Prolife Campaign on Protection of Life in Pregnancy Bill Superthread

Obliq

Zulu wrote: »

I don't agree with abortion in that event.

Zulu doesn't agree. Well, we can all go home now and just suck it up, eh? That's the status quo as it stands, and it must be right - we needn't bother questioning his motives or reason with his sense of "morality"

Zulu

jaja321 wrote: »

But sure its easy to speak about something that can never possibly happen to you.

Of course. Thats the nature of our society. You'd have me silenced?

Obliq wrote: »

Zulu doesn't agree. Well, we can all go home now and just suck it up, eh?

...and there it ended.

jaja321

Zulu wrote: »

Of course. Thats the nature of our society. You'd have me silenced?

Where did I say I'd have you silenced? Putting words in my mouth now.

kylith

gobnaitolunacy wrote: »

The Pro lifers must have some serious money, every place is plastered with posters in the last week or so.

They're mainly funded by US Christian fundamentalists.

Mr Benevolent wrote: »

This thread is going around in ever decreasing circles, having now reached the 'definition' stage. So I'm going to give my opinion.

Abortion is killing a living, grow being, obviously. However, abortion is warranted in a few cases such as:

- Ectopic pregnancies
- Gross fetal defects (foetuses that would not live after birth or have gross defects that would result in a vegetative or near vegetative state)
- Pregnancy resulting from rape
- Severe foetal injury during pregnancy
- Direct medical threat to the mother's life (early onset eclampsia, severe infection, etc)

Personally I believe that abortion should be contraindicated when the mother has psychiatric issues (apart from the reasons above). Threats of suicide are not enough to warrant an abortion, as people who threaten to kill themselves rarely do it.

Abortion as a choice should be illegal after 8-10 weeks.

Re: the bit in bold, lets talk about cancer. If I were to be diagnosed with cancer while pregnant I would, under law, be denied medical treatment as it would harm the foetus. I would have to go without medical treatment until either the foetus reached viability or until I were actively in the process of dying.

Do you really think that it's acceptable that Irish women should have to face months of cancer without treatment, until it is demonstrably killing her, and possibly killing the foetus too? Would it not be better to terminate the pregnancy early and treat the cancer, allowing her to have another child in the future?

If it were your wife or daughter would you be ok with her being refused treatment or would you be on the next plane to the UK to terminate the pregnancy and save her life?

Mr Benevolent

kylith wrote: »

They're mainly funded by US Christian fundamentalists.


Re: the bit in bold, lets talk about cancer. If I were to be diagnosed with cancer while pregnant I would, under law, be denied medical treatment as it would harm the foetus. I would have to go without medical treatment until either the foetus reached viability or until I were actively in the process of dying.

Do you really think that it's acceptable that Irish women should have to face months of cancer without treatment, until it is demonstrably killing her, and possibly killing the foetus too? Would it not be better to terminate the pregnancy early and treat the cancer, allowing her to have another child in the future?

If it were your wife or daughter would you be ok with her being refused treatment or would you be on the next plane to the UK to terminate the pregnancy and save her life?

Cancer is a direct medical threat, so yes I would be on the next plane. The mother's life has priority over the foetuses life in all cases.

Obliq

Mr Benevolent wrote: »

Cancer is a direct medical threat, so yes I would be on the next plane. The mother's life has priority over the foetuses life in all cases.

Are you equally sure that we're fighting for the right of the woman to not have to get on a plane under these circumstances? Do you agree that the 8th amendment is prohibiting all your benevolent and caring recommendations from happening in this country?

shruikan2553

People tend to be against rape because they dont see why a child should be punished for the actions of one of its parents which I agree with but on the other hand we have a woman who has been raped and going through a traumatic time and you can hardly explain to a 14 year old girl that now she has to have a child and she has to put up with it because some people think it is the morally right thing to do

kylith

Mr Benevolent wrote: »

Cancer is a direct medical threat, so yes I would be on the next plane. The mother's life has priority over the foetuses life in all cases.

So you agree with terminating a pregnancy in cases where the mother's life would not yet be directly in danger? Why then would you want to insist that she have to travel for this? Should she not be able to access this service in her own country so that she is not forced to have to travel, not forced to have the procedure amongst foreigners, not forced to stay in a hotel instead of her own home, not forced to either be alone or with just a partner instead of having the support of her whole family?

What of women who can't afford to travel to the UK? Should they have to wait for treatment until their illness is bad enough to be classed as a direct threat to their life? Should only rich people have bodily autonomy in these cases?

JupiterKid

Zulu wrote: »

I don't agree with abortion in that event.

Disgusting...

kylith

shruikan2553 wrote: »

People tend to be against rape because they dont see why a child should be punished for the actions of one of its parents which I agree with but on the other hand we have a woman who has been raped and going through a traumatic time and you can hardly explain to a 14 year old girl that now she has to have a child and she has to put up with it because some people think it is the morally right thing to do

When people talk about excluding rape from this legislation what I hear is "I'm sorry you were raped, but now I'm going to force you to look at this painful reminder of it for the next 9 months. Oh, and people will expect you to be happy that you're pregnant, so if you could just put a brave face on that'd be great."

St.Spodo

Zulu wrote: »

I don't think abortion is a solution for a tragic crime.

:rolleyes: The feeling, I assure you, is mutual.

So if a 13 year-old child is raped by her father, you believe she should have to carry a pregnancy to finality, despite the unimaginable trauma, stigma and stress it causes her? Do you think that is a better option that swiftly terminating an insentient embryo? Do you think a raped child has a moral obligation to essentially offer a blood transfusion and nutrients to a human inside her without her even consenting to pregnancy? Let's make no mistake about this, most people would find that utterly inhumane.

And make absolutely no mistake about this - such a child will go to England, so abortion needs to be accessible here and it will soon.

Mardy Bum

Mr Benevolent wrote: »

Abortion is killing a living, grow being, obviously. However, abortion is warranted in a few cases such as:

The issue is much more nuanced than this. If I wash my hands I will wipe off some living cells which have potential if in the correct circumstances in the future. Similarly if I rub my nose briskly I will do the same. These cells are living in every sense but are expunged however we see nothing wrong with this. Now killing a 3 year old is also killing life however it is much different obviously and certainly wrong. Somewhere between that there are decisions.

What characteristics make it wrong to kill a human being? Self awareness, desires, etc but none of that applies to the fetus and evidently most abortions do not occur when the fetus is self aware or able to experience pain.

Mardy Bum

How can you quote this

However when you are shown a picture of an zygote, embryo or fetus and describe it as a child it is incorrect.

and then say

Zulu wrote: »

I've simply been saying that an unborn foetus is a child.

What sense do you mean child? I gave you the uses of the word, would you care to clarify or just repeat blunt statements.

looking_around

Mr Benevolent wrote: »

Personally I believe that abortion should be contraindicated when the mother has psychiatric issues (apart from the reasons above). Threats of suicide are not enough to warrant an abortion, as people who threaten to kill themselves rarely do it.

Abortion as a choice should be illegal after 8-10 weeks.

And what about those who "threaten" and then actually go through with suicide because they didn't get the abortion?

Zulu wrote: »

Of course. Thats the nature of our society. You'd have me silenced?

...and there it ended.

You don't seem to get or care, that women want the right to CHOOSE what happens if they get pregnant. They should have this right.
And ifif a woman is morally against it, they don't need to get an abortion.
Why does is it seem ok to you to FORCE your moral choice on everyone.
morality is not black and white. It is about what you believe to be right and wrong. But is it fair to force your believes on others? No.

Nodin

Zulu wrote: »

I
I not saying I'm more correct; I'm not saying I'm a better judge. I'm saying that my opinion is valid. I'm saying I'm entitled to use my vote to reflect that. I not trying to silence anyone, or say their opinion is lesser.
.

You're using your vote to remove options from other people.

endacl

The last three times there was a vote, things didn't go so well for the anti-choice campaign. There isn't even a vote this time around, and that campaign is revealed as the entirely ineffectual noise machine that it is. Another 12 posters taken down today. They're great for lining planters and raised beds if the recycling bins fill up folks!

Zulu

Nodin wrote: »

You're using your vote to...

Thats the nature of a democracy. Can you suggest a better system?

looking_around

yeah..people who are already living rights are greater than unborn "children"

Nodin

Zulu wrote: »

Thats the nature of a democracy. Can you suggest a better system?

Yes, its called a "Republic" where the minority are protected from the majority.

Zulu

Nodin wrote: »

Yes, its called a "Republic" where the minority are protected from the majority.

You're probably not wrong, but alas we only seem to cling to the name "Republic" (or a very broad notion of it) in this country.

Sarky

Zulu wrote: »

You're probably not wrong, but alas we only seem to cling to the name "Republic" (or a very broad notion of it) in this country.

Make a difference in future by using your vote in ways that aren't dickish? You have the power!

Zulu

Sarky wrote: »

Make a difference in future by using your vote in ways that aren't dickish? You have the power!

If you find my opinions "dickish" thats your problem, really. I'll vote how I want.

Speaking of "dickish"...

Sarky

Jeez, sorry I have more qualifications than you. It must make your appeals to authority so difficult.

Nodin

Zulu wrote: »

............. I'll vote how I want.

...thus....

Zulu wrote:

we only seem to cling to the name "Republic" (or a very broad notion of it) in this country

Zulu

Sarky wrote: »

Jeez, sorry I have more qualifications than you. It must make your appeals to authority so difficult.

sscchhummmm, straight over your head.

rainbow kirby

endacl wrote: »

The last three times there was a vote, things didn't go so well for the anti-choice campaign. There isn't even a vote this time around, and that campaign is revealed as the entirely ineffectual noise machine that it is. Another 12 posters taken down today. They're great for lining planters and raised beds if the recycling bins fill up folks!

Roughly one Youth Defence poster removed for every 800m of my run last night. Lazy Dublin 24 nutters making them quite easily accessible

Nodin

rainbow kirby wrote: »

Roughly one Youth Defence poster removed for every 800m of my run last night. Lazy Dublin 24 nutters making them quite easily accessible

...if they were at a uniform height, you might make it into a training event for the hurdles...

Bannasidhe

Nodin wrote: »

...if they were at a uniform height, you might make it into a training event for the hurdles...

My shed needs insulating and I think these posters would be ideal.
Cork city is covered in the bloody things so I am currently composing a strongly worded letter of complaint to the City Manager cc'd to every single Councillor.

Pumpkinseeds

I think there needs to be a serious reining in of these pro-life protestors. I was in Limerick city this afternoon and there were people with a massive banner, blocking a substanial amount of the street. They had teenagers at either end and people(elderly) in the centre. There were others handing out leaflets on either side of that street and I was approached on O'Connell street, the opposite side of the road,by another man handing out more of their junk.

I make no secret of the fact that I am pro abortion. I believe that abortion should be available on request and I make no apologies for that. This pro-life hokum is catholic nonsense and the protestors don't care if abortions take place, just so long as they don't take place in holy catholic Ireland. They don't care about the pregnant woman or her unborn child, lets make no mistake about that. The pro-life argument is nothing more than a catholic crusade to keep religious hypocrisy alive and well here. There attitude is 'you got pregnant and now you're stuck with it'. As I said religious hypocrisy.

Sadly these misguided individuals have the right to hand out their ridiculous literature but what I saw in Limerick today took the p*ss.

RDM_83 again

Mardy Bum wrote: »

The issue is much more nuanced than this. If I wash my hands I will wipe off some living cells which have potential if in the correct circumstances in the future. Similarly if I rub my nose briskly I will do the same. These cells are living in every sense but are expunged however we see nothing wrong with this. Now killing a 3 year old is also killing life however it is much different obviously and certainly wrong. Somewhere between that there are decisions.

What characteristics make it wrong to kill a human being? Self awareness, desires, etc but none of that applies to the fetus and evidently most abortions do not occur when the fetus is self aware or able to experience pain.

Is the choice of a 3 year old child deliberate, or just a random age chosen, because there was an interesting (serious, not Pro-choice propaganda) philosophy/sociology paper published on the ethics of post birth abortion, I'l try and find it later but it makes some good points about the arbitrary nature of our definitions of personhood