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

Keep abortion out of Ireland

1246765

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 7,237 ✭✭✭Deank


    philologos wrote: »
    If you're married, it's extremely unlikely you'd opt for abortion as far as I can tell. I don't know if what you're saying is true though.

    Secondly, it's about a compromise IMO. It's wrong to kill a child, but it is wrong to leave a woman to bear something like this alone. Denying a child life is fundamentally wrong IMO and I can't support abortion for that reason and I never will.

    If single people waited until marriage, and indeed if sexuality was expressed only within marriage. I can guarantee you that 99% of this issue wouldn't exist.

    Oh the " Auld wait till yer married to have sex gag", get a grip please and return to the planet whence you came from.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,091 ✭✭✭hattoncracker


    Can't give a child up if youre married. And single women with unwanted pregnancies should not be treated like incubators.

    There is always fostering, until the parents can provide for their child!

    No sex = no pregnancy!

    You only get to make that comment if you were a virgin on your wedding night.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,091 ✭✭✭hattoncracker


    Deank wrote: »
    philologos wrote: »
    If you're married, it's extremely unlikely you'd opt for abortion as far as I can tell. I don't know if what you're saying is true though.

    Secondly, it's about a compromise IMO. It's wrong to kill a child, but it is wrong to leave a woman to bear something like this alone. Denying a child life is fundamentally wrong IMO and I can't support abortion for that reason and I never will.

    If single people waited until marriage, and indeed if sexuality was expressed only within marriage. I can guarantee you that 99% of this issue wouldn't exist.

    Oh the " Auld wait till yer married to have sex gag", get a grip please and return to the planet whence you came from.


    Again, there are married couples who never want kids.. Sex after marriage, contraception fails, well tough!


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,237 ✭✭✭Sonics2k


    philologos wrote: »
    That's another problem which is equally immoral.

    Both are things which are wrong. Both should be condemned. If people waited until they were in a stable marriage, there wouldn't be situations like those in the vast majority of cases. The messes of fathers running from children, and unplanned pregnancy, and of abortion are all the result of a rejection of traditional sexual ethics.

    Because these things never happened when the Church had more power over the State and Europe, right?

    Yup, there was a few hundred years of absolute bliss under the Church.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Deank wrote: »
    Abortion has nothing to do with killing a 5 year old or a grandmother, it's about terminating a fetus, and I never assume anything, am a good reader of minds though, off the soap box with yeh now.

    You're a very poor reader of minds. Our second child was severely disabled and we had to make a choice whether to proceed with the pregnancy or not.

    And this is an internet discussion forum, so perhaps you might cut out the cracks about soap boxes just because someone expresses a different view to your own.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Deank wrote: »
    Oh the " Auld wait till yer married to have sex gag", get a grip please and return to the planet whence you came from.

    This is the Christianity forum. By the by, I know plenty of people who follow by this principle. Many of whom are now married with families. It works, and has various advantages in comparison to an approach which has rejected this, which has produced much of the things which we've discussed already. This works in the real world.

    It's simply common sense that if people waited to be in a stable marriage first, there would be little to no spread of STD's, there would be little to no occurrence of unplanned pregnancy, there would be little to no reason as to why people would seek out an abortion.

    If we're going to get into a discussion about the legality of abortion, we must be willing to consider why it is apparently needed. It seems to be because people have valued conjugal rights over and above the right to life which is crucial leaving quite a bit of destruction behind in society. This is lamentable, and something that I find tragic personally. The real problem isn't about whether or not abortion is legal, it is about why such a horrid procedure is needed to begin with.

    We don't seem to want to solve the underlying problem, but simply find a reason to brush it under the carpet.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,080 ✭✭✭lmaopml


    Deank wrote: »
    Oh the " Auld wait till yer married to have sex gag", get a grip please and return to the planet whence you came from.

    On the planet you live on, when you have sex you could create new life, as in a tiny life, no matter how careful sometimes - a huge thing, and part and parcel of really good love making :P something that possibly your very own parents regarded when they awaited your arrival Dean.

    I'm sure your parents lived on this planet too. and you are very human.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,267 ✭✭✭gimmebroadband


    You only get to make that comment if you were a virgin on your wedding night.

    I was never pregnant - we had to adopt, and I thank God and ask that He look after and bless the woman who made our lives complete! ;)

    OTOH, I know someone who had an abortion, and is having a hard time dealing with it - many come to regret it for the rest of their lives!


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,091 ✭✭✭hattoncracker


    philologos wrote: »
    Deank wrote: »
    Oh the " Auld wait till yer married to have sex gag", get a grip please and return to the planet whence you came from.

    This is the Christianity forum. By the by, I know plenty of people who follow by this principle. Many of whom are now married with families. It works, and has various advantages in comparison to an approach which has rejected this, which has produced much of the things which we've discussed already. This works in the real world.

    It's simply common sense that if people waited to be in a stable marriage first, there would be little to no spread of STD's, there would be little to no occurrence of unplanned pregnancy, there would be little to no reason as to why people would seek out an abortion.

    If we're going to get into a discussion about the legality of abortion, we must be willing to consider why it is apparently needed. It seems to be because people have valued conjugal rights over and above the right to life which is crucial leaving quite a bit of destruction behind in society. This is lamentable, and something that I find tragic personally. The real problem isn't about whether or not abortion is legal, it is about why such a horrid procedure is needed to begin with.

    We don't seem to want to solve the underlying problem, but simply find a reason to brush it under the carpet.

    Well ok, so how do you feel about girls who are not given a choice of saying no? How do you feel about abortion after rape?


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,237 ✭✭✭Deank


    PDN wrote: »
    You're a very poor reader of minds. Our second child was severely disabled and we had to make a choice whether to proceed with the pregnancy or not.

    And this is an internet discussion forum, so perhaps you might cut out the cracks about soap boxes just because someone expresses a different view to your own.

    Okay agree to disagree on this and I've been in a similar situation with a close family member, Truce?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Well ok, so how do you feel about girls who are not given a choice of saying no? How do you feel about abortion after rape?

    I think that women should be given all the assistance that they need.

    Let me look at it this way. Is it the child's fault that it was conceived in such circumstances?


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,091 ✭✭✭hattoncracker


    philologos wrote: »
    Well ok, so how do you feel about girls who are not given a choice of saying no? How do you feel about abortion after rape?

    I think that women should be given all the assistance that they need.

    Let me look at it this way. Is it the child's fault that it was conceived in such circumstances?

    And is it the woman's fault she is pregnant¿ should she be villified or shunned because going through with giving birth to that child would just be too traumatic so she travels out of the country and has an abortion?


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,237 ✭✭✭Deank


    philologos wrote: »
    This is the Christianity forum. By the by, I know plenty of people who follow by this principle. Many of whom are now married with families. It works, and has various advantages in comparison to an approach which has rejected this, which has produced much of the things which we've discussed already. This works in the real world.

    It's simply common sense that if people waited to be in a stable marriage first, there would be little to no spread of STD's, there would be little to no occurrence of unplanned pregnancy, there would be little to no reason as to why people would seek out an abortion.

    If we're going to get into a discussion about the legality of abortion, we must be willing to consider why it is apparently needed. It seems to be because people have valued conjugal rights over and above the right to life which is crucial leaving quite a bit of destruction behind in society. This is lamentable, and something that I find tragic personally. The real problem isn't about whether or not abortion is legal, it is about why such a horrid procedure is needed to begin with.

    We don't seem to want to solve the underlying problem, but simply find a reason to brush it under the carpet.

    And roll on with the Catholic rhetoric, as i stated earlier, remove religion, remove conflict. Simples....:D


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,080 ✭✭✭lmaopml


    I was never pregnant - we had to adopt, and I thank God and ask that He look after and bless the woman who made our lives complete! ;)

    OTOH, I know someone who had an abortion, and is having a hard time dealing with it - many come to regret it for the rest of their lives!


    ((((hugs))))


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,943 ✭✭✭wonderfulname


    PDN wrote: »
    The problem is that a phrase such as "a real and substantial risk to the life of the pregnant woman" can be interpreted very broadly indeed. How do you define that?

    "Doctor, I like so can't believe I'm pregnant like. I only had a few vodka and red bulls that night, and my Shane gets like so forgetful about those condom thingies, you know. Siobhan has already measured us all for the bridesmaid dresses this Summer, you know. And I'll like just kill myself if I've put on weight and have to ask her to make me a fatter dress than Kylie, oh my God!"

    "So you're suicidal, eh Stacey? We can't have that, sounds like a real and substantial risk to your life. Thankfully our enlightened legislators have provided for this very situation. Here, I'll write you a referral letter for a termination."


    This is how bad laws can be made. People vote for a bill thinking of a scenario where the mother is lying on the operating table and faces certain death unless an abortion is performed. But sloppy wording gets interpreted by unelected judges, not by the bozos who voted in the Dail, and so in a few years 'suicidal' Stacey gets her abortion so she can squeeze her selfish body into a bridesmaid dress.

    And, sadly, I'm old and cynical enough to suspect that Clare Daly was fully aware of this possibility when she phrased her bill as she did.

    Okay, ridiculous example, but I understand your position, it's been mine on other bills. Interestingly enough clarity of this term is what the medical establishment has been asking for, because after all, as has been pointed out, it's technically the position anyway, but as clear guidelines have not been set out practitioners are put in a pretty uncomfortable position. Have you seen the bill? I certainly can't get hold of it, I'd imagine we won't see the text until next week, so I think you've been a bit quick off the mark in assuming the sloppiness of it's wording.
    Jumpy wrote: »
    Ah yes. Wait for the baby to be born before going on life saving Radiation or Chemo.
    Thats a great idea. Waiting will kill both mother and baby, but dont let that get in the way of a good pro-lifer rant.
    Pointless example, interestingly enough the Catholic position* on this is not that therapies such as these should be withheld from a pregnant woman, it falls under the principle of double effect, so long as the intentions of the medical practitioner are solely "good", i.e. the therapies sole intent is to aid the woman and not at all to terminate the unborn, it's allowed.

    You do bring up an interesting question for me however, How do posters here feel about the fallout of the abortion carried out at St. Joseph Hospital in Arizona a few years back? Quick summary of events: Medical staff believed (with good, educated, reason) both mother and baby would die if no action was taken, and that the mother could be saved but the baby could not. They were left with a choice: Follow Catholic teachings and do no more than make the woman as comfortable as possible, or abort the pregnancy so she would live, a senior nun signed off on the latter, leading to her excommunication (later reinstated - not clear why) and the hospital being stripped of its Catholic standing. So what was the morally upstanding thing to do here? Personally, I think the nun got it right, right and wrong are not black and white, no matter what you deem them to be, and the "think of the children" argument fails to recognise that.

    *given that "Catholic" has come up so many times here I think it the relevant one to cite, fun question: Is this the same across Christianity?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    hattoncracker: I don't support vilifying anyone. I also don't support taking life.

    Deank: I'm an evangelical Christian actually, and this is the Christianity forum. The logic is simple. If one waits until marriage, one doesn't have multiple sexual partners reducing the risk of STD's. Also, if one does this, one won't have children whether or not they are planned until they are in a stable marriage. Also, if one does this, their marriage more than likely will provide stability to raise children thus reducing the need for abortion.

    It's because people put more emphasis on their conjugal rights over the right to life that this shift in society has occurred.

    Again, I'm simply observing the pattern that Christianity promotes and following its logic through.

    Also, it'd be really nice if you could respect me in the same way that I am respecting you by actually giving your argument the time of day.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,091 ✭✭✭hattoncracker


    You only get to make that comment if you were a virgin on your wedding night.

    I was never pregnant - we had to adopt, and I thank God and ask that He look after and bless the woman who made our lives complete! ;)

    OTOH, I know someone who had an abortion, and is having a hard time dealing with it - many come to regret it for the rest of their lives!

    Not all women do. I got pregnant, almost lost my kidney function from the dehydration due to Hyperemesis. I lost my child before I had decided whether or not I.would travel to the UK. My boyfriend and I have decided I wouldn't survive another pregnancy, and I am going to have to battle to have myself sterilized, because I'm 25 and healthy.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,237 ✭✭✭Sonics2k


    PDN wrote: »
    Why? Because I don't think it is a good thing to kill babies. Nothing to do with religion.

    That doesn't actually answer my questions.

    Specifics are an important part of the debate and discussion on this matter worldwide, not just the religious issues.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    Sonics2k wrote: »
    Do you oppose all forms and reasons for Abortion?

    Yes
    Sonics2k wrote: »
    Actually this isn't aimed directly at you PDN, but all those here who oppose it.

    If you say so...
    Sonics2k wrote: »
    If so, why? Is it purely for religious reasons?

    Only if you believe that laws against murder are based on religious reasons and nothing else.

    Personally I believe that the taking of a human life is wrong. One could argue the case for convicted and proven guilty murderers and the death penalty but they had a choice. What choice does a baby in the womb have? It didn't ask to be conceived!


    You asked why. Well quite simply once a child is conceived it is just that - a child. A baby, another human being, at it's weakest and most vulnerable.
    And at it's most innocent. It can never be right or morally or ethically acceptable to kill another innocent human being under any circumstances.
    Sonics2k wrote: »
    For the sake of clarity, I do support Abortion under strict reasons, eg, pregnancy as the result of rape/mother's safety or life/incest/early teens or even medical reasons.

    You mean on demand.

    How long does it take to determine if a rape occurred?
    What happens to a woman who lies about a rape to get an abortion?
    Define mothers safety? There are no circumstances where a pregnancy is allowed compromise a mothers safety. If she needs treatment she gets it. Abortion cures nothing.
    Incest? We're still taking a human life and besides, as in rape, how long does it take to prove it was incest? Oh wait, yeah, you can test the babies DNA after it's dead.
    Early teens? Irelands history records it once allowed marriage at 13. But that's a different matter. Evolution, mother nature, call it what you will but at the basic level biology is such that girls in general do not start releasing eggs until the body knows it is capable of going to term. And even if biology fails, which it does - not even evolution is perfect - a caesarian, while no minor operation, results in two healthy individuals more othen than abortion does.

    Do you know the circumstances of your own conception? This is not directed at you but everyone, especially those who think there are circumstances where murder is acceptable.

    How many here reading this, abortion advocates especially, or anywhere are here because of rape or incest and they don't know it. Or maybe they do. How many are here because their mothers love for them was greater than the love of anyone else bar God.

    Would they be willing to turn around a say to their mothers "I was conceived how? How dare you let me be born - you should have aborted me!"


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    Deank wrote: »
    Oh the " Auld wait till yer married to have sex gag", get a grip please and return to the planet whence you came from.

    Eh... what's wrong with waiting until you're married?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 7,237 ✭✭✭Deank


    philologos wrote: »
    hattoncracker: I don't support vilifying anyone. I also don't support taking life.

    Deank: I'm an evangelical Christian actually, and this is the Christianity forum. The logic is simple. If one waits until marriage, one doesn't have multiple sexual partners reducing the risk of STD's. Also, if one does this, one won't have children whether or not they are planned until they are in a stable marriage. Also, if one does this, their marriage more than likely will provide stability to raise children thus reducing the need for abortion.

    It's because people put more emphasis on their conjugal rights over the right to life that this shift in society has occurred.

    Again, I'm simply observing the pattern that Christianity promotes and following its logic through.

    Also, it'd be really nice if you could respect me in the same way that I am respecting you by actually giving your argument the time of day.
    `

    What has waiting until marriage got to do with abortion, don't bring STD's into it that's a different debate, one which I do agree with you on :eek:,


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,080 ✭✭✭lmaopml


    Okay, ridiculous example, but I understand your position, it's been mine on other bills. Interestingly enough clarity of this term is what the medical establishment has been asking for, because after all, as has been pointed out, it's technically the position anyway, but as clear guidelines have not been set out practitioners are put in a pretty uncomfortable position. Have you seen the bill? I certainly can't get hold of it, I'd imagine we won't see the text until next week, so I think you've been a bit quick off the mark in assuming the sloppiness of it's wording. Pointless example, interestingly enough the Catholic position* on this is not that therapies such as these should be withheld from a pregnant woman, it falls under the principle of double effect, so long as the intentions of the medical practitioner are solely "good", i.e. the therapies sole intent is to aid the woman and not at all to terminate the unborn, it's allowed.

    You do bring up an interesting question for me however, How do posters here feel about the fallout of the abortion carried out at St. Joseph Hospital in Arizona a few years back? Quick summary of events: Medical staff believed (with good, educated, reason) both mother and baby would die if no action was taken, and that the mother could be saved but the baby could not. They were left with a choice: Follow Catholic teachings and do no more than make the woman as comfortable as possible, or abort the pregnancy so she would live, a senior nun signed off on the latter, leading to her excommunication (later reinstated - not clear why) and the hospital being stripped of its Catholic standing. So what was the morally upstanding thing to do here? Personally, I think the nun got it right, right and wrong are not black and white, no matter what you deem them to be, and the "think of the children" argument fails to recognise that.

    *given that "Catholic" has come up so many times here I think it the relevant one to cite, fun question: Is this the same across Christianity?

    Wonderfulname you are quite right; people should wait to see the 'wording'. But hey, you can't blame anybody for reading/guessing what is coming down the line no? People talk - it's boards.ie!

    Sincerely, don't even dare to critic Irish mums in relation to the value of their children; Catholic Church or no - you think it's all about 'religion' how foolish, you must think we're idiots - how totally and utterly vastly wrong are you - and even in the case with women who make any decision they deem fit - you are totally out of the loop as regards same.

    Irish 'religious' women and mums support 'women' with charity and love and nothing less, and regard men as equals and nothing more. It's a partnership, but it doesn't negate our support and call for support for those who find themselves in desperate circumstances - we can't judge them - we can only guage our very own failure to support them.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Your issue seems to be more about not trusting the motivations of doctors than this legilsation.

    Its not really about not trusting doctors. If someone says they are suicidal, then its not like doctors/psychologists have some special skill or instrument to know if its a genuine case or not. An example of how things like this work is the way getting a house from the council works (in England anyway). A single mum lets say, has to say that her parents are kicking her out so that she is declared officially homeless. So it just becomes the system that you say that you are homeless due to your folks not letting you live with them in order to get onto the council list. I remember when myself and my wife went to get on the housing list the council guy said you just put that down as 'its the system'. Similarly, I would see this suicide threat being 'the system'.
    Doctors and social workers assess the suicide risk of patients all the time.

    I'm not saying they don't, but never have they had to deal with someone desiring something which required them saying they are suicidal.
    Often it is a very difficult decision (don't accept they are serious and they might kill themselves, do decide they are serious and you might lock someone up on suicide watch for days or weeks, possibly under medication).

    Except, if they say they are suicidal on the basis of the pregnancy will it be suicide watch, or will it be 'grant abortion, and problem solved'?
    But your assessment of this as some "token examination", either because the doctor doesn't want the responsibility of actually assessing if they are suicidal or because the doctor is super pro-choice and just wants to rub stamp an abortion through technicalities, is quite dismissive to doctors and what is expected of them.

    I never said anyone would be super pro abortion, but for a doctor to take that responsibility, they would have no consequences to saying, 'yes, they are a suicide risk', whereas, saying the opposite brings the risk of suicide occurring and the doc being called to account. As a professional, with a career etc, you'd have to question why they'd second guess someone who says, 'I'm suicidal'.
    These are not light decisions,

    To a pro choice person, it IS a light decision to allow someone make the choice.
    and I don't think doctors or other medical staff take them lightly.

    Again, there is no consequence for the doctor for signing off as 'suicide risk', though there would be a very real risk to them saying, 'woman lying about being suicidal'.

    There is no doubt in my mind that this legislation would just be a Trojan horse.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,410 ✭✭✭oceanclub


    scidive wrote: »
    A message on http://www.thewarningsecondcoming.com asks the Irish people to keep abortion out of Ireland

    Yup, let's keep Irish women having abortions in England where they belong.

    P.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,237 ✭✭✭Deank


    Festus wrote: »
    Eh... what's wrong with waiting until you're married?

    Nothing if it's not based on religion, just because the church tells you it's wrong to have sex before marriage you shouldn't? and if a Priest sticks his hand in a flaming fire would you? Who know's where it's been before hand :p


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    28064212 wrote: »
    Are you saying the Supreme Court was wrong in its interpretation of 40.3.3? That your interpretation is more accurate than 4 Supreme Court justices?

    Yes. Now if the law procedes, I accept their authority, but having had much contact with the judiciary, I don't assume their wisdom. They don't get their positions because they are wise, so while they have authority, I don't automatically assume inferiority because of their position.


  • Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    qrrgprgua wrote: »
    I will be voting NO to abortion. Because its wrong, not because of Religion or faith. But because killing a child is wrong.

    Your opinion is fine and you wont have an abortion. But why do you get to make that decsion for someone else.

    I wouldnt want my girlfriend to ever get an abortion but I'm very much pro choice.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,091 ✭✭✭hattoncracker


    JimiTime:

    Abortion is not a light decision for anyone. you've obviously never been in that position so you have no place to comment on that.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,606 ✭✭✭Jumpy


    philologos wrote: »
    To clarify the world is not overpopulated.

    hattoncracker: Adoption is an option that would allow the child to live.

    Really?

    What would they eat? Dust?

    What would they drink?

    Where would their waste go?

    Oh sure, we could cut down some more forests to allow for farming. That sounds like a great idea.

    To say the world is not overpopulated "because we could fit way more" is deluded.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,091 ✭✭✭hattoncracker


    qrrgprgua wrote: »


    Your opinion is fine and you wont have an abortion. But why do you get to make that decsion for someone else.



    .


    +1000


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement