Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Abortion Discussion

Options
1…157158160162163…334

Comments

  • Options
    #4772
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    Johnny Be Goode wrote: »
    The irony that is always missed is that 100% of the mother's of pro-choice individuals,pro abortion polititions,abortion doctors/nurses etc are/were indeed pro-life! The proof is in the fact that they were born safely into this world to become pro-choice ambassadors! What if their mothers for whatever reason said No,Im not having this one, then the pro-choice people wouldnt have lived to know what it like to have children,friends,to be in love,to govern a country,assist in restoring someones health.....

    Could you possibly try to rephrase what you just wrote so that it would make sense. At the moment it looks like you typed out the words at random without trying to see if they matched the meaning you were going for.

    Though from what I gather you seem to think that because someones mother decided that they were going to carry them to term, that would automatically make them anti-abortion (which is not pro-life, because being against abortion is the choice which puts life at risk, being that the woman carrying the foetus is alive, while the foetus itself is not). That is simply specious nonsense, and is so obviously so I am not going to demean your intelligent by pointing it out.


  • Options
    #4773
    Johnny Be Goode
    Closed Accounts Posts: 125 ✭✭Johnny Be Goode


    yeah, if their parents did not meet they would not be either!


  • Options
    #4774
    Johnny Be Goode
    Closed Accounts Posts: 125 ✭✭Johnny Be Goode


    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    Could you possibly try to rephrase what you just wrote so that it would make sense. At the moment it looks like you typed out the words at random without trying to see if they matched the meaning you were going for.

    Though from what I gather you seem to think that because someones mother decided that they were going to carry them to term, that would automatically make them anti-abortion (which is not pro-life, because being against abortion is the choice which puts life at risk, being that the woman carrying the foetus is alive, while the foetus itself is not). That is simply specious nonsense, and is so obviously so I am not going to demean your intelligent by pointing it out.

    Dont understand your post!


  • Options
    #4775
    Johnny Be Goode
    Closed Accounts Posts: 125 ✭✭Johnny Be Goode


    My post's premise is very simple to follow


  • Options
    #4776
    rainbow kirby
    Registered Users Posts: 26,928 ✭✭✭✭rainbow kirby


    Johnny Be Goode wrote: »
    It is very simple to follow

    The fact that someone chooses to carry a pregnancy to term and the fact that somebody is pro-choice are not mutually exclusive, no matter how much you want to believe that they are.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #4777
    eviltwin
    Registered Users Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    Johnny Be Goode wrote: »
    My post's premise is very simple to follow

    No its not, it seems you are saying that you can't be pro choice if you have had children as that makes you automatically pro life?


  • Options
    #4778
    Johnny Be Goode
    Closed Accounts Posts: 125 ✭✭Johnny Be Goode


    rainbow kirby wrote: »
    Wrong. Plenty of mothers are pro-choice, including my own mother and grandmother. They chose (or had the choice made for them) to have children, but believe fundamentally in a woman's right to make her own reproductive choices.

    They were pro-life for them when having them, of course they can change their stance later !


  • Options
    #4779
    eviltwin
    Registered Users Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    Johnny Be Goode wrote: »
    They were pro-life for them when having them, of course they can change their stance later !

    Do you understand what it means to be "pro-choice"?


  • Options
    #4780
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,784 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Johnny Be Goode wrote: »
    They were pro-life for them when having them, of course they can change their stance later !

    So a woman stops being pro-choice while pregnant and once the child is delivered reverts back to pro-choice? :confused:

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #4781
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    I remained prochoice during both my pregnancies. In fact, being pregnant made me even more prochoice than I was before because I really understood how horrible it must be to have to continue a pregnancy against your wishes.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #4782
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    Johnny Be Goode wrote: »
    Dont understand your post!

    Fine, the problem with your lack of reasoning is that just because Person A does something which affects Person B, that action or the result of it doesn't necessarily have a link, or describe's Person B's attitude to activities related to Person A's action.

    For example if John killed Janes brother, and Jane was anti-death penalty before and after the murder, yet John was sentenced to death for it (we're assuming John and Jane live in a country with the death penalty), we cannot possibly infer that at any stage Jane's attitude changed towards the death-penalty as a response to those actions, without further investigation at least.

    To be specific to your example just because I was born you cannot infer that I was ever anti-abortion, the true anti-life position on the abortion debate. In fact for most of my life I had no opinion on abortion, because I was either too young to know about it or, as a teen, too immature to make an informed decision on it. Once I became mature enough to investigate the issue and make an informed decision, I realised that even if I were personally against abortions (which I'm not) banning them outright was and is a sensless idea. Better to have women free, easy and safe access to abortions than have them risk their lives with back alley jobs done with coathangers (because banning abortions doesn't make them disappear, it just makes them a lot more dangerous for all concerned).


  • Options
    #4783
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,417 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    LordChessington wrote: »
    Nice way to counter protest
    Just on the hobbies thing:

    316741.jpg


  • Options
    #4784
    Mr. CooL ICE
    Registered Users Posts: 17,569 ✭✭✭✭Mr. CooL ICE


    Johnny Be Goode, pro-choice does not equal mandatory abortions.

    I have no idea how that can be difficult to comprehend. It's basic feckin english.


  • Options
    #4785
    Johnny Be Goode
    Closed Accounts Posts: 125 ✭✭Johnny Be Goode


    LordChessington wrote: »
    Johnny Be Goode, pro-choice does not equal mandatory abortions.

    I have no idea how that can be difficult to comprehend. It's basic feckin english.

    I did not mention mandatory abortions or suggest it. The lack of comprehension lies with you


  • Options
    #4786
    Johnny Be Goode
    Closed Accounts Posts: 125 ✭✭Johnny Be Goode


    My post was for discussion purposes, me neither saying I am yeah or neigh, just putting it out there, clearly everyone disagrees with me but heh, so what? at least we are all thinking about the pro's and con's of the topic and if everyone disagrees with my premise, no problem, no hard feelings ...


  • Options
    #4787
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,784 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Johnny Be Goode wrote: »
    I did not mention mandatory abortions or suggest it. The lack of comprehension lies with you

    Afraid it's with yourself. Pro-choice refers to the option of choosing to have (or not) an abortion. A woman can choose to carry a pregnancy to term and still be firmly in the pro-choice camp.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #4788
    Mr. CooL ICE
    Registered Users Posts: 17,569 ✭✭✭✭Mr. CooL ICE


    Johnny Be Goode wrote: »
    The irony that is always missed is that 100% of the mother's of pro-choice individuals,pro abortion polititions,abortion doctors/nurses etc are/were indeed pro-life! The proof is in the fact that they were born safely into this world to become pro-choice ambassadors! What if their mothers for whatever reason said No,Im not having this one, then the pro-choice people wouldnt have lived to know what it like to have children,friends,to be in love,to govern a country,assist in restoring someones health.....

    Please explain this post then. Particularly the bolded part.


  • Options
    #4789
    Johnny Be Goode
    Closed Accounts Posts: 125 ✭✭Johnny Be Goode


    I respect all your opinions as I did ask for them, so I am leaving it at that ….


  • Options
    #4790
    Mr. CooL ICE
    Registered Users Posts: 17,569 ✭✭✭✭Mr. CooL ICE


    You made a statement that people called out as being false. The least you could do is back your statement up with something rather than simply say you respect our opinions.


  • Options
    #4791
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,496 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    Johnny Be Goode wrote: »
    The irony that is always missed is that 100% of the mother's of pro-choice individuals,pro abortion polititions,abortion doctors/nurses etc are/were indeed pro-life! The proof is in the fact that they were born safely into this world to become pro-choice ambassadors! What if their mothers for whatever reason said No,Im not having this one, then the pro-choice people wouldnt have lived to know what it like to have children,friends,to be in love,to govern a country,assist in restoring someones health.....

    Name one person that lives today that was created in the womb with a abnormality that was incompatible with life that today is still alive and has governed a country, had children, had friends etc.

    Forcing women who have a fetus that is incompatible with life to carry it to term is cruel to the women,

    Women must have the choice, if they so wish to do so.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #4792
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    Cabaal wrote: »
    Name one person that lives today that was created in the womb with a abnormality that was incompatible with life that today is still alive and has governed a country, had children, had friends etc.

    Forcing women who have a fetus that is incompatible with life to carry it to term to remain pregant against their wishes is cruel to the women,

    Women must have the choice, if they so wish to do so.
    FYP


  • Options
    #4793
    aloyisious
    Registered Users Posts: 11,681 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    Johnny Be Goode wrote: »
    The irony that is always missed is that 100% of the mother's of pro-choice individuals,pro abortion polititions,abortion doctors/nurses etc are/were indeed pro-life! The proof is in the fact that they were born safely into this world to become pro-choice ambassadors! What if their mothers for whatever reason said No,Im not having this one, then the pro-choice people wouldnt have lived to know what it like to have children,friends,to be in love,to govern a country,assist in restoring someones health.....

    The other side of the protest-coin is that children born to the mothers you mention wouldn't take a position on abortion 'til they were adults, and may well have been "pro-lifers" lost to the world if their mothers had originally said No,Im not having this one.


  • Options
    #4794
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,496 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    lazygal wrote: »
    FYP

    In fairness, my comment was specific about abnormality incompatible with life, hence why I didn't make it a broader statement


  • Options
    #4795
    Obliq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,371 ✭✭✭Obliq


    Johnny be goode, when I made the CHOICE to have my children that was part of my pro-choice stance. That every woman should have the choice of whether or not to remain pregnant, IMO, whether there is a fatal foetal abnormality or not. I think you are confused by the term pro-choice and think it means pro-abortion. It doesn't, and nobody except the "pro-life" lobby try to make pro-choice mean pro-abortion.


  • Options
    #4796
    mezuzaj
    Closed Accounts Posts: 176 ✭✭mezuzaj


    Obliq wrote: »
    Johnny be goode, when I made the CHOICE to have my children that was part of my pro-choice stance. That every woman should have the choice of whether or not to remain pregnant, IMO, whether there is a fatal foetal abnormality or not. I think you are confused by the term pro-choice and think it means pro-abortion. It doesn't, and nobody except the "pro-life" lobby try to make pro-choice mean pro-abortion.

    Well pro-life Camp is Anti-abortion. The Pro-choice camp usually campaigns for abortion. Them might say for the Choice to have an abortion.. but its still abortion.

    This woman was asked to abort her child.. Was it the right thing to be given that choice? It would be better if society stepped up the plate to support women instead of giving them the choice to allow this children become hospital medical waste.

    http://www.independent.ie/world-news/asia-pacific/australian-couple-abandon-surrogate-twin-with-downs-syndrome-but-keep-his-sister-30477034.html


  • Options
    #4797
    eviltwin
    Registered Users Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    mezuzaj wrote: »
    Well pro-life Camp is Anti-abortion. The Pro-choice camp usually campaigns for abortion. Them might say for the Choice to have an abortion.. but its still abortion.

    This woman was asked to abort her child.. Was it the right thing to be given that choice? It would be better if society stepped up the plate to support women instead of giving them the choice to allow this children become hospital medical waste.

    http://www.independent.ie/world-news/asia-pacific/australian-couple-abandon-surrogate-twin-with-downs-syndrome-but-keep-his-sister-30477034.html

    The pro-choice groups campaign for choice, they don't want to see women having abortions but they do want them to have the option if that is what they decide.

    That case is a very unusual one because it involves a third party, you can't force a woman to have an abortion against her will but neither can you force the couple to take home a child they don't want.

    Personally I don't think its anyone else's business if someone has an abortion because the baby has Down's. State support probably is part of the problem, its ironic that our country doesn't want to legislate for abortions in the case of disability claiming all children are cherished equally while at the same time cutting SNA's and other supports.

    I know from personal experience with my own children that its not easy raising a Special Needs child, its scary when that child may never be able to live a full and independent life and will need constant care. That's a big ask for a parent, its a big ask for siblings to sacrifice their family life and their parents because that is what happens. So ultimately if that was me I would abort and I wouldn't feel bad about it. Its a private decision and no one else's business.


  • Options
    #4798
    mezuzaj
    Closed Accounts Posts: 176 ✭✭mezuzaj


    eviltwin wrote: »
    The pro-choice groups campaign for choice, they don't want to see women having abortions but they do want them to have the option if that is what they decide.

    That case is a very unusual one because it involves a third party, you can't force a woman to have an abortion against her will but neither can you force the couple to take home a child they don't want.

    Personally I don't think its anyone else's business if someone has an abortion because the baby has Down's. State support probably is part of the problem, its ironic that our country doesn't want to legislate for abortions in the case of disability claiming all children are cherished equally while at the same time cutting SNA's and other supports.

    I know from personal experience with my own children that its not easy raising a Special Needs child, its scary when that child may never be able to live a full and independent life and will need constant care. That's a big ask for a parent, its a big ask for siblings to sacrifice their family life and their parents because that is what happens. So ultimately if that was me I would abort and I wouldn't feel bad about it. Its a private decision and no one else's business.

    I was going to debate.. But since you don't see the value in a Baby with Downs I think I will stay on the moral upper ground here.


    as for having a Special needs child.. That is the Choice we take when we decide to have kids.. They are OUR children, healthy or sick no matter what we will love them. Pregnancies are not like weeds. you don't kill of the sick and ugly. Even children that only live a day are our children.

    I would far far prefer to care for a sick sibling than to know my parents didn't care enough and aborted it.


  • Options
    #4799
    Obliq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,371 ✭✭✭Obliq


    mezuzaj wrote: »
    The Pro-choice camp usually campaigns for abortion.

    Incorrect.
    eviltwin wrote: »
    The pro-choice groups campaign for choice

    Correct.

    Very simple. If a person, like in mezuzaj's example above, is being coerced or misinformed or directed towards a decision that is NOT THEIR OWN then it clearly isn't their choice, which means in this instance that the abortion was not coming from a pro-choice stance at all.

    Of course it would be better if there was never a need for abortions, but that is not the way the world is working at the moment. We can only work towards giving women more choices in areas of contraception, education, work opportunities and childcare so as to cut down on the need for abortion, but even so there will still be accidental and traumatic pregnancies that women can't/won't/shouldn't be compelled to go through with. Hence the need for the choice of abortion also. Choice is where it's at.


  • Options
    #4800
    eviltwin
    Registered Users Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    mezuzaj wrote: »
    I was going to debate.. But since you don't see the value in a Baby with Downs I think I will stay on the moral upper ground here.


    as for having a Special needs child.. That is the Choice we take when we decide to have kids.. They are OUR children, healthy or sick no matter what we will love them. Pregnancies are not like weeds. you don't kill of the sick and ugly. Even children that only live a day are our children.

    I would far far prefer to care for a sick sibling than to know my parents didn't care enough and aborted it.

    Where did I say there was no value in a child with Down's? I've never been in a position to have a Down's baby so I don't know what I would do but I don't think I would keep it. I already have two children, one with special needs and frankly at this stage of my life I have no more of myself to give especially to another child who may be dependent on me for the rest of their life. I'm sorry if that doesn't tie in with your romantic image of parenthood but I live in the real world. My choices are mine to make and don't reflect on the choices of others. People who have Down's babies are no better than those who chose not to, they just made a different choice.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #4801
    Obliq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,371 ✭✭✭Obliq


    mezuzaj wrote: »
    I was going to debate.. But since you don't see the value in a Baby with Downs I think I will stay on the moral upper ground here.

    I'm sorry, but you don't have it in my book.

    as for having a Special needs child.. That is the Choice we take when we decide to have kids.. They are OUR children, healthy or sick no matter what we will love them. Pregnancies are not like weeds. you don't kill of the sick and ugly. Even children that only live a day are our children.

    I would far far prefer to care for a sick sibling than to know my parents didn't care enough and aborted it.

    Bolded words are very pertinent. Choice and decide are definitely important to the issue. Yes, when we decide to go through with a pregnancy, the risks are always there that the child will be (for eg) down's syndrome, but where are the choices? Where is the level of care and support from the state that this family will now need? How do parents take the decision to assign caring roles to their existing or future families FOR LIFE in the face of uncertain supports in terms of medical, educational and social needs?

    You may be willing to judge people for taking a choice that you wouldn't, based on your extremely righteous willingness to hand over your own life choices to a disabled sibling, but nobody should be able to make that choice for you. I can't say I would sign up for a life of uncertainty and potential great hardship for the sake of a foetus who knows nothing yet.....If you would, great, but that's your choice not mine.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement