Prolife Campaign on Protection of Life in Pregnancy Bill Superthread

lazygal

jhegarty wrote: »

If not 9 month then what is the time limit in the bill ?

There is no time limit because a woman's life can be in danger at any stage of pregnancy. Why would there be a time limit?

Lola18

"I don't understand how you think anyone can unsee an enormous billboard ad though - that's a bit daft."

Would love to know when I said this? I said they can choose to ignore what it says

ash23

conorhal wrote: »

There is no medical evidence that a termination is necessary in all but the rarest of cases in which case every effort should be made to deliver the baby alive if the foetus is developed enough to survive outside the woumb. I have no problem with this.

And what if the foetus isn't? Should the mother be allowed to die? I had pre-eclampsia and then eclampsia. Luckily I was far enough along to deliver a healthy baby, albeit earlier. Had it happened weeks before, that wouldn't have been the case and I'd have preferred they save me than risk my life.

You really think it never happens where a termination is necessary to save the mother? It's not as rare as you would like to believe. What about cases where medical treatment is needed for cancer?

When it comes to the suicide clause, no medical professional claims that an abortion is a treatment for suicidal ideation, and it is not the only treatment that could be applied. So there is no requirement to end the life of a healthy foetus, and it is disturbing in light if this (I could live with the legislation if it limited a termination to the first trimester) that there is also no limit placed on when a termination can take place.

I'm not just talking about the suicide clause. This bill is for the real and substantial risk to the life of the mother.

eviltwin

conorhal wrote: »

When it comes to the suicide clause, no medical professional claims that an abortion is a treatment for suicidal ideation, and it is not the only treatment that could be applied. So there is no requirement to end the life of a healthy foetus, and it is disturbing in light if this (I could live with the legislation if it limited a termination to the first trimester) that there is also no limit placed on when a termination can take place.

Genuine question but how do we know?

Seeing as most women who want abortions just quietly go away to have them with no fuss or fanfare how can we be 100% sure that abortion doesn't help women who are suicidal? After all wouldn't they have just travelled to the uk. Seeing as how the voices of the women themselves haven't been heard I don't think anyone can say for sure that abortion doesn't help a woman who might be feeling suicidal over her pregnancy.

rainbow kirby

Lola18 wrote: »

I just don't see how that poster can make it any harder for anyone!

Yep, I'm sure survivors of rape and sexual assault love the continued reminder that they don't have full control over their own bodies... :rolleyes:

ibarelycare

Lola18 wrote: »

Well I'd hope she wouldn't take it lightly but a lot of people see abortion as the easiest way at first and need reminding that abortion doesn't undo rape! The poster would be disgraceful IF it had some of the pictures of processes of abortion.
It does take an awful lot of strength yeah and I'm sure their not thinking clearly either I just don't see how that poster can make it any harder for anyone!

They need reminding that abortion doesn't undo rape? Yes that's the first thing they'll want to hear when they attend the Rape Crisis Centre :rolleyes: If you don't think that poster won't effect someone who's already going through an unbelievably distressing time, then you're deluded.

steddyeddy

Human trash. The thing that gets me about these people is their lack of humanity towards their fellow man. I'm not a religious man but can admire the "love thy neighbour message" in some of the new testemant. What bible have these been reading? If there was ever a person called jesus he would be pretty p1ssed off with people like these.

beeno67

eviltwin wrote: »

Genuine question but how do we know?

Seeing as most women who want abortions just quietly go away to have them with no fuss or fanfare how can we be 100% sure that abortion doesn't help women who are suicidal? After all wouldn't they have just travelled to the uk. Seeing as how the voices of the women themselves haven't been heard I don't think anyone can say for sure that abortion doesn't help a woman who might be feeling suicidal over her pregnancy.

There are very few recorded instances of pregnant women committing suicide worldwide.

An abortion is obviously forever. To decide you want an abortion you should be able to make a clear decision and be of "sound mind". If you are suicidal you are almost by definition unable to make that decision.

Why would the persons suicidal wish be cured by an abortion?

Lola18

rainbow kirby wrote: »

Yep, I'm sure survivors of rape and sexual assault love the continued reminder that they don't have full control over their own bodies... :rolleyes:

When that control involves another life people sometimes need that reminder that abortion is not the answer

krudler

Lola18 wrote: »

Well I'd hope she wouldn't take it lightly but a lot of people see abortion as the easiest way at first and need reminding that abortion doesn't undo rape! The poster would be disgraceful IF it had some of the pictures of processes of abortion.
It does take an awful lot of strength yeah and I'm sure their not thinking clearly either I just don't see how that poster can make it any harder for anyone!

No it doesn't, but why should women need some plastered in front of them like that in an already stressful time? you logic is bizarre

Nemeses

Aren't the women suffering enough without some biased BS poster right in their face?

Would it be illegal to remove these posters / trailers?

steddyeddy

Lola18 wrote: »

When that control involves another life people sometimes need that reminder that abortion is not the answer

Well I don't think you believe that to be honest. If you had any respect for human life you would have a major problem with a sign like this being placed outside a centre for victims of rape.

lazygal

Lola18 wrote: »

When that control involves another life people sometimes need that reminder that abortion is not the answer

Sometimes it is. Of course those who lack empathy, apart from for the nine months of the unborn in the womb, can't see that it might be exactly the right answer. You don't have to have one, but don't dare speak for everyone.

krudler

Nemeses wrote: »

Aren't the women suffering enough without some biased BS poster right in their face?

Would it be illegal to remove these posters / trailers?

They're illegally parked there anyway arent they?

lazygal

This is the company which owns the trucks:
http://www.admobile.ie/contact.html

ibarelycare

On Youth Defence's twitter page, they said that the van was stuck in traffic. Looks like heavy traffic alright!

steddyeddy

lazygal wrote: »

This is the company which owns the trucks:
http://www.admobile.ie/contact.html

Message sent. Thanks Lazygal.

Nemeses

lazygal wrote: »

This is the company which owns the trucks:
http://www.admobile.ie/contact.html

I doubt they would remove it though..

Would be interesting enough to see if they would oblige..

Hoop66

What's important is that nobody, and I mean NOBODY, should throw **** at this truck if they see it.

That would be awful.

Nemeses

Hoop66 wrote: »

What's important is that nobody, and I mean NOBODY, should throw **** at this truck if they see it.

That would be awful.

I agree, two wrongs don't make a right.

However, relocating the trailer I feel, Isn't vandalising.. .

TheFOB

beeno67 wrote: »

There are very few recorded instances of pregnant women committing suicide worldwide.

An abortion is obviously forever. To decide you want an abortion you should be able to make a clear decision and be of "sound mind". If you are suicidal you are almost by definition unable to make that decision.

Why would the persons suicidal wish be cured by an abortion?

There is still a massive stigma against young single mothers in this country. Remember the tragic case of 15 yo Anne Lovett who died alone and afraid in the grotto of Longford Cathedral.

Irish Times

Before abortion was introduced in England in 1950, 10 per cent of women in Ireland who died by suicide were found to be pregnant, he said. While it was impossible to say why these women killed themselves, that figure now was much lower.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/suicidal-women-will-still-go-abroad-for-abortions-says-leading-psychiatrist-1.1369112

krudler

ibarelycare wrote: »

On Youth Defence's twitter page, they said that the van was stuck in traffic. Looks like heavy traffic alright!

on their facebook they said the trucks "pulled in sometimes" well they did before they deleted any posts about the truck, so everyone should just bombard their page with the same pic over and over.

K-9

conorhal wrote: »

That is one sick statement.

I'm pretty sure that if your doctor came in and said 'so lazygal, we're gonna abort your baby today' you'd have a $h1t fit.

The intention of an abortion is to terminate the life of a baby, and you still haven't explained how this is not the case. Late term abortion are not intended to delver a live baby, is that what you are trying to claim?
Abortions very late in the gestation period require a partial birth abortion, typically rupturing the membranes, opening the baby's skull and sucking out the contents to collapse it to provide ease of delivery.

The bill still has to be constitutional, so the life of the mother and baby has to be considered.

You are trying to make this out as some massive change from the existing position, it isn't. Any doctor performing an abortion at 38 weeks or so, just like that, is going to have a hell of a to answer for.

And still we have no legislation for the women who have to go to England to abort unviable babies.

Bipolar Joe

If anyone uses the argument that people "Can choose not to read it" you're a moron and anything you say is therefore invalid. You have to read something to find out if you should or should not have read it, dipshits.

Saw a full page ad in the paper full of misinformation and outright lies today. YDL are out and out propagandist scumbags, and I'd love it if there were funds available for an equal sized and strength rebuttal.

kennryyr

conorhal wrote: »

What are you taking about, where did I suggest 'mandatory abortions'? I was merely mocking her suggestion that an early delivery by c-section is the same thing as an abortion, which that trolling fool was attempting to claim.

The bill includes permitting the abortion of a healthy foetus in the case of a mother with suicidal ideation who clams that she will end her life as a result of the pregnancy, and there is no limit in legislation to how late in a pregnancy this can be perfomed. That I object to. Clear enough?

Classy

Eramen

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

Thats grand Jonjo, if you have an unplanned pregnancy and you don't want an abortion fine, but no woman should be forced to carry a baby she doesn't want.

This is entirely secondary to the whole debate imo in that feelings don't and shouldn't come before facts. There are a number of reasons why this abortion on demand decision is questioned and you're not grasping it.

Firstly the woman in question is not 'forced' to carry it. The fetus exists as a result of the natural occurrence of a series of events leading up to her situation. Are we saying that nature is 'oppressive' forcing people to deal with their actions and the results of actions? Sometimes people, male or female, will make up any old sob story to hide the fact that they make a bad choice or foolish decision. This is in no way a solid argument in favour of anything, yet alone an abortion.


Secondly, under legislation and the legislation of the vast majority of the world, a fetus is

1) a human entity,

2) a 3rd person distinct from mother and father [A fetus isn't 'your body'],

3) therefore the mother [or father] does not have ownership over the fetus and thus cannot, unless extreme circumstances apply, attempt to terminate/kill it, as it counts as an act of fatal aggression.

Under these precepts no person has any right to kill a living entity without good cause (unless life or death situations or cases were extreme abuse was involved). The only exception is what is termed 'abortion' in some countries at this point in time. If we are to think that a mother [or father] does actually own a fetus, then we are certainly harkening back to the days of slavery when it was possible to claim ownership over another individual and to do to that person as we pleased.


Also we must ask ourselves an increasingly important question: When does the fetus become a state interest? There are a multitude of reasons for this, but the key ones are:

1) We have an aging population,

2) Reproduction rates are well below normal/replacement, thus;

3) This will result in under-financing/lack of public infrastructure and services in the short & long term future,

4) Which will in turn lead to the stagnation of the national/regional economy

5) It jeopardizes the very core existential interests of the state and people itself.


The abortionists economic interest and the couple who is aborting 'their' fetus personal/emotional interests must come second when we look at the big picture.

Thankfully a few countries in E. Europe and Asia are beginning to understand the actual cost of abortion, in that it severely undermines the collective national, social and economic interest. Measures have been taken in terms of actively reversing the trend of on-demand abortioneering. In the future it's predicted that casual abortions will become less and less common & placed under severe restrictions as governments and peoples realise these facts.

Do you not grasp what can of worms we are opening on this issue considering the whole picture? It goes beyond abortion, far beyond. The pro-(bad)choice think like spoiled children, thinking they must have their way whatever the cost, without regard for anything outside of their own petty situation.

lazygal

Eramen wrote: »

This is entirely secondary to the whole debate imo in that feelings don't and shouldn't come before facts. There are a number of reasons why this abortion on demand decision is questioned and you're not grasping it.

Firstly the woman in question is not 'forced' to carry it. The fetus exists as a result of the natural occurrence of a series of events leading up to her situation. Are we saying that nature is 'oppressive' forcing people to deal with their actions and the results of actions? Sometimes people, male or female, will make up any old sob story up to hide the fact that they make a bad choice or foolish decision. This is in no way a solid argument in favour of anything, yet alone an abortion.


Secondly, under legislation and the legislation of the vast majority of the world, a fetus is

1) a human entity,

2) a 3rd person distinct from mother and father,

3) therefore the mother [or father] does not have ownership over the fetus and thus cannot, unless extreme circumstances apply, attempt to terminate/kill it, as it counts as an act of fatal aggression.

Under these precepts no person has any right to kill a living entity without good cause (unless life or death situations or cases were extreme abuse was involved).

If we are to think that a mother [or father] does actually own a fetus, then we are certainly harkening back to the days of slavery when it was possible to claim ownership over another individual and to do to that person as we pleased.


Also we must ask ourselves an increasingly important question: When does the fetus become a state interest? There are a multitude of reasons for this, but the key ones are:

1) We have an aging population,

2) Reproduction rates are well below normal/replacement, thus;

2) This will result in under-financing/lack of public infrastructure and services in the short & long term future,

3) Which will in turn lead to the stagnation of the national/regional economy.

The abortionists economic interest and the couple who is aborting 'their' fetus personal/emotional interests must come second when we look at the big picture. Thankfully a few countries in E. Europe and Asia see that the collective national, social and economic interest is being undermined actively reversing the trend of on-demand abortioneering. In the future it's predicted that casual abortions will become less and less common & placed under severe restrictions as governments and peoples understand these facts.

Do you not grasp what can of worms we are opening on this issue considering the whole picture? It goes beyond abortion, far beyond. The pro-(bad)choice think like spoiled children, thinking they must have their way whatever the cost, without regard for anything outside of their own petty situation.

How many children have you had?

B0jangles

Eramen wrote: »

This is entirely secondary to the whole debate imo in that feelings don't and shouldn't come before facts. There are a number of reasons why this abortion on demand decision is questioned and you're not grasping it.

Firstly the woman in question is not 'forced' to carry it. The fetus exists as a result of the natural occurrence of a series of events leading up to her situation. Are we saying that nature is 'oppressive' forcing people to deal with their actions and the results of actions? Sometimes people, male or female, will make up any old sob story to hide the fact that they make a bad choice or foolish decision. This is in no way a solid argument in favour of anything, yet alone an abortion.


Secondly, under legislation and the legislation of the vast majority of the world, a fetus is

1) a human entity,

2) a 3rd person distinct from mother and father,

3) therefore the mother [or father] does not have ownership over the fetus and thus cannot, unless extreme circumstances apply, attempt to terminate/kill it, as it counts as an act of fatal aggression.

Under these precepts no person has any right to kill a living entity without good cause (unless life or death situations or cases were extreme abuse was involved). The only exception is what is termed 'abortion' in some countries at this point in time.

If we are to think that a mother [or father] does actually own a fetus, then we are certainly harkening back to the days of slavery when it was possible to claim ownership over another individual and to do to that person as we pleased.


Also we must ask ourselves an increasingly important question: When does the fetus become a state interest? There are a multitude of reasons for this, but the key ones are:

1) We have an aging population,

2) Reproduction rates are well below normal/replacement, thus;

2) This will result in under-financing/lack of public infrastructure and services in the short & long term future,

3) Which will in turn lead to the stagnation of the national/regional economy.

The abortionists economic interest and the couple who is aborting 'their' fetus personal/emotional interests must come second when we look at the big picture.

Thankfully a few countries in E. Europe and Asia see that the collective national, social and economic interest is being undermined actively reversing the trend of on-demand abortioneering. In the future it's predicted that casual abortions will become less and less common & placed under severe restrictions as governments and peoples understand these facts.

Do you not grasp what can of worms we are opening on this issue considering the whole picture? It goes beyond abortion, far beyond. The pro-(bad)choice think like spoiled children, thinking they must have their way whatever the cost, without regard for anything outside of their own petty situation.

Wow.

I think we have here a person who read The Handmaid's Tale and thought "Yeah, that's how society should be run, dammit!"

krudler

Eramen wrote: »

This is entirely secondary to the whole debate imo in that feelings don't and shouldn't come before facts. There are a number of reasons why this abortion on demand decision is questioned and you're not grasping it.

Firstly the woman in question is not 'forced' to carry it. The fetus exists as a result of the natural occurrence of a series of events leading up to her situation. Are we saying that nature is 'oppressive' forcing people to deal with their actions and the results of actions? Sometimes people, male or female, will make up any old sob story to hide the fact that they make a bad choice or foolish decision. This is in no way a solid argument in favour of anything, yet alone an abortion.


Secondly, under legislation and the legislation of the vast majority of the world, a fetus is

1) a human entity,

2) a 3rd person distinct from mother and father,

3) therefore the mother [or father] does not have ownership over the fetus and thus cannot, unless extreme circumstances apply, attempt to terminate/kill it, as it counts as an act of fatal aggression.

Under these precepts no person has any right to kill a living entity without good cause (unless life or death situations or cases were extreme abuse was involved). The only exception is what is termed 'abortion' in some countries at this point in time.

If we are to think that a mother [or father] does actually own a fetus, then we are certainly harkening back to the days of slavery when it was possible to claim ownership over another individual and to do to that person as we pleased.


Also we must ask ourselves an increasingly important question: When does the fetus become a state interest? There are a multitude of reasons for this, but the key ones are:

1) We have an aging population,

2) Reproduction rates are well below normal/replacement, thus;

3) This will result in under-financing/lack of public infrastructure and services in the short & long term future,

4) Which will in turn lead to the stagnation of the national/regional economy

5) It jeopardizes the very core existential interests of the state and people itself.


The abortionists economic interest and the couple who is aborting 'their' fetus personal/emotional interests must come second when we look at the big picture.

Thankfully a few countries in E. Europe and Asia are beginning to understand the actual cost of abortion, in that it severely undermines the collective national, social and economic interest. Measures have been taken in terms of actively reversing the trend of on-demand abortioneering. In the future it's predicted that casual abortions will become less and less common & placed under severe restrictions as governments and peoples realise these facts.

Do you not grasp what can of worms we are opening on this issue considering the whole picture? It goes beyond abortion, far beyond. The pro-(bad)choice think like spoiled children, thinking they must have their way whatever the cost, without regard for anything outside of their own petty situation.

Ah the "oh you got pregnant? tough sh1t" argument. brilliant. What do you think happens in countries who have abortion? no children born in a nation of oap's or something?

Eramen

B0jangles wrote: »

Wow.

I think we have here a person who read The Handmaid's Tale and thought "Yeah, that's how society should be run, dammit!"

Everything you have today - and which most take for-granted - can't be maintained without great effort and foresight.

Having children it crucial to any peoples, states, and society's survival and continued progression.

Pro-(idiot)choicers demand all the benefits of this high civilisation, but support a cause that completely undermines the society itself and puts its future in limbo. Pure idiocy to say the least.