The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

mrkiscool2

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That wasn't the original claim at all though. The original claim had nothing to do with adoption, it related to the numbers of children in care if we had or hadn't abortion in Ireland, and I said there was simply no way of knowing whether it would make any difference, but the evidence from other countries suggests that it doesn't.

As for the rest of your post I think you really need to sit down or something. You've already called me a liar and you're still suggesting I'm an "anti-choicer" in spite of all evidence to the contrary.

Sure this thread is going nowhere at this stage, I should have known better than to have bothered getting involved again. I'll leave yiz to it.

The evidence from America, states where abortion laws were relaxed or removed entirely, in the study above, clearly states that there are less children in care. And I think I have every right to call someone out when they are lying and then refuse to admit they are wrong. Sure, liar seems harsh, but I gave you evidence contradicting what you said and you claimed that "I was confirming my own bias" and "It didn't relate to anything you were saying." So yes, that is intellectual dishonesty and lying.

January

Da Boss wrote: »

A lot of people here seem to be of the opinion that abortion is a “right”. It’s not! Nobody has the right to end the life of another

It's not a right but it should be a choice. What about the life of the mother, or her already born children?

spookwoman

Da Boss wrote: »

A lot of people here seem to be of the opinion that abortion is a “right”. It’s not! Nobody has the right to end the life of another

There goes bacon sambos, Sunday roasts, anti bacterial washes etc.....

end of the road

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Oh my glob, it absolutely does! If there are less children up for adoption, it makes sense that there would be less children in care!

no, it doesn't always work out like that. children can be adopted inter-family, less children could be put up for adoption in the first place. however, many children can end up in the care system for many reasons either temporarily or permanent, and not be availible for adoption.

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

If your bias can't make you see that simple logic, then there is absolutely no hope for you.

You've been proven wrong, GTF over it.

he has not been proven wrong actually.

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

By the way, I searched "Does abortion affect the number of children in foster care?" and that was the first non-ad result to come up. So get out of here trying to say I am not doing due diligence. Such intellectual dishonesty and poisoning the well, typical of anti-choicers.

you posted a studdy that did not back up your claim. you got caught out. no amount of calling people names and throwing the toys out of the pram will change that fact.

Martina1991 wrote: »

Are you of the opinion that the state should tell a women what to do with her body.

the state isn't able to tell a woman what she should do with her body and nor should it be able to. however, it has the right to tell a woman that she cannot kill her baby and that is absolutely right.

Martina1991 wrote: »

Nobody has the right to tell someone else what to do in their life.

for the most part, absolutely. however when someone is going to infringe on the right for a being to live, then the state has a right to interfere and not allow the taking of that life.

end of the road

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

unfortunately there is always going to have to be some trade off in relation to some rights, and the right to life for the unborn verses the right to kill the unborn means the right to life of the unborn has to come first, as difficult for some as that may be.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

but sure it is their own fault for getting pregnant and being poor in the first place. Or so the thinking seems to be.

no, it's not the thinking for most pro-life.
as i'm sure you know it takes 2 to make a baby, therefore both are responsible for it's creation.

kylith wrote: »

Or to put themselves into debt travelling to the UK.

that's no different to anyone getting into debt for something that is unnecessary. as unfortunate as debt is, they are getting into it for what is an unnecessary medical procedure which they do not have a right to have caried out.

spookwoman wrote: »

Also you hear about the horror stories of children in the irish care system. I wonder how many would be there if women could have had easy access to abortions.

abortion is not the solution to the problems of the care system. improving the care system is the solution to the problems of the care system. the idea that because a child service has a problem therefore we should allow the killing of the unborn just does not work.

January wrote: »

It's not a right but it should be a choice. What about the life of the mother, or her already born children?

there are systems in place to help. a baby who is killed cannot be brought back to life

SusieBlue

Da Boss wrote: »

A lot of people here seem to be of the opinion that abortion is a “right”. It’s not! Nobody has the right to end the life of another

You have no right to dictate what I do with my womb.
My body, my life, my choice. It may not be legal here (yet) but it wouldn’t stop me doing what I want with MY body if I deemed it to be necessary.

spookwoman

end of the road wrote: »

unfortunately there is always going to have to be some trade off in relation to some rights, and the right to life for the unborn verses the right to kill the unborn means the right to life of the unborn has to come first, as difficult for some as that may be.

Not when its not wanted, especially if it was conceived through rape incest. I don't know about you but to have a child that is not wanted, loved, born into poverty is worse.

end of the road wrote: »

no, it's not the thinking for most pro-life.
as i'm sure you know it takes 2 to make a baby, therefore both are responsible for it's creation.

I agree but also if you don't want a child its responsible to end it. You cannot expect others to pay for your mistakes especially if it's going to be dumped on other people to mind, not cared about, expecting the state to subsidize you and then complain about it not being enough. Also if you cannot afford to house, feed and clothe a child then you're being responsible if you end it

end of the road wrote: »

that's no different to anyone getting into debt for something that is unnecessary. as unfortunate as debt is, they are getting into it for what is an unnecessary medical procedure which they do not have a right to have caried out.

Necessary if it could be detrimental to your health / mental health. Again is it not worse to have a child that is not wanted, cannot afford to feed and clothe it.

end of the road wrote: »

abortion is not the solution to the problems of the care system. improving the care system is the solution to the problems of the care system. the idea that because a child service has a problem therefore we should allow the killing of the unborn just does not work.

No its not I never said it was but the simple truth is the state does not have the resources. Again is being a responsible person to not put further pressure on a broken system.

end of the road wrote: »

there are systems in place to help. a baby who is killed cannot be brought back to life

The systems in place are broken and there are not enough resources to fix it. even if there was it would take years to sort out.

January

end of the road wrote: »

there are systems in place to help. a baby who is killed cannot be brought back to life

There aren't. An extra 30 euro per week social welfare and 140 per month child benefit isn't enough to raise another child.

Zerbini Blewitt

This is prompted from something on the politics forum thread (but isn’t appropriate to there)

I was just thinking today about one formerly powerful section of the community who might find it hard nowadays to make their voice heard in this national debate.

This would be the segment of people who think that women should be shamed and/or outcast and/or punished for engaging in recreational sex – i.e. the punishment being: to endure a pregnancy against her will.

A fine upstanding stance, no?

This cohort of ‘simple’, plain ‘decent’ people is not very audible at the moment. Why is that? For full disclosure - some of my close family members would be in this group, so I’m just thinking out loud!

Anyway regrettably, these people seem to either half-heartedly argue some other tangential point or stay silent in this debate!!

Could they be muted & cursed by the existence of a better educated electorate or maybe the age of enlightenment being hundreds of years ago!

I just don’t know the reason for the silence when they were a deafening cacophony in decades past?

If this is you, I for one want to hear your voice in this debate. Please Sir/Madam come thee out from the shadows, present yourself and tell us proudly - why punishing women for sex is still the right way to go about things.

Loafing Oaf

drkpower wrote: »

Has anyone got any insight as to why the majority of the articulate pro-life side are staying remarkably quiet at the moment. The likes of maria steen, david quinn, william binchy, the one from spirit radio, even cora sherlock etc. Have barely heard a word for them while the referendum and the surrounding talking points are being framed.

My instinct is/was that they are holding fire until the Gov confirms that it will be a straight repeal accompanied temporally with a bill allowing for unrestricted access to 12 weeks, at which point they will come out all guns blazing. But by staying relatively silent for now, they are in danger of allowing a narrative to develop amongst the middle ground that unrestricted aceess up to 12 weeks is a form of 'nothing to see here'. If that gains a foothold, it may be very difficult to reverse.

I think they may have been blindsided by the prospect of a referendum asking upfront whether 'abortion on demand' should be legalised. I reckon they had stockpiled the old arguments about how it's impossible to legislate for limited abortion and the government is looking to introduce unrestricted access through the back door, but it seems these will be beside the point. If the referendum is along the lines proposed by the committee, there won't actually be that much debating to be done. The people either agree with unrestricted abortion or not...

end of the road

spookwoman wrote: »

Not when its not wanted, especially if it was conceived through rape incest. I don't know about you but to have a child that is not wanted, loved, born into poverty is worse.

killing it is worse, as a child born into bad circumstances can be removed from those circumstances, if the parents are unable to bring the child up.

spookwoman wrote: »

I agree but also if you don't want a child its responsible to end it. You cannot expect others to pay for your mistakes especially if it's going to be dumped on other people to mind, not cared about, expecting the state to subsidize you and then complain about it not being enough. Also if you cannot afford to house, feed and clothe a child then you're being responsible if you end it

it is not responsible to kill it.

spookwoman wrote: »

Necessary if it could be detrimental to your health / mental health. Again is it not worse to have a child that is not wanted, cannot afford to feed and clothe it.

in the case of mental health we have systems in place, they need improving massively but they exist and are rife to be improved. in the case where a baby is a threat to the mother's life then there already is a facility to have an abortion.

spookwoman wrote: »

No its not I never said it was but the simple truth is the state does not have the resources. Again is being a responsible person to not put further pressure on a broken system.

agreed, however not by killing the unborn.

spookwoman wrote: »

The systems in place are broken and there are not enough resources to fix it. even if there was it would take years to sort out.

agreed but it's not a reason for abortion on demand, which would not solve those issues.

sondagefaux

end of the road wrote: »

spookwoman wrote: »

Not when its not wanted, especially if it was conceived through rape incest. I don't know about you but to have a child that is not wanted, loved, born into poverty is worse.

killing it is worse, as a child born into bad circumstances can be removed from those circumstances, if the parents are unable to bring the child up.

spookwoman wrote: »

I agree but also if you don't want a child its responsible to end it. You cannot expect others to pay for your mistakes especially if it's going to be dumped on other people to mind, not cared about, expecting the state to subsidize you and then complain about it not being enough. Also if you cannot afford to house, feed and clothe a child then you're being responsible if you end it

it is not responsible to kill it.

spookwoman wrote: »

Necessary if it could be detrimental to your health / mental health. Again is it not worse to have a child that is not wanted, cannot afford to feed and clothe it.

in the case of mental health we have systems in place, they need improving massively but they exist and are rife to be improved. in the case where a baby is a threat to the mother's life then there already is a facility to have an abortion.

spookwoman wrote: »

No its not I never said it was but the simple truth is the state does not have the resources. Again is being a responsible person to not put further pressure on a broken system.

agreed, however not by killing the unborn.

spookwoman wrote: »

The systems in place are broken and there are not enough resources to fix it. even if there was it would take years to sort out.

agreed but it's not a reason for abortion on demand, which would not solve those issues.

Do you support a ban on pregnant women travelling outside the state to obtain abortions?

If not, why not? It would be extremely weird if you genuinely thought that abortion was child murder but didn't support a travel ban.

spookwoman

end of the road wrote: »

killing it is worse, as a child born into bad circumstances can be removed from those circumstances, if the parents are unable to bring the child up.

So its ok to just move it from one bad situation to another. That's going to help the child a lot, there are children being abused in care and nothing is being done about it!

end of the road wrote: »

in the case of mental health we have systems in place, they need improving massively but they exist and are rife to be improved. in the case where a baby is a threat to the mother's life then there already is a facility to have an abortion.

Local hospital here hasn't enough beds in psychiatric wing for people to stay over night if they are having problems. Do you think it is acceptable to lock up a person for feeling suicidal because they don't want to be pregnant?

end of the road wrote: »

agreed but it's not a reason for abortion on demand, which would not solve those issues.

It wont solve the issues but it will take pressure off it and there would no chance of it being abused or neglected.

end of the road

WhiteRoses wrote: »

You have no right to dictate what I do with my womb.
My body, my life, my choice. It may not be legal here (yet) but it wouldn’t stop me doing what I want with MY body if I deemed it to be necessary.

again nobody is disagreeing with this. it is not being disputed.
however, the state does have a right to tell us that we cannot take a life. that goes for both men and women.

sondagefaux wrote: »

Do you support a ban on pregnant women travelling outside the state to obtain abortions?

If not, why not? It would be extremely weird if you genuinely thought that abortion was child murder but didn't support a travel ban.

i don't support such a bann as i believe it isn't practical to enforce it, and people who aren't going abroad to procure an abortion would be effected.

spookwoman wrote: »

So its ok to just move it from one bad situation to another. That's going to help the child a lot, there are children being abused in care and nothing is being done about it!

of course it's not okay to move a child from 1 bad situation to another. and the refusal to deal with abuse in the care system is wrong and has no justification. however if we are going to simply allow the unborn to be killed rather then solving the problems then we have lost the fight and may as well give up tryinjg to improve any of the systems in relation to children, we can simply say "get rid of it" instead.
i'm sorry but that doesn't work.

spookwoman wrote: »

Local hospital here hasn't enough beds in psychiatric wing for people to stay over night if they are having problems. Do you think it is acceptable to lock up a person for feeling suicidal because they don't want to be pregnant?

people should not be sectioned under the mental health act unless it is absolutely necessary for their safety. lack of beds can be solved with funding, simply saying "we can kill the unborn instead" just doesn't cut it.

spookwoman wrote: »

It wont solve the issues but it will take pressure off it and there would no chance of it being abused or neglected.

or we can insure the system works so that a child isn't neglected.

mrkiscool2

I just absolutely love the "but what happens to the child when it gets born?" answers here. "Ah, the system is fecked, but like, it will magically get better without abortion. Trust us, we can fix it, even if I am offering absolutely no solutions myself on how to fix it."

sondagefaux

end of the road wrote: »

WhiteRoses wrote: »

You have no right to dictate what I do with my womb.
My body, my life, my choice. It may not be legal here (yet) but it wouldn’t stop me doing what I want with MY body if I deemed it to be necessary.

again nobody is disagreeing with this. it is not being disputed.
however, the state does have a right to tell us that we cannot take a life. that goes for both men and women.

sondagefaux wrote: »

Do you support a ban on pregnant women travelling outside the state to obtain abortions?

If not, why not? It would be extremely weird if you genuinely thought that abortion was child murder but didn't support a travel ban.

i don't support such a bann as i believe it isn't practical to enforce it, and people who aren't going abroad to procure an abortion would be effected.

Of course it would be practical to check every woman leaving the state to see if they were pregnant. Pregnant women would be banned from leaving the state. You can campaign to amend the Constitution to permit this if you're genuinely bothered.

If you characterise 'the unborn' as 'babies', regard abortion as killing babies but don't mind if women travel abroad to 'kill babies', that makes you weird.

Or else you don't mind 'babies' being killed as long as it's done outside the state. Which is also weird.

I get the feeling that you aren't really against abortion at all, just against abortions being carried out in Ireland. Very weird.

Outlaw Pete

Zerbini Blewitt wrote: »

.... tell us proudly - why punishing women for sex is still the right way to go about things.

Tell us proudly why punishing a human baby as it's developing in the womb is still the right way to go about things!

A developing baby who is a human being and through no fault of it's own is now at the mercy of another being who want's the right to be able to take thier life should they feel to not do so would inconvenience them.

And don't come back with talk off ffa and rape. Enough with using the rare reasoning for why women choose to have an abortion as if it's one of the main reasons. Most of those against abortion demand, to the degree that it is in the UK, would have no issue with abortions being carried out here for reasons of ffa. Indeed many already are and I hear no complaint about it.

So, tell us, PROUDLY, why stilling the hearbeats of babies as they develop in the womb is still the right way to go about things, even when the mother's health and developing baby's health are not in any danger.

SusieBlue

end of the road wrote: »

again nobody is disagreeing with this. it is not being disputed.
however, the state does have a right to tell us that we cannot take a life. that goes for both men and women

Another contraction from yourself, how surprising.

How can you not see that forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy she does not want is denying her a right to bodily autonomy?

You just said in the same post that my right to control my womb is not being disputed, except for when I want to have an abortion. You aren’t half a hypocrite.

ohnonotgmail

sondagefaux wrote: »

Of course it would be practical to check every woman leaving the state to see if they were pregnant. Pregnant women would be banned from leaving the state. You can campaign to amend the Constitution to permit this if you're genuinely bothered.

If you characterise 'the unborn' as 'babies', regard abortion as killing babies but don't mind if women travel abroad to 'kill babies', that makes you weird.

Or else you don't mind 'babies' being killed as long as it's done outside the state. Which is also weird.

I get the feeling that you aren't really against abortion at all, just against abortions being carried out in . Very weird.

that was established a long time ago. they even admitted as much.

mrkiscool2

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Tell us proudly why punishing a human baby as it's developing in the womb is still the right way to go about things!

A developing baby who is a human being and through no fault of it's own is now at the mercy of another being who want's the right to be able to take thier life should they feel to not do so would inconvenience them.

And don't come back with talk off ffa and rape. Enough with using the rare reasoning for why women choose to have an abortion as if it's one of the main reasons. Most of those against abortion demand, to the degree that it is in the UK, would have no issue with abortions being carried out here for reasons of ffa. Indeed many already are and I hear no complaint about it.

So, tell us, PROUDLY, why stilling the hearbeats of babies as they develop in the womb is still the right way to go about things, even when the mother's health and developing baby's health are not in any danger.

So, one of the requirements for life is homeostasis. One of the parts of homeostasis is the carbon dioxide levels in the blood. You don't breath in due to lack of oxygen, you breath out due to excess carbon dioxide in the blood. Now, we do call this the respiratory system but it falls under homeostasis.

A fetus, up until 17 weeks, does not have fully developed lungs. Therefore it cannot carry out one of the most important aspects of homeostasis therefore it cannot be classified as life. So a. calling it a baby isn't true, as it isn't a life. In fact, a baby is classified as from birth to 12 months, learn you words and b. as it's not life, it isn't killing. Hence, the referendum as it stands would not be killing, under any category of life.

splinter65

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

So, one of the requirements for life is homeostasis. One of the parts of homeostasis is the carbon dioxide levels in the blood. You don't breath in due to lack of oxygen, you breath out due to excess carbon dioxide in the blood. Now, we do call this the respiratory system but it falls under homeostasis.

A fetus, up until 17 weeks, does not have fully developed lungs. Therefore it cannot carry out one of the most important aspects of homeostasis therefore it cannot be classified as life. So a. calling it a baby isn't true, as it isn't a life. In fact, a baby is classified as from birth to 12 months, learn you words and b. as it's not life, it isn't killing. Hence, the referendum as it stands would not be killing, under any category of life.

If an unborn fetus is not a life at 40+ gestation then why not legalise abortions right up to term?
It’s the same thing at 40+ weeks as 12 weeks then why are we even talking about 12 weeks?
There’s far too much pussy footing going on about this.
If it’s my womb my body my choice at 12 weeks then it’s still my body my womb my choice at 40 weeks.
Any other suggestion is ridiculous, absolute nonsense .
Just get on with it.
Give women their rights. Abortions available no questions asked right up to term.

Consonata

splinter65 wrote: »

If an unborn fetus is not a life at 40+ gestation then why not legalise abortions right up to term?
It’s the same thing at 40+ weeks as 12 weeks then why are we even talking about 12 weeks?
There’s far too much pussy footing going on about this.
If it’s my womb my body my choice at 12 weeks then it’s still my body my womb my choice at 40 weeks.
Any other suggestion is ridiculous, absolute nonsense .
Just get on with it.
Give women their rights. Abortions available no questions asked right up to term.

I have a feeling you know your argument is a bit disingenuous. Obviously there is a stage where the baby is viable outside of the womb where it can then obviously be put up for adoption or what have you. It isn't abortion a jumble of cells, it is aborting a baby. The 12 week limit allows for 90% of abortions that do happen to happen. It is adequate.

Zerbini Blewitt

I don’t believe you are the segment of voters I was posing my question to (although I can’t be sure).

But putting this aside; I’m despondent to see that you still are pretending that a foetus (without even a foundation of a nervous system) is a baby.

This has been thrashed out exhaustively by many here, not least nozz. But if you are still trying to mis-use words in order to smuggle in emotive energy into this debate (& yes, I know you’re focussed mainly on weeks 13-24 in the main), then there isn’t much hope for a rational exchange of ideas.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

So, tell us, PROUDLY, why stilling the hearbeats of babies as they develop in the womb is still the right way to go about things, even when the mother's health and developing baby's health are not in any danger.

They are not babies until they are born. We are talking about foetus’s (for the 14 millionth time).

They are totally dependent and subservient to the host i.e. the woman.

There is not a baby to consider. There is a woman and a developing embryo/foetus.

pitifulgod

splinter65 wrote: »

If an unborn fetus is not a life at 40+ gestation then why not legalise abortions right up to term?
It’s the same thing at 40+ weeks as 12 weeks then why are we even talking about 12 weeks?
There’s far too much pussy footing going on about this.
If it’s my womb my body my choice at 12 weeks then it’s still my body my womb my choice at 40 weeks.
Any other suggestion is ridiculous, absolute nonsense .
Just get on with it.
Give women their rights. Abortions available no questions asked right up to term.

It's possible to end a pregnancy and for the child to survive at 40+ weeks. So it's literally a matter of delivering at that stage. Not remotely viable at 12. You'll also find the vast majority of abortions that occur around 20 weeks are for 2 reasons, late abortion due to inaccessibility(economic or geographic) and for medical reasons. Most tend to occur at 12 weeks or earlier and I really don't see why it should be anyone's business outside of a woman and her doctors.

splinter65

Consonata wrote: »

I have a feeling you know your argument is a bit disingenuous. Obviously there is a stage where the baby is viable outside of the womb where it can then obviously be put up for adoption or what have you. It isn't abortion a jumble of cells, it is aborting a baby. The 12 week limit allows for 90% of abortions that do happen to happen. It is adequate.

No no no you don’t.
A baby is from birth only.
Are you telling me that it’s only “my body my choice” for 12 weeks?!?
Please please stop , that’s just ridiculous.
If people want abortions because no one has the right to tell a woman what she can do with her own body then why does it suddenly stop being her right at 12 weeks?!?
That is simply outrageous! Patriarchy at its very worst!
I am interested in campaigning for abortion on demand with no time limits. You simply cannot tell an adult woman that she has no control over what she does with her body at any time, for any longer.
If a man was told something similar there would be war.
Anyone interested in joining me should PM me and we will see if we can get a movement started.

mrkiscool2

splinter65 wrote: »

If an unborn fetus is not a life at 40+ gestation then why not legalise abortions right up to term?
It’s the same thing at 40+ weeks as 12 weeks then why are we even talking about 12 weeks?
There’s far too much pussy footing going on about this.
If it’s my womb my body my choice at 12 weeks then it’s still my body my womb my choice at 40 weeks.
Any other suggestion is ridiculous, absolute nonsense .
Just get on with it.
Give women their rights. Abortions available no questions asked right up to term.

"Hmmm, mrkiscool2 just made a good point. How to argue it? I know, let's completely be disingenuous and intellectually dishonest and make him look like an ass!"

No, as I have said, I think abortion should be up to week 16, but week 12 is enough. A fetus is not life until at least week 17 and doesn't have more than a 50% survival rate until week 24. So, yeah, I absolutely think it's not a life until week 17, because science says it isn't. I put much more faith in science than people who think abortion is murder or believe in a mystical being that apparently loves us but allows people to suffer all the time.

spookwoman

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

"Hmmm, mrkiscool2 just made a good point. How to argue it? I know, let's completely be disingenuous and intellectually dishonest and make him look like an ass!"

No, as I have said, I think abortion should be up to week 16, but week 12 is enough. A fetus is not life until at least week 17 and doesn't have more than a 50% survival rate until week 24. So, yeah, I absolutely think it's not a life until week 17, because science says it isn't. I put much more faith in science than people who think abortion is murder or believe in a mystical being that apparently loves us but allows people to suffer all the time.

Would agree with the 16 weeks not everything shows up in tests and access to tests in ireland can be a nightmare

end of the road

sondagefaux wrote: »

Of course it would be practical to check every woman leaving the state to see if they were pregnant. Pregnant women would be banned from leaving the state. You can campaign to amend the Constitution to permit this if you're genuinely bothered.

no, i can't. just because someone is pregnant and is at the airport it doesn't mean they are going abroad to kill their baby. so again, a travel bann just isn't practical to enforce, as women who are pregnant who aren't going abroad for an abortion would be effected.

sondagefaux wrote: »

If you characterise 'the unborn' as 'babies', regard abortion as killing babies but don't mind if women travel abroad to 'kill babies', that makes you weird.

agreed. however one must be realistic in terms of what is practical to do. and as much as i disagree with people traveling abroad to kill their baby there isn't anything i can do about it.

sondagefaux wrote: »

Or else you don't mind 'babies' being killed as long as it's done outside the state. Which is also weird.

I get the feeling that you aren't really against abortion at all, just against abortions being carried out in Ireland. Very weird.

nope, i'm against babies being killed bar extreme circumstances. however, i cannot stop people from traveling abroad to cary out the act, whereas i can vote to try to make sure it doesn't happen within the state bar extreme circumstances. it doesn't mean i'm okay with people going abroad to kill the baby, but it means i recognise that there is only so much i can do to achieve the aim of making unnecessary abortion less of an option.

splinter65

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

"Hmmm, mrkiscool2 just made a good point. How to argue it? I know, let's completely be disingenuous and intellectually dishonest and make him look like an ass!"

No, as I have said, I think abortion should be up to week 16, but week 12 is enough. A fetus is not life until at least week 17 and doesn't have more than a 50% survival rate until week 24. So, yeah, I absolutely think it's not a life until week 17, because science says it isn't. I put much more faith in science than people who think abortion is murder or believe in a mystical being that apparently loves us but allows people to suffer all the time.

So your also saying “a woman has a right to have total control over her body, but that control ends full stop in the 13 week of a pregnancy”!
Do you also want to tell me that I can’t cut my hair?!?
Put on make up?
Wear short skirts?
This kind of backwards thinking has to end.
If I decide at 36 weeks pregnant that I want to take that offer of a job in Sydney and this pregnancy is a total nuisance then it’s nobodys business but mine.
I can’t see how it affects you or anybody else in any way.

splinter65

spookwoman wrote: »

Would agree with the 16 weeks not everything shows up in tests and access to tests in ireland can be a nightmare

What if I wanted a female and all the scans show it’s turned away and I can’t find out what it is and then eventually a 30 week scan shows it’s a male fetus ?
I have 4 boys . I don’t want anymore.
I’m getting rid.

end of the road

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Another contraction from yourself, how surprising.

how is it another contraction.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

How can you not see that forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy she does not want is denying her a right to bodily autonomy?

because ultimately it isn't, as while she is carying the baby her decisian to abort will effect the right to life of the unborn baby.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

You just said in the same post that my right to control my womb is not being disputed, except for when I want to have an abortion. You aren’t half a hypocrite.

i'm no hypocrite. any of our rights are not disputed, apart from when we take the life of someone else. you can do what you like with your womb, you cannot take the life of your unborn baby. because the unborn baby is a separate entity.

splinter65

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Another contraction from yourself, how surprising.

How can you not see that forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy she does not want is denying her a right to bodily autonomy?

You just said in the same post that my right to control my womb is not being disputed, except for when I want to have an abortion. You aren’t half a hypocrite.

The absolute hypocrisy. My body my choice for 40 weeks I say.
I’m absolutely sick of being told what to do.
Abortions for all right up to term.
We should keep going till we get what we want, not only for ourselves, but but daughters and granddaughters .
They have a right to bodily autonomy.

ohnonotgmail

splinter65 wrote: »

The absolute hypocrisy. My body my choice for 40 weeks I say.
I’m absolutely sick of being told what to do.
Abortions for all right up to term.
We should keep going till we get what we want, not only for ourselves, but but daughters and granddaughters .
They have a right to bodily autonomy.

you should start a campaign on that basis.

SusieBlue

end of the road wrote: »

how is it another contraction.



because ultimately it isn't, as while she is carying the baby her decisian to abort will effect the right to life of the unborn baby.



i'm no hypocrite. any of our rights are not disputed, apart from when we take the life of someone else. you can do what you like with your womb, you cannot take the life of your unborn baby. because the unborn baby is a separate entity.

So I can do what I want with my womb, except for when I am pregnant? Which is the whole point of this referendum?
It may be a separate entity but it cannot grow or survive without her. While it is inside her and depends on her to continue to grow it is part of her body. Her body which ultimately she should be in control of.
I really don’t understand how you don’t see you are contradicting yourself here. It’s blinding.

spookwoman

splinter65 wrote: »

What if I wanted a female and all the scans show it’s turned away and I can’t find out what it is and then eventually a 30 week scan shows it’s a male fetus ?
I have 4 boys . I don’t want anymore.
I’m getting rid.

That's your prerogative but I doubt very much you would get what you want except on the back streets that if its healthy.
A line has to be drawn and if you wanted an abortion at 30 weeks if there is nothing wrong with it or your physical health is fine. You'd probably be induced and may be sent for an psych evaluation and there may be questions about how fit your are to be a mother to the rest of your kids. Remember this is Ireland and there is always a price. :rolleyes:

splinter65

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you should start a campaign on that basis.

Well I absolutely will.
Surely it makes no sense whatsoever to tell women “here, here’s your bodily autonomy ! After all these years in the dark, step into the light and take control of your womb(but only for 12 weeks!!”
What is this ? Cinderella!
Really girls ? You outa be ashamed of yourselves!

SusieBlue

splinter65 wrote: »

The absolute hypocrisy. My body my choice for 40 weeks I say.
I’m absolutely sick of being told what to do.
Abortions for all right up to term.
We should keep going till we get what we want, not only for ourselves, but but daughters and granddaughters .
They have a right to bodily autonomy.

The sarcasm is deafening. Easy to see this is not an issue that has ever affected you or you wouldn’t be taking the p*ss like you are now.

We do have a right to bodily autonomy. When the fetus can survive without the mother, then it has its own bodily autonomy. There’s a big difference between aborting a bunch of cells and a full term pregnancy. By your logic we’d be giving the lethal injection to newborns.

You are making a mockery of what is a very serious, emotional referendum for a lot of people. Showing a little respect wouldn’t go amiss.

ohnonotgmail

splinter65 wrote: »

Well I absolutely will.
Surely it makes no sense whatsoever to tell women “here, here’s your bodily autonomy ! After all these years in the dark, step into the light and take control of your womb(but only for 12 weeks!!”
What is this ? Cinderella!
Really girls ? You outa be ashamed of yourselves!

Good for you.

PopePalpatine

Zerbini Blewitt wrote: »

This is prompted from something on the politics forum thread (but isn’t appropriate to there)

I was just thinking today about one formerly powerful section of the community who might find it hard nowadays to make their voice heard in this national debate.

This would be the segment of people who think that women should be shamed and/or outcast and/or punished for engaging in recreational sex – i.e. the punishment being: to endure a pregnancy against her will.

A fine upstanding stance, no?

This cohort of ‘simple’, plain ‘decent’ people is not very audible at the moment. Why is that? For full disclosure - some of my close family members would be in this group, so I’m just thinking out loud!

Anyway regrettably, these people seem to either half-heartedly argue some other tangential point or stay silent in this debate!!

Could they be muted & cursed by the existence of a better educated electorate or maybe the age of enlightenment being hundreds of years ago!

I just don’t know the reason for the silence when they were a deafening cacophony in decades past?

If this is you, I for one want to hear your voice in this debate. Please Sir/Madam come thee out from the shadows, present yourself and tell us proudly - why punishing women for sex is still the right way to go about things.

It's simple - they're no longer emboldened enough to say it, just like how fascist rallies and conferences only started gaining steam in the US after Trump's win.

SusieBlue

Of course I don’t. Please quote where I said that, to say I evoked such a dramatic response from you?

end of the road

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

that was established a long time ago. they even admitted as much.

where did they admit it?

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

So, one of the requirements for life is homeostasis. One of the parts of homeostasis is the carbon dioxide levels in the blood. You don't breath in due to lack of oxygen, you breath out due to excess carbon dioxide in the blood. Now, we do call this the respiratory system but it falls under homeostasis.

A fetus, up until 17 weeks, does not have fully developed lungs. Therefore it cannot carry out one of the most important aspects of homeostasis therefore it cannot be classified as life. So a. calling it a baby isn't true, as it isn't a life. In fact, a baby is classified as from birth to 12 months, learn you words and b. as it's not life, it isn't killing. Hence, the referendum as it stands would not be killing, under any category of life.

it is a life actually. it's not a person yet, but will be, and therefore it is still being killed given that it is a life.

Zerbini Blewitt wrote: »

I don’t believe you are the segment of voters I was posing my question to (although I can’t be sure).

But putting this aside; I’m despondent to see that you still are pretending that a foetus (without even a foundation of a nervous system) is a baby.

This has been thrashed out exhaustively by many here, not least nozz. But if you are still trying to mis-use words in order to smuggle in emotive energy into this debate (& yes, I know you’re focussed mainly on weeks 13-24 in the main), then there isn’t much hope for a rational exchange of ideas.


They are not babies until they are born. We are talking about foetus’s (for the 14 millionth time).

They are totally dependent and subservient to the host i.e. the woman.

There is not a baby to consider. There is a woman and a developing embryo/foetus.

actually they are babies before they are born. once the heart beats brain activity and other activity starts they are a baby. however before that they are still a being with the potential for life and therefore they still have a right to live.

pitifulgod wrote: »

It's possible to end a pregnancy and for the child to survive at 40+ weeks. So it's literally a matter of delivering at that stage. Not remotely viable at 12. You'll also find the vast majority of abortions that occur around 20 weeks are for 2 reasons, late abortion due to inaccessibility(economic or geographic) and for medical reasons. Most tend to occur at 12 weeks or earlier and I really don't see why it should be anyone's business outside of a woman and her doctors.

if someone kills another human being whether they be unborn or fully grown, then it is going to be somebody's business. that's just the nature of taking a life.

Annasopra

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

I think they may have been blindsided by the prospect of a referendum asking upfront whether 'abortion on demand' should be legalised. I reckon they had stockpiled the old arguments about how it's impossible to legislate for limited abortion and the government is looking to introduce unrestricted access through the back door, but it seems these will be beside the point. If the referendum is along the lines proposed by the committee, there won't actually be that much debating to be done. The people either agree with unrestricted abortion or not...

No. They were not blindsided at all. They are sitting back right now formulating their campaign.

spookwoman

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

No. They were not blindsided at all. They are sitting back right now formulating their campaign.

Already at it there was a pro life Billboard van parked on the quay new years eve in waterford. Much like the one they parked outside the rape crises center.

ohnonotgmail

end of the road wrote: »

where did they admit it?


.

why are you speaking about yourself in the third person?

end of the road

WhiteRoses wrote: »

So I can do what I want with my womb, except for when I am pregnant? Which is the whole point of this referendum?

you can do what you like, as long as you don't kill the unborn unless your life is in danger or the baby can't be carried to term. it's ultimately as simple as that. there are plenty of things within the 8th that are problematic hence we are having the referendum. the referendum isn't simply about abortion on demand, but abortion on demand is something that is going to make a number of voters to decide to vote no to repeal.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

It may be a separate entity but it cannot grow or survive without her. While it is inside her and depends on her to continue to grow it is part of her body. Her body which ultimately she should be in control of.

no it's not part of her body, it's simply surviving within her body. she is in full control of her body, she just cannot kill the unborn inside her bar extreme circumstances.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

I really don’t understand how you don’t see you are contradicting yourself here. It’s blinding.

because i'm not. it's as simple as that. my view is consistent.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

why are you speaking about yourself in the third person?

i didn't know i was? as i have never admitted to the view you claimed has been admitted to as it's not my view.

mrkiscool2

end of the road wrote: »

it is a life actually. it's not a person yet, but will be, and therefore it is still being killed given that it is a life.

Nope, it isn't. It doesn't fulfill the condition of being able to carry out homeostasis, which is one of the essential things that quantifies whether something is life or not. Whether you want to believe in science or not, a fetus cannot perform homeostasis itself until week 17 and therefore cannot be considered life until then.

Ash.J.Williams

Da Boss wrote: »

A lot of people here seem to be of the opinion that abortion is a “right”. It’s not! Nobody has the right to end the life of another

They do every where else

volchitsa

end of the road wrote: »

you can do what you like, as long as you don't kill the unborn unless your life is in danger or the baby can't be carried to term. it's ultimately as simple as that. there are plenty of things within the 8th that are problematic hence we are having the referendum. the referendum isn't simply about abortion on demand, but abortion on demand is something that is going to make a number of voters to decide to vote no to repeal.



no it's not part of her body, it's simply surviving within her body. she is in full control of her body, she just cannot kill the unborn inside her bar extreme circumstances.

She's obviously not in full control of her body if she has to allow another human being (by your argument) full use of her organs. Nobody else has to do that, not even to keep someone alive.

You can keep repeating that she doesn't have a right to refuse, but that is nothing more than your own opinion. Oh and the Catholic Church's, which of course is just a funny coincidence.

Consonata

splinter65 wrote: »

No no no you don’t.
A baby is from birth only.
Are you telling me that it’s only “my body my choice” for 12 weeks?!?
Please please stop , that’s just ridiculous.
If people want abortions because no one has the right to tell a woman what she can do with her own body then why does it suddenly stop being her right at 12 weeks?!?
That is simply outrageous! Patriarchy at its very worst!
I am interested in campaigning for abortion on demand with no time limits. You simply cannot tell an adult woman that she has no control over what she does with her body at any time, for any longer.
If a man was told something similar there would be war.
Anyone interested in joining me should PM me and we will see if we can get a movement started.

Are you being deliberately disingenuous for the sake of making a point about arbitrary time limits?

I note that you have completely ignored the point about the babies viability during the pregnancy. You're treating it as a black or white issue when it really isn't. It's a spectrum. The baby isn't a just a baby at birth anymore than it is one at conception.

.......

This post has been deleted.