Prolife Campaign on Protection of Life in Pregnancy Bill Superthread

The Black Oil

Casual abortion? Good.
Line on the left. One foetus each.

pharmaton

Eramen wrote: »

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.

a little fap every now and again is good for you

Bannasidhe

conorhal wrote: »

Early delivery of your child ensured that both you and your child are alive and well, why are you trying to pretend that an abortion is the same thing, it's not and semantics wont make it otherwise.
How is a D&C (dilate and curate - or 'cut up) going to deliver a living child?

How is a D&X one of the procedures used for late term abortions to remove a fetus that is developed enough to require dilation of the cervix for its extraction, intact dilation and evacuation, dilation and extraction , intrauterine cranial decompression, or in the vernacular of the US as partial-birth abortion that makes an incission in the skull of the foetus, sucks out the contents to collapes it to ensure the ease of 'delivery'. How is that likely to deliver a living child tell me?

Both are late term abortion methods, yet you curiously suggest that a c-section is, a method NEVER used for abortion. You should check your facts.

In 1984 my doctor advised me to abort my pregnancy as my child was very over due and his heart monitor was picking up signs of serious distress.
I knew what he meant. He wanted to chemically induce and therefore terminate/abort/end the pregnancy.
My son is now 28 with two children of his own.

The semantics game is being played by the pro-birthers.

Anything which ends a pregnancy is considered an abortion as we found out when my sister's unknown ectopic pregnancy caused her Fallopian tube to burst nearly killing her. The words used by the doctor were 'it caused her pregnancy to be aborted.'

K-9

Eramen wrote: »

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.

Mod:

If you can't post without calling people with alternate views idiots, don't bother posting on the topic at all, thank you.

DarkJager

Eramen wrote: »

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.

No pure idiocy would be suggesting that the availability of abortion is suddenly going to result in a major decrease in the number of children. Do you actually think before you speak?

Eramen

DarkJager wrote: »

No pure idiocy would be suggesting that the availability of abortion is suddenly going to result in a major decrease in the number of children.

Do you have any idea how many fetus' and people were killed due to abortion?

Check out Russian, Japanese, Eastern European and US stats. It's very, very substantial.

DarkJager wrote: »

Do you actually think before you speak?

I'm sure that was a rhetorical question?

lazygal

Eramen wrote: »

Do you have any idea how many fetus' and people were killed due to abortion?

Check out Russian, Japanese, Eastern European and US stats. It's very, very substantial.



I'm sure that was a rhetorical question? lol

How many children have you added to the population?

Zulu

lazygal wrote: »

How many children have you added to the population?

Are only the opinions of people who've had children to be considered? That doesnt sound very democratic...

lazygal

Zulu wrote: »

Are only the opinions of people who've had children to be considered? That doesnt sound very democratic...

Someone who's happy to enforce pregnancy and birth because of population concerns must surely be adding to the population themselves, or actively planning to, perhaps?

Eramen

DarkJager wrote: »

No pure idiocy would be suggesting that the availability of abortion is suddenly going to result in a major decrease in the number of children. Do you actually think before you speak?

At the time of the fall of the Soviet Union 86% of women over the age of fifteen had had at least one abortion.

The average 25-year-old woman had had three abortions and some women had had more than twenty.


China has more than 13 million abortions per year.



Quite substantial. This is having profound effects on the population demographics of our countries, and certainly on-demand abortion conflicts with the state interests considering where we are at demographically today in the West. We are aged and childless, or worse, killing off our future.

It's only a matter of time before people and governments stem the flow of this type of abortion - out of pure necessity for societies common interest & progress.

lazygal

Eramen wrote: »

At the time of the fall of the Soviet Union 86% of women over the age of fifteen had had at least one abortion.

The average 25-year-old woman had had three abortions and some women had had more than twenty.


China has more than 13 million abortions per year.



Quite substantial. This is having profound effects of population demographics, and certainly on-demand abortion conflicts with the state interests considering where we are at demographically today in the West. We are aged and childless, or worse, killing off our future.

I'm prochoice and have children. Some people go to great lengths to reproduce, even in countries where abortion is available.

jimmy5694

Hi

I wish to raise awareness and just to get peoples opinions, about a week ago I was walking through the square in my local town when I observed anti abortion campaigners taking names for there petition, now i didnt sign the petition however, i noticed the campaigners taking names from girls around 12 years of age up. Now the issue here is and i was thinking about it for a while you can if you were a campaigner talk a person that young into signing a slip of paper for example "killing unborn babies is wrong" what else is the child going to do only sign the petition which right of way bulks up the number of names on that petition.

Just wondering what is your views on this.

**Vai**

I'd say thats pretty typical of their tactics. Those ridiculous posters for a start.

wretcheddomain

jimmy5694 wrote: »

Just wondering what is your views on this.

It's exactly the type of dirty and disgusting underhand tactics I expect from the anti-women brigade. There's no low too low that they cannot find a way to stoop down to.

hotmail.com

They should spend their campaign money on sick children.

Napper Hawkins

hotmail.com wrote: »

They should spend their campaign money on sick children.

But those children are outside the womb, they couldn't give a **** about them.

conorhal

ash23 wrote: »

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.

I'd prefer that doctors would save your life also, and I'm sure that you wen't through many weeks of awful anxiety at the prospect of loosing your son or potentally losing your life, as I'm sure you probably worked with doctors to ensure the best outcome for your son while ensuring your own saftey.
Equally your condition could have become critical and an abortion would have to be performed, it happens in hospitals in Ireland every week. I've no problem with that either. Who could argue against an outcome that would see two lives ended through the failure to save one, it makes no sense.

ash23 wrote: »

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?

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

Again this already happens, it's already permissable to treat a mother for a life threatening condition where that treatment will result in the death of the foetus. What's different about this legislation is that there is no consideration given to the foetus even if the foetus is near term, now it's highly unlikely that an expectant mother who was 8 months pregnant would opt to abort as opposed to deliver early, but there's always that one extreme case that can arrise. This would be a very rare scenario I'd imagine.

When it comes to the suicide clause however you are establishing in law the right to destroy a healthy foetus in quite uncertian circumstances. My fear is that the legislation will be used to throw open the door to abortion on demand. People say that can't happen, but if the threat to the health of a woman is a checkbox formality in the UK, so can the threat to life be, when it's subjective. Will, 'so you're suicidal eh?' become as nod and a wink as 'so you fear for your health eh?' is in the UK.

This legislation should not be allowed through without a time limit being placed on abortions where suicide is threatened.

krudler

"get em young", the motto of any church based organisation :pac:

shruikan2553

Eramen wrote: »

At the time of the fall of the Soviet Union 86% of women over the age of fifteen had had at least one abortion.

The average 25-year-old woman had had three abortions and some women had had more than twenty.


China has more than 13 million abortions per year.



Quite substantial. This is having profound effects on the population demographics of our countries, and certainly on-demand abortion conflicts with the state interests considering where we are at demographically today in the West. We are aged and childless, or worse, killing off our future.

It's only a matter of time before people and governments stem the flow of this type of abortion - out of pure necessity for societies common interest & progress.

China does it to itself with their one child policy. Was contraception available in Russia?
Abortion isnt meant to replace contraception, it is to protect the health or when the contraception fails.
If someone is using it as contraception they probably shouldnt be having children anyway.

Jester252

Ireland is a democracy. People can campaign the goverment for what they think is right. While I don't agree with what they stand for I have no isdues with them campaign to the general public. I have issues with sh1t slingers that do nothing but attack people who have oposing views, which this tread will be full of calling them "religious nut jobs" etc. If you what to oposing their campaign, you should campaign your views

krudler

hotmail.com wrote: »

They should spend their campaign money on sick children.

No no no, ya see, babies inside the womb are everyone's business, including the celibate priests, the oap rosary rattlers who are beyond their child bearing years and those not even in puberty yet. babies outside the womb? Well they're the states and their parents problem.

that's Iona logic.

endacl

A demoncery? Ruled by demons?!?

wretcheddomain

As I like to argue - how would they feel if there was a law which made it compulsory to provide an organ or some other bodily part for the need to save an existing child's life? They recoil horribly and say they would be against such a proposition, to which I reply that they're not willing to use their own bodies to save existing children, but expect a woman to use her body for an entity which cannot possibly be considered alive in the same way. Both cases require the use of the body to save a 'child' (pending definitions), but when the child is alive they simply do not care but when the entity is not even born, they want to force women to use their own bodies. And while the use of a bodily organ/part is not a child per se, it would be used to save an existing child. The point of the analogy is that they wouldn't use their own bodies to save an existing child via some legal statute, but expect others to use their bodies for an entity not existent in the same meaningful way.

Pegmatite

**Vai** wrote: »

I Those ridiculous posters for a start.

I've been taking them down where ever I see them. Are the posters actually legal, I thought only posters like that could only go up for elections and referendums and had to be taken down once it was over.

**Vai**

Jester252 wrote: »

Ireland is a demoncery.

Someone needs to alert the archbishop immediately!

Laneyh

I really resent this notion that if abortion is permissable in certain sets of circumstances there will suddenly be bands of feral women lining up to become impregnated just so they can have an abortion.

If there are women who opt for abortion as retrospective contraception I would say they are in an extreme minority.

I highly doubt that any woman or couple makes this decision lightly

Jester252

endacl wrote: »

A demoncery? Ruled by demons?!?

Do you have anything to add because nobody like a grammer nazi.

krudler

Jester252 wrote: »

Do you have anything to add because nobody like a grammer nazi.

Not sure if serious...

Reekwind

Jester252 wrote: »

Ireland is a democracy. People can campaign the goverment for what they think is right. While I don't agree with what they stand for I have no isdues with them campaign to the general public

And who here is suggesting that the campaigners in question don't have the right to campaign or produce a petition? That's a strawman. All the OP is doing is expressing unease at the low tactics being used by the anti-abortion campaigners

Eramen

shruikan2553 wrote: »

China does it to itself with their one child policy. Was contraception available in Russia?
Abortion isnt meant to replace contraception, it is to protect the health or when the contraception fails.
If someone is using it as contraception they probably shouldnt be having children anyway.

The situation is more serious than you may think, even in the West.

The abortion rate per 1,000 women in Russia is 53. This equates to 13 abortions for every 10 live births.

In the USA it's 20, UK 18, Australia 19.. Do the math! In fact the math is already done for you elsewhere, it's a simple internet search..

We are presently suffering a population hemorrhage by killing off our potential youth off en masse. There's no argument about it. It's leading us to a demographic catastrophe which is already very well recognised in the West. There is absolutely no basis for saying that abortion on demand does not significantly harm the population when in fact it does - to a very large degree.

This comes at a time when we won't even be able to afford our own healthcare, infrastructure, retirements, and to keep to wheels turning in the economy. We will become stagnant culturally and as a economic entity.

I'm not hear to listen to excuse after excuse when the information is in plain sight. The pro-choice mentality is disastrous for the continuance of progress and is an obstacle to the advancement of the state and people as a whole, especially in Europe. It's inevitable that abortion as we know it, freely available and commoditised in many parts of the world, will slowly evaporate as an option out of the need to secure our state's well-being and the national interest.