Abortion in Ireland: 2 years on

Arghus

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.

The Iona institute aren't interested in practical solutions to real world problems.

keybordWarrior

pleasant Co. wrote: »

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.

I asked you a question and made an assumption as to your answer. I stand by it until you prove otherwise.

pleasant Co.

keybordWarrior wrote: »

I stand by it until you prove otherwise.

So, you've made something up and are standing by it. You certainly are of low moral standing.

keybordWarrior

LorelaiG wrote: »

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

That depends. Are you prepared to take responsibility for the baby you/your partner may become pregnant with? If so, go for it.

keybordWarrior

pleasant Co. wrote: »

So, you've made something up and are standing by it. You certainly are of low moral standing.

Still refusing to answer the question ofcourse.

SusieBlue

MontgomeryClift wrote: »

I'll just quote this here as an example of the ridiculous analogies the pro-abortion people get into. It's a crude tactic, but it obviously works on the impressionable - use language like "forced" to create an impression of victimhood and imprisonment for the mother, then use contractual terms like "the use of her body" to make it seem like the unborn baby is like an unwelcome client.

But that’s exactly it, the unborn baby IS an unwelcome client in the woman’s body in this scenario.

If you are going to argue that fetuses are people in their own right (which I don’t necessarily agree with but I’ll play along), then why don’t we treat them as we do born, living, breathing children?
Do you know how many children die around the world every day because they need an organ donation?
Even though these actual born, living children will die if they do not get help from someone else’s body to live, we cannot force people to donate their organs if they don’t want to.

Even though a child will die, our bodily integrity trumps the child’s right to life. You can call it a ridiculous analogy but it makes perfect sense.

So why should fetuses get special treatment and protection that born children don’t? Why do we allow children to die every day while people argue on the internet about the ‘rights’ of something the size of a cherry?
There is something so, so wrong about that to me.

uptherebels

keybordWarrior wrote: »

That depends. Are you prepared to take responsibility for the baby you/your partner may become pregnant with? If so, go for it.

Why do you believe carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term is the only responsible choice?

SusieBlue

keybordWarrior wrote: »

That depends. Are you prepared to take responsibility for the baby you/your partner may become pregnant with? If so, go for it.

Sometimes having an abortion is taking responsibility. Bringing an unwanted child that you don’t have the means or ability to look after into the world is quite the opposite of taking responsibility.

Bannasidhe

Arghus wrote: »

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


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.

keybordWarrior wrote: »

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

If that is the tactic I can't see it working tbh.

pleasant Co.

keybordWarrior wrote: »

Still refusing to answer the question ofcourse.

You made the claim. The onus is on you to substantiate it, or hold your hands up and acknowledge that you've got nothing, you fabricated it.

Imagine asking someone else to prove the claim you've made because you are simply incapable of doing so, how very dishonest.

LorelaiG

keybordWarrior wrote: »

That depends. Are you prepared to take responsibility for the baby you/your partner may become pregnant with? If so, go for it.

Me having an abortion would be taking responsibility. I can't look after another baby. We can't afford to raise another child, not even with the support the state gives because it's not actually enough to raise a child.

keybordWarrior

LorelaiG wrote: »

Ok. So I gave you a scenario. A woman is in a monogamous relationship. She does not want to have a baby. She uses protection. It fails. What's your suggestion?

If she was responsible she knew there was a risk a life could be created and accepts responsibility for it (not by killing it).

SusieBlue

keybordWarrior wrote: »

If she was responsible she knew there was a risk a life could be created and accepts responsibility for it (not by killing it).

Yeah that didn’t fly in May 2018 and it won’t fly now. You aren’t going to convince anyone with this standard of argument.

keybordWarrior

pleasant Co. wrote: »

You made the claim. The onus is on you to substantiate it, or hold your hands up and acknowledge that you've got nothing, you fabricated it.

Imagine asking someone else to prove the claim you've made because you are simply incapable of doing so, how very dishonest.

I asked a question and made assumption about what your response would be. You could clear it up by answering the question but you’re being evasive. In fact I was t even asking you the question in the first place, it was to someone else, but you injected yourself to disrupt the exchange. I’ve stated my position. If you’re not going to answer the question there’s no point in replying to you anymore.

keybordWarrior

LorelaiG wrote: »

Me having an abortion would be taking responsibility. I can't look after another baby. We can't afford to raise another child, not even with the support the state gives because it's not actually enough to raise a child.

Then you should reconsider taking the risk of creating a life.

keybordWarrior

SusieBlue wrote: »

Yeah that didn’t fly in May 2018 and it won’t fly now. You aren’t going to convince anyone with this standard of argument.

Why doesn’t that fly though?

keybordWarrior

Bannasidhe wrote: »

If that is the tactic I can't see it working tbh.

No tactics. That was a legitimately stupid comment. Ofcourse something that hasn’t been born yet could potentially be killed.

KiKi III

keybordWarrior wrote: »

Then you should reconsider taking the risk of creating a life.

So your solution is celibacy?

How realistic do you think that is?

pleasant Co.

keybordWarrior wrote: »

I asked a question and made assumption about what your response would be. You could clear it up by answering the question but you’re being evasive. In fact I was t even asking you the question in the first place, it was to someone else, but you injected yourself to disrupt the exchange. I’ve stated my position. If you’re not going to answer the question there’s no point in replying to you anymore.

In fact I'm not being evasive, I'm flat out refusing to answer a dishonestly asked question - The kind where you "ask" and "answer" in the same breath.

You certainly have made your position clear, you tell other people what they think and how they should act. You lie, and stand by your lies. You make assumptions of others based on having your conflicting statements questioned. You pontificate about taking responsibility while abdicating your own. You are a liar.

WrenBoy

KiKi III wrote: »

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?

Im still going to engage in debate and conversation about the topic on boards and in my life if it comes up. Saying why are you talking about this, its already been decided, is not enough to just stop people expressing their opinions.

keybordWarrior

KiKi III wrote: »

So your solution is celibacy?

How realistic do you think that is?

I’m saying abstinence IF you’re not prepared or willing to be responsible for a life you could create. Might that be difficult for some? Sure.

keybordWarrior

pleasant Co. wrote: »

In fact I'm not being evasive, I'm flat out refusing to answer a dishonestly asked question - The kind where you "ask" and "answer" in the same breath.

You certainly have made your position clear, you tell other people what they think and how they should act. You lie, and stand by your lies. You make assumptions of others based on having your conflicting statements questioned. You pontificate about taking responsibility while abdicating your own. You are a liar.

Disrupts the conversation, adds nothing. Moving on...

conorhal

seamus wrote: »

The number of 6,666 last year is statistic zero. It is the first time we have an actual, traceable number for the number of Irish residents getting abortions.

If it shoots up next year, you might have a point.

So the wholesale slaughter of the equivalent of your average mid-sized Irish town annually is a statistical zero..... good to know.

WrenBoy wrote: »

Im still going to engage in debate and conversation about the topic on boards and in my life if it comes up. Saying why are you talking about this, its already been decided, is not enough to just stop people expressing their opinions.

Decisions are only final when they favour a certian side.

KiKi III

keybordWarrior wrote: »

I’m saying abstinence IF you’re not prepared or willing to be responsible for a life you could create. Might that be difficult for some? Sure.

Have you ever been in an adult, sexually active relationship?

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

she requested an abortion. that was denied to her. she had a miscarriage instead and developed sepsis. if she had the abortion she would be alive today. what part of that is incorrect?

All of it.

Sepsis killed her as a result of medical negligence.

KiKi III

WrenBoy wrote: »

Im still going to engage in debate and conversation about the topic on boards and in my life if it comes up. Saying why are you talking about this, its already been decided, is not enough to just stop people expressing their opinions.

I’m fine with you expressing your opinion on it; I just wonder why anti-abortion activists will engage in these debates online or even stand outside a hospital protesting but they won’t put that energy into something that might actually stop an abortion i.e. sex ed, giving out free condoms in pubs, supporting new parents who are struggling etc.

KiKi III

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

All of it.

Sepsis killed her as a result of medical negligence.

Why did she develop sepsis?

Loafing Oaf

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

All of it.

Husband relives when his wife Savita Halappanavar asked for a termination

So Praveen Halappanavar was lying at the inquest was he?

conorhal

SusieBlue wrote: »

But that’s exactly it, the unborn baby IS an unwelcome client in the woman’s body in this scenario.

If you are going to argue that fetuses are people in their own right (which I don’t necessarily agree with but I’ll play along), then why don’t we treat them as we do born, living, breathing children?
Do you know how many children die around the world every day because they need an organ donation?
Even though these actual born, living children will die if they do not get help from someone else’s body to live, we cannot force people to donate their organs if they don’t want to.

Even though a child will die, our bodily integrity trumps the child’s right to life. You can call it a ridiculous analogy but it makes perfect sense.

So why should fetuses get special treatment and protection that born children don’t? Why do we allow children to die every day while people argue on the internet about the ‘rights’ of something the size of a cherry?
There is something so, so wrong about that to me.

That's utterly faulty logic, that's like pushing someone into a river and saying 'well, nobody's obliged to save that person.
There's a difference between inaction and direct action with the support of state violence against the person.

SusieBlue

SusieBlue wrote: »

But that’s exactly it, the unborn baby IS an unwelcome client in the woman’s body in this scenario.

If you are going to argue that fetuses are people in their own right (which I don’t necessarily agree with but I’ll play along), then why don’t we treat them as we do born, living, breathing children?
Do you know how many children die around the world every day because they need an organ donation?
Even though these actual born, living children will die if they do not get help from someone else’s body to live, we cannot force people to donate their organs if they don’t want to.

Even though a child will die, our bodily integrity trumps the child’s right to life. You can call it a ridiculous analogy but it makes perfect sense.

So why should fetuses get special treatment and protection that born children don’t? Why do we allow children to die every day while people argue on the internet about the ‘rights’ of something the size of a cherry?
There is something so, so wrong about that to me.

In the scenario you compare to there's undeniable and important differences

A, you didn't create the problem that result's in the child needing an organ

B, it's not your child.

C, you aren't talking direct action to end the childs life.

In your example, the child will die without your intervention. In abortion, it will live.

They are important however I would add in that Ireland doesn't currently allow stranger donation from a living source which is something I disagree with as well. In other countries you can donate on a 'first come, first served' basis.