Healthy baby aborted at 15 weeks

vriesmays

Crock Rock wrote: »

Like most people on here I was pro choice, but I understand the barbarity of the practice and I've completely changed my outlook.

Look up potassium chloride abortions. What a barbaric way to die.

It's ironic really, the most dangerous place for a child statistically is in their mother's womb. It's sad.

You voted Yes and now regret it.

Jim_Hodge

Crock Rock wrote: »

There's so few adoptions because life is disposable.

8 women on average were going to the UK to have abortions, the number of on-demand abortions are probably similar here since killing children in the womb was legalised.

If you say so. But your facts have been fast and loose with the truth up to now, so I'll take it with the preverbal pinch of salt. "Probably" butters no parsnips.

Salary Negotiator

Crock Rock wrote: »

There's so few adoptions because life is disposable.

8 women on average were going to the UK to have abortions, the number of on-demand abortions are probably similar here since killing children in the womb was legalised.

The 6000 kids in foster care would dispute that.

SusieBlue

Crock Rock wrote: »

There's so few adoptions because life is disposable.

8 women on average were going to the UK to have abortions, the number of on-demand abortions are probably similar here since killing children in the womb was legalised.

Absolute BS. People aren't adopting because they are barely having children themselves. The average family size has decreased massively, with many opting not to have kids at all by choice.

You can't suggest adoption as an alternative to abortion when;
a) that's of no use to a woman who can't stay pregnant and
b) there aren't enough willing adoptive parents to take on all these extra children.

If there were 5 domestic adoptions for the whole year of 2018, where do you propose you'll find just under 3,000 suitable, willing adoptive parents for the babies of the 8 women per day who travelled for terminations in your above example?
And the year after, and the year after that? So say over the course of 10 years, where are you going to find 30,000 adoptive parents for all these extra children?

Its just a lazy, emotionally manipulative "solution" that is completely unworkable if you give it more than 30 seconds of thought.

AtomicHorror

Crock Rock wrote: »

There's so few adoptions because life is disposable.

8 women on average were going to the UK to have abortions, the number of on-demand abortions are probably similar here since killing children in the womb was legalised.

You claim you were previously pro-choice, but that learning the details of some specific abortion procedures changed your mind. However, you repeatedly refer to foetuses and embryos as "children". In fact, most of your language is very similar to that of a conventional, religiously-motivated, pro-lifer.

Add to that your odd relationship with the facts, figures and science of this debate, and you've got a massive credibility problem.

Antares35

Crock Rock wrote: »

There's so few adoptions because life is disposable.

8 women on average were going to the UK to have abortions, the number of on-demand abortions are probably similar here since killing children in the womb was legalised.

This is a very grey area. I used to be very idealistic about this too, and often asked, "why can't people give their baby up for adoption instead of aborting them?" and I remember someone answered "because adoption is an alternative to parenting, not pregnancy". This is very true.

I am currently 28 weeks with a baby who was unplanned but never unwanted. I wouldn't in a million years have aborted her because abortion just doesn't align with my values and I couldn't live with myself but, I can tell you that I came under pressure to do so. I can also tell you that pregnancy is far from easy. it isn't just a case of "oh sure just have the child and then give it away". It is a huge amount of time - I joke that Jesus only had to do 40 days, we get 40 weeks!:) It's a sacrifice - no more drinking or smoking, you need to eat healthily and be careful about literally everything. You can't take painkillers. It can also be expensive.

Then the endless list of complaints like insomnia, mood swings, feeling like you are going mad. Anyone who suffered with mental health issues (as I did) will likely find these flaring up again and it can be really scary to feel like you are no longer in control.

There's also the small matter of labour and the fear of how painful this will be etc. I feel all of these fears etc. and my baby is wanted and I have something wonderful to look forward to, but why would a woman go through all of this knowing that all that faces her is the pain and trauma of birth and then further pain and trauma of giving up her baby?

I don't like abortion and I never will, and I will certainly never have one, but I can no longer be ok with the "oh just have it and give it up" argument because there is so much more to it than that.

Quantum Erasure

pjohnson wrote: »

"Anti-life"
The no side are great value tbf. Never know what they'll vomit out next.

same as 'anti-choice' being vomited out by the other side, tbf

Quantum Erasure

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

same as 'anti-choice' being vomited out by the other side, tbf

Not really, the anti choice label is actually quite accurate.

Plenty of people are pro life but respect that people will make their own choices when it comes to their pregnancy.

Anti choice people do not respect people making their own choices in relation to their pregnancy and try to justify their views through the frankly stupid and false statements we've seen on here.

Jim_Hodge

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

same as 'anti-choice' being vomited out by the other side, tbf

Maybe both sides need to grow up, cut out the negative emotive language and stick with pro-life and pro-choice.

This kind of one-upmanship helps neither side of the argument.

Crock Rock

Using the logic that some people are using here, men should be able to opt out of parenthood too by abdication of all his responsibilities AND rights.

What if becoming a parent against his will makes a man suicidal too?

Salary Negotiator

Crock Rock wrote: »

Using the logic that some people are using here, men should be able to opt out of parenthood too by abdication of all his responsibilities AND rights.

What if becoming a parent against his will makes a man suicidal too?

It’s very easy for man not to be a father, all he has to do is not have sex with a woman.

Crock Rock

Jim_Hodge wrote: »

If you say so. But your facts have been fast and loose with the truth up to now, so I'll take it with the preverbal pinch of salt. "Probably" butters no parsnips.

Murray, C., 2016. The Protection of Life during Pregnancy Act 2013: Suicide, dignity and the Irish discourse on abortion. Social & Legal Studies, 25(6), pp.667-698.

Crock Rock

Salary Negotiator wrote: »

It’s very easy for man not to be a father, all he has to do is not have sex with a woman.

Could you not say the reverse for women?

Salary Negotiator

Crock Rock wrote: »

Could you not say the reverse for women?

Not all women.

Crock Rock

Salary Negotiator wrote: »

Not all women.

??

Crock Rock

Salary Negotiator wrote: »

Not all women.

If a woman wants the right to opt out of unplanned parenthood then why shouldn't the men have that option too?

Plumbthedepths

Crock Rock wrote: »

Could you not say the reverse for women?

I didn't know a rapist offers the sex or no sex option to a woman?

Crock Rock

Salary Negotiator wrote: »

It’s very easy for man not to be a father, all he has to do is not have sex with a woman.

It’s very easy for a woman not to be a mother, all she has to do is not have sex with a man.

Imagine the **** storm for saying the opposite.

Crock Rock

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

I didn't know a rapist offers the sex or no sex option to a woman?

So casual sex and falls pregnant... Two friends or bf and gf... Should she be allowed to abort?

Plumbthedepths

Crock Rock wrote: »

It’s very easy for a woman not to be a mother, all she has to do is not have sex with a man.

Imagine the **** storm for saying the opposite.

What about a pregnancy as a result of rape or incest, what choice had the woman/girl?

Crock Rock

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

What about a pregnancy as a result of rape or incest, what choice had the woman/girl?

Read my post above yours.

Plumbthedepths

Crock Rock wrote: »

So casual sex and falls pregnant... Two friends or bf and gf... Should she be allowed to abort?

You didn't answer my question, does a rapist offer a woman a no sex option?

Crock Rock

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

You didn't answer my question, does a rapist offer a woman a no sex option?

Of course not. It's not the conceived baby's fault.

Now answer mine

kylith

Crock Rock wrote: »

??

I hate to break it to you, but rape is totally a thing.

Plumbthedepths

Crock Rock wrote: »

Read my post above yours.

A question answered by a question. Have you actually any valid point to make other than the usual bs posted by pro life nuts?

Crock Rock

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

A question answered by a question. Have you actually any valid point to make other than the usual bs posted by pro life nuts?

If women want abortion on demand do you think it'd be acceptable to give men the equivalent of "opting out of fatherhood" even if the girl wants to keep the child?

Crock Rock

kylith wrote: »

I hate to break it to you, but rape is totally a thing.

Who said it wasn't?

Jim_Hodge

Crock Rock wrote: »

Murray, C., 2016. The Protection of Life during Pregnancy Act 2013: Suicide, dignity and the Irish discourse on abortion. Social & Legal Studies, 25(6), pp.667-698.

Does it extrapolate to a "probably" as well?

Plumbthedepths

Crock Rock wrote: »

Of course not. It's not the conceived baby's fault.

Now answer mine

So in the case of rape or incest do you accept it's a valid reason for a woman or girl to have an abortion?

To answer your question, you are aware women now have the choice to seek an abortion here since the referendum passed reasons not required up to a certain time period. I tend not to tell another individual what to do with their body. Personal choice and all that.

kylith

Crock Rock wrote: »

Of course not. It's not the conceived baby's fault.

Yet the woman should still be forced to go through the pregnancy and birth, even though it’s not her fault either?

Plumbthedepths

Crock Rock wrote: »

If women want abortion on demand do you think it'd be acceptable to give men the equivalent of "opting out of fatherhood" even if the girl wants to keep the child?

Men opt out of fatherhood all the time, the yanks even have a term for it 'deadbeat dad'.
Are you suggesting a man should be allowed force a woman to have an abortion?

Jim_Hodge

Crock Rock wrote: »

So casual sex and falls pregnant... Two friends or bf and gf... Should she be allowed to abort?

How about a case of foetal abnormality inconsistent with life outside the womb? Can you accept abortion in this instance?

Crock Rock

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

To answer your question, you are aware women now have the choice to seek an abortion here since the referendum passed

That's erroneous.

Abolition of the 8th amendment did NOT legalise abortion.

It allowed legislators to legalise it. There's nothing to stop future governments from restricting abortion on demand and only allowing it in the rarest of rarest of cases. Which would still be in line with the referendum results.

Personally, I'd love to see this happen. All the lives that would be saved.

kylith

Crock Rock wrote: »

That's erroneous.

Abolition of the 8th amendment did NOT legalise abortion.

It allowed legislators to legalise it. There's nothing to stop future governments from restricting abortion on demand and only allowing it in the rarest of rarest of cases. Which would still be in line with the referendum results.

Personally, I'd love to see this happen. All the lives that would be saved.

You willing to take in and raise all those saved lives? You willing to pay an increased tax bill for the care of thousands of unwanted children annually?

Plumbthedepths

Crock Rock wrote: »

That's erroneous.

Abolition of the 8th amendment did NOT legalise abortion.

It allowed legislators to legalise it. There's nothing to stop future governments from restricting abortion on demand and only allowing it in the rarest of rarest of cases. Which would still be in line with the referendum results.

Personally, I'd love to see this happen. All the lives that would be saved.

No future government will ever do what you hope, that ship has sailed. Time to move and stop hoping to regain control of the bodies of others. Live your own live stop trying to control others, a sad and pathetic mindset tbh.

Crock Rock

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Men opt out of fatherhood all the time, the yanks even have a term for it 'deadbeat dad'.
Are you suggesting a man should be allowed force a woman to have an abortion?

Who said anything of the kind?

Besides, whether men do or not, it's still illegal and they can be chased for maintenance.

Why is a woman who doesn't want to be a mother "pro choice" but a man who doesn't want to be a father "deadbeat"?

Crock Rock

Jim_Hodge wrote: »

How about a case of foetal abnormality inconsistent with life outside the womb? Can you accept abortion in this instance?

All life is precious, no matter how long or short.

uptherebels

Crock Rock wrote: »

My post WAS in jest. That's already been made abundantly clear.

Besides, there's a big difference between a person who makes a conscious decision to steal or vandalise and an innocent child who did nothing but be conceived.

If you don't want to be a mother, give your child up for adoption or fostering, there's plenty of women who'd crawl to Lourdes on broken glass to have that opportunity which so many people discard like an inconvenience.

If you don't want to fall pregnant in the first place then even a 13-year-old would know how to prevent that from happening.

You need to read up on the various forms of short and long term damage done to the human body from carrying a pregnancy to term and giving birth. It's not something someone should be forced to go through.

Salary Negotiator

Crock Rock wrote: »

All life is precious, no matter how long or short.

Except a home intruder.

kylith

Crock Rock wrote: »

All life is precious, no matter how long or short.

So you would force a pregnant woman to carry a doomed pregnancy and make an infant live a pain-filled few days hooked up to machines while its parents are forced to watch it die? What kind of fcking sadist are you?

Crock Rock

kylith wrote: »

So you would force a pregnant woman to carry a doomed pregnancy and make an infant live a pain-filled few days hooked up to machines while its parents are forced to watch it die? What kind of fcking sadist are you?

An abortion would be more painful for the child.

Besides, sometimes the child may survive. You never know.

Loafing Oaf

Crock Rock wrote: »

That's erroneous.

Abolition of the 8th amendment did NOT legalise abortion.

It allowed legislators to legalise it. There's nothing to stop future governments from restricting abortion on demand and only allowing it in the rarest of rarest of cases.

There's also nothing to stop a future government re-outlawing contraception or divorce. And no reason to think any of these actions is remotely likely

kylith

Crock Rock wrote: »

An abortion would be more painful for the child.

Besides, sometimes the child may survive. You never know.

99.9% of abortions are performed before the foetus is capable of feeling pain. The .1% are tragic cases.

Children without brains tend not to survive.

pjohnson

kylith wrote: »

Children without brains tend not to survive.

Well with some of the nonsense the "pro-life" spout I'm not so sure tbh.

Or maybe they only loose it at puberty after the childhood phase.

Jim_Hodge

Crock Rock wrote: »

An abortion would be more painful for the child.

Besides, sometimes the child may survive. You never know.

You certainly never seem to know. At least I now know where you stand.

A bit of compassion wouldn't go astray.

Crock Rock

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

The pregnancy whilst it exists is part of her body, your attitude is one of extreme ignorance tbh.

It's IN her body, not part of her body.

Is the dinner you ate today in your body or part of your body?

Plumbthedepths

Crock Rock wrote: »

Who said anything of the kind?

Besides, whether men do or not, it's still illegal and they can be chased for maintenance.

Why is a woman who doesn't want to be a mother "pro choice" but a man who doesn't want to be a father "deadbeat"?

It simply boils down to one over riding fact, no matter how much whataboutery you engage in. It's her body and her choice. It really is that simple any argument to the contrary is simply a desire to control another fully developed human being.

pjohnson

Crock Rock wrote: »

It's IN her body, not part of her body.

Is the dinner you ate today in your body or part of your body?

Christ. Do you think your dinner has an umbilical cord?


The lack of sex education in Ireland is embarassingly clear at times :pac:

Crock Rock

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

It simply boils down to one over riding fact, no matter how much whataboutery you engage in. It's her body and her choice. It really is that simple any argument to the contrary is simply a desire to control another fully developed human being.

And the human being she's trying to kill inside of her?

amdublin

I really wish people (yep Crock Rock, I'm talking about you) would just go away and mind their own business.

I'm not interested in your sex life, your personal life, and what you do with your pregnancy or not. Stay out of mine, and other women's, lives and choices please.

Mind Your Own Business duuuuuude