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

Rally For Life!!!

Options
124

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    lazygal wrote: »
    Was Miss Y's baby killed? Or was the pregnancy terminated? What about Ms X, raped, pregnant, suicidal and a child who had travelled to kill the unborn, was the Attorney General right to ask her to return to Ireland?

    Calling one thing a termination and another an abortion is just playing word games to satisfy the pro gestation belief that my uterus should gestate every pregnancy regardless of the consequences, unless I'm at risk of death or I have the means and ability to travel.

    With respect, calling it a termination/abortion instead of killing/murder also suits the pro-choice side. Both sides have agendas and both are willing to use language to their advantage.


  • Options
    #93
    am946745
    Closed Accounts Posts: 676 ✭✭✭am946745


    am946745 wrote: »
    Sorry.. You didn't answer my question What does our constitution say?

    lazygal. Answer please.


  • Options
    #94
    Not a NSA agent
    Closed Accounts Posts: 781 ✭✭✭Not a NSA agent


    newmug wrote: »
    No, the right to travel should not be "repealed". Bad choice of word there by you because there is nothing to repeal in terms of the right to travel, but we cant stop every flight / ship in or out of Ireland because a few women want to do away with their children elsewhere - it is tragic, but there is very little we can do to stop it, except keep doing what we're doing - keep protesting.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland

    Prevents a woman from being prevented from traveling to another country to get an abortion. If a person attempts to travel for euthanasia or to kill their born child people wont just shrug their shoulders and say what can we do.


  • Options
    #95
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    am946745 wrote: »
    lazygal. Answer please.
    Nope. Why do you want me to quote something you know already.

    Our constitution allows me to travel to kill the unborn and to access information on how I go about that, as well as allowing the unborn to be killed if there's a risk to my life, including suicide. Do you think any of those rights should be repealed?


  • Options
    #96
    newmug
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,571 ✭✭✭newmug


    lazygal wrote: »
    Was Miss Y's baby killed? Or was the pregnancy terminated? What about Ms X, raped, pregnant, suicidal and a child who had travelled to kill the unborn, was the Attorney General right to ask her to return to Ireland?

    Calling one thing a termination and another an abortion is just playing word games to satisfy the pro gestation belief that my uterus should gestate every pregnancy regardless of the consequences, unless I'm at risk of death or I have the means and ability to travel.

    I dont know about Miss Y's baby, but Miss X's was killed, yes. As horrible an ordeal that Miss X had to suffer, to top it all off by killing her baby was obscene. Miss X was in no fit mental state to request her baby to be killed, and the state should not have allowed it to happen, nevermind facilitate it! Its barbaric. I would have adapted her myself. And no, it is an established medical fact what a termination is, and what an abortion is, this is the official terminology. It is NOT playing with words. There are no pro-life people who are against termination of pregnancy.

    So you still have not explained your view on pro-lifers motives to me? Please go ahead.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    newmug wrote: »
    I dont know about Miss Y's baby, but Miss X's was killed, yes. As horrible an ordeal that Miss X had to suffer, to top it all off by killing her baby was obscene. Miss X was in no fit mental state to request her baby to be killed, and the state should not have allowed it to happen, nevermind facilitate it! Its barbaric. I would have adapted her myself. And no, it is an established medical fact what a termination is, and what an abortion is, this is the official terminology. It is NOT playing with words. There are no pro-life people who are against termination of pregnancy.

    So you still have not explained your view on pro-lifers motives to me? Please go ahead.
    Miss X had a miscarriage. Maybe you should reacquaint yourself with the true facts of the case.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney_General_v._X

    I do question your motives, now that you've shown you don't really know what happend to the child who's case means abortion in cases of suicide as a risk to life is constitutionally protected.


  • Options
    #98
    am946745
    Closed Accounts Posts: 676 ✭✭✭am946745


    lazygal wrote: »
    Nope. Why do you want me to quote something you know already.

    Our constitution allows me to travel to kill the unborn and to access information on how I go about that, as well as allowing the unborn to be killed if there's a risk to my life, including suicide. Do you think any of those rights should be repealed?

    Sorry that is not what is says. Is it? If I know it then so do you. and it defeats your argument for abortion.


  • Options
    #99
    newmug
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,571 ✭✭✭newmug


    Not a NSA agent wrote: »
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland

    Prevents a woman from being prevented from traveling to another country to get an abortion. If a person attempts to travel for euthanasia or to kill their born child people wont just shrug their shoulders and say what can we do.

    I didnt know about that. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I think we should repeal that amendment.


  • Options
    #100
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    newmug wrote: »
    I didnt know about that. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I think we should repeal that amendment.


    I think you should rescind your comments about the case now. What you've said about the child who was raped is obscene.

    Should we also repeal the right to travel and information?


  • Options
    #101
    newmug
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,571 ✭✭✭newmug


    lazygal wrote: »
    Miss X had a miscarriage. Maybe you should reacquaint yourself with the true facts of the case.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney_General_v._X

    I do question your motives, now that you've shown you don't really know what happend to the child who's case means abortion in cases of suicide as a risk to life is constitutionally protected.

    I must be thinking of a different case then. Tragedy for all involved.

    And yes, we should repeal the 14th aswell. Its like banning guns, but telling everyone where in england they can buy them.

    Anyway, go on. Explain just what exactly you think the pro-life motives are, or "agenda" as some other poster out it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    am946745
    Closed Accounts Posts: 676 ✭✭✭am946745


    lazygal wrote: »
    I think you should rescind your comments about the case now. What you've said about the child who was raped is obscene.

    Should we also repeal the right to travel and information?

    Are you avoiding my previous question?


  • Options
    #103
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    newmug wrote: »
    I must be thinking of a different case then. Tragedy for all involved.

    Anyway, go on. Explain just what exactly you think the pro-life motives are, or "agenda" as some other poster out it.


    I don't think I'll bother, given that you think Miss X asked for her baby to be killed and the state agreed, and you think that was barbaric. You think Miss X should have be forced to remain pregnant, regardless of the risk to her life. That says enough about your motives to me, that pregnant children who've been raped have to stay pregnant.


  • Options
    #104
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    am946745 wrote: »
    Are you avoiding my previous question?
    Are you campaigning to repeal the right to travel and information?


  • Options
    #105
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,738 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    MOD NOTE

    Off topic post deleted.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #106
    newmug
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,571 ✭✭✭newmug


    lazygal wrote: »
    I don't think I'll bother, given that you think Miss X asked for her baby to be killed and the state agreed, and you think that was barbaric. You think Miss X should have be forced to remain pregnant, regardless of the risk to her life. That says enough about your motives to me, that pregnant children who've been raped have to stay pregnant.

    I never said that. Firstly, you know that was another case. But either was, I said her pregnancy should have been terminated, and I would have been willing to adapt the child! Read back over it!

    But no, you're not getting off the hook that easy. Explain what you think the pro-life "agenda" is, or back down. I cant understand what you *think* it is.

    And please calm down. Your tone was actually friendly at first, thats why I engaged with you. Whenever the nutjobs come out, I disconnect, but you actually seemed reasonable enough!!!


  • Options
    #107
    am946745
    Closed Accounts Posts: 676 ✭✭✭am946745


    newmug wrote: »
    I never said that. Firstly, you know that was another case. But either was, I said her pregnancy should have been terminated, and I would have been willing to adapt the child! Read back over it!

    But no, you're not getting off the hook that easy. Explain what you think the pro-life "agenda" is, or back down. I cant understand what you *think* it is.

    And please calm down. Your tone was actually friendly at first, thats why I engaged with you. Whenever the nutjobs come out, I disconnect, but you actually seemed reasonable enough!!!

    Lazgal is not answering questions. So what is the point of discussing the topic with her.


  • Options
    #108
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    newmug wrote: »
    I never said that. Firstly, you know that was another case. But either was, I said her pregnancy should have been terminated, and I would have been willing to adapt the child! Read back over it!

    But no, you're not getting off the hook that easy. Explain what you think the pro-life "agenda" is, or back down. I cant understand what you *think* it is.

    And please calm down. Your tone was actually friendly at first, thats why I engaged with you. Whenever the nutjobs come out, I disconnect, but you actually seemed reasonable enough!!!
    Adapt a child? Do you mean adopt? Adoption is not the right choice for everyone who is pregnant and doesn't want to remain pregnant.

    Maybe you could tell me why I should remain pregnant, regardless of my wishes or the risks to me in terms of physical or mental health, so a foetus can be gestated? I am under no obligation to protect my born children by using by body, such as donating blood or organs. Why must I be forced to use my body to protect the unborn?


  • Options
    #109
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    am946745 wrote: »
    Lazgal is not answering questions. So what is the point of discussing the topic with her.
    You didn't answer my question on whether you think the right to travel and information should be repealed.


  • Options
    #110
    am946745
    Closed Accounts Posts: 676 ✭✭✭am946745


    lazygal wrote: »
    Why? I thought the baby's life was exactly the same as the woman's life. Seems odd that when there's a conflict one life suddenly has more rights than the other.

    Should the suicide clause in the constitution be repealed too, so that women who's lives are at risk in such a fashion cannot avail of abortion?

    Hi, What does our constitution say about the mothers right to life???


  • Options
    #111
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    am946745 wrote: »
    Hi, What does our constitution say about the mothers right to life???
    Do you not know this? Is your google broken?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    am946745
    Closed Accounts Posts: 676 ✭✭✭am946745


    lazygal wrote: »
    You didn't answer my question on whether you think the right to travel and information should be repealed.

    Is a mothers life at risk with Irish laws under Irish Constitution?


  • Options
    #113
    am946745
    Closed Accounts Posts: 676 ✭✭✭am946745


    lazygal wrote: »
    Do you not know this? Is your google broken?

    Ok so we have arrived at that point have we.. Zero rational discussion with you.


  • Options
    #114
    newmug
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,571 ✭✭✭newmug


    lazygal wrote: »
    Adapt a child? Do you mean adopt? Adoption is not the right choice for everyone who is pregnant and doesn't want to remain pregnant.

    Maybe you could tell me why I should remain pregnant, regardless of my wishes or the risks to me in terms of physical or mental health, so a foetus can be gestated? I am under no obligation to protect my born children by using by body, such as donating blood or organs. Why must I be forced to use my body to protect the unborn?

    Stop being a grammar nazi, it smacks of grasping-at-straws. You know what I meant.

    AdOption should be the first option when you have an unwanted pregnancy. Killing your baby shouldnt be an option at all in the case of an unwanted pregnancy. Terminating a preg should be a last case scenario in the case of health risks to the mother.

    And you ask WHY? I thought that would be obvious. Killing is wrong. And yes, you ARE under obligation to do whatever you can to help your born child, its called parenting. Maybe we should make the legislation around it tighter.

    But go on, tell me what you think the pro-life "agenda" is.


  • Options
    #115
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    am946745 wrote: »
    Is a mothers life at risk with Irish laws under Irish Constitution?


    Yes. If I presented with a risk to my health, that could develop into a risk to my life, there's a waiting game. I know you'll start telling me there's no such risk but as far as I know you've never been a pregnant woman in Ireland so the risk won't affect you. But it affects me, and I've been through the maternity services here twice, and the eighth amendment is putting me off having more children in Ireland because I don't want to hang around waiting if I'm miscarrying at 18 weeks and there's a refusal to abort the pregnancy because my life isn't at risk. I also don't fancy being kept alive while my brain rots and my children see me decompose because a foetus has a heartbeat.

    I also don't want to have to travel to terminate/kill the unborn in the case of a fatal abnormality and I don't want to have to remain pregnant even though my health might be at risk.


  • Options
    #116
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    newmug wrote: »
    Stop being a grammar nazi, it smacks of grasping-at-straws. You know what I meant.

    AdOption should be the first option when you have an unwanted pregnancy. Killing your baby shouldnt be an option at all in the case of an unwanted pregnancy. Terminating a preg should be a last case scenario in the case of health risks to the mother.

    And you ask WHY? I thought that would be obvious. Killing is wrong. And yes, you ARE under obligation to do whatever you can to help your born child, its called parenting. Maybe we should make the legislation around it tighter.

    But go on, tell me what you think the pro-life "agenda" is.

    Oh really. What about those with wanted pregnancies that want an abortion, such as because of a fatal abnormality? Should they give up their babies for adoption too?


    Oh I see health risks are ground for killing the unborn too. What risks would they be?
    Should all parents be forced to donate blood and organs, regardless of their wishes? Or the possible risk to their health?


  • Options
    #117
    am946745
    Closed Accounts Posts: 676 ✭✭✭am946745


    lazygal wrote: »
    Yes. If I presented with a risk to my health, that could develop into a risk to my life, there's a waiting game. I know you'll start telling me there's no such risk but as far as I know you've never been a pregnant woman in Ireland so the risk won't affect you. But it affects me, and I've been through the maternity services here twice, and the eighth amendment is putting me off having more children in Ireland because I don't want to hang around waiting if I'm miscarrying at 18 weeks and there's a refusal to abort the pregnancy because my life isn't at risk. I also don't fancy being kept alive while my brain rots and my children see me decompose because a foetus has a heartbeat.

    I also don't want to have to travel to terminate/kill the unborn in the case of a fatal abnormality and I don't want to have to remain pregnant even though my health might be at risk.

    You must be reading a different constitution. You have a constitutional right to life if you are pregnant. If there is a risk you have rights.

    Obstetricians and Gynaecologists manage these risks every day of the week. There is nothing wrong with respecting life, big or small. A women who is pregnant should never die because of the pregnancy. She has the constitutional right to life. There is NO waiting game when the risk is detected. I have seen this first hand.


  • Options
    #118
    Fudge You
    Closed Accounts Posts: 978 ✭✭✭Fudge You


    newmug wrote: »
    No matter where you have an abortion, it is wrong.

    but we cant stop every flight / ship in or out of Ireland because a few women want to do away with their children elsewhere -

    The way you write is very evil. Do you know any woman that had to have an abortion???

    Some abortions are necessary, and are devastating too.

    How about caring for your fellow human???

    A bit of common sense would be very helpful to the people of the catholic church.


  • Options
    #119
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,738 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    lazygal wrote: »
    Do you not know this? Is your google broken?
    am946745 wrote: »
    Ok so we have arrived at that point have we.. Zero rational discussion with you.

    MOD NOTE

    Let's try move back towards the topic instead of talking past each other please.

    Thanks for your attention.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #120
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,738 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Fudge You wrote: »
    The way you write is very evil. Do you know any woman that had to have an abortion???

    Some abortions are necessary, and are devastating too.

    How about caring for your fellow human???

    A bit of common sense would be very helpful to the people of the catholic church.

    MOD NOTE

    Less of this sort of comment please.

    Thanks for your attention.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    newmug
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,571 ✭✭✭newmug


    lazygal wrote: »
    Oh really. What about those with wanted pregnancies that want an abortion, such as because of a fatal abnormality? Should they give up their babies for adoption too?

    Fatal foetal abnormalities are diagnosed incorrectly a huge proportion of the time. Let the baby be born, then see. Unless it will cause a risk to the mother aswell. Its analogous to the reason they scrapped the death penalty - something might show up later to prove the accused innocent. Its too late if they're dead!
    lazygal wrote: »
    Oh I see health risks are ground for killing the unborn too. What risks would they be?
    Should all parents be forced to donate blood and organs, regardless of their wishes? Or the possible risk to their health?

    The risk of death or serious health risks to the mother!!! And no, its not a reason to kill the baby, it can be a reason to terminate the preg. ie c-section the baby out. You know this stuff, stop trying to distract.

    And yes, IMO parents should be obliged to donate to their children, as long as it doesnt pose a risk of death or health risks to the parent.

    You really seem to be laying the wrong traps. I am not falling in to them, because you have the wrong impression of pro-lifers motives. You have not directly explained what you think our "agenda" is, but whatever it is, you seem to have it wrong.

    Our "agenda" is to improve and save lives, especially of those who cannot speak for themselves. Simple as that.


Advertisement