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
1…5051535556…95

Comments

  • Options
    #1562
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    Ralphdejones wrote: »
    I've already answered that from another poster. There are two lives and patients involved not one, both their suffering should be kept to a minimum, neither of them did anything wrong, the child should not be forced to suffer more than the mother, the rapist should be the one that is suffering. Not an innocent child or its mother. Now perhaps you'll answer why the child should suffer ?

    That doesn't answer it at all. You keep going on about suffering of both and don't explain why one person should suffer for another.

    I'll actually answer your question so you can see how it is done. The fetus wouldn't suffer. If done in a timely matter instead of being dragged out there is no brain activity, no thoughts, no feelings and is a bit like a heavier use of the morning after pill.


  • Options
    #1563
    takamichinoku
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,110 ✭✭✭takamichinoku


    Ralphdejones wrote: »
    I don't think pitting the child against the mother, or claiming that one must suffer more than the other is any solution to anything. Neither of them did anything wrong.
    Pretty sure the court hearings had one side representing the woman and the other representing the unborn. Don't quite see how that isn't the woman putting herself as much in opposition of the pregnancy as possible.
    Ralphdejones wrote: »
    neither of them did anything wrong, the child should not be forced to suffer more than the mother
    Translation: If one absolutely must suffer more, it should be the mother




    I really don't see why so many pro-life people have issues with over directly making that statement. It's definitely quite callous sounding, I get that, but you're not going to have perfect solutions and they say it in every which way they can other than outright. Can someone explain it to me?


  • Options
    #1564
    Ralphdejones
    Closed Accounts Posts: 581 ✭✭✭Ralphdejones


    Czarcasm wrote: »
    Ralph, merely existing is not an indicator of quality of life. That's what you consistently seem to be missing here. If an unborn child is unwanted by the woman carrying it, that has an immediate negative effect on the person's quality of life, before they are even born, let alone as they mature and grow into and that's working off the idea that the person will at least be physically healthy having been carried to full term, despite the woman's wish that she had not wanted to give birth.

    Now, the negative consequences for the woman who was forced to give birth against her will, and with regards to her quality of life after the fact...

    I don't even know where to start tbh.


    I think everyone here would prefer if abortion were never necessary, and that nobody should be forced to suffer unnecessarily, but the sad, unfortunate, fact of the matter is that abortion is a necessity in circumstances where it can be used to cause as little pain and suffering to human beings as possible, and treat both the woman and the unborn child with compassion, dignity and respect, to end the life of the unborn child in as humanely a manner as possible, without causing undue suffering to either the woman or the unborn child.

    It's unfortunately the best we've got, until medical science comes up with a way to prevent unwanted pregnancies and therefore by extension unwanted abortions, because despite sensationalist "free for all" nonsense about abortion, there aren't too many women willing would put themselves through the various procedures if they really didn't have to, if they thought they really had a choice.

    How does aborting a child improve it's quality of life.
    By this logic should children in the third world with a lesser "quality of life" than first world children have been aborted ?


  • Options
    #1565
    eyescreamcone
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,562 ✭✭✭eyescreamcone


    Did the HSE/Irish government really force feed the woman until the pregnancy was terminated?
    Did the Bishop imply that this should have been done for another 3 months?


  • Options
    #1566
    Ralphdejones
    Closed Accounts Posts: 581 ✭✭✭Ralphdejones


    shruikan2553 wrote: »
    That doesn't answer it at all. You keep going on about suffering of both and don't explain why one person should suffer for another.

    I'll actually answer your question so you can see how it is done. The fetus wouldn't suffer. If done in a timely matter instead of being dragged out there is no brain activity, no thoughts, no feelings and is a bit like a heavier use of the morning after pill.

    Why should anyone suffer laws and taxes for another person ?
    If I drugged you before I killed you, so you could feel no pain, would it make it right ?
    The rapist caused the most suffering, yet no one is taking about taking their life.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1567
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    Ralphdejones wrote: »
    How does aborting a child improve it's quality of life.
    By this logic should children in the third world with a lesser "quality of life" than first world children have been aborted ?

    When is a child not a child? When it's a fetus.

    If you insist on using the word child everytime you mean fetus then i reserve the right to use parasite when discussing the same.


  • Options
    #1568
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    Ralphdejones wrote: »
    Why should anyone suffer laws and taxes for another person ?
    If I drugged you before I killed you, so you could feel no pain, would it make it right ?
    The rapist caused the most suffering, yet no one is taking about taking their life.

    Until you stop caring more about the rapist and answering questions with the same line I am done with you. You obviously don't understand how pregnancy works.


  • Options
    #1569
    Ralphdejones
    Closed Accounts Posts: 581 ✭✭✭Ralphdejones


    bumper234 wrote: »
    When is a child not a child? When it's a fetus.

    If you insist on using the word child everytime you mean fetus then i reserve the right to use parasite when discussing the same.

    The child involved is alive and well. If you prefer to term an unborn child, who done nothing wrong a parasite, I hardly think that is helping your case.


  • Options
    #1570
    Ralphdejones
    Closed Accounts Posts: 581 ✭✭✭Ralphdejones


    shruikan2553 wrote: »
    Until you stop caring more about the rapist and answering questions with the same line I am done with you. You obviously don't understand how pregnancy works.

    If you keep straw manning that might be best for you.
    Where did I say I care about the rapist. The mother and the child that done nothing wrong are the ones that should be cared for instead of being stigmatised.


  • Options
    #1571
    Czarcasm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭Czarcasm


    Ralphdejones wrote: »
    How does aborting a child improve it's quality of life.


    It doesn't. You should know that's a stupid question and if you had any compassion at all you wouldn't be trying to be such a smart arse when you have been given a number of considered replies at this stage, but have listened to none.

    By this logic should children in the third world with a lesser "quality of life" than first world children have been aborted ?


    You're either playing dumb on purpose, or you're just not getting the concept of 'quality of life' as it pertains to unwanted pregnancies, in any part of the world; first, third, or otherwise.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1572
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    Ralphdejones wrote: »
    The child involved is alive and well. If you prefer to term an unborn child, who done nothing wrong a parasite, I hardly think that is helping your case.

    And if another child gets raped and requests an abortion then that parasite should be expunged as soon as possible to prevent the mother from being traumatized any further.


  • Options
    #1573
    Ralphdejones
    Closed Accounts Posts: 581 ✭✭✭Ralphdejones


    Czarcasm wrote: »
    It doesn't. You should know that's a stupid question and if you had any compassion at all you wouldn't be trying to be such a smart arse when you have been given a number of considered replies at this stage, but have listened to none.

    You're either playing dumb on purpose, or you're just not getting the concept of 'quality of life' as it pertains to unwanted pregnancies, in any part of the world; first, third, or wotherwise.

    .

    I suppose if you can't play the ball you can always resort to attempting to play the man.
    Can you describe this quality of life criteria of yours where you get to decide who lives in the world and who dies ?


  • Options
    #1574
    Ralphdejones
    Closed Accounts Posts: 581 ✭✭✭Ralphdejones


    bumper234 wrote: »
    And if another child gets raped and requests an abortion then that parasite should be expunged as soon as possible to prevent the mother from being traumatized any further.

    Is that the rapist or the innocent child your talking about punishing ?


  • Options
    #1575
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    Ralphdejones wrote: »
    Is that the rapist or the innocent child your talking about punishing ?

    Its an unformed blob of cells, if you wish to think of it as a "child" then so be it. I just really hope you never have a daughter who ends up with an unwanted pregnancy.


  • Options
    #1576
    Ralphdejones
    Closed Accounts Posts: 581 ✭✭✭Ralphdejones


    bumper234 wrote: »
    Its an unformed blob of cells, if you wish to think of it as a "child" then so be it. I just really hope you never have a daughter who ends up with an unwanted pregnancy.

    We're all a 'blob of cells'

    If she does I'll be supporting her and the child, rather than attempting to stigmatise her pregnancy or stigmatise the child as a parasite.


  • Options
    #1577
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    Ralphdejones wrote: »
    We're all a 'blob of cells'

    If she does I'll be supporting her and the child, rather than attempting to stigmatise her pregnancy or stigmatise the child as a parasite.

    And if she decides she is having an abortion?

    It seems the only one stigmatising women here is you.


  • Options
    #1578
    Ralphdejones
    Closed Accounts Posts: 581 ✭✭✭Ralphdejones


    bumper234 wrote: »
    And if she decides she is having an abortion?

    It seems the only one stigmatising women here is you.

    Well that's up the law, the child does not have to die or be punished for something neither of them did wrong.


  • Options
    #1579
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    Ralphdejones wrote: »
    Well that's up the law, the child does not have to die or be punished for something neither of them did wrong.

    What if she decides to go to the UK?


  • Options
    #1580
    Czarcasm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭Czarcasm


    Ralphdejones wrote: »
    I suppose if you can't play the ball you can always resort to attempting to play the man.


    I haven't personally insulted you at all.

    Can you describe this quality of life criteria of yours where you get to decide who lives in the world and who dies ?


    In fact it's you who are trying to put forward the idea that you should get to decide who lives and who dies, despite the fact that the woman may be suicidal, in which case, you have no control over her at that point should she choose to die by suicide, and then that's two people dead as opposed to just one.

    I'd sooner let the woman involved make the decision that she feels is the right decision for her, rather than force her into a position where in order to end the unwanted pregnancy, she takes matters into her own hands.

    If she gets to that point and is unsuccessful in ending her pregnancy as she wants to, or ending her life as she wants to, both the woman and the unborn child will have a severely reduced quality of life.

    Now Ralph, unless your surname is Wiggum, you shouldn't need it explained to you what 'quality of life' means in this context as opposed to just the 'right to life'.


  • Options
    #1581
    Ralphdejones
    Closed Accounts Posts: 581 ✭✭✭Ralphdejones


    bumper234 wrote: »
    What if she decides to go to the UK?

    If she had the choice, I'd rather she went to the UK for all medical procedures, as I would myself, the UK has a lot better medical facilities in my experience.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1582
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    Ralphdejones wrote: »
    Is there any rules on this forum about playing the ball rather than the person ?


    Pot and kettle I think. I enjoy intelligent debate. I am giving you one more chance to answer questions I put to you hours ago. Here are the posts again if you can't find them.
    Godge wrote: »
    On what do you base this assertion? Are you saying that this is true in all circumstances? Do you live in an ideal world or the real one?





    From access to medical treatment to conscription for military duty to access to fresh water, there are compromises all across the world every day to the statement that there is an equal right to life.
    Godge wrote: »
    If I follow your logic to the end, it means that all women be admitted to hospital immediately on becoming pregnant to ensure that they are monitored and controlled 24/7 to ensure that they don't do anything - drink alcohol, fall off ladders or down stairs etc. that might endanger the life of the child.

    Like all abolutist arguments, it ultimately fails because there is no black or white situation.

    What is the difference between a woman smoking during pregnancy and endangering the life of her unborn child and having an abortion? By your logic, there should be a law against smoking and drinking alcohol and engaging in dangerous pursuits while pregnant.

    If a man knocks a pregnant female pedestrian down with his car and she loses the baby, should he be charged with manslaughter? He would, if the woman died, so why, if they have an equal right to life, is he not charged with manslaughter if the unborn child dies?

    I could go on and on but there are huge gaps in your logic.



    They were made in response to the same silly argument as you keep reverting to as in the post below about the equal right to life.
    Ralphdejones wrote: »
    Well that's up the law, the child does not have to die or be punished for something neither of them did wrong.

    The arguments against your point have been set out clearly many times yet you choose to ignore them and repeat the rants.


  • Options
    #1583
    Ralphdejones
    Closed Accounts Posts: 581 ✭✭✭Ralphdejones


    Czarcasm wrote: »
    I haven't personally insulted you at all.

    In fact it's you who are trying to put forward the idea that you should get to decide who lives and who dies, despite the fact that the woman may be suicidal, in which case, you have no control over her at that point should she choose to die by suicide, and then that's two people dead as opposed to just one.

    I'd sooner let the woman involved make the decision that she feels is the right decision for her, rather than force her into a position where in order to end the unwanted pregnancy, she takes matters into her own hands.

    If she gets to that point and is unsuccessful in ending her pregnancy as she wants to, or ending her life as she wants to, both the woman and the unborn child will have a severely reduced quality of life.

    You were the one one that brought the quality of life argument up, and then continually failed to define what criteria people should be allowed to live and die by according to you. I don't believe a child should be killed because their mother demands it, or advising her that killing the child will improve her quality of life. It won't.
    Czarcasm wrote: »
    I haven't personally insulted you at all.

    Now Ralph, unless your surname is Wiggum, you shouldn't need it explained to you what 'quality of life' means in this context as opposed to just the 'right to life'.

    Stooping again to playing the poster rather than the post, says more about you than me.


  • Options
    #1584
    Calina
    Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Calina


    Ralphdejones wrote: »
    I don't believe a child should be killed because their mother demands it, or advising her that killing the child will improve her quality of life. It won't.

    You do not know what impact an abortion would have had on the young woman's life; it is ignorant to behave as though you do. What I do know is that if someone forced me to go through a pregnancy which I did not want to have, I would be very negatively affected.


  • Options
    #1585
    Czarcasm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭Czarcasm


    Ralphdejones wrote: »
    If she had the choice, I'd rather she went to the UK for all medical procedures, as I would myself, the UK has a lot better medical facilities in my experience.


    Did you ever ask yourself why Ralph?

    Because in the UK, politicians serve the people, unlike this country, where politicians serve themselves.


  • Options
    #1586
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    Ralphdejones wrote: »
    If she had the choice, I'd rather she went to the UK for all medical procedures, as I would myself, the UK has a lot better medical facilities in my experience.

    You LOVE to avoid answering the hard questions don't you ;)


  • Options
    #1587
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    Ralphdejones wrote: »
    You were the one one that brought the quality of life argument up, and then continually failed to define what criteria people should be allowed to live and die by according to you. I don't believe a child should be killed because their mother demands it, or advising her that killing the child will improve her quality of life. It won't.



    Stooping again to playing the poster rather than the post, says more about you than me.

    No, you are the one who has argued that there is an equal right to life but have failed to justify this point in the face of many examples of unequal rights.

    Again, if a car accident results in injury to a woman and the loss of her unborn child, why isn't the person responsible charged with manslaughter if there is an equal right to life?


  • Options
    #1588
    Ralphdejones
    Closed Accounts Posts: 581 ✭✭✭Ralphdejones


    Godge wrote: »
    On what do you base this assertion? Are you saying that this is true in all circumstances? Do you live in an ideal world or the real one?

    If you don't believe innocent human beings don't have an equal right to life, you're going to have to explain why. Just because some people don't and are killed, does not make it right.
    Godge wrote: »
    From access to medical treatment to conscription for military duty to access to fresh water, there are compromises all across the world every day to the statement that there is an equal right to life.

    Yes, and yet you don't believe there is any compromise other than aborting the child.
    Both the mother and the child are alive today, you'll have to explain why it would be better if the child were now dead.


  • Options
    #1589
    Ralphdejones
    Closed Accounts Posts: 581 ✭✭✭Ralphdejones


    Czarcasm wrote: »

    Because in the UK, politicians serve the people, unlike this country, where politicians serve themselves.

    I wouldn't trust any politician, but they do seem to be held to a higher standard in the UK


  • Options
    #1590
    takamichinoku
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,110 ✭✭✭takamichinoku


    Ralphdejones wrote: »
    or advising her that killing the child will improve her quality of life. It won't.
    You've quashed the quality of life argument there. ;)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1591
    Bongalongherb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,766 ✭✭✭Bongalongherb


    They are talking about this story now on Classic hits... It will start after the 10 news it seems now.

    http://classichits.ie/listen-live/


Advertisement