Prolife Campaign on Protection of Life in Pregnancy Bill Superthread

Demonique

https://www.facebook.com/prolifecampaignireland/posts/10151661857795379

"Did you know the Bill will permit abortion throughout the full nine months of pregnancy?"

When people out that viable fetuses will be delivered early and treated as premature babies two posters (Eilis Mulroy and Mary Flaherty) continually state the legislation allows for abortion through all nine months of pregnancy.

seantorious

Shocker, religious fanatics lie to public.

Swan Curry

Pro-Lifers have never let facts get in the way of saving all the babies for Jesus,why should they start now?

Youth Defence and the like really are a horrible bunch.

Notorious97

Here we go

pharmaton

then there's this one...
"The onus to care for the child only applies if the child happens to be born alive. Up to the point the childs head is outside the womb, it can be aborted. I would urge you to read the legislation."

mudderagod...

shruikan2553

Facts and logic are rarely used. Its more about forcing your religious beliefs on others for most of them. 39 weeks pregnant? Yes sure you can have an abortion, in fact we'll give everyone one, even if they dont want it.

jjpep

They lie about lots of things. Its just what they do and its why most normal people just ignore them. Also they believe in sky faeries....

Duggy747

With this crowd you'd find better facts in a fortune cookie.

shruikan2553

Uh oh, they found out about us! If we stay very still they wont see us.

BMJD

They also delete anything that resembles a debate from their FB

JONJO THE MISER

Swan Curry wrote: »

Pro-Lifers have never let facts get in the way of saving all the babies for Jesus,why should they start now?

Youth Defence and the like really are a horrible bunch.

Whats all this about people against abortion being religious, im not religious but im against murder, which abortion is.

Swan Curry

BMJD wrote: »

They also delete anything that resembles a debate from their FB

In fairness to them,how can they comprehend debate when they spend their lives letting the Church tell them what to think?

Rayne Wooney

Their lies aside, how long is it before abortion can't happen?

2 months should be enough really, after that you should have had enough time to think about it.

Eramen

Swan Curry wrote: »

Pro-Lifers have never let facts get in the way of saving all the babies for Jesus,why should they start now?

Youth Defence and the like really are a horrible bunch.

Hold on there Timmy. There is a significant spectrum of groups, organisations, individuals and others who are against abortion in certain circumstances for a wide array of ethical, scientific, and personal reasons, not just religious. There is in the end an abundance of reasons and arguments why one might not support abortion.

It's silly to target one group and therefore paint all the others with one brush in the way that you're doing, but I guess you have an agenda to uphold. We figured.

krudler

Swan Curry wrote: »

Pro-Lifers have never let facts get in the way of saving all the babies for Jesus,why should they start now?

Youth Defence and the like really are a horrible bunch.

Scumbags of the highest order, I'd say the river of dirty money going through that place is unreal.

Corruptedmorals

Rayne Wooney wrote: »

Their lies aside, how long is it before abortion can't happen?

2 months should be enough really, after that you should have had enough time to think about it.

2 months would be a normal amount of time to find out in the first place. It varies by country- the UK is 24 weeks, though there is or was a campaign to lower it as the age of viability has lowered to about 21/22 weeks in some cases.

shruikan2553

JONJO THE MISER wrote: »

Whats all this about people against abortion being religious, im not religious but im against murder, which abortion is.

Murder - The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

1. What is human?
2. Unlawful, if abortion is legal it is lawful and cant be murder by its definition.

krudler

Rayne Wooney wrote: »

Their lies aside, how long is it before abortion can't happen?

2 months should be enough really, after that you should have had enough time to think about it.

What if you don't know your pregnant by 2 months? or it's a pregnancy that has complications or will have later in the term?

TheFOB

I'm for abortion on demand but in fairness doesn't the bill allow for a termination at any stage if the life of the mother is in danger?

pharmaton

Rayne Wooney wrote: »

Their lies aside, how long is it before abortion can't happen?

2 months should be enough really, after that you should have had enough time to think about it.

I take it you mean when a womans life is at risk? If so she probably doesn't get much time to think about it really and that would be a medical decision.
elective abortion if I remember used to be three months (although different countries have different legislation)..but that's a different kettle of fish

DarkJager

Do you really expect any reasoned debate from a bunch of hysterical church puppets?

Rayne Wooney

krudler wrote: »

What if you don't know your pregnant by 2 months? or it's a pregnancy that has complications or will have later in the term?

I meant 2 months after they find out.

kneemos

TheFOB wrote: »

I'm for abortion on demand but in fairness doesn't the bill allow for a termination at any stage if the life of the mother is in danger?

Don't think there are any time limits in the legislation.

Rayne Wooney

Eramen wrote: »

But yet you cry 'damn those religious folk' from the roof-tops when the topic of abortion arises. One might think that you aren't all there logically either.. Who is influencing your thinking?

They have religious ties all over their website though. A whole section dedicated to John Paul II

Eramen

I'm shocked at the reactionary, altogether useless comments on the thread so far. G'night.

jill_valentine

Also abortions will be performed with an axe. And they'll be mandatory. And even women who aren't pregnant will be getting them.

Laneyh

Demonique wrote: »

https://www.facebook.com/prolifecampaignireland/posts/10151661857795379

"Did you know the Bill will permit abortion throughout the full nine months of pregnancy?"

When people out that viable fetuses will be delivered early and treated as premature babies two posters (Eilis Mulroy and Mary Flaherty) continually state the legislation allows for abortion through all nine months of pregnancy.

They're entitled to their opinion on public fora although I wholeheartedly disagree with their viewpoint.

What I don't believe youth defence are entitled to is the disgraceful poster campaign that they have launched.

I also find the wholesale mistrust of women by most pro-life campaigners absolutely abhorrent. It's even sadder when this mistrust and misinformation is coming from other women

krudler

Eramen wrote: »

But yet you cry 'damn those religious folk' from the roof-tops when the topic of abortion arises. One might think that you aren't all there logically either.. Who is influencing your thinking?

If the organisation in the op's link is related to the Iona Institute its most definitely a church based organisation.

kneemos

Laneyh wrote: »

They're entitled to their opinion on public fora although I wholeheartedly disagree with their viewpoint.

What I don't believe youth defence are entitled to is the disgraceful poster campaign that they have launched.

I also find the wholesale mistrust of women by most pro-life campaigners absolutely abhorrent. It's even sadder when this mistrust and misinformation is coming from other women

Don't think what they say is incorrect,if the mothers life is at risk there can't be a time limit.

DarkJager

Laneyh wrote: »

They're entitled to their opinion on public fora although I wholeheartedly disagree with their viewpoint.

What I don't believe youth defence are entitled to is the disgraceful poster campaign that they have launched.

I also find the wholesale mistrust of women by most pro-life campaigners absolutely abhorrent. It's even sadder when this mistrust and misinformation is coming from other women

Their opinion should only be ridiculed and derided because its stupid, hysterical and totally ill informed bull****. You're talking about a campaign here which has the backing of the worlds largest pedophile ring, who also ironically think they have a moral ground to lecture people about children's rights.

Eramen

krudler wrote: »

If the organisation in the op's link is related to the Iona Institute its most definitely a church based organisation.

I know but does that justfy attacking all religions and religious people as a whole as we witnessing on this thread? Do people of religion not deserve an opinion on abortion too whether their opinion is inclined or based on religion or not?

From what I can see a significant number of people who profess a religion actually support abortion, so religion cannot be a litmus test for support/non-support of this issue.

Also there is much talk recently about women who have already had abortions before being a fairly solid group that is highly against abortion, it would make more sense to target them for 'abortion resistance' than a religious person. It's eye-opening that women with this experience have similar opinions.

In any case I sincerely think that the arguments on this issue should be based solely on merit and not on sleazy name-calling from any side. I'm a minority in this line of thinking I know..

Rayne Wooney

kneemos wrote: »

Don't think what they say is incorrect,if the mothers life is at risk there can't be a time limit.

But isn't that the whole point of this? To stop what happened to Savita happening again?

I could be wrong.

pharmaton

kneemos wrote: »

Don't think what they say is incorrect,if the mothers life is at risk there can't be a time limit.

The way I read it is if birth is full term but the mothers life is at risk a medical abortion can be performed and if the fetus is viable it remains alive. (a onus to care)
If the child hasn't survived and is endangering the mothers life to carry full term then the above applies and the child would be stillborn anyway.

smileyj1987

Religion and Politics never go together well .

pharmaton

Ah and cop on don't really go well together

Swan Curry

Women's health and the patriarchy don't go well together either.

Eramen

Swan Curry wrote: »

Women's health and the patriarchy don't go well together either.

Logic and political feminism are polar opposites.

Sarky

Eramen wrote: »

Logic and political feminism are polar opposites.

Quoting this because, well, if you don't change it soon I'm going to have an interesting day's reading tomorrow.

krudler

smileyj1987 wrote: »

Religion and Politics never go together well .

No they got on too well over the years, thats the problem.

Swan Curry

Eramen wrote: »

Logic and political feminism are polar opposites.

Go on then buddy,please do tell me what's so illogical about feminism?

Laneyh

kneemos wrote: »

Don't think what they say is incorrect,if the mothers life is at risk there can't be a time limit.

I have only skim read a draft of the bill. Whilst it is true that if there is significant evidence that the woman's life is at risk a medical termination can be carried out this is obviously the extreme circumstance.

The posters and some of the statements by the pro-life camp make it sound like a bungee jump where you can change your mind up until the last minute no questions asked.

That is what I mean by misinformation -they are deliberately being sensationalist , emotive and oversimplifying the details of the bill.

jill_valentine

Laneyh wrote: »

I have only skim read a draft of the bill. Whilst it is true that if there is significant evidence that the woman's life is at risk a medical termination can be carried out this is obviously the extreme circumstance.

The posters and some of the statements by the pro-life camp make it sound like a bungee jump where you can change your mind up until the last minute no questions asked.

That is what I mean by misinformation -they are deliberately being sensationalist , emotive and oversimplifying the details of the bill.

Quiet you. Something something Kermit Gosnell something something!

Laneyh

jill_valentine wrote: »

Quiet you. Something something Kermit Gosnell something something!

http://youtu.be/8ngGlPoI1vw

pharmaton

*applies to become a fapstronaut

Swan Curry

Eramen wrote: »

One can only wonder in what ways you will manage to break new ground in blaming religion for all of life's problems on the 'morrow, but I don't doubt that you will succeed.

Yet I've no interest in debating of how empowering a small clique of radical political feminists and their ideology, at the expense of the rest of society, is somehow fair or sensible.

Right,so you can't explain why feminism is apparently illogical,but don't worry mate,I'll just take your word for it.

By the way,nobody's trying to blame religion for all life's problems,we're just hoping that one day they'll take responsibility for the multitudes of problems that are their fault.I don't see why they're afraid to take responsibility,God will forgive them no matter what they did,and surely that's all that matters,right?

who is this

Rayne Wooney wrote: »

But isn't that the whole point of this? To stop what happened to Savita happening again?

I could be wrong.

Unfortunately it won't.

It is a step in the right direction, but doesn't address what happened.

As she was miscarrying for all those hours, she was at risk of infection (for obvious reasons which I won't go into detail on). However, risk of infection ≠ risk to life (what this bill addresses).

The problem is that once sepsis sets in, there is a substantial risk to the life of the mother, but an abortion will no longer save her, since she has already become infected.

The fact that risk to health is not sufficient (constitutionally) is hugely problematic, since, as with Savita's case, once it became a risk to her life, the abortion was no longer of any use. Whereas had it been carried out while it was only a risk to her health, it is very possible she would not have become septic in the first place.

If they included a provision for the termination of a pregnancy already in miscarriage, that would help. I don't know that it would be constitutional, but the State would have a decent argument: you cannot protect the life of the "unborn" in such a case, because a miscarriage has already begun, and the mother's right to life should therefore include protection of health since the foetus is already no longer viable. On balance, protecting the foetus in such instances serves no legitimate purpose, even in the context of its constitutional "right to life", because its potential for life is already forlorn.

Not saying that argument would fly legally, but it is logically sound.

But they'd want to put it in a separate bill (as they would if they were to try to provide for fatal abnormalities) in case it's struck down.

For as much misinformation as the "pro-life" campaign propagate, they are (IMO) correct in saying the bill would not have saved Ms. Halappanavar, but not for the reasons they claim.

Carlos Orange

Sarky wrote: »

Quoting this because, well, if you don't change it soon I'm going to have an interesting day's reading tomorrow.

Seems unlikely. Probably just a thread full of the patriarchy,mansplaining and whataboutery.

Eramen

pharmaton wrote: »

*applies to become a fapstronaut

Thus begins a great journey!

*Salutations and success*

Mrs W

As a woman who has lost 2 babies and now has a 5 month old I'm concerned about the time limits.
I can live with abortion in cases where lives are at risk, I have a friend who carried her baby to 8 months knowing that it would never live and I have another one who travelled because she couldn't bear to stay pregnant any longer, the baby she had longed for, for so long wasn't going to be hers.

I had the delight of seeing my baby's heartbeat at 6+4 and I don't mean to be sexist but men just can't possibly understand what it is to go through losing a baby

who is this

Mrs W wrote: »

I had the delight of seeing my baby's heartbeat at 6+4 and I don't mean to be sexist but men just can't possibly understand what it is to go through losing a baby

That is sexist.

To suggest that a man cannot understand what it is like to lose a baby, only makes sense if you mean to say a man cannot lose a baby.

A man cannot miscarry. A man can lose a baby.

Laneyh

Mrs W wrote: »

As a woman who has lost 2 babies and now has a 5 month old I'm concerned about the time limits.
I can live with abortion in cases where lives are at risk, I have a friend who carried her baby to 8 months knowing that it would never live and I have another one who travelled because she couldn't bear to stay pregnant any longer, the baby she had longed for, for so long wasn't going to be hers.

I had the delight of seeing my baby's heartbeat at 6+4 and I don't mean to be sexist but men just can't possibly understand what it is to go through losing a baby

I wouldn't worry about being sexist nobody else does. Congratulations on your baby joy.

From what I can see this bill is primarily to offer an option in a fairly defined set of circumstances. I don't see that it will result in lots of late term abortions by women who simply don't wish to go through with their pregnancy.

There are bound to still be grey areas and I think the Government are only going as far as they need to - not doing anything groundbreaking.

It would be great if it could be discussed and assessed reasonably and in consultation with women such as yourself and your friends. Instead, extremes on both sides hijack the debate and turn it into hysterical mud flinging

When agreeing more general terms for abortion it is absolutely vital to understand the stages of development from foetus to tiny human.

However, having the option there in cases where the baby isn't viable or the mother is at grave risk doesn't seem like a threat to me - more of a necessity.

I dislike the depiction of women as unthinking emotional wrecks at best and cold blooded murderers at worst that this debate and surrounding campaigns seems to conjure up.