Abortion

hooradiation

LorraineMcFly wrote: »

If she acted as a responsible mother and pursued her ex partner for maintenace she would be in a better situation. Being a mother leaves no place for pride if your children are going without . sorry smash but if she did the right thing she would pursue him.

Well, good thing your the arbiter on what constitutes being a mother.

LorraineMcFly

Sharrow wrote: »

There is a big difference between putting a child in care to be fostered and giving a child up for adoption.



Really got a link to prove that?

I have never seen or heard of such a thing, I was never asked that.

im in ennis and attend limerick its standard on the form here i wouldnt lie. your genuinely asked its a tick box

Seachmall

LorraineMcFly wrote: »

If she acted as a responsible mother

A bit judgmental today, aren't we?

LorraineMcFly

Seachmall wrote: »

A bit judgmental today, aren't we?

look i can only give my opinion i think the case is an example of getting pregnant irresponsibly and opting for an abortion. Also if your husband leaves you must pursue for maintenance its common sense. Its not for you its for your kids benefit. None of us know what type of man the husband is, was he even asked for his opinion on the murder of his unborn child? it takes two to tango and two to destroy a marriage.

smash

LorraineMcFly wrote: »

If she acted as a responsible mother and pursued her ex partner for maintenace she would be in a better situation. Being a mother leaves no place for pride if your children are going without . sorry smash but if she did the right thing she would pursue him.

Perusing him has nothing to do with it. The child would not have a good life and even perusing him means nothing, there's a legal minimum someone can pay and get away with it and I'll tell you that it covers f*ck all. So she did act as a responsible mother, by thinking of her existing children and their needs!

LorraineMcFly wrote: »

look i can only give my opinion i think the case is an example of getting pregnant irresponsibly and opting for an abortion.

How?

LorraineMcFly wrote: »

Also if your husband leaves you must pursue for maintenance its common sense. Its not for you its for your kids benefit. None of us know what type of man the husband is, was he even asked for his opinion on the murder of his unborn child? it takes two to tango and two to destroy a marriage.

Really, you have no right to an opinion on this matter because you don't know the details and I have no interest in divulging them to you. I'll just say she's better off without him.

Seachmall

I'd like to reask the question posed in this post.

In the quoted post you say the unborn child has the same rights as anyone else (which presumably includes the right to life, as well as equal rights to the mother) and then suggest the mother has a greater right to life than the child (as she can end the child's life if her life is at risk).

This seems like an inconsistency to me.

Mr Benevolent

Abortion is traumatic for the mother and fatal to the fetus. It's still necessary in the following cases:

Rape
Congenital foetal abnormality
Severe foetal injury

The body can auto abort (miscarry) in a lot of situations but not all. Being completely against abortion is illogical, frankly, as it is useful. Having to carry a dead foetus to full term would not only be horrible for the mother, it would be very dangerous.

Abortion must be legalised for the above reasons alone. Fair enough, keep elective abortions illegal.

up for anything

LorraineMcFly wrote: »

I would vote no on abortion if it came to it here. Except in extreme medical circumstances.
Simply because a babies heart starts beating at 5-6 weeks. They are a seperate human being with a right to life in my eyes. They have a nervous system capable of feeling pain by 9-10 weeks. Anyone who had an abortion and believed their baby felt no pain is kidding themselves.
If you get pregnant stupidly do the right thing and give the baby up for adoption. Abortion is the easy option.

Fine, if they can survive on their own from 5-6 without the life support system the mother or medical science can provide.

LorraineMcFly wrote: »

if there was a vote i would have a right - so your wrong. And i would vote no.
If people want to believe abortion is not murder and that a baby feels no pain in the womb they are kidding themselves. And when they are old and have experienced more of life, their decisions will surely haunt the vast majority of them.

Bollix, what do you base this on?

LorraineMcFly wrote: »

what gives anybody the right to kill a baby either? My problem with abortion is that i see an unborn baby as a living human being. your pregnant your entrusted to carrying the child safely. you dont want the child then have it and if you still dont want it then give it up for adoption in ireland where there are thousands of childless couples. I guarantee if you went through a pregnancy and adoption process the chances are the majority of women would never get pregnant by accident again. a babies heart beats at 5-6 weeks, its that simple really. Abortion is murder, it cannot be diluted. People dont think enough about it because they dont want to face the facts and reality that it is murder.

Who thrusts this entrusting upon women?

Education by severe punishment.

LorraineMcFly wrote: »

a yes vote is something i disagree with. it will never happen anyway. if you put a poll up here, the no vote people and the people who agree with abortion only on medical grounds would win. there will never be a free for all abortion in ireland, where anybody can avail of it. If you want abortion move country. Wont be happening here.

Are you so sure of that?

Seachmall wrote: »

On what grounds do you decide the mother's life to be of greater value to the unborn child's?

Would you feel comfortable deciding to kill one person over another in any other situations?

You didn't answer this question, Lorraine.

smash wrote: »

It's not pro abortion, it's pro choice. Jesus, why can't people see that.

Another religious freak calling on Jesus.

LorraineMcFly wrote: »

The terms i prefer to use are the realistic ones
anti abortion
pro abortion

I'm happy enough to come under your realistic pro-abortion term umbrella. I'm tired of people picking and choosing under what conditions and reasons I should be entitled to an abortion.

LorraineMcFly wrote: »

Insofar as if a man wants his child and the woman does not the man should be able to raise the child alone.

Again that's fine once science has figured out a way for the same man to bring his unborn child to full term alone.

LorraineMcFly wrote: »

sorry why cant they get kids adopted? is it because they would be ashamed? so thereforfe go the easy abortion route? plus this couple were seperating so the mother is now single mother

Are you really this disingenuous?

LorraineMcFly wrote: »

actually whether ur married or not ur asked in the maternity hospital if your keeping the child or giving it up for adoption. Its a form you fill out each time your pregnant.

I've never had to fill out that form. When do they give it to you to fill out?


As far as I can see Lorraine from other posts of yours not on this thread, your beliefs are based upon purely your own personal circumstances and what might have happened to you before birth if you hadn't been lucky enough to be conceived in Ireland with decent grandparents. If circumstances had been different I wonder would you have such strong beliefs.

LorraineMcFly

smash wrote: »

Perusing him has nothing to do with it. The child would not have a good life and even perusing him means nothing, there's a legal minimum someone can pay and get away with it and I'll tell you that it covers f*ck all. So she did act as a responsible mother, by thinking of her existing children and their needs!

even if she got the minimum and it bought her kids a pair of shoes that would be the act of a responsible mother. its money for the kids not for her and the courts should decide. secondly its clearly an emotional issue for you, but i still cannot agree with abortion in her case. Im sorry to offend you smash but i can only try defend my position on abortion. Im not trying to demonise your friend and im sure it was a difficult choice she made, i just cannot agree with it. i have plenty of friends with 3 and 4 kids and they all say 3 is no different than 2. you have alot of stuff handed down and its only a huge issue if your forking out on childcare. even then there are choices.

coffee_cake

Confab wrote: »

Abortion is traumatic for the mother and fatal to the fetus. It's still necessary in the following cases:

Rape
Congenital foetal abnormality
Severe foetal injury

The body can auto abort (miscarry) in a lot of situations but not all. Being completely against abortion is illogical, frankly, as it is useful. Having to carry a dead foetus to full term would not only be horrible for the mother, it would be very dangerous.

Abortion must be legalised for the above reasons alone. Fair enough, keep elective abortions illegal.

Why are you including rape

is there some biological difference? is it not still the life of a foetus?

Lord TSC

Pace2008 wrote: »

LorraineMcFly wrote: »

pro abortion suggest to me that a person agrees abortion is ok, not necessarily menaing they would have an abortion themselves. is that a wrong assumption to make?

Pro-abortion sounds like you are in favour of gratuitous abortions just for the sake of it. Each side has adopted its own euphemistic label, pro-choice and pro-life, and the terms are universally understood. Referring to someone's stance as "pro-abortion" or "anti-choice" is a petty act of one-upmanship.

Except one side IS anti-choice; thats not an exageration of one sides stance, as compares to painting the other as Pro-abortion. Its the core principal of the pro-life arguement....

LorraineMcFly

up for anything wrote: »

Who thrusts this entrusting upon women?

Education by severe punishment.



Are you so sure of that?



You didn't answer this question, Lorraine.



Another religious freak calling on Jesus.



I'm happy enough to come under your realistic pro-abortion term umbrella. I'm tired of people picking and choosing under what conditions and reasons I should be entitled to an abortion.



Again that's fine once science has figured out a way for the same man to bring his unborn child to full term alone.



Are you really this disingenuous?



I've never had to fill out that form. When do they give it to you to fill out?


As far as I can see Lorraine from other posts of your's not on this thread, your beliefs are based upon purely your own personal circumstances and what might have happened to you before birth if you hadn't been lucky enough to be conceived in Ireland with decent grandparents. If circumstances had been different I wonder would you have such strong beliefs.

Im in ennis attending limerick regional. Its just a bog standard form you fill out at your first app. they ask alot of questions another example is, are you a member of the travelling community? are you related to your spouse? are you giving baby up fopr adoption or keeping.
Im not lying about it , no reason to.
I agree with elective abortion in extreme medical cases wher mother would definitely die. also if a baby is dead inside or will die on birth. those are the only areas i agree with.

Seachmall

LorraineMcFly wrote: »

I agree with elective abortion in extreme medical cases wher mother would definitely die

Why?

Why does someone who firmly believes that an unborn child has every right to life as anyone else suddenly decide that the unborn child has less of a right to life than the mother?

Mr Benevolent

bluewolf wrote: »

Why are you including rape

is there some biological difference? is it not still the life of a foetus?

An abortion because of rape would probably need to be optional. However, the rape must have been reported and proved. It's a tough one tbh.

prinz

Seachmall wrote: »

A bit judgmental today, aren't we?

Better to have judgments out that the old 'I judge nobody' routine.

coffee_cake

Confab wrote: »

An abortion because of rape would probably need to be optional. However, the rape must have been reported and proved. It's a tough one tbh.

Okay, but I'm asking why

LorraineMcFly

Seachmall wrote: »

Why?

Why does someone who firmly believes that an unborn child has every right to life as anyone else suddenly decide that the unborn child has less of a right to life than the mother?

i didnt suddenly decide it i said it earlier too. always agreed in extreme medical instances its ok. nothing wrong with that either.

Seachmall

prinz wrote: »

Better to have judgments out that the old 'I judge nobody' routine.

I'm not trying to convey a holier than thou persona. I judge everybody.

However the snide remarks of the mother being irresponsible without any comprehension of her situation is cheeky, to say the least.

LorraineMcFly wrote: »

i didnt suddenly decide it i said it earlier too. always agreed in extreme medical instances its ok. nothing wrong with that either.

It's an inconsistency and I'm curious as to why when the mother's life is at risk the child's right to life suddenly (and arbitrarily) disappears.

nozzferrahhtoo

LorraineMcFly wrote: »

Im not lying about it , no reason to.

Perhaps, though if you were lying you would likely say you were not lying. That is kind of how lying works

However I am less interested in the truth of it and more in why you mention it at all? What has this question on a form got to do with anything? What was your point?

prinz

Confab wrote: »

An abortion because of rape would probably need to be optional. However, the rape must have been reported and proved. It's a tough one tbh.

Problem with that is the likelihood of getting from the act of rape to tried and covicted in court, within an acceptable time limit for abortion to take place.

LorraineMcFly

Seachmall wrote: »

I'm not trying to convey a holier than thou persona. I judge everybody.

However the snide remarks of the mother being irresponsible without any comprehension of her situation is cheeky, to say the least.

look i was given an example and i defended my stance. it was not snide. If you agree that every woman who finds herself inconveniently pregnant shud be able to abort fine.

smash

LorraineMcFly wrote: »

even if she got the minimum and it bought her kids a pair of shoes that would be the act of a responsible mother.

Here kids have a pair of shoes, they should keep you warm now that I can't afford the house! :rolleyes:

LorraineMcFly wrote: »

its money for the kids not for her and the courts should decide.

The courts can only decide on an amount based on the father's earning. Which are zero!

LorraineMcFly wrote: »

secondly its clearly an emotional issue for you, but i still cannot agree with abortion in her case. Im sorry to offend you smash but i can only try defend my position on abortion. Im not trying to demonise your friend and im sure it was a difficult choice she made, i just cannot agree with it.

You're prioritising the position of a foetus over the future of 2 other children.

LorraineMcFly wrote: »

i have plenty of friends with 3 and 4 kids and they all say 3 is no different than 2. you have alot of stuff handed down and its only a huge issue if your forking out on childcare. even then there are choices.

Choices? Hardly. She is paying childcare and a mortgage on her own.

LorraineMcFly

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Perhaps, though if you were lying you would likely say you were not lying. That is kind of how lying works

However I am less interested in the truth of it and more in why you mention it at all? What has this question on a form got to do with anything? What was your point?

it was to do with adoption, i was typing out loud thinking . just rembering that it was on the form here in limerick. and i only mentioned it cos the mod said adoption for married couples was illegal..

toexpress

I can see myself being lynched here but anyway ...

Abortion as a means of post sex contraception really shouldn't be an option. If you couldn't wait two seconds to slip on a condom or take a tablet that morning or whatever reason then, tough! That's life there are consequences to our actions if you don't want to bring up the child then there are lots of people who would give their eye teeth for the chance to it.

However, all of that said, in the case where there is a risk to the mothers life then it goes without saying a woman should have the choice to have an abortion if she wants to, she may of course feel that she wants to take the risk. But the notion that she has to go to the UK to have an abortion is disgraceful, it would probably be one of the most traumatic things a woman would ever face in her life and to have to go away to do it makes it worse.

Similarly in the case where a woman finds herself pregnant as the result of a rape obviously she should have the choice for the same reasons as those I have outlined above

Seachmall

LorraineMcFly wrote: »

look i was given an example and i defended my stance. it was not snide. If you agree that every woman who finds herself inconveniently pregnant shud be able to abort fine.

I never said that. Nor do you know the circumstances to conclude that.

Also,

LorraineMcFly wrote: »

i didnt suddenly decide it i said it earlier too. always agreed in extreme medical instances its ok. nothing wrong with that either.

It's an inconsistency and I'm curious as to why when the mother's life is at risk the child's right to life suddenly (and arbitrarily) disappears.

nozzferrahhtoo

LorraineMcFly wrote: »

it was to do with adoption, i was typing out loud thinking . just rembering that it was on the form here in limerick. and i only mentioned it cos the mod said adoption for married couples was illegal..

Yeah I saw that you mentioned it after being told that married couples could not give their child for adoption. Which is why I was asking what your point was. It kinda sounded like you thought the fact this question was on the form meant that the claim about married couples was wrong.

coffee_cake

toexpress wrote: »

If you couldn't wait two seconds to slip on a condom or take a tablet that morning or whatever reason then, tough!

birth control IS NOT 100% EFFECTIVE

That's life there are consequences to our actions

Right, and abortion can be a consequence

if you don't want to bring up the child then there are lots of people who would give their eye teeth for the chance to it.

There are people who would give their lives for a kidney, off you go

Similarly in the case where a woman finds herself pregnant as the result of a rape obviously she should have the choice for the same reasons as those I have outlined above

Because it's not her fault, right?
And no normal unwanted pregnancy could ever be traumatic

LorraineMcFly

smash wrote: »

Here kids have a pair of shoes, they should keep you warm now that I can't afford the house! :rolleyes:


The courts can only decide on an amount based on the father's earning. Which are zero!


You're prioritising the position of a foetus over the future of 2 other children.


Choices? Hardly. She is paying childcare and a mortgage on her own.

again i find it irresponsible a child had to die cos your friend chose to sleep with a man she didnt love, a man who has no job? and cannot afford to support his family. She should have been taking more precautions than the pill as its not a very reliable method, a mother of 2 would know this.

smash

bluewolf wrote: »

Why are you including rape

is there some biological difference? is it not still the life of a foetus?

Regarding rape, I think it should be optional for sure. The mother never wanted to get pregnant or even have sex. It's got to hard for a child to grow up knowing that and knowing their father was a rapist and they're the result of his behavior.

LorraineMcFly

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Yeah I saw that you mentioned it after being told that married couples could not give their child for adoption. Which is why I was asking what your point was. It kinda sounded like you thought the fact this question was on the form meant that the claim about married couples was wrong.

no i meant did anyone know of any cases here were a married couple gave a child up. I was just wondering why its on the form . sorry i should have stated that.