Keep abortion out of Ireland

philologos · 25-02-2012 12:20am

hattoncracker 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?

hattoncracker · 25-02-2012 12:22am

philologos wrote: »

hattoncracker 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?

Deank · 25-02-2012 12:25am

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

lmaopml · 25-02-2012 12:27am

gimmebroadband wrote: »

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))))

wonderfulname · 25-02-2012 12:27am

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?

philologos · 25-02-2012 12:29am

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.

hattoncracker · 25-02-2012 12:29am

gimmebroadband wrote: »

hattoncracker wrote: »

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.

Sonics2k · 25-02-2012 12:32am

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.

Festus · 25-02-2012 12:35am

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!"

Festus · 25-02-2012 12:39am

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?

Deank · 25-02-2012 12:42am

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:,

lmaopml · 25-02-2012 12:43am

wonderfulname wrote: »

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.

JimiTime · 25-02-2012 12:45am

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.

oceanclub · 25-02-2012 12:46am

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.

Deank · 25-02-2012 12:48am

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

JimiTime · 25-02-2012 12:49am

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.

Guy:Incognito · 25-02-2012 12:51am

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.

hattoncracker · 25-02-2012 12:51am

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.

Jumpy · 25-02-2012 12:52am

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.

hattoncracker · 25-02-2012 12:54am

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

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

wonderfulname · 25-02-2012 12:57am

lmaopml wrote: »

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.

Is all of this aimed at me or just the first bit - Just to point out, if the rest is, you're preaching, for the most part, to the choir, but I don't see the point in a yes or no discussion here, apart from it being logically and morally unsound, it's not going to get anywhere. Far more interested in how people perceive the grey areas.

gimmebroadband · 25-02-2012 1:13am

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

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.

The same thing as a mother making a choice on behalf of her baby, whether it should live or die! :rolleyes:

hattoncracker · 25-02-2012 1:17am

gimmebroadband wrote: »

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

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.

The same thing as a mother making a choice on behalf of her baby, whether it should live or die! :rolleyes:

Which is why the law should be changed about the definition of what is a living human being and what is not.

Festus · 25-02-2012 1:21am

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

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

What if your girlfriend did have an abortion, and killed your son or daughter?

Or are you meerly arguing the case for other people while holding your own air of superiority. It smacks of nimbyism

Listen, this is how it works - if you think something is okay for other people then you have to accept it is ok for family, your girlfiend, and your children, too.

Guy:Incognito · 25-02-2012 1:21am

gimmebroadband wrote: »

The same thing as a mother making a choice on behalf of her baby, whether it should live or die! :rolleyes:

Exactly, HER baby. It's her life thats affected by her having or not having a baby, not yours.

You can roll your eyes all you like, but you've no right to decide what other people do with their bodies.

And what of children that are the product of rape, either by stranger sor family members (it happens). Why would you potentially force some woman to endure a lifetime of torment every day having to deal with a child they didnt/dont want and resent?Having to relive the ordeal every day. The child has to deal with that too.

lmaopml · 25-02-2012 1:23am

wonderfulname wrote: »

Is all of this aimed at me or just the first bit - Just to point out, if the rest is, you're preaching, for the most part, to the choir, but I don't see the point in a yes or no discussion here, apart from it being logically and morally unsound, it's not going to get anywhere. Far more interested in how people perceive the grey areas.

No, I was just interested in your response, it was worth replying to

The 'grey areas' make bad laws, but good 'news' worthy topics, imo wonderfulname. You argue it, convince people it makes sense if you think abortion serves or helps.

Festus · 25-02-2012 1:24am

hattoncracker wrote: »

Which is why the law should be changed about the definition of what is a living human being and what is not.

Surely the definition of what a living human being is should come from the scientific and medical community and not politicians or legislators.

Guy:Incognito · 25-02-2012 1:25am

Festus wrote: »

What if your girlfriend did have an abortion, and killed your son or daughter?.

My girlfriend feels the same as me. Abortion isnt something she'd do, but supports other peoples right to choice.

Festus wrote: »

Listen, this is how it works - if you think something is okay for other people then you have to accept it is ok for family, your girlfiend, and your children, too.

If a daughter of mine (wont happen, I've 2 sons and we're done having kids) decided as an adult to have an abortion thats her choice.

gimmebroadband · 25-02-2012 1:29am

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

You can roll your eyes all you like, but you've no right to decide what other people do with their bodies.

Neither has a mother any right to decide what to do with a baby's body, they are not one being, but two seperate beings.

And what of children that are the product of rape, either by stranger sor family members (it happens). Why would you potentially force some woman to endure a lifetime of torment every day having to deal with a child they didnt/dont want and resent?Having to relive the ordeal every day. The child has to deal with that too.

But the woman must endure a lifetime of two torments, both rape and abortion.

hattoncracker · 25-02-2012 1:31am

Festus wrote: »

hattoncracker wrote: »

Which is why the law should be changed about the definition of what is a living human being and what is not.

Surely the definition of what a living human being is should come from the scientific and medical community and not politicians or legislators.

Well if they did define it as something that can survive outside the womb then legally whatever is in the womb during the early weeks of pregnancy is just a cell grouping, not a living thing. If that Is already the case then legally you cannot refer to a foetus in the early weeks of pregnancy as a human being, and has no rights.

Festus · 25-02-2012 1:32am

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

My girlfriend feels the same as me. Abortion isnt something she'd do, but supports other peoples right to choice.

If a daughter of mine (wont happen, I've 2 sons and we're done having kids) decided as an adult to have an abortion thats her choice.

So you don't want grandchildren either...

... or rather, you wouldn't be too pushed if your sons wives or girlfriends decided you shouldn't have any while you're alive. or at all.

Guy:Incognito · 25-02-2012 1:32am

gimmebroadband wrote: »

But the woman must endure a lifetime of two torments, both rape and abortion.

Not everyone views abortion as a torment. Plenty of people are perfectly fine with it. Thats their choice. Choice being the operative word.

You choose what you want with your life and how you live it, let others do the same.

Guy:Incognito · 25-02-2012 1:34am

Festus wrote: »

So you don't want grandchildren either...

Your just making up replies to stuff I havnt posted. Yes , I'd like grandchildren. I wont be forcign my kids to have them if they dont want to. If they both turn out to be gay it'll probably irrelevant anyone.

Guy:Incognito · 25-02-2012 1:36am

Festus wrote: »

... or rather, you wouldn't be too pushed if your sons wives or girlfriends decided you shouldn't have any while you're alive.

Again, what?

If its at a stage where people are having abortions just to make sure I dont have grandkids, then whether women in Ireland can legally have them here will be the least of my family worries. The relationsips will have failed at a much worse level at that stage.

Festus · 25-02-2012 1:41am

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Your just making up replies to stuff I havnt posted. Yes , I'd like grandchildren. I wont be forcign my kids to have them if they dont want to. If they both turn out to be gay it'll probably irrelevant anyone.

So? you're making up stuff that you don't think will affect you. It's OK for other people, just not your girlfriend, isn't that right... you're not planning any more kids so it won't affect you, you think.

Whether you kids have kids or not is neither here nor there. I'm asking you to consider how you would feel if in your advancing years your sons come along and tell you your grandchildren have been aborted.

Guy:Incognito · 25-02-2012 1:46am

Festus wrote: »

So? you're making up stuff that you don't think will affect you. It's OK for other people, just not your girlfriend, isn't that right... you're not planning any more kids so it won't affect you, you think..

What have I made up? Myslef and my girlfriend have had discussions about it and decided it wasnt for us, so yes, it wont affect us. Who am I to make that decision for another couple, people I dont even know?

Festus wrote: »

Whether you kids have kids or not is neither here nor there. I'm asking you to consider how you would feel if in your advancing years your sons come along and tell you your grandchildren have been aborted.

Thats their choice to do if they want, I dont have a say in the choices other adults make, nor should I.

Festus · 25-02-2012 1:48am

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Again, what?

If its at a stage where people are having abortions just to make sure I dont have grandkids, then whether women in Ireland can legally have them here will be the least of my family worries. The relationsips will have failed at a much worse level at that stage.

You're going way too deep in trying to put words in my mouth.

All I'm saying is that you wouldn't care if your grandchildren were aborted. Right?

If I'm wrong then you have to consider that the availability of abortion would put the lives of your grandchildren at risk.

goz83 · 25-02-2012 1:48am

hattoncracker wrote: »

And if, about 8 months into the pregnancy the man changes his mind and immigrates after begging her not to have an abortion? And it does happen, I know someone this happened to.

That's beside the point I was making and argumentative for the sake of it. Maybe the guy found out the woman was screwing around and the baby wasn't his.

Plowman · 25-02-2012 1:49am

This post has been deleted.

Festus · 25-02-2012 1:49am

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

What have I made up? Myslef and my girlfriend have had discussions about it and decided it wasnt for us, so yes, it wont affect us. Who am I to make that decision for another couple, people I dont even know?

You don't know your grandchildren yet but you seem happy for them to be aborted if it is your sons or your sons partners choice.

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Thats their choice to do if they want, I dont have a say in the choices other adults make, nor should I.

Even if that other adult wants to kill your child or grandchild?

wonderfulname · 25-02-2012 1:50am

lmaopml wrote: »

No, I was just interested in your response, it was worth replying to The 'grey areas' make bad laws, but good 'news' worthy topics, imo wonderfulname. You argue it, convince people it makes sense if you think abortion serves or helps.

In general, yes, grey areas make bad laws for grey wording, but confusingly enough you can address the grey areas in black and white, just because it has not been done here does not mean it cannot be.

Lets take the substantial risk to the life of the mother thing, if the words substantial and risk are clearly defined that concept can work as intended, or as presented. I already mentioned the doctrine of double effect, that could be deemed to be a foray into the grey on the part of Catholicism, but despite that it still makes it very clear what is acceptable and what is not in situations which are about as far from black and white as moral decisions can get.

As for my own position on abortion, I'm not sure of it overall, but I do believe if a woman is likely to die (as measured by a specified degree of probability evident from medical knowledge) without an abortion, it's just inhumane to withhold it in this country, the idea that we do this to women quite disgusts me in fact, how can defending it be deemed morally right?

Guy:Incognito · 25-02-2012 1:52am

Festus wrote: »

You don't know your grandchildren yet but you seem happy for them to be aborted if it is your sons or your sons partners choice.

Even if that other adult wants to kill your child or grandchild?

Your not going to get me to change my mind by trying to press personal buttons.

What right should I have to dictate the actions of other adults can do with their bodies? Whether they are related to me is irrelevant.

Festus wrote: »

You're going way too deep in trying to put words in my mouth.
.

I think if you read back its the other way round. You conveniently skip over bits you dont want to answer and deciding I dont want things to go a certain way. ie the 2 sentences that followed the quoted one.

I live my life the way I want too, and I leave others alone to do the same. I dont practice any religion and that suits me. I have no need for any.

Keylem · 25-02-2012 1:53am

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Exactly, HER baby. It's her life thats affected by her having or not having a baby, not yours.

You can roll your eyes all you like, but you've no right to decide what other people do with their bodies.

And what of children that are the product of rape, either by stranger sor family members (it happens). Why would you potentially force some woman to endure a lifetime of torment every day having to deal with a child they didnt/dont want and resent?Having to relive the ordeal every day. The child has to deal with that too.

By violating her baby's body through abortion, the mother would be no better than the person who violated her body through rape, in fact it may be worse, as one is the killing of another human being!

Guy:Incognito · 25-02-2012 1:58am

Keylem wrote: »

By violating her baby's body through abortion, the mother would be no better than the person who violated her body through rape, in fact it may be worse, as one is the killing of another human being!

In your opinion. Your opion is not someone elses. Thats why you get to choose what you do with your body and should leave others to do the same.

I'm sure theres one or two ways you violate your body in some peoples opinion. Shoudl they be allowed stop you doing that?

Maybe we should make any potentially harmfull things illegal for pregnant women. Caffeine? certain foods? etc Force them to comply with our opinions?

Festus · 25-02-2012 1:58am

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Your not going to get me to change my mind by trying to press personal buttons.

What right should I have to dictate the actions of other adults can do with their bodies? Whether they are related to me is irrelevant.

The baby growing inside a woman is not her body. It is a separate individual that due to the nature of our biology gestates inside of the mother for nine months. We are not marsupials. If we were we would be arguing about litter laws.

And when it comes to it I will push whatever buttons I feel are neccessary to get the message across and to get people thinking. If getting you thinking works that's a bonus but I am lousy at holding my breath.

You can think what you like, that is your choice. My concern is when your choices and your actions - for example voting for abortion in Ireland if that opportunity ever comes up again - leads to the destruction of innocent human life. Lives that were given no choice at all.

super_furry · 25-02-2012 1:59am

Keylem wrote: »

By violating her baby's body through abortion, the mother would be no better than the person who violated her body through rape, in fact it may be worse, as one is the killing of another human being!

Wow. That's just......wow.

I find it hard to believe that people still think this way.

goz83 · 25-02-2012 2:01am

super_furry wrote: »

Wow. That's just......wow.

I find it hard to believe that people still think this way.

Yeah, it's mad. Maybe if they were violated they might think differently. Easy to judge from a pedestal of righteousness.

Festus · 25-02-2012 2:02am

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Your not going to get me to change my mind by trying to press personal buttons.

What personal buttons?

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

What right should I have to dictate the actions of other adults can do with their bodies? Whether they are related to me is irrelevant.

No one is talking about what adults do to their own bodies here. What we are talking about is what adults do to the bodies of their children.

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

I think if you read back its the other way round. You conveniently skip over bits you dont want to answer and deciding I dont want things to go a certain way. ie the 2 sentences that followed the quoted one.

I got trigger happy and missed a bit. Deal with it.

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

I live my life the way I want too, and I leave others alone to do the same. I dont practice any religion and that suits me. I have no need for any.

Your choice.

Guy:Incognito · 25-02-2012 2:04am

Festus wrote: »

The baby growing inside a woman is not her body. It is a separate individual that due to the nature of our biology gestates inside of the mother for nine months. We are not marsupials. If we were we would be arguing about litter laws.

And when it comes to it I will push whatever buttons I feel are neccessary to get the message across and to get people thinking. If getting you thinking works that's a bonus but I am lousy at holding my breath.

You can think what you like, that is your choice. My concern is when your choices and your actions - for example voting for abortion in Ireland if that opportunity ever comes up again - leads to the destruction of innocent human life. Lives that were given no choice at all.

If anything, the self righteousness and moral indignation pushes me further towards the opposite pole of thinking from yours. It's the people that make such an effort of forcing their opinions on others that make me want to stop beign so lazy come election or referendum times and make sure I get off my arse and vote, maybe even do some campaigning to make sure other similar minded people do the same.

Guy:Incognito · 25-02-2012 2:06am

Festus wrote: »

Your choice.

I'm still allowed have one of those? Cool.

Keep abortion out of Ireland

Comments