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

Abortion in Ireland: 2 years on

Options
1…1314161819…30

Comments

  • Options
    #452
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 5,311 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Rodin wrote: »
    The women don't do what they want to their bodies.
    They ask the state to do it for them.

    I've read that several times in case I imagined it. Your ignorance is staggering.


  • Options
    #453
    Rodin
    Registered Users Posts: 3,130 ✭✭✭Rodin


    cannotlogin wrote: »
    Yes, far better spend the taxes on those with a human life that choose to disrespect it - treating smokers, obesity, alcoholics, drug addictions etc. You can be sure they are all costing far more in taxes. Should we not treat them either as we may not agree with their choices?

    I wouldn't be spending a penny on injection centres and the fact people die or have morbidity in the world from obesity while others die of malnutrition is frankly obscene.
    People have a responsibility to not be a burden on the state.


  • Options
    #454
    Rodin
    Registered Users Posts: 3,130 ✭✭✭Rodin


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    I've read that several times in case I imagined it. Your ignorance is staggering.

    Was there something factually incorrect?


  • Options
    #455
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    keybordWarrior wrote: »
    The fact that I never said or implied that seemly is lost on you. A straw man argument.

    You are more concerned about the embryo in the womb than the woman who owns the womb. She should take priority unless she chooses otherwise.


  • Options
    #456
    Rodin
    Registered Users Posts: 3,130 ✭✭✭Rodin


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    I'm not participating in your twisted game any further. You're only hurting yourself with such venomous disregard towards women, take a long look in the mirror.

    That'll be a no then.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #457
    moon2
    Registered Users Posts: 713 ✭✭✭moon2


    Quantum Erasure wrote: »
    Thats some cognitive dissonance going on there


    Its unclear what point you're making here, or what issue you have with my post.


    If I had to guess, and please correct me if I'm wrong here, then I'd say the issue is that you believe abortion is murder. If that's the case then I'd remind you that murder is illegal in Ireland so please bring your reports to the police.


  • Options
    #458
    cannotlogin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,172 ✭✭✭cannotlogin


    Rodin wrote: »
    People have a responsibility to not be a burden on the state.

    I don't disagree with you but not everyone has equal opportunities either.

    The cost of abortion is far less than the cost of state care for a child given up for adoption, the cost of children's allowance, the cost of any supports an abandoned child may need, the cost of social care for a woman struggling to provide for a child for a myriad of reasons, financially, mental health costs, Tulsa etc. Your argument in relation to the cost to the state cannot be supported.

    Anyway, this has been dragged very far off the main purpose of the thread so I'm bowing out now.


  • Options
    #459
    keybordWarrior
    Closed Accounts Posts: 65 ✭✭keybordWarrior


    SusieBlue wrote: »
    You are more concerned about the embryo in the womb than the woman who owns the womb. She should take priority unless she chooses otherwise.

    The straw man again. Letting an unborn baby live is not a reflection on the priority of the woman.


  • Options
    #460
    Rodin
    Registered Users Posts: 3,130 ✭✭✭Rodin


    downinbigsmoke wrote: »
    Now that we've all had time to collect our thoughts, I was hoping to gather some opinions on what people in this country think of the longterm effects Health (Regulation of Termination of Pregnancy) Act 2018 have been. With the benefit of hindsight, is there anybody who would have changed their vote?

    For full disclosure, I voted No in the referendum, which was apparently a pretty odd point of view for 21 year old Trinity student, who was otherwise not particularly right-wing. I would not change it.

    But the argument from the Yes side (made by most lobby groups) that I found most convincing is that legalising abortion would not change the raw number of abortions but only the locations. This has turned out to be completely untrue.

    The number of abortions was 6,666 last year (2019). In 2017 (which was quite a high year) there were 3,061 abortions linked to Ireland in the UK. It seems to me (but maybe not you) the public have been misled. Would this have changed your vote?

    Of course the public were misled.
    We were fed stories of rape/incest and FFA

    Anyone with half a brain knew that the many just wanted abortion on demand to sort out an inconvenience.

    This is the same country that brought in abortion as a treatment for suicidal ideation despite NO evidence for the efficacy of same. In fact of course mental health issues are much higher in those that choose abortion.

    The majority isn't always right.
    It's a very slippery slope.


  • Options
    #461
    Quantum Erasure
    Registered Users Posts: 8,559 ✭✭✭Quantum Erasure


    moon2 wrote: »
    Its unclear what point you're making here, or what issue you have with my post.


    If I had to guess, and please correct me if I'm wrong here, then I'd say the issue is that you believe abortion is murder. If that's the case then I'd remind you that murder is illegal in Ireland so please bring your reports to the police.

    here's your post again, incase you've forgotten it:

    "Intentially denying medical treatment can be equated to being intentionally killed. Abortion cannot."


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #462
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    keybordWarrior wrote: »
    The straw man again. Letting an unborn baby live is not a reflection on the priority of the woman.

    It is if you are forcing that woman to carry that baby against her will. That is conclusively putting the embryo before the welfare of the woman.

    Cause it’s not just ‘letting an unborn baby live’ is it? Said unborn baby needs use of this woman’s body and organs to be able to to do that.
    And again, forcing a woman to do that against her will is prioritising the embryo over the living. breathing owner of the womb.


  • Options
    #463
    moon2
    Registered Users Posts: 713 ✭✭✭moon2


    Quantum Erasure wrote: »
    here's your post again, incase you've forgotten it:

    "Intentially denying medical treatment can be equated to being intentionally killed. Abortion cannot."


    Elaborate?


  • Options
    #464
    keybordWarrior
    Closed Accounts Posts: 65 ✭✭keybordWarrior


    moon2 wrote: »
    Its unclear what point you're making here, or what issue you have with my post.


    If I had to guess, and please correct me if I'm wrong here, then I'd say the issue is that you believe abortion is murder. If that's the case then I'd remind you that murder is illegal in Ireland so please bring your reports to the police.

    If only they legalized murder too, then you could turn a blind eye to that as well.


  • Options
    #465
    Leg End Reject
    Registered Users Posts: 17,126 ✭✭✭✭Leg End Reject


    Rodin wrote: »
    In the UK half of all abortions are by women who have already had at least one.
    Many women take it VERY lightly. It is untrue to say otherwise.

    I don't think anyone who's pro-choice and voted for abortion would deny that some women will have more than one abortion, or think that many will regret it. Susie has already posted links verifying that the overwhelming majority who choose to terminate their pregnancy have no regrets.

    Perhaps you could lobby for your taxes to be shoehorned into sex ed and more affordable contraception? You'd be shocked at the numbers of both men and women who don't understand the menstrual cycle and the short window of fertility each month. Even fewer will understand that a woman's libido increases dramatically when she's fertile and that she becomes more attractive to men. It's evolution's way of ensuring we survive as a species.

    However, we have a level of consciousness above other species, women now have viable options beyond being a housewife and mother.

    Your support for euthanasia is at odds with your right to life of the unborn stance. Whilst I fully agree with euthanasia, I can't see how you can possibly value the life of an unborn foetus lacking sentience above a sentient adult.
    https://forumofgames.com/index.php




  • Options
    #466
    moon2
    Registered Users Posts: 713 ✭✭✭moon2


    keybordWarrior wrote: »
    If only they legalized murder too, then you could turn a blind eye to that as well.


    Let's sideline that line of questioning because it's silly.


    Why not discuss euthanasia, which is legal in several countries. Is there a case for it? I'd agree there is.


    Is euthanasia murder? No it isn't.


    Would I support it? Maybe.


  • Options
    #467
    keybordWarrior
    Closed Accounts Posts: 65 ✭✭keybordWarrior


    SusieBlue wrote: »
    It is if you are forcing that woman to carry that baby against her will. That is conclusively putting the embryo before the welfare of the woman.

    Cause it’s not just ‘letting an unborn baby live’ is it? Said unborn baby needs use of this woman’s body and organs to be able to to do that.
    And again, forcing a woman to do that against her will is prioritising the embryo over the living. breathing owner of the womb.

    Yes, the baby would need to use the woman’s body, that is pregnancy. It’s normal.

    The woman is not being forced to have a baby. It’s about not killing the unborn baby.


  • Options
    #468
    keybordWarrior
    Closed Accounts Posts: 65 ✭✭keybordWarrior


    moon2 wrote: »
    Let's sideline that line of questioning because it's silly.


    Why not discuss euthanasia, which is legal in several countries. Is there a case for it? I'd agree there is.


    Is euthanasia murder? No it isn't.


    Would I support it? Maybe.

    It’s not silly. It highlights the absurdity that some people can justify something as right just because it is legal.


  • Options
    #469
    Rodin
    Registered Users Posts: 3,130 ✭✭✭Rodin


    Leg End Reject wrote: »
    I don't think anyone who's pro-choice and voted for abortion would deny that some women will have more than one abortion, or think that many will regret it. Susie has already posted links verifying that the overwhelming majority who choose to terminate their pregnancy have no regrets.

    Perhaps you could lobby for your taxes to be shoehorned into sex ed and more affordable contraception? You'd be shocked at the numbers of both men and women who don't understand the menstrual cycle and the short window of fertility each month. Even fewer will understand that a woman's libido increases dramatically when she's fertile and that she becomes more attractive to men. It's evolution's way of ensuring we survive as a species.

    However, we have a level of consciousness above other species, women now have viable options beyond being a housewife and mother.

    Your support for euthanasia is at odds with your right to life of the unborn stance. Whilst I fully agree with euthanasia, I can't see how you can possibly value the life of an unborn foetus lacking sentience above a sentient adult.

    Choice.
    The foetus is terminated at someone else's behest.
    The euthanised adult chooses to end their OWN life. Not that of another.


  • Options
    #470
    KiKi III
    Registered Users Posts: 2,653 ✭✭✭KiKi III


    keybordWarrior wrote: »
    Yes, the baby would need to use the woman’s body, that is pregnancy. It’s normal.

    The woman is not being forced to have a baby. It’s about not killing the unborn baby.

    The woman very much is forced to have a baby in the scenario you just outlined.


  • Options
    #471
    keybordWarrior
    Closed Accounts Posts: 65 ✭✭keybordWarrior


    KiKi III wrote: »
    The woman very much is forced to have a baby in the scenario you just outlined.

    By deciding that you will not kill unborn babies you are not forcing any woman to have a baby.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #472
    Leg End Reject
    Registered Users Posts: 17,126 ✭✭✭✭Leg End Reject


    Rodin wrote: »
    Choice.
    The foetus is terminated at someone else's behest.
    The euthanised adult chooses to end their OWN life. Not that of another.

    The foetus lacks the sentience to choose. That's a pertinent point to remember.
    https://forumofgames.com/index.php




  • Options
    #473
    KiKi III
    Registered Users Posts: 2,653 ✭✭✭KiKi III


    keybordWarrior wrote: »
    By deciding that you will not kill unborn babies you are not forcing any woman to have a baby.

    Username checks out.

    Yes, you are. You are forcing any woman who becomes pregnant and doesn’t want to be to have the baby. That’s just reality.


  • Options
    #474
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    keybordWarrior wrote: »
    Yes, the baby would need to use the woman’s body, that is pregnancy. It’s normal.

    The woman is not being forced to have a baby. It’s about not killing the unborn baby.

    Did you even read what you just typed? The whole point is that she doesn’t want to be pregnant, so this isn’t a normal situation for her.
    That is exactly what forcing a woman to have a baby is.

    You cannot be forced to donate a kidney or give blood even if it means saving another persons life, and a woman should not lose that bodily integrity just because she happens to be pregnant.

    People are more important than potential people. Women are more important than embryos.
    If you want to hold more value in a pre 12 week gestated fetus than you would your wife or daughter, then work away, more power to you. You don’t get to decide that on behalf of everyone though.


  • Options
    #475
    keybordWarrior
    Closed Accounts Posts: 65 ✭✭keybordWarrior


    KiKi III wrote: »
    Username checks out.

    Yes, you are. You are forcing any woman who becomes pregnant and doesn’t want to be to have the baby. That’s just reality.

    No, it’s not. If a woman doesn’t want to have a baby there are more than enough precautions to take. Protecting the lives of the unborn is not forcing women to have babies.


  • Options
    #476
    keybordWarrior
    Closed Accounts Posts: 65 ✭✭keybordWarrior


    SusieBlue wrote: »
    Did you even read what you just typed? The whole point is that she doesn’t want to be pregnant, so this isn’t a normal situation for her.
    That is exactly what forcing a woman to have a baby is.

    You cannot be forced to donate a kidney or give blood even if it means saving another persons life, and a woman should not lose that bodily integrity just because she happens to be pregnant.

    People are more important than potential people. Women are more important than embryos.
    If you want to hold more value in a pre 12 week gestated fetus than you would your wife or daughter, then work away, more power to you. You don’t get to decide that on behalf of everyone though.
    I didn’t put more value on either. Straw man again. Typical from the pro-choice side.


  • Options
    #477
    jimmycrackcorm
    Registered Users Posts: 14,339 ✭✭✭✭jimmycrackcorm


    downinbigsmoke wrote: »
    The number of abortions was 6,666 last year (2019). In 2017 (which was quite a high year) there were 3,061 abortions linked to Ireland in the UK. It seems to me (but maybe not you) the public have been misled. Would this have changed your vote?

    There was another thread elsewhere about the successful reduction in road fatalities over the last number of years.

    No matter whether you are pro-life or pro-abortion, I think both sides could agree that as a country we should be looking at trying to reduce these numbers. Unwanted pregnancies are hugely preventable, whether it's a core moral issue for pro-life aspects or a traumatic experience for someone going through it, we should have active governemnt programmes to reduce this. Better sex education, more acessible contraception not only benefits both sides, but also makes better financial sense for the government bean counters paying for the provision of services.


  • Options
    #478
    KiKi III
    Registered Users Posts: 2,653 ✭✭✭KiKi III


    keybordWarrior wrote: »
    No, it’s not. If a woman doesn’t want to have a baby there are more than enough precautions to take. Protecting the lives of the unborn is not forcing women to have babies.

    If those precautions were consistently available and effective, abortion would not happen nearly as often.

    Funny enough, I’ve never tried to talk a fella out of using a condom...


  • Options
    #479
    Arghus
    Registered Users Posts: 14,529 ✭✭✭✭Arghus


    keybordWarrior wrote: »
    No, it’s not. If a woman doesn’t want to have a baby there are more than enough precautions to take. Protecting the lives of the unborn is not forcing women to have babies.



    How is making a pregnant woman carry a baby to full term, against her will, not forcing a woman to have a baby? We are talking about abortion here right?

    Saying women can make choices to ensure they don't get pregnant in the first place is a completely different argument. And it's not what people voted on and it's not what this debate is about.


  • Options
    #480
    keybordWarrior
    Closed Accounts Posts: 65 ✭✭keybordWarrior


    KiKi III wrote: »
    If those precautions were consistently available and effective, abortion would not happen nearly as often.

    Funny enough, I’ve never tried to talk a fella out of using a condom...

    Condoms can be purchased easily and cheaply.

    Abstinence is free.

    People should be responsible for the actions and risks they take instead of making the unborn pay the price.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #481
    Igotadose
    Registered Users Posts: 13,589 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    Rodin wrote: »
    The women don't do what they want to their bodies.
    They ask the state to do it for them.
    The ones that go to England still? The ones getting pills from Women on Waves? Is the state involved with either of those?
    No doubt that cost us millions. Millions that could be better spent IMO.
    Got any facts? I mean, forced birthers like yourself are usually completely lacking in them, but I'd like to see the cost of provisioning it.
    The state is losing the run of itself anyway.
    Women terminating human life.
    Men becoming women.
    Women becoming men.
    Two women wanting to both be the legal mother of a child...
    Dogs and cats living together! Clouds in the sky!
    When is sanity going to kick in...
    One can't just throw every rule book out the window and not expect consequences

    Start with yerself if you're worried about sanity. Loosen the tinfoil hat


Advertisement