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

woman refused abortion - Mod Note in first post.

Options
12467…95

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    Penny Tration
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,687 ✭✭✭✭Penny Tration


    suicide_circus wrote: »
    Women lose babies through miscarriage and get rid of foetuses through abortions.

    Generally, yes, because a person who actually wants the foetus will refer to it as their baby, as that is what it'll eventually be.


  • Options
    #93
    Cleveland Hot Pocket
    Registered Users Posts: 5,193 ✭✭✭Cleveland Hot Pocket


    CrazyRabbit wrote: »
    If you don't want a baby, don't get ****ing pregnant. It's not like there is a shortage of cheap & effective contraception methods.
    Granted, pregnancy can still happen in that 0.1% of cases and that sucks, but it's not a reason to end a (potential) life.

    In cases of rape, I'm honestly undecided. There's no 'right' decision in that horrible case.

    Contraceptives fail. Pills dont always work, condoms break, etc.
    Prolifers would tell you not to take a morning after pill in such a situation, so what do you do then ??
    green_screen wrote: »
    So.... It's not okay to 'kill a baby,' but it's perfectly fine to forcibly inject anasthetic into a woman, mutilate her body by cutting her open, and leave her scarred for life?

    You forget, pro life only care until the cord is cut - after that you are a person and they don't care. Women have no rights but a sub human clutter of cells with the potential to form a human being at a later date have all the right.


    How far does it go? If we are talking about cells with the potential for life? Brings a whole new look to the "spit or swallow" question :p


  • Options
    #94
    PeteFalk78
    Closed Accounts Posts: 762 ✭✭✭PeteFalk78


    green_screen wrote: »
    ......mutilate her body by cutting her open.....

    So all women who had a CS have been mutilated?


  • Options
    #95
    Awkward Badger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,414 ✭✭✭Awkward Badger


    CrazyRabbit wrote: »
    If you don't want a baby, don't get ****ing pregnant. It's not like there is a shortage of cheap & effective contraception methods.
    Granted, pregnancy can still happen in that 0.1% of cases and that sucks, but it's not a reason to end a (potential) life.

    In cases of rape, I'm honestly undecided. There's no 'right' decision in that horrible case.

    How can you be undecided ? If its wrong to abort a foetus because its a potential life and tough shít for those who's contraception fails then how does the manner of the conception change anything ?


  • Options
    #96
    Cleveland Hot Pocket
    Registered Users Posts: 5,193 ✭✭✭Cleveland Hot Pocket


    Selips wrote: »
    That's not an actual counter argument you know.

    Sorry.
    Wah Wah Wah. Emotional BS. Misrepresented "fachts", Religious bollocks.

    Better?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,611 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    green_screen wrote: »
    Nope, because it's wanted, and will eventually be a child, because it'll be carried to term, all things going to plan. Aside from that, I don't bother looking at scan pictures on Facebook, because they bore me.
    It's still not a child, so why don't you correct them? Call them militant.
    Have you the baby/pregnancy filter installed?
    green_screen wrote: »
    Oh, this argument. Unless you remain celibate, pregnancy is not 100% avoidable. 99% at best. Even if you're celibate, there's also the very small chance of being raped.
    Don't think it counts as celibate then.


  • Options
    #98
    Muise...
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,512 ✭✭✭Muise...


    green_screen wrote: »
    Generally, yes, because a person who actually wants the foetus will refer to it as their baby, as that is what it'll eventually be.

    I'm confused at this natural response to a wanted pregnancy being used in an attempt to confuse medical terms. Of course someone looking forward to having a baby will refer to her foetus as a baby - she is looking forward.


  • Options
    #99
    qo2cj1dsne8y4k
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,646 ✭✭✭✭qo2cj1dsne8y4k


    I'm on the fence in regards to abortion. I personally wouldn't have an abortion, because I don't think I personally could cope with the aftermath. It wouldn't sit well on my conscience and I could definately see myself worse off for having an abortion than keeping an unwanted pregnancy. However, people are different and what's right for me might not be right for the woman next to me.

    I'm probably more pro life than pro choice but, abortion should be available freely (without cost to the state I don't agree with abortions for free). Pregnancy can happen no matter how careful you think you're being, at the worst possible time, when it might be the one time in your life you couldn't cope with a pregnancy right then, and nobody should have to go through something so stressful and terrible when it's not the right time/choice for them. That would be just as horrific as forcing a pregnant woman intent on having a baby, to have an abortion.

    However, this whole thing of "it's not a real baby" is absolute nonsense. I'm not sure of the ins and outs of babies development stages, but say at 15 weeks, it's got a heart, it's got it's arms legs fingers toes, if its a girl it's got it's ovaries, it's got a brain, it moves around. It's real. And dismissing that as "it's a bunch of cells". No it isn't.


  • Options
    #100
    Penny Tration
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,687 ✭✭✭✭Penny Tration


    PeteFalk78 wrote: »
    So all women who had a CS have been mutilated?

    Did I say that? We're speaking about a case where it's done against a person's will. I'm pretty sure cutting somebody open against their will is mutilating them.


  • Options
    #101
    PeteFalk78
    Closed Accounts Posts: 762 ✭✭✭PeteFalk78


    Baby survived and mother survived. Doctors and psychologists have had their decisions vindicated. This is a happy ending - if the baby survives.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    Cleveland Hot Pocket
    Registered Users Posts: 5,193 ✭✭✭Cleveland Hot Pocket


    PeteFalk78 wrote: »
    So all women who had a CS have been mutilated?
    All that have had one against their will, yes.
    Awkward Badger wrote: »
    How can you be undecided ? If its wrong to abort a foetus because its a potential life then how does the manner of the conception change anything ?

    That's the problem that pro life groups face. Two emotive thoughts in direct opposition and their arguments are based on emotive arguments. It is therefore difficult to reconcile "rape" and "baby killing" you know.


  • Options
    #103
    mrsbyrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,228 ✭✭✭mrsbyrne


    green_screen wrote: »
    So.... It's not okay to 'kill a baby,' but it's perfectly fine to forcibly inject anasthetic into a woman, mutilate her body by cutting her open, and leave her scarred for life?

    But she decided to go for the C Section herself? She could have followed through and attempted to starve both of them to death. Why are you making it look ad if she was tied down for the Section?


  • Options
    #104
    miss_shadow
    Registered Users Posts: 1,446 ✭✭✭miss_shadow


    Matt_Trakker wrote: »
    1000 euro? Well, she hardly wanted 2 abortions.

    http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Sexualhealth/Pages/Abortionyouroptions.aspx

    Did you ever consider currency exchange, flights, accommodation, transport.. I'd say that even might top the 1000eu 😕


  • Options
    #105
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,611 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »
    You forget, pro life only care until the cord is cut - after that you are a person and they don't care. Women have no rights but a sub human clutter of cells with the potential to form a human being at a later date have all the right.
    Yup, everyone who doesn't agree with you is exactly the same.
    How far does it go? If we are talking about cells with the potential for life? Brings a whole new look to the "spit or swallow" question :p
    I could equally be ridiculous and say that the umbilical cord should be left connected for as long as possible so the woman has as long as possible to decide whether to abort or not. If she doesn't like the sound of the baby crying she should still be allowed to abort it according to you. Well, once the cord is still attached.


  • Options
    #106
    Cleveland Hot Pocket
    Registered Users Posts: 5,193 ✭✭✭Cleveland Hot Pocket


    PeteFalk78 wrote: »
    Baby survived and mother survived. Doctors and psychologists have had their decisions vindicated. This is a happy ending - if the baby survives.

    Right.
    So now a woman has an unwanted child thrust upon her. And everyone wins :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #107
    takamichinoku
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,110 ✭✭✭takamichinoku


    PeteFalk78 wrote: »
    So all women who had a CS have been mutilated?
    They ones who are forced to have it to bring a baby they don't want into the world are. It's been inflicted on her against her will, will leave a physical scar and certainly a mental one. Not too big of a word to use at all.


  • Options
    #108
    leeroybrown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,563 ✭✭✭leeroybrown


    PeteFalk78 wrote: »
    So all women who had a CS have been mutilated?
    One they don't want to have when there's a far far less invasive alternative? Yes. She'll spend the next 4-8 weeks recovering from the surgery and have a permanently weakened uterine wall and visible external scars to remind her of what happened. Mutilation.


  • Options
    #109
    ProfessorPlum
    Registered Users Posts: 1,812 ✭✭✭ProfessorPlum


    Amazing the depth of understanding people proporting to have regarding this undoubtably very complicated case on the basis of a three line article in a newspaper.


  • Options
    #110
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,611 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Muise... wrote: »
    I'm confused at this natural response to a wanted pregnancy being used in an attempt to confuse medical terms. Of course someone looking forward to having a baby will refer to her foetus as a baby - she is looking forward.
    Intent is irrelevant. It's just a bunch of cells until the cord is cut.


  • Options
    #111
    PeteFalk78
    Closed Accounts Posts: 762 ✭✭✭PeteFalk78


    green_screen wrote: »
    Did I say that? We're speaking about a case where it's done against a person's will. I'm pretty sure cutting somebody open against their will is mutilating them.

    No you were being deliberately sensationalist by using that word ..... incorrectly. Mutilation has nothing got to do with the permission or lack of it.

    Off to dictionary corner for you boyo.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    PeteFalk78
    Closed Accounts Posts: 762 ✭✭✭PeteFalk78


    Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »
    Right.
    So now a woman has an unwanted child thrust upon her. And everyone wins :rolleyes:

    Who says the woman will get the child? I'm sure social services won't hand over a child to a person who wanted it murdered and was/is suicidal herself.


  • Options
    #113
    padd b1975
    Registered Users Posts: 10,769 ✭✭✭✭padd b1975


    Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »
    Really?
    I feel that isn't really relevant to the matter at hand.

    It is, if you're going to continue with the stupidity of claiming we're an uncivilised country.


  • Options
    #114
    Pumpkinseeds
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,635 ✭✭✭Pumpkinseeds


    Here we go again, the anti-abortion sister hood out in force to make sure women in Ireland have to go abroad for an abortion, keeping Ireland Catholic. But of course they insist they care about the mother and baby, none of them will be queuing up to take in the mother and baby though, when the spotlight is off.


  • Options
    #115
    Penny Tration
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,687 ✭✭✭✭Penny Tration


    PeteFalk78 wrote: »
    No you were being deliberately sensationalist by using that word ..... incorrectly. Mutilation has nothing got to do with the permission or lack of it.

    Off to dictionary corner for you boyo.

    Boyo? I'm female, thank you.

    I'm being as deliberately sensationalist as the people calling a foetus a baby, and an abortion murder.


  • Options
    #116
    padd b1975
    Registered Users Posts: 10,769 ✭✭✭✭padd b1975


    Pumpkinseeds wrote: »
    Here we go again, the anti-abortion sister hood out in force to make sure women in Ireland have to go abroad for an abortion, keeping Ireland Catholic. But of course they insist they care about the mother and baby, none of them will be queuing up to take in the mother and baby though, when the spotlight is off.
    You should research the waiting list to adopt in Ireland.


  • Options
    #117
    Phoebas
    Registered Users Posts: 9,371 ✭✭✭Phoebas


    green_screen wrote: »
    Except, it's a foetus. Not a child.
    It was a foetus. It is a child now.


  • Options
    #118
    Cleveland Hot Pocket
    Registered Users Posts: 5,193 ✭✭✭Cleveland Hot Pocket


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Yup, everyone who doesn't agree with you is exactly the same.

    I could equally be ridiculous and say that the umbilical cord should be left connected for as long as possible so the woman has as long as possible to decide whether to abort or not. If she doesn't like the sound of the baby crying she should still be allowed to abort it according to you. Well, once the cord is still attached.

    No, not everyone who doesn't agree with me.
    The court of human rights have stated that the Irish position on abortion is denying mothers of their rights to choose. This clearly shows that we currently are having a backwards rule enforced upon us. If I were a woman, I dont think I could go through with having an abortion. I don't believe however that my decision should entitle me to tell another person what to do!

    Clearly your last paragraph is sensationalism to levels normally found in pro life posters - so I will do like I do for those idiotic groups and disregard.


  • Options
    #119
    Dyr
    Registered Users Posts: 23,246 ✭✭✭✭Dyr


    Pumpkinseeds wrote: »
    Here we go again, the anti-abortion sister hood out in force to make sure women in Ireland have to go abroad for an abortion, keeping Ireland Catholic. But of course they insist they care about the mother and baby, none of them will be queuing up to take in the mother and baby though, when the spotlight is off.

    In all fairness, the market for exporting catholic irish babies has dried up thanks to stupid liberals


  • Options
    #120
    mrsbyrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,228 ✭✭✭mrsbyrne


    Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »
    Right.
    So now a woman has an unwanted child thrust upon her. And everyone wins :rolleyes:

    Why do you think shes having it thrust on her? She like any mother doesn't even have to look st the baby. She can leave the hospital and not look back.Whst are you talking about?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    PeteFalk78
    Closed Accounts Posts: 762 ✭✭✭PeteFalk78


    Pumpkinseeds wrote: »
    Here we go again, the anti-abortion sister hood out in force to make sure women in Ireland have to go abroad for an abortion, keeping Ireland Catholic. But of course they insist they care about the mother and baby, none of them will be queuing up to take in the mother and baby though, when the spotlight is off.

    I know in my situation it has nothing to do with religion......I'm about as atheist/agnostic as you get. But at baby of 6 months is too old for an abortion. It has a very good chance of living and I think when a foetus has a change of living independently then it crosses the line to murder.


Advertisement