How do Pro Life campaigners want women who have abortions punished?

PucaMama

Decent Skin wrote: »

PucaMama wrote: »

There's nothing wrong with not wanting a referendum where people will be bullied into voting how others want them to.

Sorry but that's nuts! Someone blocking a referendum is FAR worse a bully than someone campaigning during it, however misbehaved either side might be during it.

No, no referendum should be held that are being controlled by one section of society.

animaal

Grayson wrote: »

That bit I bolded..... That's not the case. You won't find a single pro choice organisation in Ireland that says that and 99.99999% of the pro choice people would disagree too.

My quote was "My body, my choice, right up to birth. All who disagree are right-wing nutters, brainwashed by the church"

I'd like to think you're right, and I'd like to think that that both extremes are uncommon. However, I never remember hearing "my body, my choice" being followed with a qualifier.

Decent Skin

PucaMama wrote: »

No, no referendum should be held that are being controlled by one section of society.

Would you be saying that if you won ?

I suspect you'd be commending them for having it and allowing you to have your say and putting the issue to bed.

PucaMama

Decent Skin wrote: »

PucaMama wrote: »

No, no referendum should be held that are being controlled by one section of society.

Would you be saying that if you won ?

I suspect you'd be commending them for having it and allowing you to have your say and putting the issue to bed.

No, I'll accept the result of any referendum that's held and whatever result is reached because that's how democracy works and i want to live in a democracy. I'd be happy I got my say anyway. However, if it was held next week, it would be pretty obviously controlled by certain people. And I would be slightly less trusting of the result.

The Specialist

Like most personal choices, this is one I really wish the self righteous moral guardians would stay the **** out of (and I'm not even female). These short sighted bleeding heart pricks are sickening to listen to - murder of the unborn they wail, little realising that in their logically-retarded understanding of the issue, masturbation would equal genocide. A fetus is not a human being, no matter how much you try to spin it. It is a collection of cells, full stop. You can't attach human value to it until it's viable, and until it's viable it's just a collection of cells.

Little CuChulainn

Decent Skin wrote: »

Yup. So they can choose not to choose abortion. It's not like the repeal affects them in any way whatsoever.

How many people who'll never avail of gay marriage voted in favour of it last year ? How many of those would view it as "a bit weird" but decided "ah feck it, who am I to prevent someone doing it - it's not like it'll affect me" ?

It's not as simple to say don't have an abortion because you are asking someone to ignore what they believe is the intentional killing of a young life. The only way there will be any kind of consensus is to debate when the right of life should attach to the fetus. Any other argument is simply going to ignore the fundamental belief of a pro life voter and will be ineffective in changing anything.

Decent Skin

PucaMama wrote: »

No, I'll accept the result of any referendum that's held and whatever result is reached because that's how democracy works and i want to live in a democracy. I'd be happy I got my say anyway. However, if it was held next week, it would be pretty obviously controlled by certain people. And I would be slightly less trusting of the result.

That's very easy say if you've had a veto on which ones are held!

AbusesToilets

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

It's not as simple to say don't have an abortion because you are asking someone to ignore what they believe is the intentional killing of a young life. The only way there will be any kind of consensus is to debate when the right of life should attach to the fetus. Any other argument is simply going to ignore the fundamental belief of a pro life voter and will be ineffective in changing anything.

Fetal viability separate from the mother seems like a reasonable place to do so. Even that would likely require intensive care for an extended duration.

A pro-life supporter sees no area for reasonable debate. Life is sacrosanct to them, end of.

PucaMama

The Specialist wrote: »

Like most personal choices, this is one I really wish the self righteous moral guardians would stay the **** out of (and I'm not even female). These short sighted bleeding heart pricks are sickening to listen to - murder of the unborn they wail, little realising that in their logically-retarded understanding of the issue, masturbation would equal genocide. A fetus is not a human being, no matter how much you try to spin it. It is a collection of cells, full stop. You can't attach human value to it until it's viable, and until it's viable it's just a collection of cells.

A fetus is just an unborn human, it is of course human, when a woman gets pregnant there's more than herself to think about then. And if you think people should butt out because it's nothing to do with them that includes you because as you say ur not a woman u won't get pregnant. Or are only pro life men to **** off?

PucaMama

Decent Skin wrote: »

PucaMama wrote: »

No, I'll accept the result of any referendum that's held and whatever result is reached because that's how democracy works and i want to live in a democracy. I'd be happy I got my say anyway. However, if it was held next week, it would be pretty obviously controlled by certain people. And I would be slightly less trusting of the result.

That's very easy say if you've had a veto on which ones are held!

Only the government can stop a referendum??? Wouldn't matter what I think we will have one when they allow it. Or have I magically vetoed something without knowing??

Widdershins

PucaMama wrote: »

Only the government can stop a referendum??? Wouldn't matter what I think we will have one when they allow it. Or have I magically vetoed something without knowing??

Why does it matter to you if a woman has an abortion in Ireland instead of going to England for it?

Decent Skin

PucaMama wrote: »

Only the government can stop a referendum??? Wouldn't matter what I think we will have one when they allow it. Or have I magically vetoed something without knowing??

You said you don't want one. So you'll obviously vote for a government which won't have one (or more specifically vote against someone who said they'd have one) thereby contributing to the veto.

The Specialist

PucaMama wrote: »

A fetus is just an unborn human, it is of course human, when a woman gets pregnant there's more than herself to think about then. And if you think people should butt out because it's nothing to do with them that includes you because as you say ur not a woman u won't get pregnant. Or are only pro life men to **** off?

It's not a human, with that logic a volume of sperm is a country. Not human until it is formed and viable. And when I say people should butt out, I mean all those goody two shoes who know what's best for everyone else. Self appointed moral guardians, self absorbed unsufferable arseholes.

PucaMama

Decent Skin wrote: »

PucaMama wrote: »

Only the government can stop a referendum??? Wouldn't matter what I think we will have one when they allow it. Or have I magically vetoed something without knowing??

You said you don't want one. So you'll obviously vote for a government which won't have one (or more specifically vote against someone who said they'd have one) thereby contributing to the veto.

I have voted for people who would in reality allow the referendum because they would generally do more good than bad. It's not the single deciding factor in who I would vote for.

PucaMama

Widdershins wrote: »

PucaMama wrote: »

Only the government can stop a referendum??? Wouldn't matter what I think we will have one when they allow it. Or have I magically vetoed something without knowing??

Why does it matter to you if a woman has an abortion in Ireland instead of going to England for it?

The reasons behind it are what matters not the where. Aborting a child for having a disability is wrong in my opinion for example.

AbusesToilets

PucaMama wrote: »

The reasons behind it are what matters not the where. Aborting a child for having a disability is wrong in my opinion for example.

Why is it wrong? Do you feel a life of difficulty and suffering for all involved is morally superior?

AbusesToilets

Is said fetus viable independent of its mother?

eviltwin

PucaMama wrote: »

The reasons behind it are what matters not the where. Aborting a child for having a disability is wrong in my opinion for example.

Wrong for you maybe but if it's the right thing for someone else who is anyone to tell them they are wrong?

Decent Skin

PucaMama wrote: »

I have voted for people who would in reality allow the referendum because they would generally do more good than bad. It's not the single deciding factor in who I would vote for.

Good. And apologies for misjudging you based on only your previous posts.

When are they allowing it so that we can put this to bed once and for all ?

PucaMama

eviltwin wrote: »

PucaMama wrote: »

The reasons behind it are what matters not the where. Aborting a child for having a disability is wrong in my opinion for example.

Wrong for you maybe but if it's the right thing for someone else who is anyone to tell them they are wrong?

Because having a disability shouldn't stop you having a life at all

PucaMama

Decent Skin wrote: »

PucaMama wrote: »

I have voted for people who would in reality allow the referendum because they would generally do more good than bad. It's not the single deciding factor in who I would vote for.

Good. And apologies for misjudging you based on only your previous posts.

When are they allowing it so that we can put this to bed once and for all ?

No it's fine you can only judge on what's in front of you.
I don't know when it's allowed but I know I'll be fine once I get a vote cus the current laws are not something women who can currently get pregnant have had a vote on

AbusesToilets

PucaMama wrote: »

Because having a disability shouldn't stop you having a life at all

Why should parents be forced into a life of hardship against their wishes if it is easily avoidable?

PucaMama

AbusesToilets wrote: »

PucaMama wrote: »

Because having a disability shouldn't stop you having a life at all

Why should parents be forced into a life of hardship against their wishes if it is easily avoidable?

Give the child up if you don't want it (could we have a vote to give married couples the right to have a child adopted?) but at least give it a chance, I wasn't supposed to be able to walk and talk I can do both.

Widdershins

PucaMama wrote: »

The reasons behind it are what matters not the where. Aborting a child for having a disability is wrong in my opinion for example.

But you can't stop it happening, all you are achieving is making a lot of people either break themselves to pay for it abroad or attempt it in some unsafe way at home.

AbusesToilets

What scenario are you trying to build? I don't know the hypothetical legal framework surrounding abortion in your scenario.

Either permit the abortion or induce the mother and do what you can with the fetus.

Widdershins

PucaMama wrote: »

Give the child up if you don't want it (could we have a vote to give married couples the right to have a child adopted?) but at least give it a chance, I wasn't supposed to be able to walk and talk I can do both.

Childrens homes for the disabled..hardly ideal

AbusesToilets

PucaMama wrote: »

Give the child up if you don't want it (could we have a vote to give married couples the right to have a child adopted?) but at least give it a chance, I wasn't supposed to be able to walk and talk I can do both.

There is a world of difference between what you describe and conditions like Downs or other serious congenital defects.

The Specialist

AbusesToilets wrote: »

What scenario are you trying to build? I don't know the hypothetical legal framework surrounding abortion in your scenario.

Either permit the abortion or induce the mother and do what you can with the fetus.

He's trying to use emotional scenarios and language to evoke a response from you, it's what the pro life side do best.

Decent Skin

PucaMama wrote: »

Give the child up if you don't want it (could we have a vote to give married couples the right to have a child adopted?) but at least give it a chance, I wasn't supposed to be able to walk and talk I can do both.

I'd be right there campaigning with you for that one - it was news to me and I think it's a disgrace!

PucaMama

Widdershins wrote: »

PucaMama wrote: »

The reasons behind it are what matters not the where. Aborting a child for having a disability is wrong in my opinion for example.

But you can't stop it happening, all you are achieving is making a lot of people either break themselves to pay for it abroad or attempt it in some unsafe way at home.

I'm not making anyone do anything. And break themselves? I've seen people pay more for dental treatment here.

PucaMama

Decent Skin wrote: »

PucaMama wrote: »

Give the child up if you don't want it (could we have a vote to give married couples the right to have a child adopted?) but at least give it a chance, I wasn't supposed to be able to walk and talk I can do both.

I'd be right there campaigning with you for that one - it was news to me and I think it's a disgrace!

It's idiotic and completely counter productive like the stance some pro life have against contraception

Decent Skin

Blue_Bear wrote: »

Likewise if the child is born and only then discovered to have disabilities why should the parents be forced into a life of hardship against their wishes if it is easily avoidable.

Because at that stage it is a child and has rights, none of which impact on bodily integrity.

thee glitz

Widdershins wrote: »

But you can't stop it happening, all you are achieving is making a lot of people either break themselves to pay for it abroad or attempt it in some unsafe way at home.

No-one is making anyone do either of those things.

Widdershins

PucaMama wrote: »

I'm not making anyone do anything. And break themselves? I've seen people pay more for dental treatment here.

If you've seen people pay more than 1000 for dental treatment then they're not in financial difficulty. You are very fortunate to have so little understanding that you can't understand how a woman could financially break herself in this situation.

Decent Skin

PucaMama wrote: »

It's idiotic and completely counter productive like the stance some pro life have against contraception

See? That's about 3 things we agree completely on! Discussion is good!

AbusesToilets

That's an entirely different situation. The child is a citizen with full rights. As to the parents, they then have responsibilities towards said child.

PucaMama

AbusesToilets wrote: »

PucaMama wrote: »

Give the child up if you don't want it (could we have a vote to give married couples the right to have a child adopted?) but at least give it a chance, I wasn't supposed to be able to walk and talk I can do both.

There is a world of difference between what you describe and conditions like Downs or other serious congenital defects.

I have a condition that usually results in serious consequences and serious disability. How many have been aborted because of the diagnosis that could have been mostly fine like me?

Widdershins

thee glitz wrote: »

No-one is making anyone do either of those things.

If you want to prevent abortion access in Ireland you are doing exactly that

PucaMama

Decent Skin wrote: »

PucaMama wrote: »

It's idiotic and completely counter productive like the stance some pro life have against contraception

See? That's about 3 things we agree completely on! Discussion is good!

Probably agree on others too ha

PucaMama

Widdershins wrote: »

thee glitz wrote: »

No-one is making anyone do either of those things.

If you want to prevent abortion access in Ireland you are doing exactly that

I have never had a vote on abortion in Ireland and recently I found I'm not the most extreme either so I disagree

Decent Skin

I raised this point earlier and got vile dog's abuse. Good to see that not everyone is as bad and acknowledges that it's one of the areas that should be up for discussion as it has its own set of circumstance and is not avoidable (mind you I'd gladly support the death penalty for those who do this).

thee glitz

Widdershins wrote: »

If you want to prevent abortion access in Ireland you are doing exactly that

You're saying abortions are mandatory? They're not, but may be necessary in rare circumstances.

AbusesToilets

The legal framework would hopefully be based on science. Where the line is set for fetal viability is not an answer I have. For me, in a situation like you describe, the woman's right to choose would outweigh that of the fetus.

Why is less of a murder in your eyes if a fetus is the result of a rape? Odd level of moral gymnastics there.

Widdershins

PucaMama wrote: »

I have never had a vote on abortion in Ireland and recently I found I'm not the most extreme either so I disagree

So you're not against abortions happening in Ireland? You might not personally be preventing it but it seems that your wish is for it to continue to be farmed out to England. Is that incorrect?

AbusesToilets

Citizens have rights. A fetus is not a citizen.

PucaMama

I believe if a lot of social problems were sorted a lot less people would be put in a situation where they felt abortion was their only option. Like the judging of adults who give a child up for adoption, they are doing a lot better than people who keep a child and don't care about it.

Widdershins

thee glitz wrote: »

You're saying abortions are mandatory? They're not, but may be necessary in rare circumstances.

How did you deduce that? I said nothing of the sort

AbusesToilets

To my eyes, it marks the point that a fetus can be seen as an independent entity from the mother. At stage that it has a reasonable chance at survival.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

PucaMama wrote: »

Widdershins wrote: »

PucaMama wrote: »

The reasons behind it are what matters not the where. Aborting a child for having a disability is wrong in my opinion for example.

But you can't stop it happening, all you are achieving is making a lot of people either break themselves to pay for it abroad or attempt it in some unsafe way at home.

I'm not making anyone do anything. And break themselves? I've seen people pay more for dental treatment here.

Having the eighth amendment creates the situation where those things happen though. And voting for the eighth amendment to remain is voting for at home and backstreet abortions, it's voting for the couples who choose to have FFA pregnancies aborted to keep having ashes delivered by courier. It's voting for teenagers and asylum seekers to keep making desperate, dangerous decisions. If I vote to maintain a ban on ambulances I don't get off the hook by saying I don't force anyone to break their legs and they should just not do that.

Little CuChulainn

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Fetal viability separate from the mother seems like a reasonable place to do so. Even that would likely require intensive care for an extended duration.

A pro-life supporter sees no area for reasonable debate. Life is sacrosanct to them, end of.

Well no, only ones who believe in life at conception. Pro life voters have different thresholds for when they object to abortion.