Keep abortion out of Ireland

28064212

qrrgprgua wrote: »

We don't need another referendum.. 2 was enough

Actually, four referendums were enough. In all of them the RCC/pro-life lost, a point you seem to have trouble understanding

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Why are you bringing Church into the argument. Church and state are separate. And the reason we don't have abortion in Ireland is because it was voted down.. Twice ... by the people of the republic.

qrrgprgua wrote: »

its not denied on religious grounds.. Its denied on Democratic grounds.

Accept the will of the people. who rejected it twice.

In fact, you erroneously claimed the same a little over a month ago on this exact thread, again calling for the will of the people to be respected, and I told you then what actually happened.

There have been 4 votes on abortion issues in the state. On every single occasion, the anti-abortion lobby lost.

The "will of the people", a phrase you seem to like, has most definitely not been respected

gimmebroadband

28064212 wrote: »

Actually, four referendums were enough. In all of them the unborn baby lost, a point you seem to have trouble understanding

I fixed you're post!

FullblownRose

28064212 wrote: »

Actually, four referendums were enough. In all of them the RCC/pro-life lost, a point you seem to have trouble understanding


In fact, you erroneously claimed the same a little over a month ago on this exact thread, again calling for the will of the people to be respected, and I told you then what actually happened.

There have been 4 votes on abortion issues in the state. On every single occasion, the anti-abortion lobby lost.

The "will of the people", a phrase you seem to like, has most definitely not been respected

I wasn't really aware of this , would you mind linking me by p.m or here to somewhere I can read more about it, if you get time, please? I'd like to educate myself about it...

28064212

There's a bit more detail on my first rebuttal on this thread here. I also posted a bit about the government's failure to act here. Wikipedia has a list of all irish referendums, with links: to pages for each one [URL=" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amendments_to_the_Constitution_of_Ireland#List_of_referendums "]here[/URL]. The relevant ones are 12, 13, 14 and 25.

In 12 and 25, a yes vote meant removing the right to obtain an abortion using the grounds of suicide. In both, the yes side lost. The government had never introduced legislation allowing an abortion in those cases, something they are required to do, and have been since 1992. In 13 and 14, a yes vote meant a woman couldn't be stopped from travelling for an abortion, and couldn't be stopped from obtaining information on abortion. Both those referendums passed

FullblownRose

Thanks, much appreciated!

qrrgprgua

28064212 wrote: »

In 12 and 25, a yes vote meant removing the right to obtain an abortion using the grounds of suicide. In both, the yes side lost. The government had never introduced legislation allowing an abortion in those cases, something they are required to do, and have been since 1992.

And how do you expect legislation to be introduced? Who is a suicide risk? who determines this? Is it a case of a woman showing up and saying i will kill myself unless I get an abortion? The area is so grey.

If you are saying that anyone who presents themselves saying they will take their own life if they don't get an abortion and this is the only justification for abortion then its abortion on demand..

How "at risk" is the life of a Mother when she says she wants an abortion? Its a very subjective area.. Of the pregnant women who have taken their lives in Ireland (last being in Howth) there was no prior indication that the pregnancy was the underlying issue, or was there advance notice. Many times those going to take their lives don't give prior notice (unless they have already attempted)


We already have the laws in place to protect the life of the mother.

28064212

qrrgprgua wrote: »

And how do you expect legislation to be introduced? Who is a suicide risk? who determines this? Is it a case of a woman showing up and saying i will kill myself unless I get and abortion? The area is so grey.

If you are saying that anyone who presents themselves saying they will take their own life if they don't get an abortion and this is the only justification for abortion then its abortion on demand..

How "at risk" is the life of a Mother when she says she wants an abortion? Its a very subjective area.. Of the pregnant women who have taken their lives in Ireland (last being in Howth) there was no prior indication that the pregnancy was the underlying issue, or was there advance notice. Many times those going to take their lives don't give prior notice (unless they have already attempted)


We already have the laws in place to protect the life of the mother.

Unsurprisingly, you're doing exactly what you did the last time you claimed it was "democracy" that prevented abortion legislation: changing the subject and ignoring your calls from a few posts ago about respecting the "will of the people". The will of the people is that in a case where suicide presents a substantial risk to the life of the mother, an abortion should be available

As for the rest of your post, there are already processes in place for determining suicide risks. Adapting those processes is a job for the medical profession. It is absolutely NOT the government's place to delay legislation against the will of the people

qrrgprgua

28064212 wrote: »

Unsurprisingly, you're doing exactly what you did the last time you claimed it was "democracy" that prevented abortion legislation: changing the subject and ignoring your calls from a few posts ago about respecting the "will of the people". The will of the people is that in a case where suicide presents a substantial risk to the life of the mother, an abortion should be available

As for the rest of your post, there are already processes in place for determining suicide risks. Adapting those processes is a job for the medical profession. It is absolutely NOT the government's place to delay legislation against the will of the people

There is already legislation to protect the mothers life. Are you saying since legislation has not been passed that there are woman dead because of the lack of it?

I am using the argument of democracy to show the fact the majority of the Population don't want on demand abortion.

But the reality is the life a Child should no depend on the decisions of anyone. Once a Child exists they should be respected. Respect for the actual existence of living human life should not be matter for democracy.. its should a fundamental human right.

We are lucky we live in a country where the Rights of the Child and democracy agree.

Damokc

"Keep abortion out of Ireland" how about putting all yer time into stopping rapists?

georgieporgy

Increasingly hysterical abortion on demand advocates are being routed on their favorite world stage, UN meetings;


Abortion Proponents Admit Defeat at Rio Conference

http://www.c-fam.org/fridayfax/volume-15/abortion-proponents-admit-defeat-at-rio-conference.html

gimmebroadband

Damokc wrote: »

"Keep abortion out of Ireland" how about putting all yer time into stopping rapists?

Castration would be a good deterrent!!!

qrrgprgua

Amazing how the words "reproductive rights" are used to advocate the use of abortion. Lets over up the Reality if live with layers of terminology to soften the reality. Its only "Cells", it feels nothing, its not human until x week.

Shadow box around the term reproductive rights.

Lets fall the reality here.. Population control with abortion.. the push to rid society of anyone who is not up to grade.. Its why in the UK they push to all disabled children aborted.

Delirium

Do you have anything to back up the claim that the UK want to abort disabled children?

qrrgprgua

koth wrote: »

Do you have anything to back up the claim that the UK want to abort disabled children?

492 Downs Syndrome children were aborted in 2010 in the UK.. The figures are there to see.


Its targeting the disabled. Degrading their value as human beings not now allowing them to exist.

Abortions for medical conditions in 2010

Total AbortionsAbortions over 24wksAll medical conditions
2,290
147
Spina Bifida
128
12
Cleft lip and palate
7
0
Musculoskeletal system (Eg, club foot)
181
8
Down's syndrome
482
10
Edwards' syndrome
164
10
Foetus affected by maternal factors
115
7
Family history of inherited disorder
181
1

oldrnwisr

qrrgprgua wrote: »

492 Downs Syndrome children were aborted in 2010 in the UK.. The figures are there to see.


Its targeting the disabled. Degrading their value as human beings not now allowing them to exist.

Abortions for medical conditions in 2010

Total AbortionsAbortions over 24wksAll medical conditions
2,290
147
Spina Bifida
128
12
Cleft lip and palate
7
0
Musculoskeletal system (Eg, club foot)
181
8
Down's syndrome
482
10
Edwards' syndrome
164
10
Foetus affected by maternal factors
115
7
Family history of inherited disorder
181
1

You know it would have been easier just to quote the relevant statutory instrument.

Section 1.1 of the Abortion Act 1967

Subject to the provisions of this section, a person shall not be guilty of an offence under the law relating to abortion when a pregnancy is terminated by a registered medical practitioner if two registered medical practitioners are of the opinion, formed in good faith -

(a) that the pregnancy has not exceeded its twenty-fourth week and that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family; or

(b) that the termination of the pregnancy is necessary to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman; or

(c) that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated

(d) that there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.


However, I don't see that including such an allowance shows any desire or intent on the part of the government. It doesn't push for abortions, disabled or otherwise, it just allows for an abortion where there may be the possibility of the child suffering needlessly.

qrrgprgua

So by point D. you are saying a Downs Syndrome child has no right to exist? Because they are abnormal?

Can't believe you are using this to defend the 480 Downs Syndrome children that were aborted.

Of course its pushed by the government. The NHS is the one giving the advice to the parents to terminate.... Disabled Children are a drain on society education system.

Fanny Cradock

I would be interested to hear what pro-abortion people think about sex-selective abortions, .i.e. terminating the foetus on the basis of its gender.

oldrnwisr

qrrgprgua wrote: »

So by point D. you are saying a Downs Syndrome child has no right to exist? Because they are abnormal?

No, of course I'm not saying that such a child has no right to exist? Don't be so obtuse. I was merely pointing out that the law has made a provision for such an abortion. I'm not making a judgement on whether such a provision is right or wrong.

As for your abnormal quip, normal is a function of statistics. No, Down's syndrome is not normal, but then neither is being gay or left-handed. Down's syndrome is an abnormal condition caused by the inclusion of an extra copy of chromosome 21 in the genome. Whether it is abnormal or not has no bearing on whether an abortion should be performed.

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Can believe you are using this to defend the 480 Downs Syndrome children that were aborted.

I'm not. I'm simply pointing out that the law allows for such a termination if two doctors consider it to be reasonable. You still haven't provided any evidence linking the legislation with any intent on the part of the government to "target" disabled pregnancies.

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Of course its pushed by the government. The NHS is the one giving the advice to the parents to terminate.... Disabled Children are a drain on society education system.

You might find a more receptive audience for this theory here.

FullblownRose

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I would be interested to hear what pro-abortion people think about sex-selective abortions, .i.e. terminating the foetus on the basis of its gender.

Really? I think it's strange. Is that part of some kind of psychiatric issue? I wonder what kind of parent she would make to a child whose of the 'wrong' gender. Overall though I don't like the' good abortion/ bad abortion' thing. I really struggle to imagine someone giving that as a reason though, and suspect it might have been sarcasm?

FullblownRose

qrrgprgua wrote: »

492 Downs Syndrome children were aborted in 2010 in the UK.. The figures are there to see.


Its targeting the disabled. Degrading their value as human beings not now allowing them to exist.

Abortions for medical conditions in 2010

Total AbortionsAbortions over 24wksAll medical conditions
2,290
147
Spina Bifida
128
12
Cleft lip and palate
7
0
Musculoskeletal system (Eg, club foot)
181
8
Down's syndrome
482
10
Edwards' syndrome
164
10
Foetus affected by maternal factors
115
7
Family history of inherited disorder
181
1

You assume the baby isn't considered to have any value, au contraire I'd say, the women probably don't think they can cope with the high level of care, the possible heartbreak and grief.

qrrgprgua

FullblownRose wrote: »

You assume the baby isn't considered to have any value, au contraire I'd say, the women probably don't think they can cope with the high level of care, the possible heartbreak and grief.

So life all boils down to what people think.. The child only has value if the mother gives it value. Per Se it doesn't.

My wife and I have a long discussion once about what we would do if our children were disabled. Abortion was never an option. Our 2nd Pregnancy (because she has Rubella) the doctors did not give the pregnancy much hope, They said 90% chance of being disabled. But we had already decided that if we were going to be parents we would take what comes. Children are not a row of carrots that are pruned to remove the weakest and the unsightly. Luckily all our children were born healthy.. Our daughter who was born after my wife had German measles just had some birth marks, other than than mentally and physically she is fine. We know in the Uk they would have advised a termination and infact in Ireland they said the exact them.. The Nurse said to my wife that in the UK (as she was an English nurse) they would advise to terminate due to the high risk of deformity.

Bottom line if you want to have kids you should respect that you conceive. We have had miscarriages aswell and its devastating. Sometimes trying to get pregnant is not easy. We name all our Children at 3 months 14 weeks when we got the 1st Scan..

FullblownRose

qrrgprgua wrote: »

So life all boils down to what people think.. The child only has value if the mother gives it value. Per Se it doesn't.

My wife and I have a long discussion once about what we would do if our children were disabled. Abortion was never an option. Our 2nd Pregnancy (because she has Rubella) the doctors did not give the pregnancy much hope, They said 90% chance of being disabled. But we had already decided that if we were going to be parents we would take what comes. Children are not a row of carrots that are pruned to remove the weakest and the unsightly. Luckily all our children were born healthy.. Our daughter who was born after my wife had German measles just had some birth marks, other than than mentally and physically she is fine. We know in the Uk they would have advised a termination and infact in Ireland they said the exact them.. The Nurse said to my wife that in the UK (as she was an English nurse) they would advise to terminate due to the high risk of deformity.

Bottom line if you want to have kids you should respect that you conceive. We have had miscarriages aswell and its devastating. Sometimes trying to get pregnant is not easy. We name all our Children at 3 months 14 weeks when we got the 1st Scan..

It boils down to what they know they are able for and more.
I'm glad to hear about the decision you made with your wife, my husband and I had a similar chat and came to the same conclusion, as I suppose most couples do when they are expecting a baby and they *know* they have the reserves of strength and perhaps the financial stability to cope with a baby, come what may, disability or not. It's when people are in different circumstances where they have no strength *left* and they *know* they would *love* the baby but they *couldn't* cope that they make the decision to terminate the pregnancy.

FullblownRose

When you say, if you wants kids etc( last line)

I personally believe it's important to remember when trying for a baby that the baby mightn't be healthy and maybe most people do, maybe most people accept that and welcome the baby no matter what.

People who know they can't have a baby or another baby if they are parents already usually take precaustions but when their protection fails the fact that they can't parent another child still stands. It's a very tough situation for many people and it's not a heartless casual action like thinning out carrots.

qrrgprgua

FullblownRose wrote: »

When you say, if you wants kids etc( last line)

I personally believe it's important to remember when trying for a baby that the baby mightn't be healthy and maybe most people do, maybe most people accept that and welcome the baby no matter what.

People who know they can't have a baby or another baby if they are parents already usually take precaustions but when their protection fails the fact that they can't parent another child still stands. It's a very tough situation for many people and it's not a heartless casual action like thinning out carrots.

So because they don't the child they conceived means it has not value and goes as medical waste in an abortion clinic?

When a married couple has sex this may lead to life.. That life has to be respected..

Respect for the child.. That is alive and does exist. is fundamental..

FullblownRose

qrrgprgua wrote: »

So because they don't the child they conceived means it has not value and goes as medical waste in an abortion clinic?

When a married couple has sex this may lead to life.. That life has to be respected..

Respect for the child.. That is alive and does exist. is fundamental..

I think I already answered the same question regarding 'value'. You don't know how much or little value is placed on it but it's usually an issue of whether people are able and willing to parent a child. If you can't conceive of people being unable to give a baby the life they would like it to have and after consideration of all factors deciding there is no other alternative that would be suitable then I can't really explain any more. You are fortunate if you are in a favourable position to parent the 'consequence' of sex but not everyone is in the position to do so.

Fanny Cradock

FullblownRose wrote: »

Really? I think it's strange. Is that part of some kind of psychiatric issue? I wonder what kind of parent she would make to a child whose of the 'wrong' gender. Overall though I don't like the' good abortion/ bad abortion' thing. I really struggle to imagine someone giving that as a reason though, and suspect it might have been sarcasm?

I'm not quote sure how you can read sarcasm into my post. It was a genuine question because sex-selective abortions are a reality.

qrrgprgua

FullblownRose wrote: »

I think I already answered the same question regarding 'value'. You don't know how much or little value is placed on it but it's usually an issue of whether people are able and willing to parent a child. If you can't conceive of people being unable to give a baby the life they would like it to have and after consideration of all factors deciding there is no other alternative that would be suitable then I can't really explain any more. You are fortunate if you are in a favourable position to parent the 'consequence' of sex but not everyone is in the position to do so.

Why don't we kill half the kids in africa to avoid their suffering? They are in a FAR worse situation that europe.. Is abortion the answer or just a selfish act.

FullblownRose

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm not quote sure how you can read sarcasm into my post. It was a genuine question because sex-selective abortions are a reality.

I didn't. I asked if someone was being sarcastic in giving that as a reason for their own abortion.

FullblownRose

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Why don't we kill half the kids in africa to avoid their suffering? They are in a FAR worse situation that europe.. Is abortion the answer or just a selfish act.

Impoverished women in Africa don't even have access to contraception and many of them are routinely raped. No comparison.

Abortion is more likely to be a selfless act than a selfish act.

marienbad

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Why don't we kill half the kids in africa to avoid their suffering? They are in a FAR worse situation that europe.. Is abortion the answer or just a selfish act.

I think you will find that we do kill half the kids in africa, one way or the other - so much for the sanctity of life.