Abortion in Ireland: 2 years on

LorelaiG

keybordWarrior wrote: »

Can’t you have sex AND be responsible for the risk it carries? No, you need to be able to do what you want without any responsibility by knowing you can just kill the unborn baby. You’ve show your true colors.

Sooo... You're saying don't have sex.

ELM327

KiKi III wrote: »

Do you consider pregnancies that have miscarried to have been “killed”?

Where does the killing end?
Can we prosecute the murderers in the feminine hygene product industry!

Arghus

keybordWarrior wrote: »

Here is a perfect example of the mental gymnastics performed by so many pro-abortion people. Unborn babies are equivalent to rocks, it’s not an unborn baby it’s a blob of biological matter. It’s embarrassing for them.

Do you think you will get people to change their minds over abortion on this thread by insulting them?

I can understand completely why people have a problem with abortion. It is the termination of a potential human life. In the eyes of many people that's equivalent to murder. I, personally, don't agree, but I can see the logic behind that position.

But the "pro-life" side here seem content to insult people round to their way of thinking, basically calling them apologists for murder. Good luck trying to change people's minds with that approach. Are you interested in changing people's minds? Or is it about something else.

ohnonotgmail

ELM327 wrote: »

Where does the killing end?
Can we prosecute the murderers in the feminine hygene product industry!

Lock up men who masturbate?

keybordWarrior

ELM327 wrote: »

You can't kill something that is not born yet.
Do you get a death certificate for an abortion or a miscarriage?

Ofcourse you can kill something that isn’t born. Stupidest comment yet.

keybordWarrior

ELM327 wrote: »

LMAO
No answer = resort to silly language

I have answered.

Your posts are embarrassing, the last thing pro-abortion needs is you chipping in.

ELM327

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Lock up men who masturbate?

Yeah I think that's the obvious next step for their logic

keybordWarrior wrote: »

Ofcourse you can kill something that isn’t born. Stupidest comment yet.

Ok, where's the death certificate? Given that, if there is a still birth or live birth that dies instantly there is a death cert issued.

LorelaiG

If the life of the unborn is so precious why won't the government issue death certificates for miscarriages before week 20 or less than a certain weight?

ELM327

keybordWarrior wrote: »

I have answered.

Your posts are embarrassing, the last thing pro-abortion needs is you chipping in.

Embarrassment, like beauty, is clearly in the eye of the beholder.
There are very few people who are pro abortion. I'm not pro abortion. I'm pro choice.

Arghus wrote: »

Do you think you will get people to change their minds over abortion on this thread by insulting them?

I can understand completely why people have a problem with abortion. It is the termination of a potential human life. In the eyes of many people that's equivalent to murder. I, personally, don't agree, but I can see the logic behind that position.

But the "pro-life" side here seem content to insult people round to their way of thinking, basically calling them apologists for murder. Good luck trying to change people's minds with that approach. Are you interested in changing people's minds? Or is it about something else.

Certainly seems like it!

ohnonotgmail

keybordWarrior wrote: »

I have answered.

Your posts are embarrassing, the last thing pro-abortion needs is you chipping in.

the pro-choice side is doing ok but thanks for your concern. You may have heard we won the referendum that was held a couple of years ago and now women are free to make their own reproductive choices.

Igotadose

ELM327 wrote: »

Yeah I think that's the obvious next step for their logic



Ok, where's the death certificate? Given that, if there is a still birth or live birth that dies instantly there is a death cert issued.

Bizarro forced-birthers like Rick Santorum in the US have had wakes for miscarried fetuses. Even forced his children to attend, dressed up the remains and took pictures.

WrenBoy

LorelaiG wrote: »

If the life of the unborn is so precious why won't the government issue death certificates for miscarriages before week 20 or less than a certain weight?

So your qualifier for a human life is Governmental bureaucracy. By that logic you would have been in favour of slavery back in the day since they weren't considered human beings either and it was legal.

pleasant Co.

keybordWarrior wrote: »

Can’t you have sex AND be responsible for the risk it carries? No, you need to be able to do what you want without any responsibility by knowing you can just kill the unborn baby. You’ve show your true colors.

I have quite simply been seeking clarification on your conflicting statements and I don't aim to speak for anyone but myself, so I'll kindly ask you to point to where I've said any of that or please retract your false statement.

nozzferrahhtoo

keybordWarrior wrote: »

Here is a perfect example of the mental gymnastics performed by so many pro-abortion people. Unborn babies are equivalent to rocks, it’s not an unborn baby it’s a blob of biological matter. It’s embarrassing for them.

Since I have never met anyone who is "pro abortion" you will have to take their embarrassment up with them. However since you are replying to me, not them, you are more than welcome to tell me what is wrong with the things I said. If you can.

I never said "Unborn babies are equivalent to rocks". That was all you. What I said, and what I continue to say, is that there is no evidence at this time to say that a fetus at 12 weeks has any more sentience or consciousness than a rock has.

There is nothing wrong with this comparison. However I notice you move to belittle the comparison rather than deal with the actual point of the comparison. And you usually know a persons position is weak when they dodge the point, and merely spit bile at the examples used WITHIN the point.

It's embarrassing for you. Not some nebulous "them". You.

KiKi III

WrenBoy wrote: »

So your qualifier for a human life is Governmental bureaucracy. By that logic you would have been in favour of slavery back in the day since they weren't considered human beings either and it was legal.

It’s not just about bureaucracy. We don’t hold funerals as we would for a stillborn, usually the foetus doesn’t have a name. You don’t get children’s allowance when you’re pregnant because you don’t have a child yet. As a society we don’t give foetuses the same status as a baby at any point.

ronivek

KiKi III wrote: »

It’s not just about bureaucracy. We don’t hold funerals as we would for a stillborn, usually the foetus doesn’t have a name. You don’t get children’s allowance when you’re pregnant because you don’t have a child yet. As a society we don’t give foetuses the same status as a baby at any point.

At what precise point does a fetus become a baby; in your view?

KiKi III

ronivek wrote: »

At what precise point does a fetus become a baby; in your view?

When it’s born. And I believe if the foetus is viable outside the womb, it should be given that opportunity to survive, which is generally from 24 weeks on.

I believe in abortion on request up to 12 weeks, and for medical reasons beyond that.

ELM327

ronivek wrote: »

At what precise point does a fetus become a baby; in your view?

Birth

ELM327

KiKi III wrote: »

When it’s born. And I believe if the foetus is viable outside the womb, it should be given that opportunity to survive, which is generally from 24 weeks on.

Agree

KiKi III wrote: »

I believe in abortion on request up to 12 weeks, and for medical reasons beyond that.

I believe in abortion on request full stop.
If the fetus has a chance of survival (ie beyond 23 weeks) it should be given that chance. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Termination can result in a live early birth. Inducement is actually a form of termination

KiKi III

Why do anti-abortion people even want to have this argument again? Young people voted in favour of repeal by a margin of 90%, there is zero chance of reversing the legislation.

WrenBoy

KiKi III wrote: »

Why do anti-abortion people even want to have this argument again? Young people voted in favour of repeal by a margin of 90%, there is zero chance of reversing the legislation.

If the vote went the other way would you shut up about it forever ?

ronivek

KiKi III wrote: »

Why do anti-abortion people even want to have this argument again? Young people voted in favour of repeal by a margin of 90%, there is zero chance of reversing the legislation.

Based on this thread they're hoping to harness the fact we will actually have decent statistics on abortions to claim there is wholesale "slaughter of children" happening due to the referendum.

ohnonotgmail

ronivek wrote: »

Based on this thread they're hoping to harness the fact we will actually have decent statistics on abortions to claim there is wholesale "slaughter of children" happening due to the referendum.

this "wholesale slaughter" being broadly in line with the numbers having an abortion before the referendum. I'm not sure this is the great argument winner they think it is.

KiKi III

WrenBoy wrote: »

If the vote went the other way would you shut up about it forever ?

If I lost by the margin the No side lost by, including losing in almost every constituency and every age group, I’d certainly take a step back and wonder if I got it wrong.

WrenBoy

KiKi III wrote: »

If I lost by the margin the No side lost by, including losing in almost every constituency and every age group, I’d certainly take a step back and wonder if I got it wrong.

Would you never even want to have the argument again though ?
Principles should be something you yourself believe in regardless of which way the crowd goes.

ronivek

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

this "wholesale slaughter" being broadly in line with the numbers having an abortion before the referendum. I'm not sure this is the great argument winner they think it is.

I think fundamentally the vast majority in favour of abortion wouldn't consider a fetus under 12 weeks to be a viable baby; and as such even if the numbers did climb higher it wouldn't really change anything.

Barring some kind of scientific consensus which comes out of left field w.r.t. the ability of a fetus to feel pain or form thoughts much earlier than it's believed; I can't see how the referendum would be reversed at any point in the near future. Likewise I can't imagine any significant changes would be made to the legislation.

Tork

KiKi III wrote: »

Why do anti-abortion people even want to have this argument again? Young people voted in favour of repeal by a margin of 90%, there is zero chance of reversing the legislation.

Even if it was no longer possible for women to legally have abortions in Ireland, they'd still be happening. They'd be getting onto planes and going to clinics in the UK and going through the horror of it on foreign soil. They'd be ordering pills from the internet and taking them at home without medical supervision.

Instead, it'd be better to find out why so many women need to have abortions in the first place and see if anything can be done to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. Trying to make it difficult for them to have an abortion isn't the answer to this.

KiKi III

WrenBoy wrote: »

Would you never even want to have the argument again though ?
Principles should be something you yourself believe in regardless of which way the crowd goes.

If I was passionately anti-abortion I would have spent the last two years advocating sex education and free contraception. I would call for more support for single parents, and parents of children with disabilities. I would demand high quality childcare at reasonable prices from the government.

That’s how I would go about ensuring the number of abortions reduces year on year. And I think it’s a shame organisations like the Iona institute don’t channel their funding into achieving those goals.

WrenBoy

KiKi III wrote: »

If I was passionately anti-abortion I would have spent the last two years advocating sex education and free contraception. I would call for more support for single parents, and parents of children with disabilities. I would demand high quality childcare at reasonable prices from the government.

That’s how I would go about ensuring the number of abortions reduces year on year. And I think it’s a shame organisations like the Iona institute don’t channel their funding into achieving those goals.

I agree, and not just single parent homes, homes with two parents struggling shouldn't be forgotten for support and parents who are also carers of children with disabilities need a world more than what they are getting currently which is scandalous in this country imo. Iona institute, Im not fully across their practices and beliefs to comment, I haven't heard much positive though.

But back to my point, you wouldn't just never talk about it again because the vote didn't go the way you wanted. So thats why Im commenting on this thread and not just keeping quiet about it.

KiKi III

WrenBoy wrote: »

I agree, and not just single parent homes, homes with two parents struggling shouldn't be forgotten for support and parents who are also carers of children with disabilities need a world more than what they are getting currently which is scandalous in this country imo. Iona institute, Im not fully across their practices and beliefs to comment, I haven't heard much positive though.

But back to my point, you wouldn't just never talk about it again because the vote didn't go the way you wanted. So thats why Im commenting on this thread and not just keeping quiet about it.

What’s your goal, though? Legislation that was endorsed by such a large proportion of the public isn’t going to be altered any time soon, so your only way of reducing the number of abortions are the ones I outlined. So why not channel your energy into remedying the reasons people have abortions instead of trying to re-argue the referendum?