Keep abortion out of Ireland

newmug

ABORTION BILL DEFEATED, 111 VOTES TO 20


http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/0419/breaking14.html

prinz

Zombrex wrote: »

Yup. Which is why I find the hypocrisy common in the anti-abortion side rather distasteful and frankly quite baffling. We must think about the unborn child!! Except of course when the parents want something from it!!

You find hypocrisy baffling, which is why you are yourself being hypocritical?

marienbad wrote: »

Absolutely agree with you , but that is a long way from ''gushing'' is it not?

When this post.. and the video it contains.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=78214908&postcount=1066

is described as gushing and celebration, then no. Strikes me as very similar.

eviltwin wrote: »

No one wants to be held up as a hero, just respected and treated with a bit of dignity.

..and I aim to treat people with dignity and respect.

prinz

newmug wrote: »

ABORTION BILL DEFEATED, 111 VOTES TO 20

It was defeated as a matter of routine. The main parties are awaiting the report from the expert group which AFAIK is to come back in June, only months away.

All this vote was was an attempted hijacking of a sensitive issue by a couple of chancers it never had a chance. It was a political stunt that was never actually meant to pass just drum up a bit of publicity for a couple of also-rans like Worzel Gummidge and Daly.

They are also aware of the risk of being used as political pawns. “Sinn Féin are all over it but I don’t want them using this for a platform,” says Arlette Lyons emphatically.

Nail on head from Arlette. http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/features/2012/0417/1224314815319.html

That's all this private member's bill was. A platform and a football.

There will be a bill brought forward in time, possibly later this year, and it will be passed in the Dáil.

PDN

newmug wrote: »

ABORTION BILL DEFEATED, 111 VOTES TO 20


http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/0419/breaking14.html

Claare Daly's hypocrisy stinks to high heaven. In that Irish Times link:

Speaking before the vote, Ms Daly said she respected other people’s opinions, but there had some inaccuracies in the debate. The Bill, she said, did not seek abortion on demand. She said it was incredibly limited and solely provided for the situation whereby an abortion would be permissible in Ireland where the life of the woman was at risk, including from suicide

But the previous night in the Dail:

Introducing the legislation, Socialist TD Clare Daly said this was the first time a bill was being presented to the House to deal with a situation that has been ignored for too long.

She said she was introducing the bill on behalf of the 150,000 women who have been “exported” from this country to seek abortion services.

So the 150,000 women in the second quote were all genuinely at risk of losing their lives unless they had an abortion? :rolleyes:

Zombrex

prinz wrote: »

You find hypocrisy baffling, which is why you are yourself being hypocritical?

Can you point out where I was being hypocritical. I suspect not, since you and me have discussed this topic long enough for you to know my position inside and out. Nice try though

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Claare Daly's hypocrisy stinks to high heaven. In that Irish Times link:


But the previous night in the Dail:


So the 150,000 women in the second quote were all genuinely at risk of losing their lives unless they had an abortion? :rolleyes:

+1

Often the only thing as bad as the anti-abortion side is the pro-abortion side. Abortion should not be snuck into this country under false pretenses. It should be debated properly without the hysteria that it is needed to save the lives of women. There are very rare cases where this is true, but neither the anti or pro side believe that is the real topic at the heart of this matter.

prinz

Zombrex wrote: »

Can you point out where I was being hypocritical. I suspect not, since you and me have discussed this topic long enough for you to know my position inside and out. Nice try though

I'm genuinely curious, either you agree with..

Zombrex wrote:

The interests of the parents, even if they are having a hard time emotionally, do not over rule the child.

or you don't. Or else you are trying to imply that abortion is in the child's best interest.

qrrgprgua

PDN wrote: »

Claare Daly's hypocrisy stinks to high heaven. In that Irish Times link:


But the previous night in the Dail:


So the 150,000 women in the second quote were all genuinely at risk of losing their lives unless they had an abortion? :rolleyes:

PDN you are quiet right to highlight this!. Her agenda to drive Ireland into a free for all on demand abortion is clear..

prinz

qrrgprgua wrote: »

PDN you are quiet right to highlight this!. Her agenda to drive Ireland into a free for all on demand abortion is clear..

Her main agenda is self-promotion.

qrrgprgua

prinz wrote: »

There will be a bill brought forward in time, possibly later this year, and it will be passed in the Dáil.

Nothing needs to be passed.. We don't need the law amended. Abortion has already been put to the vote more that once.. The People have spoken.

Zombrex

prinz wrote: »

I'm genuinely curious, either you agree with..



or you don't. Or else you are trying to imply that abortion is in the child's best interest.

You know very well that I believe abortion can only take place before a person exists, and before a person exists they have no best interests (cause they don't exist).

Again nice try but I think I've repeated that point enough that everyone should know it by now.

prinz

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Nothing needs to be passed.. We don't need the law amended. Abortion has already been put to the vote more that once.. The People have spoken.

If there is a Constitutional right that isn't made sufficiently clear in practice by way of legislation for anyone to actually exercise that right, then yes legislation needs to be passed. You might not like it, but the imperative is there, made clear again recently in Europe.

28064212

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Nothing needs to be passed.. We don't need the law amended. Abortion has already been put to the vote more that once.. The People have spoken.

You do realise that when the people spoke, they said that a woman has a right to an abortion in certain circumstances? And that right is not currently available?

Wh1stler

JimiTime wrote: »

I think this exemplifies a spectacular lack of empathy and humanity. You may disagree with the decision this couple made, but to make such a heartless quip?? Have you any idea how it feels, especially for a woman, to carry a child only to be told that its going to die? The emotional and psychological strain it causes? The immense grief? So maybe take a minute to ponder that before you quip that this couple just wanted a photo. While I'm not one for sentimentality, I'm not one for emotionally detached coldness neither.

Have you any idea what it is like to be a baby who is born to suffer and then die?

The photo is not worth it at any price.

And aren't you guilty of putting the needs of the mother before the welfare of the child? Why don't we abort, again?

Wh1stler

prinz wrote: »

I don't think it is as much celebrating the behaviour as respecting the choice that those parents made. You know, repsecting the choices of others with regards to their unborn children is one of those things we all must do apparently. Respect them for having an abortion that is. If they choose not to (pro-choice and all that), judge them.

It's not pro-choice, it's pro making-chidren-suffer-in-order-to-validate-Catholicism!!!

Wh1stler

JimiTime wrote: »

No they didn't! If you truly believe that this is all they got, you really have no clue about the human condition. Maybe you need to spend time with some grieving mothers to enlighten you.

And what did the baby get?

Wh1stler

prinz wrote: »

You heartless god-bothering, biblebashing, Catholic traditionalist, fundamentalist, insensitive, judgemental, anti-women, anti-human right, SPUC-supporting..............


Oh wait you are pro choice, and you are saying the interests of the parents do not overule the child. I see. Being judgmental is not restricted to pro-lifers after all. Choice is free, as long as you are making the right one by me. The irony.

An 'un-developed foetus' is not the same as a 'child'.

But we agree that abortion laws are not in place to prevent the suffering of childeren.

Wh1stler

Zombrex wrote: »

Which is why parents like this are applauded, they wanted their child so much that they brought it into existence simply for it to die a few hours later. They feel as real parents should, right? And isn't that what it is all about. Examining what they actually did and whether or not it was for the benefit of the child seems a distance second to the desire to celebrate that they wanted the child in the first place.

Yes and this started early in Catholicism: Mary, mother of Jesus, was told that her child would be born to suffer greatly and she accepted that outcome with relish.

The suffering of children has always been lucrative for Catholicism.

prinz

Anti-Catholic rant yet again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(I got the impression the more exclamation marks I could throw in there the more valid my point would be.)

Wh1stler

prinz wrote: »

Anti-Catholic rant yet again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(I got the impression the more exclamation marks I could throw in there the more valid my point would be.)

But first you need to have a point.

JimiTime

Wh1stler wrote: »

Have you any idea what it is like to be a baby who is born to suffer and then die?

Again, this whole 'suferring' malarky is just a pejorative attempt to give this horsesh1t 'argument' weight. The fact is that 1) there is nothing about sufferring in the video, that has been extrapolated from nothing. 2) It doesn't matter anyway, as the alternative that you are suggesting, i.e. killing the baby in utero, makes the baby suffer and die. 3) The medical profession get things wrong all the time anyway. My aunt was supposed to have died 4 years ago from Cancer. My friend with motoneuron diease was supposed to have only months to live, and ended up getting 5 years to his delight. Thats only two incidences out of many I can recall. I'm sure there are many cases of parents of in utero children also getting told their baby is going to have this or that which doesn't actually materialise too. So no matter what stupid twist people try to put on it, including making abortion something to be celebrated as moral (Its one thing talking about choice, but twisting it to be the only moral choice?? Pull the feckin other one!)

Why don't we abort, again?

Because a child in utero is still a child, and we do all we can to give them the chance to live.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Again, this whole 'suferring' malarky is just a pejorative attempt to give this horsesh1t 'argument' weight. The fact is that 1) there is nothing about sufferring in the video, that has been extrapolated from nothing.

It is being "extrapolated" from the fact that the baby lives for only a few hours. Normally children don't just die. They die due to some organ or system failing or never working in the first place. And this in the vast majority of cases involves suffering before death.

JimiTime wrote: »

It doesn't matter anyway, as the alternative that you are suggesting, i.e. killing the baby in utero, makes the baby suffer and die.

You cannot suffer if you don't have a brain that can understand pain. A zygote no more suffers than a rock does.

JimiTime wrote: »

The medical profession get things wrong all the time anyway.

They don't get it wrong "all the time". They get it wrong in a tiny minority of cases, which is true of anything as complicated as medical diagnosis. In the vast majority of cases they get it right. That is where the statistics for these things come from in the first place.

The doctor who told your aunt she had 4 years to live did not simply pluck that number out of thin air. It would have been based on the statistics of what happen to the vast majority of people in a similar situation. Almost by definition that is the case, if it wasn't the doctors would have no idea what the likely prognosis for your aunt would have been.

I appreciate that is a human instinct to hold out for hope no matter how slim (particularly is someone is religious and believes a benevolent deity is going to answer prayers). But it is still a terrible risk to take when the most likely outcome that you are just going to bring a child into existence to simply suffer for a short period and then die.

JimiTime

Zombrex wrote: »

It is being "extrapolated" from the fact that the baby lives for only a few hours. Normally children don't just die. They die due to some organ or system failing or never working in the first place. And this in the vast majority of cases involves suffering before death.
You cannot suffer if you don't have a brain that can understand pain. A zygote no more suffers than a rock does.

When is an anatomy scan done? Its certainly not done on the zygote!

They don't get it wrong "all the time". They get it wrong in a tiny minority of cases, which is true of anything as complicated as medical diagnosis. In the vast majority of cases they get it right. That is where the statistics for these things come from in the first place.

'All the time' was a figure of speech, to indicate that it happens regularly, not literally, 'they are never right'.

The doctor who told your aunt she had 4 years to live did not simply pluck that number out of thin air. It would have been based on the statistics of what happen to the vast majority of people in a similar situation. Almost by definition that is the case, if it wasn't the doctors would have no idea what the likely prognosis for your aunt would have been.

i wouldn't argue otherwise, but when we are dealing with a child in utero, then I wouldn't simply say, 'Ok, you get it right most of the time, so just kill the child'. Then for you to use this to take the moral high ground that a parent is being selfish etc?? Its flippin warped!

I appreciate that is a human instinct to hold out for hope no matter how slim
(particularly is someone is religious and believes a benevolent deity is going to answer prayers). But it is still a terrible risk to take when the most likely outcome that you are just going to bring a child into existence to simply suffer for a short period and then die.

You spin it as a risk, but in reality, most parents will want to give their child every chance they can. Even if I allow for your reasoning, it still gives you absolutely no grounds to take the moral high ground. Spinning the complexities of love and our desire to have our children as a selfishness to be disgusted by is spectacularly devoid of empathy. You'd swear that these parents were thinking, 'I don't care about if my child suffers or not, I want a photo'. Its an absolute nonsense.

georgieporgy

Carrying a baby to term is not asking very much of a mother. Some posters seem to have a problem with the notion of suffering. Christians however accept that suffering is a part of life. Everybody suffers sooner or later. This applies to believers and non believers alike.

Christians tend to believe Christ when he said "my yoke is sweet, my burden light" "take up you cross and follow me" etc etc.

Try it. It's not as bad as it looks.
(it's coming your way sooner or later anyway)

Zombrex

georgieporgy wrote: »

Everybody suffers sooner or later.

Not if they don't exist. The child I didn't conceive yesterday will never suffer.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

When is an anatomy scan done? Its certainly not done on the zygote!

I've no idea, I imagine it is different for every disease. Some tests can be done on the parents DNA long before there is even a mention of a child. For example some couples can know that their combined DNA greatly increases the risk of genetic disorders. Many choose not to have natural children as they feel it is not worth the risk to produce a child that may have one of these horrible diseases. It is such decisions that should be applauded, not the other way around.

JimiTime wrote: »

'All the time' was a figure of speech, to indicate that it happens regularly, not literally, 'they are never right'.

I'm well aware of what the figure of speech means Jimi. Again the reality is that it doesn't happen all the time. It happens very very very rarely. It is because they are rare statistical anomalies that draw attention to them.

JimiTime wrote: »

i wouldn't argue otherwise, but when we are dealing with a child in utero, then I wouldn't simply say, 'Ok, you get it right most of the time, so just kill the child'. Then for you to use this to take the moral high ground that a parent is being selfish etc?? Its flippin warped!

Terminating the child before a person exists is merely destroying human cells. The woman's body does exactly the same thing in the vast majority of cases (up to 8 out of 10 times), naturally aborting the foetus if there is any hint of a problem with relation to its viability. Any detectable defects in the zygote or embryo itself and nature itself aborts. As I've pointed out many many times few anti-abortion campaigners bat an eyelid as such statistics.

JimiTime wrote: »

You spin it as a risk, but in reality, most parents will want to give their child every chance they can.

I sincerely hope that is not true. Having children when you know there is a very high likelihood that they will suffer and even die from a genetic disease really begs the question what are the parents thinking.

I have huge sympathy for parents who have to go through this without knowing it is coming. But for those who know before their child the person exists (ie a being capable to feeling and processing pain and suffering) and yet choose to bring that child into existence, well that is whole different matter.

JimiTime wrote: »

Even if I allow for your reasoning, it still gives you absolutely no grounds to take the moral high ground. Spinning the complexities of love and our desire to have our children as a selfishness to be disgusted by is spectacularly devoid of empathy.

I have empathy up to the point where the parents put their perfectly legitimate desire to have children, above the interests of the children themselves.

I suspect you do too if you thought about it dispassionately for a moment. If you knew of a couple who decided not to have children naturally together (maybe they adopted) because they knew that their combined DNA greatly increased the risk of a horrible genetic disease, would you applaud such a decision or denounce it as not giving their unborn children a chance?

I strongly suspect it is the former.

lmaopml

Zombrex wrote: »

I've no idea, I imagine it is different for every disease. Some tests can be done on the parents DNA long before there is even a mention of a child. For example some couples can know that their combined DNA greatly increases the risk of genetic disorders. Many choose not to have natural children as they feel it is not worth the risk to produce a child that may have one of these horrible diseases. It is such decisions that should be applauded, not the other way around.

I disagree, most sincerely, most 'parents' do NOT think of genetics before they make love and have a child. Nobody deserves 'applaud' for anticipating something going wrong - people who love kids with 'things wrong' are the ones who deserve applaud - They're the heroes, not the sterile type.

I'm well aware of what the figure of speech means Jimi. Again the reality is that it doesn't happen all the time. It happens very very very rarely. It is because they are rare statistical anomalies that draw attention to them.

My nineteen year old niece is a statistical anomoly of a child that didn't show up on a scan and only for her mum saying she did not want a dilation and curattage at a time during her pregnancy wouldn't exist now. Statistics are a dim reflection of real life at times.

Terminating the child before a person exists is merely destroying human cells.

Not on this forum.

The woman's body does exactly the same thing in the vast majority of cases (up to 8 out of 10 times), naturally aborting the foetus if there is any hint of a problem with relation to its viability.

It's hard to discern whether you are arguing for whether a child is 'viable' or whether they are a 'person' sometimes, but I wish you would make up your mind, because in the meantime women are going through trauma and are left alone, and women are also buying everything you say too about how human life is ok to stop - no matter the potential.

Any detectable defects in the zygote or embryo itself and nature itself aborts. As I've pointed out many many times few anti-abortion campaigners bat an eyelid as such statistics.

Well give them so? You do realise that not every woman who loses a child doesn't think 'Oh darn, there goes another zygot' They think there is a tiny soul, who lived briefly in order to know the value of life in all it's tiny and mature forms, that can be 'dependant'.

I sincerely hope that is not true. Having children when you know there is a very high likelihood that they will suffer and even die from a genetic disease really begs the question what are the parents thinking.

I have huge sympathy for parents who have to go through this without knowing it is coming. But for those who know before their child the person exists (ie a being capable to feeling and processing pain and suffering) and yet choose to bring that child into existence, well that is whole different matter.

Well, obviously you've never seen the joy on the face of a deformed child that beat the odds, but loves more ferociously than you can imagine.

I have empathy up to the point where the parents put their perfectly legitimate desire to have children, above the interests of the children themselves.

Well, that's just it isn't it - If you have sex the chances are you may even with 99% certainty have a child. That's a grown up choice, it should always be taught as a grown up choice.

I suspect you do too if you thought about it dispassionately for a moment.

When you Zombrex are happy to believe that your parents thought dispassionately about you - maybe -

If you knew of a couple who decided not to have children naturally together (maybe they adopted) because they knew that their combined DNA greatly increased the risk of a horrible genetic disease, would you applaud such a decision or denounce it as not giving their unborn children a chance?

For centuries faith has defied science, it's what makes us human beings - human - that we don't live our lives according to 'chance' but by 'faith' by love -

You may believe in chance, being ubber careful, Christians world over are given a hard deal many times, and they may be informed in some instances to adopt children if they cannot have a child of their own, and science can help them - but I sincerely doubt that they consult science first if they are Christian - we just handle it differently, and accept the child we are given if that's ok.

I strongly suspect it is the former.

You're wrong - we just don't see them as less than normal or with a genetic disease. They give joy, they give more than they even ask for...

Zombrex

lmaopml wrote: »

I disagree, most sincerely, most 'parents' do NOT think of genetics before they make love and have a child. Nobody deserves 'applaud' for anticipating something going wrong - people who love kids with 'things wrong' are the ones who deserve applaud - They're the heroes, not the sterile type.

Well this again comes back to a fundamental difference between what you guys seem to think is important and what I think is important.

You are making out wanting your children to be the most important thing, even wanting children that don't yet exist. I think everyone agrees that a parent should love the child they have. But then this notion is being perverted in the extension that they should love the child they don't yet have but might have and you should not stop having that non-existence child for certain reasons.

So you applaud parents who know that it is highly likely that the children they produce will be afflicted with horrible genetic diseases because they should want these children anyway. Apparently even non-existent children need love.

This to me is missing the wood for the trees in the most spectacular and perverse way.

Children that already exist require love precisely because they are here. They are persons that have a quality of life that should be improved through the love of their parents. But non-existent children, children that have not come into being yet do not need love. And to risk bringing a child into existence with poor health and quality of life simply to bring them into existence so they can be "loved" is a frankly terrible idea.

lmaopml wrote: »

My nineteen year old niece is a statistical anomoly of a child that didn't show up on a scan and only for her mum saying she did not want a dilation and curattage at a time during her pregnancy wouldn't exist now. Statistics are a dim reflection of real life at times.

No actually they aren't. Statistical anomalies are a dim reflection of real life, but we simply notice them more.

lmaopml wrote: »

Not on this forum.

This discussion long ago turned into a general discussion on abortion.

lmaopml wrote: »

It's hard to discern whether you are arguing for whether a child is 'viable' or whether they are a 'person' sometimes, but I wish you would make up your mind

I've never made any argument for abortion based on viability, so I'm not sure why you would find it hard to discern that.

lmaopml wrote: »

because in the meantime women are going through trauma and are left alone, and women are also buying everything you say too about how human life is ok to stop - no matter the potential.

Human life is ok to stop before it is a person. It is why people use condoms.

lmaopml wrote: »

Well give them so? You do realise that not every woman who loses a child doesn't think 'Oh darn, there goes another zygot' They think there is a tiny soul, who lived briefly in order to know the value of life in all it's tiny and mature forms, that can be 'dependant'.

Thank you for demonstrating my point. You speak of this as if it is planned, that the zygote was destined to only life a short period, not that it is the tragic untimely death of a child, as one would react if a 5 year old died of TB.

lmaopml wrote: »

Well, obviously you've never seen the joy on the face of a deformed child that beat the odds, but loves more ferociously than you can imagine.

Oh I have. I've also seen the horrible suffering terminally ill children go through due to genetic diseases. Wishing that upon anyone is to my mind cruel. Telling a terminally ill child "Well son we knew this would probably happen but heck we wanted you to know that at least we loved even before you were born" is a cold comfort I would imagine.

lmaopml wrote: »

Well, that's just it isn't it - If you have sex the chances are you may even with 99% certainty have a child. That's a grown up choice, it should always be taught as a grown up choice.

A "grown up choice". I don't know what that refers to. My point is that parents deciding to have children knowing that the children are a substantial risk of genetic diseases are making a poor choice. Those that don't do this, don't risk their children just so they can have babies, are the ones that should be applauded.

lmaopml wrote: »

When you Zombrex are happy to believe that your parents thought dispassionately about you - maybe -

I would have absolutely no issue if my parents hadn't had produced me because I wouldn't exist to mind not existing. Heck if my parents had simply chosen to go to sleep that night instead of having sex I wouldn't exist, you want to argue that if they had done that it would have been some horrible crime against me?

lmaopml wrote: »

For centuries faith has defied science, it's what makes us human beings - human - that we don't live our lives according to 'chance' but by 'faith' by love -

Faith and love don't cure genetic diseases.

You can romanticize this nonsense all you like but in the end all you end up with is children suffering. At which point all the silly romantic notions are gone and you are left with the reality of a young child in a hospital room hooked up to a dozen machines which are struggling to simply keep them alive.

lmaopml wrote: »

You may believe in chance, being ubber careful, Christians world over are given a hard deal many times, and they may be informed in some instances to adopt children if they cannot have a child of their own, and science can help them - but I sincerely doubt that they consult science first if they are Christian - we just handle it differently, and accept the child we are given if that's ok.

You are not "given" children. You have sex and produce them yourselves. Being willfully ignorant of what the consequences of that choice will be is not a virtue to be celebrated.

lmaopml wrote: »

You're wrong - we just don't see them as less than normal or with a genetic disease.

Oh well I'm sure you not seeing them as with a genetic disease will mean a lot to the child when their liver stops and they go into acute renal failure :rolleyes:

gimmebroadband

The short but inspiring life of Eliot Hartman Mooney.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=th6Njr-qkq0

The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away; may the name of the LORD be praised. (Job 1:21)

qrrgprgua

gimmebroadband wrote: »

The short but inspiring life of Eliot Hartman Mooney.


The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away; may the name of the LORD be praised. (Job 1:21)

Thanks for sharing the video!!

Reading on journal.ie about women who aborted kids just like Eliot. Just because a child might not live or won't live very long does not make the child any less human or any less due respect from everyone.. including the Mother.


http://www.thejournal.ie/ronan-mullen-horrified-at-nasty-suggestions-over-abortion-debate-424919-Apr2012/