Abortion Discussion

Genghiz Cohen

mbiking123 wrote: »

Sacrifice for others like the unborn child, instead of the 'I dont want a baby' syndrome

What about 'Baby will leave me crippled' syndrome?

Nodin

mbiking123 wrote: »

Sacrifice for others like the unborn child, instead of the 'I dont want a baby' syndrome

It's not for others to dictate what sacrifices an individual makes in such regards. You'll note that the people you are quoting were volunteers.

Brian Shanahan

mbiking123 wrote: »

So if my life is at risk from an intruder I do not have the right to violate the bodily integrity of the intruder to protect myself

At no stage in any society with a law code was a person not allowed to use a reasonable amount of physical force to defend themselves or their property. Of course the debate continues over what constitutes "a reasonable amount".

So, congratulations for making a post which does nothing to advance the debate.

iwantmydinner

mbiking123 wrote: »

No I am not incorrect, I am drawing on somebody else's statement

The legislation says you are incorrect. You are legally entitled to use reasonable force to defend yourself and your property. Some random person's statement is not a better source of information than the legislation.

mbiking123 wrote: »

Sacrifice for others like the unborn child, instead of the 'I dont want a baby' syndrome

Everyone is free to decide what sacrifices they make for other people, it's not for you or anyone else to dictate.

mbiking123

iwantmydinner wrote: »

The legislation says you are incorrect. You are legally entitled to use reasonable force to defend yourself and your property. Some random person's statement is not a better source of information than the legislation.



Everyone is free to decide what sacrifices they make for other people, it's not for you or anyone else to dictate.

So why sacrifice the unborn child, on your basis its not for anyone to decide what sacrifice that unborn person should make

mbiking123

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

At no stage in any society with a law code was a person not allowed to use a reasonable amount of physical force to defend themselves or their property. Of course the debate continues over what constitutes "a reasonable amount".

So, congratulations for making a post which does nothing to advance the debate.

Well read what was said before hand

Brian Shanahan

mbiking123 wrote: »

Well read what was said before hand

I did, the fact that you were wrong needed emphasis.

Oh, and your rebuttal "what someone in a pub told me is more valid than the law of our country", is frightening.

mbiking123

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

What about 'Baby will leave me crippled' syndrome?

You will have the ability to bring a person into this world and give life

if a person has a 'crippling syndrome' it may happen anyway, but then its just an example with no specifics. Will the pregnancy actually cause crippling or just a risk ? will it happen anyway ? etc etc

iwantmydinner

mbiking123 wrote: »

So why sacrifice the unborn child, on your basis its not for anyone to decide what sacrifice that unborn person should make

It's up to an individual woman to decide whether or not she wants to sacrifice her body and her health to carry a pregnancy, go though childbirth and subsequently raise a child.

And it's not an "unborn person", it's a foetus.

mbiking123

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

I did, the fact that you were wrong needed emphasis.

Oh, and your rebuttal "what someone in a pub told me is more valid than the law of our country", is frightening.

What someone told me in a pub - don't know where you got that one from, in fact there is no need to clarify. Thanks

mbiking123

iwantmydinner wrote: »

It's up to an individual woman to decide whether or not she wants to sacrifice her body and her health to carry a pregnancy, go though childbirth and subsequently raise a child.

And it's not an "unborn person", it's a foetus.

No, its not up to the woman to decide by Irish law, what about the life that is being ended by the sacrifice ? who is making the sacrifice ? the unprotected unborn child

iwantmydinner

mbiking123 wrote: »

You will have the ability to bring a person into this world and give life

if a person has a 'crippling syndrome' it may happen anyway, but then its just an example with no specifics. Will the pregnancy actually cause crippling or just a risk ? will it happen anyway ? etc etc

Ah, I see.

Having babies > my physical wellbeing.

Got it.

Morag

It is up to the woman, if it wasn't then we would face pregnancy tests leaving and returning to Ireland and charges for having an abortion abroad.

iwantmydinner

mbiking123 wrote: »

No, its not up to the woman to decide by Irish law, what about the life that is being ended by the sacrifice ? who is making the sacrifice ? the unprotected unborn child

Sorry to burst your bubble, but Irish women make that decision every day of the week. They're just prevented from accessing safe and legal abortions in the country where they live, pay taxes, and contribute to society in general.

A non-sentient being entirely dependent on another human's body to survive cannot be described as making anything, much less a sacrifice.

mbiking123

For some reason Jesus was brought into this whole argument, and lets be honest it is an argument. leave religion out and lets look at science or nature

We reproduce, its natural for us to die and be replaced. In fact science says that the reason we exist is to reproduce

So for a woman to have a pregnancy, is normal. Work commitments, age, health etc etc does not count in nature. people die, move aside for the next generation. Reproduction is carrying on from what has been happening for millions of years.

swampgas

mbiking123 wrote: »

For some reason Jesus was brought into this whole argument, and lets be honest it is an argument. leave religion out and lets look at science or nature

We reproduce, its natural for us to die and be replaced. In fact science says that the reason we exist is to reproduce

So for a woman to have a pregnancy, is normal. Work commitments, age, health etc etc does not count in nature. people die, move aside for the next generation. Reproduction is carrying on from what has been happening for millions of years.

That sounds like an argument against contraception as well as abortion. Do you also think contraception is wrong?

Nodin

mbiking123 wrote: »

We reproduce, its natural for us to die and be replaced. In fact science says that the reason we exist is to reproduce

So for a woman to have a pregnancy, is normal. Work commitments, age, health etc etc does not count in nature. people die, move aside for the next generation. Reproduction is carrying on from what has been happening for millions of years.

And your point is............?

mbiking123

swampgas wrote: »

That sounds like an argument against contraception as well as abortion. Do you also think contraception is wrong?

Science would say yes, make lots of babies

in fact Neanderthals and Humans Interbred, its all natural. make babies

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/05/100506-science-neanderthals-humans-mated-interbred-dna-gene/

mbiking123

Nodin wrote: »

And your point is............?

have a baby and then die

iwantmydinner

mbiking123 wrote: »

For some reason Jesus was brought into this whole argument, and lets be honest it is an argument. leave religion out and lets look at science or nature

We reproduce, its natural for us to die and be replaced. In fact science says that the reason we exist is to reproduce

So for a woman to have a pregnancy, is normal. Work commitments, age, health etc etc does not count in nature. people die, move aside for the next generation. Reproduction is carrying on from what has been happening for millions of years.

Plenty of people choose to reproduce, if it's population decline you're concerned about. You really don't need to worry about those people who decide not to reproduce.

iwantmydinner

mbiking123 wrote: »

have a baby and then die

Oh cool. Back to the women are brood mares argument.

mbiking123

iwantmydinner wrote: »

Oh cool. Back to the women are brood mares argument.

well science says basically yes, blunt but honest !

religion says we are more than that

So go down the religious route if you want, 'we are made in image of God etc etc'

iwantmydinner

mbiking123 wrote: »

well science says basically yes, blunt but honest !'

Science also produced safe methods of contraception and abortion.

But I can't have a rational debate with someone who considers me as nothing more than a walking womb. I'm done.

aloyisious

mbiking123 wrote: »

No I am not incorrect, I am drawing on somebody else's statement

Dont know where Jesus is coming from ?

Proclamation of the Irish Republic - In this supreme hour the Irish nation must, by its valour and discipline and by the readiness of its children to sacrifice themselves for the common good, prove itself worthy of the august destiny to which it is called.

So many people have sacrificed themselves for others, these heroes dont have the 'me, myself and I attitude'.

That (IMO) sound's like you trying to turn back the evolution of the republic (as it has occurred south of the border over the past two or three decades) to that as espoused by PH Pearse in 1916. Again (IMO) that was usurped by those whom Pearse admired and who took advantage of the newly emerged state to secure their positions behind the throne.

In respect of the oh-so recent revelations, I'm minded of the quote so-oft trumpeted over the past nearly 100 hundred years: Home Rule is Rome Rule, and how, because of a headstrong feeling and insecurity, we were blindsided to the fallibility of those who guided us on morality.

The reverse side of your argument is that those EDIT; REPUBLICANS: you are espousing fought for the freedom of the citizens of the republic to be able to make up their own minds on matters concerning the rights of that republic's citizens, without having to ask outside influences for advice. I'm mindful of the attitude of Gerry Adams in N.I. in regard to the legalization (or not - as Gerry say's) of abortion there.
.

mbiking123

iwantmydinner wrote: »

Plenty of people choose to reproduce, if it's population decline you're concerned about. You really don't need to worry about those people who decide not to reproduce.

Interesting point, as we need foreign nationals to boost the Irish population to pay for pensions etc. more babies are needed in Ireland

Economics says have more children - that's another one

mbiking123

aloyisious wrote: »

That (IMO) sound's like you trying to turn back the evolution of the republic (as it has occurred south of the border over the past two or three decades) to that as espoused by PH Pearse in 1916. Again (IMO) that was usurped by those whom Pearse admired and who took advantage of the newly emerged state to secure their positions behind the throne.

In respect of the oh-so recent revelations, I'm minded of the quote so-oft trumpeted over the past nearly 100 hundred years: Home Rule is Rome Rule, and how, because of a headstrong feeling and insecurity, we were blindsided to the fallibility of those who guided us on morality.

The reverse side of your argument is that those Sinn Feiners you are espousing fought for the freedom of the citizens of the republic to be able to make up their own minds on matters concerning the rights of that republic's citizens, without having to ask outside influences for advice. I'm mindful of the attitude of Gerry Adams in N.I. in regard to the legalization (or not - as Gerry say's) of abortion there.
.

Sinn Fein - flipin Sinn Fein. I never mentioned that crowd !!!!!!!!!!!!! plant a bomb - abortion whats the difference

never mentioned Roman Catholic either !!!!!!!!!!!!

Turtwig

I...er....I .. ..don't think.. .
*steps away from thread slowly*

mbiking123

iwantmydinner wrote: »

Science also produced safe methods of contraception and abortion.

But I can't have a rational debate with someone who considers me as nothing more than a walking womb. I'm done.

sounds good, next !

Bannasidhe

mbiking123 wrote: »

well science says basically yes, blunt but honest !

religion says we are more than that

So go down the religious route if you want, 'we are made in image of God etc etc'

Science says a woman does not have to be pregnant if she doesn't wish to be.

As for religion - you do with your body what your religion says is right but don't you dare tell me that I have follow the dictates of your religion or anybody else's religion when it comes to what I can and cannot do with my body.

The Constitution says I have the freedom to chose to have any religion or none . It does not say the State has the right to impose religious beliefs on me so the religious route has no place in this discussion.

By the way - there is no God.

mbiking123

iwantmydinner wrote: »

Science also produced safe methods of contraception and abortion.

But I can't have a rational debate with someone who considers me as nothing more than a walking womb. I'm done.

contraception and abortion also have risks, cannot be considered safe. They have their risks and side effects both physical and mental