How do you stand on FG's abortion standing?

PaulB1984 · 23-11-2012 12:14am #1

Since the death of Savita, i do believe that there should be adjustments made to the abortion laws in Ireland. But marches filled with thousands of people demanding the entire law be overturned? By all means, that woman should never have died, the moment any life threatening chance was discovered, she should have been taken to the North and given a chance at life. But for not one second do i believe that abortion should be completely legal in this country. Ireland has very little to be proud of in it's government, but as a man completely against the murder of human beings as would any normal person be, i completely support our government on their stance. Should a woman become pregnant and decide she does not want her child, she should be given 2 options, adopt the baby to another couple or have the baby placed in an orphanage so they may be adopted, but by no means is a woman to be given the right to murder a child, a baby, a human being. If a woman doesn't want a child, the best advice i could give is either use protection or choose not to have a relationship built on sex at all. To abort a baby is the same as walking into a maternity ward, snatch up a baby and throw him/ her out a window. Yes we need changes to the law, to protect women in the postion Savita was in, but we're talking ammending, not overturning of law. Murder is murder. Anyone woman who aborts her baby has commited murder, she's done the equal to planting a bomb under someone's car, let's remember when a woman is pregnant, she is carrying a human life inside her, not a thing to be discarded because she or the man who forces her to take such action, can't manage to raise the child. Think of a woman who has aborted a child, and then imagine who that child would've grown to be. She's killing our future. The baby could grow to be the scientist who cures cancer or AIDS. FG need logical steps taken, and that's as far as it should go.

Manach · 23-11-2012 1:40am

Whilst I mostly support the current status-quo on the protection of life of the unborn and mother, calling a mother who has had an abortion a murderer is wrong. Murder has a specific legal meaning, and this does not approach the mental state of the mother making such a difficult decision in almost all circumstances.
From an EU perspective, apart from the time, AFAIR it being matter of such clinics operating in other countries and hence access to information about them was a a requirement of continued EU membership, I don't think the EU forum an appropriate place?

alphabeat · 23-11-2012 1:50am

i personally dont agree with abortion, unless its a medical emergency .

but I also think

if you feel you need one , then you should have that choice and be facilitated .

its not my place to judge anyone , or stand in anyones way - im sure the decision is horrific in itelf .

mikom · 23-11-2012 1:51am

Paragraphs.

The Clown Man · 23-11-2012 2:05am

PaulB1984 wrote: »

Since the death of Savita, i do believe that there should be adjustments made to the abortion laws in Ireland. But marches filled with thousands of people demanding the entire law be overturned? By all means, that woman should never have died, the moment any life threatening chance was discovered, she should have been taken to the North and given a chance at life. But for not one second do i believe that abortion should be completely legal in this country. Ireland has very little to be proud of in it's government, but as a man completely against the murder of human beings as would any normal person be, i completely support our government on their stance. Should a woman become pregnant and decide she does not want her child, she should be given 2 options, adopt the baby to another couple or have the baby placed in an orphanage so they may be adopted, but by no means is a woman to be given the right to murder a child, a baby, a human being. If a woman doesn't want a child, the best advice i could give is either use protection or choose not to have a relationship built on sex at all. To abort a baby is the same as walking into a maternity ward, snatch up a baby and throw him/ her out a window. Yes we need changes to the law, to protect women in the postion Savita was in, but we're talking ammending, not overturning of law. Murder is murder. Anyone woman who aborts her baby has commited murder, she's done the equal to planting a bomb under someone's car, let's remember when a woman is pregnant, she is carrying a human life inside her, not a thing to be discarded because she or the man who forces her to take such action, can't manage to raise the child. Think of a woman who has aborted a child, and then imagine who that child would've grown to be. She's killing our future. The baby could grow to be the scientist who cures cancer or AIDS. FG need logical steps taken, and that's as far as it should go.

All of the above leads me to believe that, far from wanting a rational debate about merit and morality, you are already convinced what your one, true and only answer is. So why even ask?

maringo · 23-11-2012 2:12am

The suggestion that the young woman should have been taken to the North is ridiculous. Equally ridiculous is the "risk to life" rather than the risk to a person's health. This young woman should not have endured what she was put through before she died. As a pro-life person myself I believe young mothers-to-be whose pregnancy is damaging their health and need medical attention should have it at home in Ireland and not have to trek to England like fugitives to get the medical attention they need.

23-11-2012 2:27am

PaulB1984 wrote: »

She's killing our future. The baby could grow to be the scientist who cures cancer or AIDS.

Well Paul, I hope you don't masturbate. God knows what kind of potential scientist that cures aids or cancer you've "murdered"...

It's all potential after all...

Nodin · 23-11-2012 5:21am

PaulB1984 wrote: »

....... To abort a baby is the same as walking into a maternity ward, snatch up a baby and throw him/ her out a window. Yes we need changes to the law, to protect women in the postion Savita was in, but we're talking ammending, not overturning of law. Murder is murder.

Anyone woman who aborts her baby has commited murder, she's done the equal to planting a bomb under someone's car, let's remember when a woman is pregnant, she is carrying a human life inside her, not a thing to be discarded because she or the man who forces her to take such action, can't manage to raise the child.

Think of a woman who has aborted a child, and then imagine who that child would've grown to be. She's killing our future. The baby could grow to be the scientist who cures cancer or AIDS. FG need logical steps taken, and that's as far as it should go.

(for legibilitys sake, I've taken the liberty of adding paragraphs)

...though less common these days, this is an attitude thats still out there. Which of course goes some way to answer the question as to why the vast, vast majority of those who have had abortions stay silent about what they've done.

On the specific issue of FG and abortion - I think the OP is under a number of illusions as to what that is. While they don't favour 'abortion on demand', it would seem the majority favour legislating on the x case, which would allow for abortion in certain circumstances where the life of the mother is at risk (going on some reports in the Indo etc).

I fail to understand the logic of sending a woman who finds herself in life threatening circumstances to the North for such a procedure.

poeticseraphim · 23-11-2012 8:03am

The opening post is irrational.

Look you are either pro-choice ,anti-choice.

People have strong feelings and I personally think there needs to be a referendum.

I am pro-choice. I will never vote for a pro-life politician again if i can avoid it.
It means that much to me.

I do not believe in this weird theory of ensoulment or protection of POTENTIAL life at the expensive of the choice of an ACTUAL life.

A fetus is not a person.

But people have strong views and your stance is your stance.

We could go round and round in debate but what is the point?

The debate in this forum on the issue seems less informed than the one in the ladies lounge or after hours.

We have embryonic research in this country. At some point the fetus becomes something that has an interest that we take into consideration. But not from conception.

Using the terms human life and human person interchangeably is incorrect.

A fetus in the early trimester has no sentience, no emotion, no sensation of pleasure or pain no sensation at all no mind. It is not conscious.

Is an embryo to be considered a person? The high court ruled embryos used in research were not protected by the constitution as far as I know.

I will never understand why people have issues with a woman aborting an embryo??? That will never make sense to me. Embryonic stem cell research is potentially hugely beneficial to humanity in so many ways.

I have argued that early human embryos are not human beings, and do not have normal rights. Like human sperm and ova, they are both alive and biologically human. However, they lack the physiological development necessary to sustain a capacity for sentience. If Ford is right, then they are not yet individual human organisms. But the more important point is that their lack of a capacity for sentience makes them inappropriate candidates for the ascription of moral rights. Thus, research on human embryos produced in vitro is not a wrong against them--at least so long as experimentally manipulated embryos are not returned to the womb, or artificially gestated to a stage at which they might become sentient. Some of the more difficult issues about embryo experimentation involve the rights of women as experimental subject and donors. The consent of both male and female gamete donors should normally be required for the production or experimental use of IVF embryos

This has been determined by embryologists.

Some research is already done in Ireland.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0524/stemcells.html

And IVF fertility treatment does involve unused embryos.

To consider these 'people' is unreasonable to me and would prohibit a lot of work that could do so much good.

Many years of careful research in which I have participated has shown that the neonate, or the fetus, is not a little adult; that the mechanisms and structures used for pain processing are very different at different stages of development.

Neonates are not little people.. If you start treating an entity like something it is not you will likely do it damage. Protecting it's rights earlier than it's viability can lead to terrible consequences for that 'potential child'.

The limit of viability is the gestational age at which a prematurely born fetus/infant has a 50% chance of long-term survival outside its mother's womb. With the support of neonatal intensive care units, the limit of viability in the developed world has declined since 50 years ago, but has remained unchanged in the last 12 years.[4][5] Currently the limit of viability is considered to be around 24 weeks although the incidence of major disabilities remains high at this point.[6][7] Neonatologists generally would not provide intensive care at 23 weeks, but would from 26 weeks

In the Netherlands it is illegal to allow a child to be born before 25-26 weeks..they do not allow resuscitation earlier than 25 weeks....the risk of severe abnormalities is so high.

When preterm babies are born, the main causes of perinatal mortality is that the respiratory system and the central nervous system are not completely differentiated,[1] causing infant respiratory distress syndrome. "If given expert postnatal care, some fetuses weighing less than 500g may survive; they are referred to as extremely low birth weight or immature infants."[1] Preterm birth is the most common cause of perinatal mortality, causing almost 30 percent of neonatal deaths.

Abortion for extremely abnormal neonates should be allowed. It is cruel if they will be in pain and not survive long.

I think we need to discuss when we feel a neonate becomes an unborn child and what rights are appropriate and it's best interests. Otherwise we will end up potentially causing pain to that child.

I would be pro-choice simply because it makes no sense to me to consider first trimester neonates to be people with similar moral rights.

And those that call themselves pro-life often end up being the ones who cause the most suffering and pain. 'Pro-life' is an oxymoron.

Death and Taxes · 23-11-2012 8:45am

PaulB1984 wrote: »

Since the death of Savita, i do believe that there should be adjustments made to the abortion laws in Ireland. But marches filled with thousands of people demanding the entire law be overturned? By all means, that woman should never have died, the moment any life threatening chance was discovered, she should have been taken to the North and given a chance at life. But for not one second do i believe that abortion should be completely legal in this country. Ireland has very little to be proud of in it's government, but as a man completely against the murder of human beings as would any normal person be, i completely support our government on their stance. Should a woman become pregnant and decide she does not want her child, she should be given 2 options, adopt the baby to another couple or have the baby placed in an orphanage so they may be adopted, but by no means is a woman to be given the right to murder a child, a baby, a human being. If a woman doesn't want a child, the best advice i could give is either use protection or choose not to have a relationship built on sex at all. To abort a baby is the same as walking into a maternity ward, snatch up a baby and throw him/ her out a window. Yes we need changes to the law, to protect women in the postion Savita was in, but we're talking ammending, not overturning of law. Murder is murder. Anyone woman who aborts her baby has commited murder, she's done the equal to planting a bomb under someone's car, let's remember when a woman is pregnant, she is carrying a human life inside her, not a thing to be discarded because she or the man who forces her to take such action, can't manage to raise the child. Think of a woman who has aborted a child, and then imagine who that child would've grown to be. She's killing our future. The baby could grow to be the scientist who cures cancer or AIDS. FG need logical steps taken, and that's as far as it should go.

That has to be one of the despicable and intolerant posts I have ever read.
In essence the OP is demanding that women be legally forced to carry pregancies and go through childbirth against their will.
One has wonder where the OP would hold them to ensure that they complied with their legal obligations? Perhaps we could ask the nuns to reopen the laundry!
termination of preganacy, for any reason, should be a legal right for any woman up to a certain time, I think in most countries that is between 14 and 16 weeks.
It is sad to see the Talibanesque types still trying to undermine, by any means available, the rights of women to regulate their own lives and their own bodies.:mad:

K-9 · 23-11-2012 9:03am

Given the tone of the OP I don't know if there is much hope for the thread. I'd draw the Op's attention to the charter which says:

Certain standards of debate are expected, and will be enforced. Your posts must contribute to debate, not derail it or drag it into mob chanting. There's been a serious decrease in the signal to noise ratio in the forum recently, and that trend requires reversal.

If your posts consists of little more than a statement that some group of people or other are bad people and/or deserve prison/execution as traitors, think long and hard before pressing "submit", because we'll be treating that as trolling from here on in.

Calling women who have had abortions murderers is hardly conducive to debate.

How do you stand on FG's abortion standing?

Comments