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

Ireland's abortion laws challenged in Europe

Options
1…1415171920…23

Comments

  • Options
    #482
    fatmammycat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,208 ✭✭✭fatmammycat


    However before I let our petty spat go a few words of advice, if you are attempting to pick someone up on their "glaring inacuracies" (sic) then at least spell the word correctly (double the first c) or maybe you were being post-ironic or something.

    Really, we're doing the spelling police routine now?

    The Corinthian, I doubt any woman would be overly concerned if the baby they didn't want was growing outside their womb. The whole point of abortion it to abort the fetus and expel its unwanted presence from within and carry on with life as normal.


  • Options
    #483
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Xiney wrote: »
    In the case of foetal development outside the womb becoming possible, where the woman has aborted her pregnancy, I would wager that the choice would be the father's whether to have the foetus develop further.
    Possibly. A case in point is where a couple have had zygotes frozen as part of IVF treatment, then break up. In such a case the permission of both is required - this has been challenged a few times without success.
    However, I don't see this happening unless the father is willing to pay for it.
    Based on my original premise, if he was not, the issue would be moot.
    Edit: Furthermore we are likely a LONG way away from foetal development outside the womb. The growth of an embryo is just so incredibly complicated - we are probably even more than 100 years off being able to "fake" development of the fruit fly, one of the animals for which we have quite a lot of knowledge (comparitively) of its development through hox genes and the like - and which is MUCH less complicated than a human being.
    I believe we're actually looking at fifty years before a functional artificial womb and much less for foetal transplants - so if you're an apprentice solicitor now, I'd look into this as a future specialization.


  • Options
    #484
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    fatmammycat wrote: »
    The Corinthian, I doubt any woman would be overly concerned if the baby they didn't want was growing outside their womb. The whole point of abortion it to abort the fetus and expel its unwanted presence from within and carry on with life as normal.
    Until they are then sued for child maintenance.


  • Options
    #485
    Malari
    Registered Users Posts: 18,150 ✭✭✭✭Malari


    fatmammycat wrote: »
    The Corinthian, I doubt any woman would be overly concerned if the baby they didn't want was growing outside their womb. The whole point of abortion it to abort the fetus and expel its unwanted presence from within and carry on with life as normal.

    I don't know about that. Like The Corinthian said, maybe maintenance costs. But for me it would the constant worry that at some stage in your life this kid is going to want to find her biological mother. Same reason I wouldn't give birth and give up for adoption.


  • Options
    #486
    fatmammycat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,208 ✭✭✭fatmammycat


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Until they are then sued for child maintenance.
    On what grounds? I thought you meant if the other parent wanted to keep the fetus.
    As Malari said though, you'd always leave yourself open to being contacted in the future.
    I know a woman who gave a child up for adoption 17 years ago, and she's mentally preparing herself for him to contact her any day. But in fairness her husband knows about the boy as does her daughter, I imagine if it was a complete secret her fear would be unbearable.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #487
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    fatmammycat wrote: »
    On what grounds? I thought you meant if the other parent wanted to keep the fetus.
    On the grounds that she is the biological mother. What grounds do you think fathers get sued for maintenance on?


  • Options
    #488
    metrovelvet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭metrovelvet


    Malari wrote: »
    I don't know about that. Like The Corinthian said, maybe maintenance costs. But for me it would the constant worry that at some stage in your life this kid is going to want to find her biological mother. Same reason I wouldn't give birth and give up for adoption.

    Thats the conveneince of abortion - thats what it comes down to- you can silence the child so there are no questions asked later, so you dont have to answer, mommy why didnt you want me.

    Its far more efficient than adoption, its far more private then a late stage pregnancy, where you get knowing smiles from mothers and mothers to be [la complicite des femmes] when they see your bump while you know all along you are not keeping the child, all along while everyone is asking you what you are going to name it and if its a boy or a girl.

    Abortion has a sinister convenience to it.


  • Options
    #489
    metrovelvet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭metrovelvet


    fatmammycat wrote: »
    Really, we're doing the spelling police routine now?

    The Corinthian, I doubt any woman would be overly concerned if the baby they didn't want was growing outside their womb. The whole point of abortion it to abort the fetus and expel its unwanted presence from within and carry on with life as normal.

    I wonder if they would have a problem putting their name on the birthcert.


  • Options
    #490
    fatmammycat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,208 ✭✭✭fatmammycat


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    On the grounds that she is the biological mother. What grounds do you think fathers get sued for maintenance on?

    No no, I get that, I just assumed you meant these 'grow bags' for babies were for fathers who assumed sole parenthood for preborn fetus' rather than have them aborted. I appear to have misunderstood your original post, mea culpa.


  • Options
    #491
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    metrovelvet wrote: »
    I wonder if they would have a problem putting their name on the birthcert.
    I'm sure they would if it was then used to sue them.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #492
    fatmammycat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,208 ✭✭✭fatmammycat


    metrovelvet wrote: »
    I wonder if they would have a problem putting their name on the birthcert.
    No idea. It's all a bit pie in the sky really. Right, off to kick stuff. bye.


  • Options
    #493
    NameMe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13 ✭NameMe


    drkpower wrote: »
    I wasnt actually directly quoting you. I was illustrating the idiocy of a position where one believes something to be fudamentally wrong, yet if it is made legal, they 'accept' it.

    lol are you for real? Really think about what you are saying there.

    Do I really have to illustrate examples?

    drkpower wrote: »
    The 1992 Referendum had nothing to do with rape. Educate yourself.

    err yes actually it kinda did, there would have been no referendum unless the x case was brought to light...educate yourself.


    drkpower wrote: »
    See below; seems pretty forceful, and 'entirely ludicrous' suggests how wrong people are, last time I checked. At least have a bit of responsibility for what you say and the manner you say it. If you are going to label others perjoratively as 'right to destroy the foetus' people and dismiss their views as 'entirely ludicrous', expect to have your views tested. And when you come up with a number of factual innacuracies, expect to have them pointed out. And dont expect sympathy when you cry about it.

    Is pro-choice not just a euphemism for pro-right to destroy the foetus? I'm just trying to call things as they actually are. Again I suggest you try it.

    I point out what I considered to be SOME of the ludicrous points made, never FORCEFULLY SAID "YOU ARE WRONG" to anybody no matter how you try to spin it.



    drkpower wrote: »
    Good man, you got me on a spelling error. Marvellous. My credibility is shot to hell.

    yes and please double the c not the n ok!

    Next patronising series of ill-founded badly spelt accusations please, I can hardly wait!


  • Options
    #494
    metrovelvet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭metrovelvet


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    I'm sure they would if it was then used to sue them.

    You don't need a name on the birthcert to sue. Suing puts the name on the birthcert, but you don't need it there first to start court action.


  • Options
    #495
    Xiney
    Registered Users Posts: 8,085 ✭✭✭Xiney


    Next person to pull someone up on spelling in this thread is getting at LEAST an infraction.

    Come on, have a reasonable discussion. Don't resort to that petty stuff.

    PS: the correct term is "pro-choice". Using any other term for that group of people again will cause me to ban you.


  • Options
    #496
    Demonique
    Registered Users Posts: 2,824 ✭✭✭Demonique


    PomBear wrote: »
    the ECHR is seperate from the EU, but the charter is now legally binding under the Lisbon Treaty. The status of Irelands 'legal' gurantees is yet to be seen really.




    If she was having an abortion, why would she care?

    If they're deadly serious about having an abortion, paying the extra medical expense for consultation shouldn't be an issue to them really.

    Chemo can cause birth defects in the foetus. In the US pregnant women with cancer are advised to abort before commencing chemo


  • Options
    #497
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    metrovelvet wrote: »
    You don't need a name on the birthcert to sue. Suing puts the name on the birthcert, but you don't need it there first to start court action.
    Depends on whether both parties are in the same legal jurisdiction. If not it is very difficult to sue without a paper trail.


  • Options
    #498
    metrovelvet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭metrovelvet


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Depends on whether both parties are in the same legal jurisdiction. If not it is very difficult to sue without a paper trail.

    No it does not. It makes no difference. You can take out a maintenance suit with no name on the birthcert. The name will be put there, AFTER the suit.


  • Options
    #499
    drkpower
    Registered Users Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭drkpower


    NameMe wrote: »
    lol are you for real? Really think about what you are saying there. Do I really have to illustrate examples?
    Yes.
    NameMe wrote: »
    err yes actually it kinda did, there would have been no referendum unless the x case was brought to light...educate yourself.
    You are desperately stretching!

    Your initial suggestion was that there was a law in place with regard to abortion in the case of rape. Then you say that law is the 'right to travel'. The right to travel is applicable to anyone, rape is entirely irrelevent.
    So when called on that you then try and claim that what you meant was that the X case involved a woman who was raped. Which of course it did, but the judgment had nothing to do with rape per se. And the subsequent referenda had nothing to do with rape. So rape was and is irrelevent to the right to travel which people voted on.

    It is this kind of dishonesty which I hate. We all get things wrong; when Im wrong Ill admit it and move on. Stubbornness only makes us all look more foolish.


  • Options
    #500
    whatdoicare
    Registered Users Posts: 2,398 ✭✭✭whatdoicare


    I can't understand why there's even an argument about this- there's enough women going to England to have an abortion that it's no longer a secret. Why are we all pretending that bringing in abortion is going to change anything really? The only thing it'll change is that women will have better aftercare and can avail of therapy without the secrecy and lack of understanding.
    We all know it's the big elephant in the room and the reality we all have to face is that women get abortions weither we like it or not, life goes on.


  • Options
    #501
    Demonique
    Registered Users Posts: 2,824 ✭✭✭Demonique


    Khannie wrote: »
    I consider the right of the unborn child to life to be more important than the right of the mother to have a pregnancy-free existence. Is it sh*t for the mum? Yes. Would it be sh*t to be the aborted child though? yes. Someone's going to lose. .

    The child's not going to know any better. I consider my right to have a **** trophy-free existence more important than the right to life of the **** trophy


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #502
    metrovelvet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭metrovelvet


    Demonique wrote: »
    The child's not going to know any better. I consider my right to have a **** trophy-free existence more important than the right to life of the **** trophy

    Is that all you are? A ****trophy?

    Wow. I didnt know there were people who thought of themselves that way. Do you consider hanging yourself off a mantlepiece?


  • Options
    #503
    Khannie
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 37,485 Mod ✭✭✭✭Khannie


    Demonique wrote: »
    The child's not going to know any better.

    You wouldn't know any better if (for example) you got shot in the head. Doesn't make it right. I think you're a troll to be honest with your **** trophy bolloxology.


  • Options
    #504
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    Dante09 wrote: »
    Just a suggestion for the mods: move this thread to the legal discussion forum
    Abortion is illegal. Not much they can do! :)


  • Options
    #505
    Khannie
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 37,485 Mod ✭✭✭✭Khannie


    whatdoicare wrote: »
    I can't understand why there's even an argument about this- there's enough women going to England to have an abortion that it's no longer a secret.

    Again for the cheap seats (sorry folks, I just can't seem to keep out of this thread, I'm trying really hard). The laws of a foreign country should have no bearing on how we frame our own. Either we (as a nation) believe in the right to life or we don't. All we can do is say what we will do ourselves. You can never prevent someone from travelling to a foreign country to avail of their more lenient laws. Paedophiles have been doing it for ages. Doesn't mean I want it allowed here.

    Seriously, this question has been answered repeatedly. Can you just have a read back through at least some of the thread before jumping in.


  • Options
    #506
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Demonique wrote: »
    The child's not going to know any better. I consider my right to have a **** trophy-free existence more important than the right to life of the **** trophy
    LOL. I'd love to see the reaction if a man suggested something like that.
    metrovelvet wrote: »
    Do you consider hanging yourself off a mantlepiece?
    During or after the act?


  • Options
    #507
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    Khannie wrote: »
    Either we (as a nation) believe in the right to life or we don't.

    The MAP would contradict this country's belief in a right to life.


  • Options
    #508
    Silverfish
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,696 Mod ✭✭✭✭Silverfish


    I'm going to ask one more time for people to keep it civil.

    Also, no more troll accusations, if you feel someone is trolling, don't engage them and use the report post function.

    NOTE: Actual trolling, not someone who doesn't share your opinion.

    Thank you.


  • Options
    #509
    sparkling sea
    Registered Users Posts: 1,410 ✭✭✭sparkling sea


    whatdoicare wrote: »
    I can't understand why there's even an argument about this- there's enough women going to England to have an abortion that it's no longer a secret. Why are we all pretending that bringing in abortion is going to change anything really? The only thing it'll change is that women will have better aftercare and can avail of therapy without the secrecy and lack of understanding.
    We all know it's the big elephant in the room and the reality we all have to face is that women get abortions weither we like it or not, life goes on.

    Although I completely agree with your post - people who are anti abortion will not deal with the reality of the situation.

    Whether or not you agree with abortion, it happens - the anti abortion commentators just continue to say things like its wrong, its murder, etc, all the while ignoring that it happens and will continue to happen. The bigger question which includes for example the lack of pre and post services needed by women who have abortions continues to be avoided.

    The arguement just goes back and forth and when any valid points are made, the anti abortion commentators side step the issues. Its crazy. Some people could not put a child up for adoption but they could have an abortion.
    Other people do not consider a foetus as a human being but rather a clump of cells. Some people don't believe in God or an after life so that is not an issue for them, others see it as paramount. Some people respect a person's fundemental right to make an autonomous and private decision about what can happen to their bodies, others feel this right should be superceded by the unborns right to life.

    Abortion is a fact of life, you can disagree with it until your blue in the face but it won't change a thing. You can obtain information you can travel for an abortion, but because you may upset the sensitivities of the anti abortion lobby, you cannot avail of proper services this is something that could be changed. But we won't deal with the reality of the situation; we just talk around it. Its just so Irish why can't we deal with issues that we don't like. Its embarassing


  • Options
    #510
    Khannie
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 37,485 Mod ✭✭✭✭Khannie


    I've altered what you said, substituting in the word "pedophilia" to show you how ridiculous your point is.
    pedophilia is a fact of life, you can disagree with it until your blue in the face but it won't change a thing. You can obtain information you can travel for pedophilia, but because you may upset the sensitivities of the anti pedophilia lobby, you cannot avail of proper services this is something that could be changed. But we won't deal with the reality of the situation; we just talk around it. Its just so Irish why can't we deal with issues that we don't like. Its embarassing

    Again, just because people travel to circumvent our laws does not mean that we should not have them.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #511
    drkpower
    Registered Users Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭drkpower


    Khannie wrote: »
    Either we (as a nation) believe in the right to life or we don't.

    Im afraid it is not that simple. The right to life is not absolute, it is always subject to the exercise of other rights by other individuals in various different circumstances. Most reasonable accept that the right to life of the foetus is below the right to life of the mother. Many also believe that the right to life of the foetus is below the right to health of the mother. In circumstances where someone is assaulting another, the right to life of the assaulter can rank below the right to bodily integrity of the assaultee.

    I could go on but the fundamental point is that we have no difficulty in subordinating the right to life in some circumsatnces. The question in this debate is whether it is appropriate that the foetal right to life is subordinate to other maternal rights. But lets not present this is merely debate on whether we value life; it is far far more complex than that.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement