Abortion

Actor

seamus wrote: »

If a person is in a persistent vegetative state, then I see no issue with taking the merciful route for all and allowing them to die quickly, painlessly and with dignity.

Would you rather that they be kept alive? For what purpose?

People have woken up from comas after several years.

So basically, what you're saying is that you have no respect for early human life and late human life. I had better warn my granny that there's people like you wanting to get their hands on the levers of power.

gosuckonalemon

The thing that I find funny about this whole abortion debate is that it just seems to be pointless.

What does it matter if it's legalized here or not??

The only important thing to worry about is that it is never made illegal in the UK.

Until the day that it is, then Irish women in the future (and the 200,000 that have gone before them) have nothing to worry about.

Hopefully they can take solace from that fact.

seamus

Actor wrote: »

People have woken up from comas after several years.

A coma isn't a persistive vegetative state.

Once again you have shown your ignorance and complete lack of knowledge about the topic at hand.

optogirl

Actor wrote: »

Agree. Still don't support abortion for rape victims. It's terrible that they've been raped, but two wrongs don't make a right. In fact, abortion is a more severe crime than rape.

Troll

gosuckonalemon

optogirl wrote: »

Troll

Not a troll, just seriously deranged I reckon. Sad but very true that these people exist in today's society. Scary actually.

krudler

Actor wrote: »

Agree. Still don't support abortion for rape victims. It's terrible that they've been raped, but two wrongs don't make a right. In fact, abortion is a more severe crime than rape.

So a woman should raise a living, breathing reminder of a horrific event in her past she wanted no part of, changing her life because of the will of someone else? that seems like a better option to you than her possibly having a child when she wants with someone who is a partner? ok then..

krudler

Actor wrote: »

Evidently you haven't thought about this issue in any great depth.

Do you think those in a vegitative state should be "put down"?

would you want to live in a vegetative state for the remainder of your life? wearing nappies or having nurses doing things for you, no mobility of your own, unable to communicate and basically being a prisoner in your own body? this is a humane thing to do?

Maximus Alexander

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

I think the point is that the rape victim's health is more important than that of the baby. The psychological trauma of carrying a baby resulting from rape is likely to to ruin you for life. It's not about the baby being guilty.

The psychological trauma of any unwanted pregnancy could ruin you for life

Either people are about the life of the foetus or they aren't

krudler

bluewolf wrote: »

The psychological trauma of any unwanted pregnancy could ruin you for life

Either people are about the life of the foetus or they aren't

I love this line of thinking "all human life is precious and should be saved, oh except rape babies"

Maximus Alexander

bluewolf wrote: »

The psychological trauma of any unwanted pregnancy could ruin you for life

Either people are about the life of the foetus or they aren't

Yeah, all issues in life are black or white. There's no such thing as a middle ground.

Maximus Alexander

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Yeah, all issues in life are black or white. There's no such thing as a middle ground.

Not when prolifers are pro life except when "it's not her fault" and life doesn't matter anymore

OldNotWIse

dodderangler wrote: »

Ffs another abortion thread
I say we should abort these threads!!!

Then we might need a counselling thread because we have aborted the abortion thread...

Maximus Alexander

bluewolf wrote: »

Not when prolifers are pro life except when "it's not her fault" and life doesn't matter anymore

That only makes the kind of sense that you think it does, if you bucket people into black (let's say "pro-life") and white (let's say "pro-choice"). The other option is that people have a wide range of opinions and codes of ethics that don't fall neatly into those buckets. That sounds a lot like Red vs Blue politics.

It should not be US vs THEM, it should be "What's the best solution we can find for this issue?"

In the case of rape victims, you need to weigh the well-being of the victim mother, against that of the victim child.

For me at least, the mother wins that one.

blacklilly

krudler wrote: »

Actor wrote: »

Agree. Still don't support abortion for rape victims. It's terrible that they've been raped, but two wrongs don't make a right. In fact, abortion is a more severe crime than rape.

So a woman should raise a living, breathing reminder of a horrific event in her past she wanted no part of, changing her life because of the will of someone else? that seems like a better option to you than her possibly having a child when she wants with someone who is a partner? ok then..

There is the option of adoption

Millicent

blacklilly wrote: »

There is the option of adoption

Only if you're unmarried.

Maximus Alexander

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

In the case of rape victims, you need to weigh the well-being of the victim mother, against that of the victim child.

For me at least, the mother wins that one.

Then in any case of unwanted pregnancy you should take the well being of the potential mother into account, because it's not all sunshine just because it's not rape.

krudler

blacklilly wrote: »

There is the option of adoption

you'll still know there's a child you never wanted and were forced into giving birth to out there. Not to mention all the issues related to pregnancy, how would you feel sending 9 months of your life carrying your rapists child around in your womb, knowing it was never going to be around you once it was born? putting your body through that then recovering from the birth and all because some guy raped you. nobody has the right to tell a woman she should endure that.

Maximus Alexander

bluewolf wrote: »

Then in any case of unwanted pregnancy you should take the well being of the potential mother into account, because it's not all sunshine just because it's not rape.

Oh, I do take it in to account, and I come down on the side of the baby.

Gurgle

krudler wrote: »

how would you feel sending 9 months of your life carrying your rapists child around in your womb, knowing it was never going to be around you once it was born?

With proper support and counseling, she should feel like a hero.

Actor

Actor wrote: »

Agree. Still don't support abortion for rape victims. It's terrible that they've been raped, but two wrongs don't make a right. In fact, abortion is a more severe crime than rape.

Mod

Any further comments like that will lead me to believe that you are infact trolling, and you will earn yourself a ban.

blacklilly

krudler wrote: »

blacklilly wrote: »

There is the option of adoption

you'll still know there's a child you never wanted and were forced into giving birth to out there. Not to mention all the issues related to pregnancy, how would you feel sending 9 months of your life carrying your rapists child around in your womb, knowing it was never going to be around you once it was born? putting your body through that then recovering from the birth and all because some guy raped you. nobody has the right to tell a woman she should endure that.

Your comment would suggest that all rape victims who become pregnant opt for abortion. This is not true. I personally know of one woman who became pregnant through rape and gave the child up for adoption. Your comment suggests that adoption should not even be considered

krudler

blacklilly wrote: »

Your comment would suggest that all rape victims who become pregnant opt for abortion. This is not true. I personally know of one woman who became pregnant through rape and gave the child up for adoption. Your comment suggests that adoption should not even be considered

As was her choice, thanks for backing up my point. The option is there, but its not up to anyone but the woman to decide which one to take.

Morag

Executive Steve wrote: »

Would have thought Boards.ie would have had ways of shutting threads like this down

I've never so many YD sock puppets on the site before, guess it's one way to know it's really mainstream.

Morag

krudler wrote: »

So a woman should raise a living, breathing reminder of a horrific event in her past she wanted no part of, changing her life because of the will of someone else? that seems like a better option to you than her possibly having a child when she wants with someone who is a partner? ok then..

and then her rapist can drag her through the courts and insist on trying to be in the child's life and by proxy hers.

Millicent

Gurgle wrote: »

With proper support and counseling, she should feel like a hero.

A hero? Why? Because she was a victim of a crime? Because she was raped and guilted into keeping a child she might have otherwise aborted? What utter twaddle. Rape doesn't make anyone a hero. It makes them victims of a serious crime with all the incumbent stresses and difficulties that come with such a crime.

Ash.J.Williams

tomtherobot wrote: »

Now, normally i stay away from abortion debates because i find they're full of extremist types but this morning, i found the country's favorite moral crusader aka Ray D'arcy, preaching on about the rights of women who've had abortions. This led me to the conclusion that there's a general consensus these days that abortion is now acceptable to the majority (ok not just this alone), but if this is the case, i think it raises two issues going forward (as they say)

Firstly, maintenance payments for children? How can a society, or individual, who supports a woman's exclusive right to chose to have an abortion at the same time come to fathers with the paw out looking for money to support children. If a father has no choice whether the child is alive or not how can he be demanded to support that child? Makes no sense whatsoever to me.

Secondly, the Ray D'arcy show this morning was talking about counseling for women after abortion. Seemingly the HSE already pays for this. I can't understand how state support for counseling for women who've had abortions is justified. On one side of the debate, pro abortionists say it's a procedure to remove a physical growth which isn't alive. If that's the case why the need for counseling? On the other side, anti-abortionists say it's murder, so why would the state be counseling murderers? Did I miss something, do we not still have old folk being left to rot on trolleys, surely the HSE has greater priorities now than counseling women who've chose to have an abortion.

As you may have guessed, i'm anti-abortion. I'm not religious I just believe that an unborn child is alive. Why else would people mourn the loss of unborn or stillborn children? Or require counseling after 'terminating' one? Given that i believe that an unborn child is alive I think killing one is wrong and cannot be justified above the social or material needs of the parent(s). No more or less than i think it would be ok to kill your elderly parents just because they don't suit where you are in you're life right now.....

bit of a smarmy smug post to be honest

Sin City

Not going to get too involved in this thread , as I have contributed to a very similar thread on this site and the debate goes on and on (and there seems to be a lot of cranks and people trying to point blame and not make rational arguements against each other)


Bottom line is when you think humanity or personhood begins

Before or after birth

Until this is established the bickering and debate mudslinging will continue

RDM_83 again

Sharrow wrote: »

I've never so many YD sock puppets on the site before, guess it's one way to know it's really mainstream.

If your going to call people who disagree with you opinions members of YD, I'm calling you on your incorrect statement earlier in the thread

Sharrow wrote: »

http://www.hse.ie/eng/services/flu/A-Z/E/Ectopic-pregnancy/Treating-ectopic-pregnancy.html



The ending of a pregnancy by medical intervention is an abortion.
Indeed it is the very definition of abortion.

You never refuted my point (backed up by a peer reviewed paper*), so I'l go out on a limb and say you also misrepresent thing to suit your idealogical background.

The same goes for Millicent who thanked all your previous posts yet in a previous thread completely misrepresented the actual statistics contained in a previous thread on the topic.

Millicent wrote: »

I'm sorry but where exactly are you getting your statistics from? Because without some decent evidence to back this up, I'm calling BS. One in 2 in Russia? The World Health Organisation disagrees with you. http://www.euro.who.int/en/what-we-do/health-topics/Life-stages/sexual-and-reproductive-health/activities/abortion/facts-and-figures-about-abortion-in-the-european-region If you're talking historically, when Russian women had no access to contraception, you would be more correct but at this period in history, you are wrong. ETA: More statistics showing the rate is still dropping. http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-russia.html

I'm not going to even get started on that one in five figure.

The evidence also flies in the face of all those who say women will use abortion as contraceptive. As the statistics prove, women on the whole are smart enough and sensible enough to take preventative measures against pregnancy, with countries with freely available contravention and quality education showing some of the lowest abortion rates worldwide.

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Whats wrong with the one in five figure if your going to be dismissive at least back it up!, I can give links to why i think thats the figure in the UK (not peer reviewed studies and from slightly different years but these sort of demographics only change by 1 or 2% a year)

Figures for UK

708,708 live births in 2008
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/668801-uk-birth-rate-at-36-year-high

189,931 abortions in 2011
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-18249026

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Honestly I get the feeling Millicent didn;t even read the figures in the links in her own own post.

In this link that she considers refutes the 1 in 2 figure for the Russian Federation

http://www.euro.who.int/en/what-we-do/health-topics/Life-stages/sexual-and-reproductive-health/activities/abortion/facts-and-figures-about-abortion-in-the-european-region

It states that the ratio is "According to HFA-DB, in 2006 the abortion ratio was 95 per 100 live births in the Russian Federation" thats so close to 1 in 2 that its just being pedantic.

I'm bringing this up because to me its pretty offensive to label anybody that disagrees with your position as a member of a pretty unpleasant organization.

And btw I do agree the laws in Ireland need to changed and rationalised.

Dangerous Man

Sharrow wrote: »

I've never so many YD sock puppets on the site before, guess it's one way to know it's really mainstream.

Show some respect. If you can't discuss something without resorting to petty insults then go away.

Matt_Trakker

Actor wrote: »

Do you think those in a vegitative state should be "put down"?

Brain dead=dead.
Yes, I think that if people are brain dead then turn off the machines that are keeping them alive and harvest their organs for others.
This is usually what happens anyway in most cases anyway.

Darkginger

To get back to the OP's original question - why would a woman need counselling post-abortion if she doesn't see it as 'killing'? Well, think of it this way - imagine you're 17 say, still at school, and you find yourself pregnant (no traumatic circumstances, maybe just a failure of contraception). You don't believe that abortion = killing, and so have no moral quandary when it comes to making a decision. You do, however have a decision to make, and it's a life-changing one. So you sit, and you think, and mull over your possible futures in your mind. You could proceed with the pregnancy, which would impact your life in countless ways, from finding it difficult to complete your studies, to wondering how having a child would affect your future relationships, to whether you'd be able to bring the child up in a good way, to being disowned by family. On the other hand, you could choose to have an abortion, which might affect your future fertility, might cause others to despise you if they found out, you worry that it would be a 'selfish' choice - are you thinking only of yourself, are you considering the potential child enough?

These thoughts, and many more, will go through the head of a woman facing an unwanted pregnancy. They'll stop her sleeping, they'll be with her 24 hours a day - but eventually (and under time pressure) she has to make that decision. She chooses to have an abortion.

Now, having made that choice, do you seriously believe that's the end of it, that she never wonders 'what if' she'd chosen the other way? Do you think she never calculates when the potential child would have been born, looks at children who would be a similar age and wonders what hers would have looked like? This is at the same time as being convinced she made the right decision for herself and the potential child - it's not a cut and dried, have the op and go back to your normal life type thing - it's traumatic - and for that reason I think that it's imperative that post-abortion counselling is available. It's not because a woman believes she's done the wrong thing, it's because she's made a huge decision, under stress, is possibly is reeling from hormonal turmoil, may be dealing with family, friend and relationship issues as a result, and is wondering what would have happened had she chosen the other way.

That's why counselling should be available to women who have had abortions.

Gurgle

Millicent wrote: »

guilted into keeping a child she might have otherwise aborted?

You assume every rape victim is in the pro-abortion camp, or is too dim to understand what abortion is. 'Guilted into' doesn't apply to the ~50% (?) who believe that abortion of a healthy child is inherently wrong.

I personally would regard a girl who bore a rape pregnancy through 9 months and gave the child for adoption as a hero.

You may think she's a misguided fool, but that's because you're making no effort to understand why everyone doesn't agree with you.

Millicent

RDM_83 again wrote: »

The same goes for Millicent who thanked all your previous posts yet in a previous thread completely misrepresented the actual statistics contained in a previous thread on the topic.

Is there any need to be catty, seriously? I did not misrepresent -- I overstated the difference in ratio. Did you look at the Johnston link? It backed up my point that abortion is steadily dropping in Russia and was used to challenge the point that a lot of women use abortion as contraception when the opposite is shown to be the case once contraception is introduced to a country.

Millicent

Gurgle wrote: »

You assume every rape victim is in the pro-abortion camp, or is too dim to understand what abortion is. 'Guilted into' doesn't apply to the ~50% (?) who believe that abortion of a healthy child is inherently wrong.

I personally would regard a girl who bore a rape pregnancy through 9 months and gave the child for adoption as a hero.

You may think she's a misguided fool, but that's because you're making no effort to understand why everyone doesn't agree with you.

I'm not calling her a misguided fool. I'm saying I am a victim of a sexual crime several times over. Just because someone survives that doesn't make them a hero, it makes them a fucking victim of a horrendous crime. Forcing someone to carry a child borne of that crime because of your greater priority for a mass of cells than a living breathing woman is inhumane in the extreme.

Btw, I have nothing but respect for any woman who is raped who does keep the resultant child. The difference is I believe the choice is hers and hers alone.

up for anything

Actor wrote: »

I find that hard to believe. Did you have an abortion for contraceptive purposes?

What is an abortion for contraceptive purposes? Do you really think that there are thousands of women who think, "Ah fuck it, I can't be arsed taking the pill every day, organising to get coil put in, making my partner in this deliberate crime wear a condom. It's much easier to take some time off work and/or minding other kids, organise a two day trip to the UK, find the money for it and put up with the unpleasant physical after effects for a couple of weeks afterwards and I don't mind doing this every time I fall pregnant which could be several times a year, perhaps more." I think not!

When I asked you how you would punish the fathers seeing as you don't seem to worry about punishing the mothers, you replied:

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Fathers, unfortunately, can't carry babies. Which is a shame, because I am certain there are plenty of cases where they would take that burden than have their baby aborted. What about the fathers who are being "punished" right now, by having their babies aborted without their consent?

Then you have the nerve to say this:

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

That's because your question was both nonsensical in light of my overall response, and a straw man.

Your posts are built on fallacies, which makes you very hard to have a meaningful debate with.

Anyway, I'm going to bow out of this thread because the topic makes me way too unhappy, and these discussions never go anywhere.

You may think my posts are fallicious but they posts are based on what I think, feel, believe and have done. They are not intended to be deceptive or misleading. Your posts are just based on the idea that if the woman gets pregnant without wanting to, she deserves everything she gets except an abortion. You still haven't said how you would envisage the fathers involved in these abortions punished.

You didn't stay bowed out for too long.

Gurgle

Millicent wrote: »

Just because someone survives that doesn't make them a hero

They're a victim of a horrendous crime whether or not they have an abortion.

Someone who survives this crime and still has it in them to stand their ground on their own personal moral values and carry the child to term is a hero.

Vicar in a tutu

tomtherobot wrote: »

Secondly, the Ray D'arcy show this morning was talking about counseling for women after abortion. Seemingly the HSE already pays for this. I can't understand how state support for counseling for women who've had abortions is justified. On one side of the debate, pro abortionists say it's a procedure to remove a physical growth which isn't alive. If that's the case why the need for counseling? On the other side, anti-abortionists say it's murder, so why would the state be counseling murderers? Did I miss something, do we not still have old folk being left to rot on trolleys, surely the HSE has greater priorities now than counseling women who've chose to have an abortion.

As you may have guessed, i'm anti-abortion. I'm not religious I just believe that an unborn child is alive. Why else would people mourn the loss of unborn or stillborn children? Or require counseling after 'terminating' one? Given that i believe that an unborn child is alive I think killing one is wrong and cannot be justified above the social or material needs of the parent(s). No more or less than i think it would be ok to kill your elderly parents just because they don't suit where you are in you're life right now.....

Oh right so a woman that's went through the hell of deciding to have an abortion, the whole experience, the what ifs , should not have counselling after an abortion? , If aborted very early on its not a baby.. but it did have the opportunity to continue to grow into one, hence why alot of women would need counselling.. , They may wonder what could of been, feel regret, or just feel like crap because people like you call them murderers. Its a womans right to choose, people dont have abortions when the child is big enough to be stillborn, they also mourn miscarriages as the baby was truly wanted, with abortion its very invasive and can be quite hard on a woman, I dont think anyone goes and has an abortion without thinking really hard about it and if its the right choice, noone has the right to ever make them feel guilty for protecting their bodies and mental health, would you prefer women to continue the pregnancy and resent the child? or what about HER ? , She should just have a baby because a few people think its wrong not to ? , Noone has the right to judge anybody. Also when you say it wouldnt be alright to kill your elderly parents.. that's nonsense its not at all the same as abortion. they have experienced life and have breathed air, they arent a little bunch of cells clustered up.

OldNotWIse

Gurgle wrote: »

You assume every rape victim is in the pro-abortion camp, or is too dim to understand what abortion is. 'Guilted into' doesn't apply to the ~50% (?) who believe that abortion of a healthy child is inherently wrong.

I personally would regard a girl who bore a rape pregnancy through 9 months and gave the child for adoption as a hero.

You may think she's a misguided fool, but that's because you're making no effort to understand why everyone doesn't agree with you.

75-80% choose not to abort.

OldNotWIse

Vicar in a tutu wrote: »

Oh right so a woman that's went through the hell of deciding to have an abortion, the whole experience, the what ifs , should not have counselling after an abortion? , If aborted very early on its not a baby.. but it did have the opportunity to continue to grow into one, hence why alot of women would need counselling.. , They may wonder what could of been, feel regret, or just feel like crap because people like you call them murderers. Its a womans right to choose, people dont have abortions when the child is big enough to be stillborn, they also mourn miscarriages as the baby was truly wanted, with abortion its very invasive and can be quite hard on a woman, I dont think anyone goes and has an abortion without thinking really hard about it and if its the right choice, noone has the right to ever make them feel guilty for protecting their bodies and mental health, would you prefer women to continue the pregnancy and resent the child? or what about HER ? , She should just have a baby because a few people think its wrong not to ? , Noone has the right to judge anybody. Also when you say it wouldnt be alright to kill your elderly parents.. that's nonsense its not at all the same as abortion. they have experienced life and have breathed air, they arent a little bunch of cells clustered up.

In the UK, abortions are legal up to 24 weeks.

Babies have survived after 22 weeks.

Millicent

Gurgle wrote: »

They're a victim of a horrendous crime whether or not they have an abortion.

Someone who survives this crime and still has it in them to stand their ground on their own personal moral values and carry the child to term is a hero.

And what of a woman who does not? Is she somehow lesser because she didn't carry the child? I can tell you that after the horror and trauma of being a victim of sexual crime, of having my personal autonomy completed and utterly violated and my control over my body taken from my hands, should I have become pregnant from one of those crimes, I would be on the first boat to England with a wave to all of those who think my duty is forcibly bear a child I did not want or ask for. There are no heroics in a crime like that. There are awful, tough, horrible decisions to made which will impact the victim for the rest of her life, whether she has a child or not. So why is someone who bears the child more worthy of adulation to you than someone who does not? Put yourself in the shoes of such a woman for a second and then try to glorify such a gutwrenching decision to make.

As to the ridiculous OP who doesn't think that counselling should be available in such an instance, that says a lot about your humanity and compassion for other human beings.

Sponge25

Jernal wrote: »

I can never understand this position by people who are against abortion. Suppose a bisexual father raped ten men, does that mean we should kill all his wife's children? I mean you seriously seem to consider the foetus a human person yet you're ok with it being killed if its parent was a rapist? Surely the child is innocent in all this. Protect the rights of most vulnerable? Or whatever?

I understand the position from those who generally want abortion but I cannot fathom how someone who is so vehemently against abortion would be o.k with it in the cases of rape. It's just mind boggling.

Don't get me wrong, the child is very innocent and the should not have to go trough that, but IMO it's entirely the rapists fault for the termination of the baby. The responsibility lies ENTIRELY with him! I have nothing but absolute respect for rape victims who keep the baby. I mean absolute respect!

I'm not an extremist kinda guy or anything but I believe serious sex offenders should get mandatory life sentences and serial rape murderers etc ought to be executed. Got won't forgive us for not executing serial murderers. (Yes it is condoned in the bible) PS. I don't want to get into an debate about the bible!

Vicar in a tutu

OldNotWIse wrote: »

In the UK, abortions are legal up to 24 weeks.

Babies have survived after 22 weeks.

To be honest I dont agree with that timeframe at all, I think it should be definitely legal here but perhaps only up until about 11 or 12 weeks.

eviltwin

Vicar in a tutu wrote: »

To be honest I dont agree with that timeframe at all, I think it should be definitely legal here but perhaps only up until about 11 or 12 weeks.

The problem with that is a lot of the scans that show severe medical problems won't be done until week 12 - if you're lucky. Some pregnant women are waiting up until week 16 for a first scan. There needs to flexibility for a woman who finds out her baby won't survive.

seamus

Gurgle wrote: »

Someone who survives this crime and still has it in them to stand their ground on their own personal moral values and carry the child to term is a hero.

So by implication a woman who survives rape and has the courage to stand by her personal moral values and have the pregnancy aborted is also a hero?

Sponge25

Matt_Trakker wrote: »

Brain dead=dead.
Yes, I think that if people are brain dead then turn off the machines that are keeping them alive and harvest their organs for others.
This is usually what happens anyway in most cases anyway.

I think those people who are suffering so much that live is literally unbareable ought to have a choice too end their suffering. Like I mean people who have previously had a normal life had some sort of illness or accident and are left in such a state they poo on themselves etc. I'm not talking about able bodied people with depression or suicidal tendencies, strictly people who are in the severest of physical pain and difficulty! It's not fair!

We all respect life but respecting life is also considering peoples pain! Only in the strictest of circumstances shoud Euthanasia be carried out with the strictest of guidelines and functionaries. Also, there should be NO profit made other than coverage of costs etc.

I didn't think too much about this topic untill I seen a mostly vegetive guy on TV who was crying and was clearly extremely tormented with his state. He wanted to die but his wife was warned she would be prosecuted if she helped him so he died after suffering for years naturally.

That's not right!

Sponge25

gosuckonalemon wrote: »

The thing that I find funny about this whole abortion debate is that it just seems to be pointless.

What does it matter if it's legalized here or not??

The only important thing to worry about is that it is never made illegal in the UK.

Until the day that it is, then Irish women in the future (and the 200,000 that have gone before them) have nothing to worry about.

Hopefully they can take solace from that fact.

It matters alot man, some people are literally psychopathic, have no empathy for others and would probably have 4-5 abortions! We don't want abortion here. We have more respect for babies!

eviltwin

Actor wrote: »

I find that hard to believe. Did you have an abortion for contraceptive purposes?


I'm not surprised that you're "not proud of it". Why would you need counselling seeing as you state you've done nothing wrong? Abortion is wrong and frankly, you should be ashamed of yourself. I sympathise with you, but in no way do I condone the decision you have made. I guess you'll have to live with that decision till the day you meet your Maker.

Thanks for the advice To be honest I doubt there will be any "Maker" passing judgement on me, the only people whose opinions matter to me don't really have an issue with it. I live with the choice I made very easily

Khannie

Vicar in a tutu wrote: »

To be honest I dont agree with that timeframe at all, I think it should be definitely legal here but perhaps only up until about 11 or 12 weeks.

Sure that's really all the entire debate is about....when does it become inhumane towards the child / an act of killing. For some very early, for others not so much. In between there are the unusual circumstances like rape / ectopic etc that require further consideration for those who don't like the idea of killing a child (as they perceive it).

Personally I can't say that at 23 weeks and 6 days and 23 hours it's ok but that at 24 weeks and 1 hour that it's not. I don't see how it's possible to divide the line like that when I work backwards. 11 weeks and 23 hours OK, 12 weeks and 1 hour not, etc. I keep moving that line backwards and eventually the only conclusion that I can logically reconcile is that as soon as it's a viable pregnancy, its right to life should be guaranteed (except possibly in exceptional circumstances).

Dravokivich

eviltwin wrote: »

Thanks for the advice To be honest I doubt there will be any "Maker" passing judgement on me, the only people whose opinions matter to me don't really have an issue with it. I live with the choice I made very easily

Ah, you could have used "maker" to represent your parents. :cool:

Gurgle

Millicent,

I genuinely have every sympathy for the horrors you've experienced, and I do understand your position on abortion of rape pregnancies.

I can't in all conscience argue the toss on a subject so personal to you.

As to the ridiculous OP who doesn't think that counselling should be available in such an instance, that says a lot about your humanity and compassion for other human being.

I think the OP was trying to challenge a particular line of thinking on the subject. Many people come across as callous and flippant, as though an abortion is no worse than an appendectomy.(I think its equally true to say that many anti-abortion mouthpieces have put no more thought into the subject than their first communion vows.)
His point came across badly.