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

Sanctity of Life (Abortion Megathread)

Options
1…6465676970…124

Comments

  • Options
    #1982
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    cattolico wrote: »
    My mother suffered for 5 years because my brother had a drug addiction. She was hospitalised at one stage because of the stress. Its your child at the end of the day. Society needs to support people instead of telling them to kill their children.

    We are all in agreement that a risk to life can lead to a termination. Nobody is disputing it. It already happens Ireland. However the risk to health opens a long list of exemptions. Where do you start and stop?

    the simple act of having sex can be a risk to your health, even with a condom and contraception. Am I correct?

    Doctors manage health risks in Ireland all the time.

    So once again you've no comment on the women who bring unborn children elsewhere to kill them. Am I correct?
    How would you support women who've considered all the options and still don't want to remain pregnant? Would you propose the state incarcerated those women until delivery?


  • Options
    #1983
    cattolico
    Closed Accounts Posts: 208 ✭✭cattolico


    lazygal wrote: »
    So once again you've no comment on the women who bring unborn children elsewhere to kill them. Am I correct?
    How would you support women who've considered all the options and still don't want to remain pregnant? Would you propose the state incarcerated those women until delivery?

    remain pregnant = Remaining a Mother/ Parent??


  • Options
    #1984
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    cattolico wrote: »
    remain pregnant = Remaining a Mother/ Parent??

    And how would you go about ensuring they remain pregnant?


  • Options
    #1985
    cattolico
    Closed Accounts Posts: 208 ✭✭cattolico


    lazygal wrote: »
    And how would you go about ensuring they remain pregnant?

    Well in this jurisdiction and in the North you would. We are talking about the principle of the right to life here.


  • Options
    #1986
    eviltwin
    Registered Users Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    cattolico wrote: »
    Well in this jurisdiction and in the North you would. We are talking about the principle of the right to life here.

    How? You can't stop anyone travelling to the UK, you can't stop anyone self inducing an abortion.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1987
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    cattolico wrote: »
    Well in this jurisdiction and in the North you would. We are talking about the principle of the right to life here.

    So how would compulsory gestation be enforced?


  • Options
    #1988
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 82,799 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    cattolico wrote: »
    A new advert starring Liam Neeson suggests what the group really wants is to drive the last remnants of religious influence from Irish public life.. Us very nasty Christians who are letting hundreds of women die in Ireland because there isn't on demand abortion (of course its not true) Nobody is dying in Ireland because we don't have on demand abortion.

    Amnesty has shown its true colours, Its not a secular agenda, is an Anti-Christian Agenda. To drive out the church from our families and our lives.

    No - it's secularism. Having watched the ad I can't conclude how one could justify the logical leap from 'repeal the 8th amendment' to "drive the catholic church into the sea."



    What I can see though, quite plainly, is how someone with a strong religious conservatism would find the ad both offending and even a little threatening. It is needlessly melodramatic. But it rightly videotapes the crumbling religious infrastructure around the country, which is a geographical reflection of the times.

    What the group clearly wants is more secularism in the legal system, particularly as it pertains to such an important issue. There goal is not to disassemble Easter or Christmas.


  • Options
    #1989
    The Randy Riverbeast
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,770 ✭✭✭The Randy Riverbeast


    cattolico wrote: »
    Has anyone seem the amnesty international video? There was a time I used to respect amnesty. Now its pushing the killing of children I have lost all respect for them.
    Kiwi in IE wrote: »
    It's that awkward moment when you realise your values are in conflict with a leading organisation for the protection of human rights!

    I do love the "I'm all for the whole human rights organization until they told me I'm wrong"
    cattolico wrote: »
    A new advert starring Liam Neeson suggests what the group really wants is to drive the last remnants of religious influence from Irish public life.. Us very nasty Christians who are letting hundreds of women die in Ireland because there isn't on demand abortion (of course its not true) Nobody is dying in Ireland because we don't have on demand abortion.

    Amnesty has shown its true colours, Its not a secular agenda, is an Anti-Christian Agenda. To drive out the church from our families and our lives.

    If a human rights organisation appears to be anti some religion then maybe you need to ask a few questions about that religion.

    Here's them being anti Islam
    https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2015/06/saudi-arabia-every-lash-of-raif-badawi-defies-international-law/


  • Options
    #1990
    frag420
    Registered Users Posts: 6,158 ✭✭✭frag420


    cattolico wrote: »
    I did. So?

    If you did you would realise that all your questions have been asked and answers several times. Also on several occasions you in your many guises have bounced around the questions asked of you?

    Why is it so difficult for pro lifers to debate using reason and fact instead of answering questions with questions? I give it two weeks, you will vanish from here and before the end of Nov your replacement will drop by with all the same old rhetoric and repeated nonsense without any base for either!!


  • Options
    #1991
    frag420
    Registered Users Posts: 6,158 ✭✭✭frag420


    cattolico wrote: »
    As regards Gay marriage (civil marriage) I voted yes because i have a family member.

    So lets assume your 13 yr old sister was viciously raped by a relative. The doctors tells you there is a serious risk to the health of your 13 yr old sister if she continues with the pregnancy as well a serious risk to the life of unborn child, only one will survive the pregnancy but the doctors can't be sure who?

    On top of that by maintaining her pregnancy she will have to drop out of school for the foreseeable future to look after the child thus reducing any reasonable chance of a decent education/life going forward. The stats on young mothers speak for themselves so no need to debate them.

    So my Christian friend, who's life do you save? Would you allow your sister to have an abortion that may save her life at the cost of the foetus? Or would you be happy for her to remain pregnant in the hope that both will survive but also knowing that your sister could die and you are left with a child with no mother or a 13 yr old sister who has lost her first born?

    More to the point what if your sister said she wanted an abortion as she did not want to become a mother so young and also risk dying to save a rapist child?

    And before you answer can I please ask you to actually answer the question above with out asking a question. I know its hypothetical but for once do the rest of us a courtesy and just answer what is being asked!!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1992
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    frag420 wrote: »
    If you did you would realise that all your questions have been asked and answers several times. Also on several occasions you in your many guises have bounced around the questions asked of you?
    Why is it so difficult for pro lifers to debate using reason and fact instead of answering questions with questions? I give it two weeks, you will vanish from here and before the end of Nov your replacement will drop by with all the same old rhetoric and repeated nonsense without any base for either!!
    Let's not imagine it's exclusive to the pro-life side though.
    lazygal wrote: »
    So once again you've no comment on the women who bring unborn children elsewhere to kill them. Am I correct?
    Just one pre-choice poster has put this question forward in various forms dozens of times.... despite frequently receiving more than sensible answers.
    Both sides of the debate have proponents who'd rather rely on aggressive rhetoric than considered discussion to be fair.


  • Options
    #1993
    frag420
    Registered Users Posts: 6,158 ✭✭✭frag420


    Absolam wrote: »
    Let's not imagine it's exclusive to the pro-life side though

    Pro choicers have no issue answering questions here. They are more matter of fact that the anti choice folks.
    Just one pre-choice poster has put this question forward in various forms dozens of times.... despite frequently receiving more than sensible answers.
    Both sides of the debate have proponents who'd rather rely on aggressive rhetoric than considered discussion to be fair.

    Well lets just see how/if Cattolico answers my question above.........


  • Options
    #1994
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    frag420 wrote: »
    Pro choicers have no issue answering questions here. They are more matter of fact that the anti choice folks.
    Would you like to provide a statistical analysis to back that up? Or should we just tack "in my biased opinion" onto the end of your assertion?
    frag420 wrote: »
    Well lets just see how/if Cattolico answers my question above.........
    Because that will make a difference to proponents relying on aggressive rhetoric than considered discussion how exactly?


  • Options
    #1995
    robp
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,934 ✭✭✭robp


    Kev W wrote: »
    Of course not, the mother has ALREADY been born. She doesn't matter any more. What's worse she's a *ugh* woman.
    Well if you are not interested in serious respectful discussion I don't know why you come here.
    The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »
    Pregnancy can be quite rough on the body. Ending a pregnancy early when there is just going to be a stillborn or death in a few hours would reduce the stress on the body during pregnancy.
    There is no health based reasons for killing off such a child. Life is worth more than stress on the body.
    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    It does of course, or does the mental anguish of being forced to give birth and then watching your baby die not count in your world?
    A assertion timber, you provide no evidence such exists. The anguish that abortion sometimes can causes is the only real concern for health here.


  • Options
    #1996
    robp
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,934 ✭✭✭robp


    frag420 wrote: »
    Pro choicers have no issue answering questions here. They are more matter of fact that the anti choice folks.

    I don't see that much her.e Mainly what I observe is constant reference to the tiny fraction of hard cases PP deal with and utter silence on the 99% of abortions that social.


  • Options
    #1997
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users Posts: 11,929 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    robp wrote: »
    I don't see that much her.e Mainly what I observe is constant reference to the tiny fraction of hard cases PP deal with and utter silence on the 99% of abortions that social.

    You just have no trust in women, do you?

    Any proof for that "99% of abortions are social" claim?


  • Options
    #1998
    robp
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,934 ✭✭✭robp


    Overheal wrote: »
    What I can see though, quite plainly, is how someone with a strong religious conservatism would find the ad both offending and even a little threatening. It is needlessly melodramatic. But it rightly videotapes the crumbling religious infrastructure around the country, which is a geographical reflection of the times.
    Except it doesn't. It depicts a church that has been abandoned for at least 40 years. It says more about rural depopulation in the 1940-1970s than the "times". Anyway the message in the video about Christianity being dead is pretty simple. It needs no elaboration.


  • Options
    #1999
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,779 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    robp wrote: »
    There is no health based reasons for killing off such a child. Life is worth more than stress on the body.
    There is no medical reason to continue a pregnancy given the child will die within minutes / hours of delivery.

    Why force women to endure such a scenario if they don't feel mentally strong enough for it?
    A assertion timber, you provide no evidence such exists. The anguish that abortion sometimes can causes is the only real concern for health here.

    Which is in the minority of cases where women have abortion. And studies have shown that social attitudes such as calling women 'baby/child killers' is a factor regarding the anguish you refer to.

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



  • Options
    #2000
    robp
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,934 ✭✭✭robp


    PopePalpatine wrote: »
    You just have no trust in women, do you?

    Any proof for that "99% of abortions are social" claim?

    Its pretty hard to get exact numbers as pro aborts obfuscate any attempt to collect data on the topic. Though there is enough data to know that in the US 99% is a safe figure.

    Its interesting that you raise the topic of trusting women.You accuse me of not trusting women but most pro choice people insist that if abortion was illegal women would resort to backstreet surgical abortions. Why can't they trust woman not to to this?


  • Options
    #2001
    robp
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,934 ✭✭✭robp


    Delirium wrote: »
    There is no medical reason to continue a pregnancy given the child will die within minutes / hours of delivery.
    Your cynical use of the word medical is not helping. There is no medical reason to keep any child but its still the right thing to do.
    Delirium wrote: »
    Why force women to endure such a scenario if they don't feel mentally strong enough for it?
    Women who have not been pushed or bullied into that point of view tend not to feel like that.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2002
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users Posts: 11,929 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    Rob, here's two questions for you:
    1: Would you force underage rape victims to stay pregnant, regardless of the risk to their health (mental/physical)?
    2: If your unfortunate wife ran a high risk of being left debilitated by a pregnancy, would you let her have an abortion?

    I still haven't seen this data alleging 99% of abortions are for "social" reasons.


  • Options
    #2003
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,779 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    robp wrote: »
    Your cynical use of the word medical is not helping. There is no medical reason to keep any child but its still the right thing to do.
    Explain the medical justification for requiring women to carry such pregnancies to term then. Minus the attitude if you'd be so kind.
    Women who have not been pushed or bullied into that point of view tend not to feel like that.

    So you agree that calling women 'child killers' does contribute to said anguish?

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



  • Options
    #2004
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users Posts: 11,929 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    [quote="robp;97487642"Women who have not been pushed or bullied into that point of view tend not to feel like that.[/quote]

    Yes, because the "pro-life" side would NEVER do that...*cough*laundries*cough*


  • Options
    #2005
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,779 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    robp wrote: »
    Its interesting that you raise the topic of trusting women.You accuse me of not trusting women but most pro choice people insist that if abortion was illegal women would resort to backstreet surgical abortions. Why can't they trust woman not to to this?
    So you trust Irish women not to travel abroad for abortions?

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



  • Options
    #2006
    robp
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,934 ✭✭✭robp


    PopePalpatine wrote: »
    Rob, here's two questions for you:
    1: Would you force underage rape victims to stay pregnant, regardless of the risk to their health (mental/physical)?
    2: If your unfortunate wife ran a high risk of being left debilitated by a pregnancy, would you let her have an abortion?

    I still haven't seen this data alleging 99% of abortions are for "social" reasons.

    Here is a question for you? Why can't you discuss abortion in how it occurs in the vast majority of cases? Why the cherry picking?


  • Options
    #2007
    robp
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,934 ✭✭✭robp


    Delirium wrote: »
    Explain the medical justification for requiring women to carry such pregnancies to term then. Minus the attitude if you'd be so kind.
    Explain a medical justification for a mother to keep a healthy kid? See you are sticking a nice sounding word in a completely irrelevant context. In most pregnancies the mother will be healthy either way. So there is no medical reason keeping a health kid but hey writing medical sounds compelling so who cares. That is why it is cynical to misuse the word here.


  • Options
    #2008
    Kiwi in IE
    Registered Users Posts: 3,063 ✭✭✭Kiwi in IE


    Interesting that when anti choicers are presented with hypothetical questions regarding the members of their own family in situations of pregnancy that involve rape/long term health of woman/ffa they either answer with an unrelated question ^, or they disappear for a bit without answering at all.


  • Options
    #2009
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,779 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    robp wrote: »
    Explain a medical justification for a mother to keep a healthy kid? See you are sticking a nice sounding word in a completely irrelevant context.

    On what planet is a child that will die within hours of delivery defined as 'healthy'?

    So care to answer the actual question asked or do we dance a little longer?

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



  • Options
    #2010
    robp
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,934 ✭✭✭robp


    Kiwi in IE wrote: »
    Interesting that when anti choicers are presented with hypothetical questions regarding the members of their own family in situations of pregnancy that involve rape/long term health of woman/ffa they either answer with an unrelated question ^, or they disappear for a bit without answering at all.
    people see through the cherry picking.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2011
    robp
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,934 ✭✭✭robp


    Delirium wrote: »
    On what planet is a child that will die within hours of delivery defined as 'healthy'?

    So care to answer the actual question asked or do we dance a little longer?

    No no. I referred to a average completely normal health child. In most there is no medical reason to not abort that child because the mother is statistically most likely to survive eitherway (apart from the mental trauma the abortion risks and risk of subsequent miscarriage). The reason to keep a terminal child is for the sake of the child. So as to cherish what time is available.


Advertisement