking at cross purposes which is why there is an actaul and accepted terminology for stages of development. But hey lets not let any actual FACT get the way ok. Btw an appreciation of both science and ethics doesn't require any distinction to be drawn unless you are equating "ethics" with the creationist religous movement. Are you?

tomtherobot wrote: »

It was more than an example of courtroom dramatics, it was an analogy and i think you know that. By comparing your argument to a hypothetical ridiculous one, I was inferring the weakness in your argument. It's a common and accepted debating approach so i'd say it does help the discussion.

Its not an analogy fromwhere I was standing - It was nothing like an analogy - in fact it was a bit like comparing a car with a tree You may think an argument was weak however I believe your analogy was ridiculous....To use this correctly the example would at least have to be in the same ballpark ok...

tomtherobot wrote: »

Again you're just changing the topic, we both know the original debate was on whether we can intuitively reason that an unborn child is alive. It is clearly not an essential part of that debate to say that the child is alive at one point or another before being born. If you would like to broaden or change the debate to one on where life begins, or the nature of life itself, then please start a new debate or thread.

You may think this But no I do not. As far as I am aware the post opened up on the topic of you saying that no-one should get post termination counselling. And I do think it is important to at least consider the stage of development and viability. All perfectly within the discussion that has spread from your diatribe against anyone who has to choose a have a termination - reasons unknown.

tomtherobot wrote: »

Any other politician-like spin you'd like to put on this? Again you know from the outset the debate regarding counseling was whether it was hypocritical for pro-abortonists to demand state funded post-abortion counseling. It is a very different argument as to whether anyone that requests counseling should get it. Should criminals get counseling if it just facilitates them to commit more crime? Again this leads to a whole different debate and i feel you're well aware of that.

ref Politicians - Repeating the same thing again and again I'm afraid wont make it any more valid. There you go using that deranged term again of pro-abortionists??? Where you get that? Would you like me to call names. I dont think it would help - would it?
This is not an accepted term - This has been very nicely explained to you
by several posters but you do refuse to debate nicely. So into the bold corner with you.

But who is the criminal Tom? Not the person who seeks a termination in a jurisdiction where it is legal again for reasons you or I are not party to, Therefore We Cannot Judge. I dont see how counseling facilitates anyone to "commit more crime" Please do explain how you came to this conclusion - I am sure the counsellors of Ireland would be very interested in this theory :rolleyes:. You keep mentioning that "I must be aware" of things but for the life of me - no I am not. I am trying my best to stay on topic which is not easy consider the knots you are tying yourself up in....

gozunda

tomtherobot wrote: »

Anyone else here want to change the debate to one which centers around when life begins, if so please start a new thread? But i'd have to ask why you can't just engage me on the original hypothesis?

Ehh? What hypothesis. In my opinion the first post amounted to a diatribe against everyone who ever had to resort to the choice of a termination and your declaration that all who do so should be denied counselling as a result :eek: The discusion has thankfully evolved from this base ideology and as a result it has brought up the issues of human development.

I provide for your referal a Definition of Hypothesis :

a proposition, or set of propositions, set
forth as an explanation for
the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable
in the light of established facts.

Lingua Franca

tomtherobot wrote: »

I didn't say that these arguments originated with your post just that they are being put forward and your post is an example:

Of what argument is my post an example? That micro preemies don't look healthy? What's wrong with saying that?

I think you'll also find I've kept a consistent argument going throughout this debate. I don't know what you mean by contradictions in my post history, example?

Oh, sweet irony. :pac: I totally called it.

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Do you even read this thread and attempt to understand posts or just look for opportunities to go "Ha!"? Don't bother answering, by the way, your post history will contradict you.

I didn't say that you were contradicting yourself, I asked if you actually bothered to read any of the posts.

Pace2008

tomtherobot wrote: »

Anyone else here want to change the debate to one which centers around when life begins, if so please start a new thread? But i'd have to ask why you can't just engage me on the original hypothesis?

You are asking why some women need professional help after choosing to end their pregnancy. I can think of plenty of possible circumstances surrounding the incident that could damage one's mental wellbeing - arguments with family and the father over the decision, dealing with societal stigma and, yes, regret over their choice of action. On top of the obvious you have to factor in the fact that humans have theory of mind - we have the ability to attribute mental states, emotions, desires etc. to other humans. This isn't limited to the people around us - it can extend to animals, inanimate objects, and I can certainly see how it could extend to a foetus even if the person who's received the abortion doesn't view it as a viable human, leading to trauma post-termination. This applies to miscarried children as well.

You seem to view the fact that some women require counselling post-abortion to be evidence that the terminated foetus is indeed a human being . So I'm asking you: do you not think the fact that no one seems to care about the zygotes that fail to implant to be evidence that there are cases when unborn children are not valued as human life? You're saying this is not a debate about what does or does not constitute a viable human being, but I honestly can't see how you can expect an answer without going into the topic.

Sponge25

Lingua Franca wrote: »

http://topnews.in/law/files/living-baby.jpg (Frieda Mangold)

Aye, she's looking well there. :rolleyes: Survival rates for micro-preemies are notoriously terrible. These babies are born before many important organs have formed and it's a desperate and painful and frequently futile struggle to keep them alive. Using a miraculous survival as an example is ridiculous.

That certainly wasn't the baby I was looking at! She was small but normal looking!

Sponge25

up for anything wrote: »

For all your questions you could try this first!



You being judgmental about rape was in response to your comment



You have quite a an old fashioned mindset going on there - your ideas about good girls and bad girls (you could try using the more all encompassing word women instead of girls) are positively stupid.

I wasn't arguing that the fetus isn't viable outside the womb - I was asking you how you would get the fetus out of an unwilling woman in order for it to be viable?

As for your edit: If every female who has sex consents to being pregnant in your world - why do most of them use contraception?

It doesn't matter if they use contraception, if you're not prepared to have a baby don't have sex. That's like putting one round in a revolver, shooting yourself in the head and complaining because ya put a gun to your head and pulled the trigger!

B0jangles

Do you really have! To finish virtually every sentence! With a !

(or an ? )

Sponge25

B0jangles wrote: »

Do you really have! To finish virtually every sentence! With a !

(or an ? )

Yeah just too annoy you!?!!!

Mickeroo

Sponge25 wrote: »

It doesn't matter if they use contraception, if you're not prepared to have a baby don't have sex. That's like putting one round in a revolver, shooting yourself in the head and complaining because ya put a gun to your head and pulled the trigger!

Nah it's more like taking every measure possible not to get pregnant while still having a healthy sex life, only to end up getting pregnant.

B0jangles

Sponge25 wrote: »

Yeah just too annoy you!?!!!

OK, so you are just a boring troll, good to know and thus to ignore in future.

mcmoustache

So, has this debate been settled yet?

Who won?

jessiejam

cynder wrote: »

She was in the second trimester when the baby was found to have a faulty heart and was offered a termination.

Bullsh*t.
Terminations are not offered in any Irish hospital. Ever.

She may have been given the facts in a hospital about where to go etc but it certainly wouldn't have been offered. I think there are some facts missing from your story cynder.

There have been cases where a baby in the womb has died and the poor woman has to carry that baby until she naturally goes into labour. If they intervened it would have been illegal.

Pace2008

Sponge25 wrote: »

It doesn't matter if they use contraception, if you're not prepared to have a baby don't have sex. That's like putting one round in a revolver, shooting yourself in the head and complaining because ya put a gun to your head and pulled the trigger!

I think it's more analogous to having a gun misfire and the bullet lodging in you, then asking the nice people at the hospital if they'd be so kind as to remove it.

gozunda

Sponge25 wrote: »

It doesn't matter if they use contraception, if you're not prepared to have a baby don't have sex. That's like putting one round in a revolver, shooting yourself in the head and complaining because ya put a gun to your head and pulled the trigger!

Is that you Father? Would you like a wee cup of Tea before ye start the marriage guidence classes.......;)

Sponge25

gozunda wrote: »

Is that you Father? Would you like a wee cup of Tea before ye start the marriage guidence classes.......;)

Knowing me I could be your dad! haha just kidding.

jessiejam

Sponge25 wrote: »

Knowing me I could be your dad! haha just kidding.

I think that was meant in the religious way not the parental way:D

cynder

gozunda wrote: »

cynder wrote: »

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

So you rate anyone who seeks a termination no matter what the cause whether it be rape, incest, mental health etc as a "Murderer"?

Cynder - your posts would appear to lack empathy with anyone who is not of your mindset. I note you have detailed about your father beating up your mother - I am not a qualified professional but is it a possible influence in your apparent lack of empathy towards others?

I also note you say you (quite rightly) love your children but then direct hatred towards those who does not share similar outlooks by calling them murders/killers even where they chose a termination in a jurisdiction where this procedure is legal.

I am aware that many of the pro-lifers on here are christans - I am unsure whether you are not but a useful one for those that are, is:

Do not judge so that you will not be judged” Matthew 7:1

which brings me to your next point:

cynder wrote: »

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!

How exactly do you know the number of women and the real reasons they seek a termination? Yes there are those whose own contraception has failed and due to other issues (which are not ours to speculate about) who then seek a termination. The ridiculous idea that an average woman could afford regular termination / abortion facilities as a means of contraception is risible.

Just because someone is raped etc does not mean they are recieving counseling - even though they should. The rape and the decision to undergo a termination is not one and the same thing. The change in hormones in a womans body alone can result in huge emotional changes.

The saying I like and I believe you would be wise to ponder on is as follows:

Pity is best taught by fellowship in woe - Samual Taylor Coleridge

. You may well love your kids but in all honesty I wouldn't wish you as a friend or neighbour with the lack of empathy towards others displayed in your posts.

Never been baptized never, will be.

Just because I hate abortion doesn't make me a bad friend or neighbor. You judge me for my opinion. It's not like I go round stopping people, I pointed out my opinion on boards, I won't ever change it.

But I also wont physically stop anyone, if they have made up their mind and do it fine, but I dont be a shoulder to cry on.

Tbh I doubt that would ever happen as my close friends would also be anti abortion.


Other than the abortion issue I'm a good neighbor and friend. I certainly wouldn't avoid someone who had an abortion, if they told me I would tell them straight I dont agree with it and leave it at that.

For the record I'm not pro life, I agree with euthanasia, assisted suicide and with the death sentence in certain circumstances.

The only people I lack empathy for are people who seek abortion, ( not those who have been raped seeking abortion) and most people who kill their kids and most serial killers.


Ps you seem to be judging me....

cynder

Tipsygypsy wrote: »

cynder wrote: »

Original hospital was limerick, she think got transfered but I'm not 100% sure where, it's hard enough to know your babies going to die without getting into the nitty gritty, she had the baby in limerick. Buried her at home.

She went on to have another healthy baby.

Whatever hospital offered her an abortion would have been breaking the law as it stands in Ireland in doing so. This is why so many women whose babies have fatal fetal abnormalities HAVE to travel to England for treatment. I have heard many many stories like this and never ever heard of anyone being offered an abortion in Ireland. THe hospitals and OBs are all afraid to do so because they could very well face prosecution. THis is why I would like to know where she was offered it.

Not sure which hospital she was referred to, and I'm not going to broach the subject with her unless she brings it up as it would be insensitive....

up for anything

Sponge25 wrote: »

It doesn't matter if they use contraception, if you're not prepared to have a baby don't have sex. That's like putting one round in a revolver, shooting yourself in the head and complaining because ya put a gun to your head and pulled the trigger!

The naivety of it.

blacklilly

Although I am pro life I don't see the problem with providing women who have decided to abort their pregnancy with counselling, surely being pro life would suggest that one should care about every living being.
I've friends who have had abortions and have sought counselling.
I also don't agree with adultery, drug abuse, domestic violence but should someone who has done any of the above seek help I can only look upon that as a good thing.
Some women who have chosen abortion can have major regrets, suffer depression, feel isolated and if councelling helps them cope it should be provided.
I try not to judge people although we all do to some extent, unfortunately life is not black and white, people make mistakes,have regrets. My opinion on abortion still stands but I have seen very good friends go through emotional hell after choosing abortion and I wouldn't be much of a friend if I turned my back on them. 

blacklilly

Although I am pro life I don't see the problem with providing women who have decided to abort their pregnancy with counselling, surely being pro life would suggest that one should care about every living being.
I've friends who have had abortions and have sought counselling.
I also don't agree with adultery, drug abuse, domestic violence but should someone who has done any of the above seek help I can only look upon that as a good thing.
Some women who have chosen abortion can have major regrets, suffer depression, feel isolated and if councelling helps them cope it should be provided.
I try not to judge people although we all do to some extent, unfortunately life is not black and white, people make mistakes,have regrets. My opinion on abortion still stands but I have seen very good friends go through emotional hell after choosing abortion and I wouldn't be much of a friend if I turned my back on them. 

MOR66

It should be optional, but i doubht anything will be implicated in the near future. I am pro-life but in certain situations such as a trauma (rape) or health risks to mother or baby, i can see it being justifiable.I watched a programme on rte awhile ago about Irish woman traveling to england for abortions and they were all traumtised by the experience.I think it's appauling free councelling isnt provided.

I think it's rare for abortion to be used as a form of contraception,considering it's not cheap.And most people who are sluts are young girls 16 and under who sleep with guys and dont give a crap about anything!! So i think its preety rare.

up for anything

MOR66 wrote: »

It should be optional, but i doubht anything will be implicated in the near future. I am pro-life but in certain situations such as a trauma (rape) or health risks to mother or baby, i can see it being justifiable.I watched a programme on rte awhile ago about Irish woman traveling to england for abortions and they were all traumtised by the experience.I think it's appauling free councelling isnt provided.

I think it's rare for abortion to be used as a form of contraception,considering it's not cheap.And most people who are sluts are young girls 16 and under who sleep with guys and dont give a crap about anything!! So i think its preety rare.

You are a prince amongst posters. :rolleyes:

gozunda

Sponge25 wrote: »

Knowing me I could be your dad! haha just kidding.

Your the Priest :eek:

gozunda

cynder wrote: »

Never been baptized never, will be.

Not so much being anything to do with actual religion more the sentiment contained in that expression "Who are we to judge"?

cynder wrote: »

Just because I hate abortion doesn't make me a bad friend or neighbor. You judge me for my opinion. It's not like I go round stopping people, I pointed out my opinion on boards, I won't ever change it.

Having an opinion is good but publically assigning moralistic statements like they are murderers and killers is blatently not. Do you not think that someone who has had to have a termination (reason unknown and unknowable to you or me- whether rape or otherwise) coming on here and reading that they are being lambasted as a murderer is somehow not going to have a huge psycholoical effect on them? And then to hold that they should not be provided with counselling? Empathy is an important element of our society even in the face of adversity...

cynder wrote: »

But I also wont physically stop anyone, if they have made up their mind and do it fine, but I dont be a shoulder to cry on.

See above....

cynder wrote: »

Tbh I doubt that would ever happen as my close friends would also be anti abortion... Other than the abortion issue I'm a good neighbor and friend. I certainly wouldn't avoid someone who had an abortion, if they told me I would tell them straight I dont agree with it and leave it at that.

I have firends who would hold many oopposing ideas and opinions to me as I belive life is richer becasuse of it...If a friend in need came looking for help I would do my best to help them no matter what my opinions are...

cynder wrote: »

For the record I'm not pro life, I agree with euthanasia, assisted suicide and with the death sentence in certain circumstances...The only people I lack empathy for are people who seek abortion, ( not those who have been raped seeking abortion) and most people who kill their kids and most serial killers.

You do not know who was raped, drugged, was a victim of incest or someone whose own conraception failed - no one knows but them the real reasons therefore we cannot sit in judgement..

cynder wrote: »

Ps you seem to be judging me....

Your posts have displayed a remarkable lack of empathy imo so I am giving you my opinion based on what you have actually said...

cynder

gozunda wrote: »

cynder wrote: »

Never been baptized never, will be.

Not so much being anything to do with actual religion more the sentiment contained in that expression "Who are we to judge"?

cynder wrote: »

Just because I hate abortion doesn't make me a bad friend or neighbor. You judge me for my opinion. It's not like I go round stopping people, I pointed out my opinion on boards, I won't ever change it.

Having an opinion is good but publically assigning moralistic statements like they are murderers and killers is blatently not. Do you not think that someone who has had to have a termination (reason unknown and unknowable to you or me- whether rape or otherwise) coming on here and reading that they are being lambasted as a murderer is somehow not going to have a huge psycholoical effect on them? And then to hold that they should not be provided with counselling? Empathy is an important element of our society even in the face of adversity...

cynder wrote: »

But I also wont physically stop anyone, if they have made up their mind and do it fine, but I dont be a shoulder to cry on.

See above....

cynder wrote: »

Tbh I doubt that would ever happen as my close friends would also be anti abortion... Other than the abortion issue I'm a good neighbor and friend. I certainly wouldn't avoid someone who had an abortion, if they told me I would tell them straight I dont agree with it and leave it at that.

I have firends who would hold many oopposing ideas and opinions to me as I belive life is richer becasuse of it...If a friend in need came looking for help I would do my best to help them no matter what my opinions are...

cynder wrote: »

For the record I'm not pro life, I agree with euthanasia, assisted suicide and with the death sentence in certain circumstances...The only people I lack empathy for are people who seek abortion, ( not those who have been raped seeking abortion) and most people who kill their kids and most serial killers.

You do not know who was raped, drugged, was a victim of incest or someone whose own conraception failed - no one knows but them the real reasons therefore we cannot sit in judgement..

cynder wrote: »

Ps you seem to be judging me....

Your posts have displayed a remarkable lack of empathy imo so I am giving you my opinion based on what you have actually said...

And I'm giving my opinion, abortion is taking a life.

A murder takes a life, a killer takes a life, it may or may not be in self defense, it may or may not be premeditated. It may or may not have been their only option. Now I totally agree with someone killing someone in self defense, or in defense of another ( I would) but they still killed someone.


To take a life is to kill. That is my view.


The argument is when is the baby alive, one person said when it's heart beats, for another its not until it breaths air, for me it's from implantation.


Some believe that because the baby isn't alive, ( by calling it a bunch of cells or zygote because then it's easier to get rid of, its not like it's Human) it can be got rid of. if it's not alive as they see it they can't kill it, so what does it matter that I say, if they truly believe it's not alive it can't be killed. At the end of the day it's up to them. To me they are taking a life, and to take a life is to kill.

nozzferrahhtoo

^ Killing sheep, cows or pigs for food is also "taking a life". Those animals are no more or less alive than any human life. So grounding your moral opinion of abortion behind the rhetoric of "It is taking a life" fails to stand up to much moral or philosophical rigor. It sounds nice on the surface and looks good on paper but as soon as you start to unpack it there is very little there but the arbitrary assignment of moral concern to a rather random point.

The issue however is whether the fetus or zygote are "alive" in the sense of moral concern. Not just alive in the biological sense. As I said the biological sense alone is not enough to ground the discussion given we do not have the same moral concerns for other life on the planet as we do human life.

At the end of the day the entire Abortion debate is about a simple question: At any given stage in the development is the developing fetus worthy of the assignment of "Human Rights". I fail to be convinced that it is and certainly arguments that it is biologically alive or taxonomically human fail to ground the discussion in the way people who produce those facts hope it should.

cynder

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

^ Killing sheep, cows or pigs for food is also "taking a life". Those animals are no more or less alive than any human life. So grounding your moral opinion of abortion behind the rhetoric of "It is taking a life" fails to stand up to much moral or philosophical rigor. It sounds nice on the surface and looks good on paper but as soon as you start to unpack it there is very little there but the arbitrary assignment of moral concern to a rather random point.

The issue however is whether the fetus or zygote are "alive" in the sense of moral concern. Not just alive in the biological sense. As I said the biological sense alone is not enough to ground the discussion given we do not have the same moral concerns for other life on the planet as we do human life.

At the end of the day the entire Abortion debate is about a simple question: At any given stage in the development is the developing fetus worthy of the assignment of "Human Rights". I fail to be convinced that it is and certainly arguments that it is biologically alive or taxonomically human fail to ground the discussion in the way people who produce those facts hope it should.

I believe the unborn should have the right to live, i cant produce any facts, its a personal belife, i dont wish to change anyones mind, its my view.

You cant give me any facts that says the unborn has no right to life, its not a parasite or an alien life form. The terms bunch of cells means nothing to me, its a life, it should be given a chance.

nozzferrahhtoo

cynder wrote: »

I believe the unborn should have the right to live, i cant produce any facts, its a personal belife, i dont wish to change anyones mind, its my view.

That is all well and good. We will vote differently in the voting booth when it comes to it. It is worth pointing out though that this is a discussion and debating forum so do not be surprised if people unpack your opinions and show where they are lacking in any intellectual or philosophical rigor.

In fact if you are unwilling to defend your views through discourse then perhaps you would be better off saying nothing at all and not posting? When you post your opinions, people like myself debunk them, and you reply with a cop out then it simply represents your side of the argument badly, makes it look weak, and plays into the hands of people like myself better than if you gave me your password and let me write your posts for you.

cynder wrote: »

You cant give me any facts that says the unborn has no right to life, its not a parasite or an alien life form. The terms bunch of cells means nothing to me, its a life, it should be given a chance.

Again however it is no more a "life" than a cow is. Do you afford the same moral protection to all life? Are you completely vegetarian not eating any meat or fish? If not then clearly your opinion on morality is grounded in MUCH more than "It is a life" despite your protestations to the contrary. As such, perhaps you are not being altogether honest with yourself in that you have just arbitrarily selected a position and then walled it off from the rest of your intellect lest it not stand up to observation.

cynder

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

That is all well and good. We will vote differently in the voting booth when it comes to it. It is worth pointing out though that this is a discussion and debating forum so do not be surprised if people unpack your opinions and show where they are lacking in any intellectual or philosophical rigor.

In fact if you are unwilling to defend your views through discourse then perhaps you would be better off saying nothing at all and not posting? When you post your opinions, people like myself debunk them, and you reply with a cop out then it simply represents your side of the argument badly, makes it look weak, and plays into the hands of people like myself better than if you gave me your password and let me write your posts for you.



Again however it is no more a "life" than a cow is. Do you afford the same moral protection to all life? Are you completely vegetarian not eating any meat or fish? If not then clearly your opinion on morality is grounded in MUCH more than "It is a life" despite your protestations to the contrary. As such, perhaps you are not being altogether honest with yourself in that you have just arbitrarily selected a position and then walled it off from the rest of your intellect lest it not stand up to observation.

Perhaps if you got a group of school kids, taught them the life cycle of a frog, and then produced frogspawn and asked them to squish it, would they? My bets are most would not, because what of what feels right and what feels wrong, it would be wrong to squish the frogspawn as there would be no tadpole or frog.

A very simplistic view of what they think is right and what they think is wrong, however i doubt very much that any teacher would run that test with a group of school kids aged 5 - 12. I would love to see the test carried out though. Children are pure and untainted and would give a very simple yes and no on what feels right and what feels wrong.

My view is simple, its wrong. There are some situations i could understand why someone would do it.

nozzferrahhtoo

So you base your morality not just on the actions of school kids, but the IMAGINED actions of school kids that you have not tried or tested out or actually checked into? This does explain a lot.

We agree on one thing though, your view IS simple and simplistic. All you are showing is that because children subjectively like frogs, they do not want there to be more frogs. This is hardly a philosophically rigorous arguments against abortion. Especially since you and I both know that most of those kids would happily leave the class room and go off and eat a lamb burger created by cutting down the life of a little lamb in the prime of it's life. They will cry while watching Bambi then enjoy a good venison.

Zulu

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

this is a discussion and debating forum so do not be surprised if people unpack your opinions and show where they are lacking in any intellectual or philosophical rigor.

That's nice, feel free to do this at any point.

In fact if you are unwilling to defend your views through discourse then perhaps you would be better off saying nothing at all and not posting?

Why would you seek to silence someones opinion? ...other than being simply rude, of course.

Again however it is no more a "life" than a cow is.

So you either value animal life on a parity with human life (similarly to vegans) or you have an equal lack of respect for human life as you do animals? That's fine. But the rest of society doesn't tend to agree with that position. Most of us value human life above other life.

Sadly, your attempts to discredit the poster by claiming they are hypocritical with respect to "life" (animal v human) doesn't hold up. This "ace in the hole" probably works logical miracles to those who think like you, but the rest of us don't think like you. The rest of us value human life above other life and see through it.

Malari

Zulu wrote: »

That's nice, feel free to do this at any point.

Why would you seek to silence someones opinion? ...other than being simply rude, of course.

So you either value animal life on a parity with human life (similarly to vegans) or you have an equal lack of respect for human life as you do animals? That's fine. But the rest of society doesn't tend to agree with that position. Most of us value human life above other life.

Sadly, your attempts to discredit the poster by claiming they are hypocritical with respect to "life" (animal v human) doesn't hold up. This "ace in the hole" probably works logical miracles to those who think like you, but the rest of us don't think like you. The rest of us value human life above other life and see through it.

And some of us value a pregnant woman's life above the life of an unwanted foetus.

Zulu

Malari wrote: »

And some of us value a pregnant woman's life above the life of an unwanted foetus.

I understand that.

Is there a reason you've deliberately avoided my salient point?

cynder

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So you base your morality not just on the actions of school kids, but the IMAGINED actions of school kids that you have not tried or tested out or actually checked into? This does explain a lot.

We agree on one thing though, your view IS simple and simplistic. All you are showing is that because children subjectively like frogs, they do not want there to be more frogs. This is hardly a philosophically rigorous arguments against abortion. Especially since you and I both know that most of those kids would happily leave the class room and go off and eat a lamb burger created by cutting down the life of a little lamb in the prime of it's life. They will cry while watching Bambi then enjoy a good venison.

That they would go off and eat a nice burger, lamb? venison? veal?

But still you wont find the above in my house.

I dont base my morality on a bunch of school kids, I get that you want to twist things, dont we all? But i'm using school kids as an example of purity, what is right and wrong, they havent been brainwashed into thinking frogspawn is just bunch of cells, that there are no consequences if they squish the frogspawn.





Down to abortion though, it feels wrong, there have been a few on here that have come out and said they have had an abortion, what Ive said is out in the open, its my over all view. I havent sent hate mail, or nasty pms to them, i never will. They did what they did, what they wanted to do. Fine, its up to them to live their life how they want, i dont like what they have done, i cant stop what they have done, i dont wish them eternal hell for what they have done, or a life full of pain, but I will never vote yes to abortion because i feel its wrong.