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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Prolife Campaign on Protection of Life in Pregnancy Bill Superthread

1246714

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    jhegarty wrote: »
    If not 9 month then what is the time limit in the bill ?
    There is no time limit because a woman's life can be in danger at any stage of pregnancy. Why would there be a time limit?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 152 ✭✭Lola18


    "I don't understand how you think anyone can unsee an enormous billboard ad though - that's a bit daft."

    Would love to know when I said this? I said they can choose to ignore what it says


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,791 ✭✭✭ash23


    conorhal wrote: »
    There is no medical evidence that a termination is necessary in all but the rarest of cases in which case every effort should be made to deliver the baby alive if the foetus is developed enough to survive outside the woumb. I have no problem with this.

    And what if the foetus isn't? Should the mother be allowed to die? I had pre-eclampsia and then eclampsia. Luckily I was far enough along to deliver a healthy baby, albeit earlier. Had it happened weeks before, that wouldn't have been the case and I'd have preferred they save me than risk my life.

    You really think it never happens where a termination is necessary to save the mother? It's not as rare as you would like to believe. What about cases where medical treatment is needed for cancer?
    When it comes to the suicide clause, no medical professional claims that an abortion is a treatment for suicidal ideation, and it is not the only treatment that could be applied. So there is no requirement to end the life of a healthy foetus, and it is disturbing in light if this (I could live with the legislation if it limited a termination to the first trimester) that there is also no limit placed on when a termination can take place.

    I'm not just talking about the suicide clause. This bill is for the real and substantial risk to the life of the mother.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    conorhal wrote: »

    When it comes to the suicide clause, no medical professional claims that an abortion is a treatment for suicidal ideation, and it is not the only treatment that could be applied. So there is no requirement to end the life of a healthy foetus, and it is disturbing in light if this (I could live with the legislation if it limited a termination to the first trimester) that there is also no limit placed on when a termination can take place.

    Genuine question but how do we know?

    Seeing as most women who want abortions just quietly go away to have them with no fuss or fanfare how can we be 100% sure that abortion doesn't help women who are suicidal? After all wouldn't they have just travelled to the uk. Seeing as how the voices of the women themselves haven't been heard I don't think anyone can say for sure that abortion doesn't help a woman who might be feeling suicidal over her pregnancy.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,928 ✭✭✭✭rainbow kirby


    Lola18 wrote: »
    I just don't see how that poster can make it any harder for anyone!

    Yep, I'm sure survivors of rape and sexual assault love the continued reminder that they don't have full control over their own bodies... :rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 58,456 ✭✭✭✭ibarelycare


    Lola18 wrote: »
    Well I'd hope she wouldn't take it lightly but a lot of people see abortion as the easiest way at first and need reminding that abortion doesn't undo rape! The poster would be disgraceful IF it had some of the pictures of processes of abortion.
    It does take an awful lot of strength yeah and I'm sure their not thinking clearly either I just don't see how that poster can make it any harder for anyone!

    They need reminding that abortion doesn't undo rape? Yes that's the first thing they'll want to hear when they attend the Rape Crisis Centre :rolleyes: If you don't think that poster won't effect someone who's already going through an unbelievably distressing time, then you're deluded.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    Human trash. The thing that gets me about these people is their lack of humanity towards their fellow man. I'm not a religious man but can admire the "love thy neighbour message" in some of the new testemant. What bible have these been reading? If there was ever a person called jesus he would be pretty p1ssed off with people like these.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,218 ✭✭✭beeno67


    eviltwin wrote: »
    Genuine question but how do we know?

    Seeing as most women who want abortions just quietly go away to have them with no fuss or fanfare how can we be 100% sure that abortion doesn't help women who are suicidal? After all wouldn't they have just travelled to the uk. Seeing as how the voices of the women themselves haven't been heard I don't think anyone can say for sure that abortion doesn't help a woman who might be feeling suicidal over her pregnancy.
    There are very few recorded instances of pregnant women committing suicide worldwide.

    An abortion is obviously forever. To decide you want an abortion you should be able to make a clear decision and be of "sound mind". If you are suicidal you are almost by definition unable to make that decision.

    Why would the persons suicidal wish be cured by an abortion?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 152 ✭✭Lola18


    Yep, I'm sure survivors of rape and sexual assault love the continued reminder that they don't have full control over their own bodies... :rolleyes:

    When that control involves another life people sometimes need that reminder that abortion is not the answer


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,788 ✭✭✭✭krudler


    Lola18 wrote: »
    Well I'd hope she wouldn't take it lightly but a lot of people see abortion as the easiest way at first and need reminding that abortion doesn't undo rape! The poster would be disgraceful IF it had some of the pictures of processes of abortion.
    It does take an awful lot of strength yeah and I'm sure their not thinking clearly either I just don't see how that poster can make it any harder for anyone!

    No it doesn't, but why should women need some plastered in front of them like that in an already stressful time? you logic is bizarre


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,829 ✭✭✭Nemeses


    Aren't the women suffering enough without some biased BS poster right in their face?

    Would it be illegal to remove these posters / trailers?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    Lola18 wrote: »
    When that control involves another life people sometimes need that reminder that abortion is not the answer

    Well I don't think you believe that to be honest. If you had any respect for human life you would have a major problem with a sign like this being placed outside a centre for victims of rape.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    Lola18 wrote: »
    When that control involves another life people sometimes need that reminder that abortion is not the answer


    Sometimes it is. Of course those who lack empathy, apart from for the nine months of the unborn in the womb, can't see that it might be exactly the right answer. You don't have to have one, but don't dare speak for everyone.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,788 ✭✭✭✭krudler


    Nemeses wrote: »
    Aren't the women suffering enough without some biased BS poster right in their face?

    Would it be illegal to remove these posters / trailers?

    They're illegally parked there anyway arent they?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    This is the company which owns the trucks:
    http://www.admobile.ie/contact.html


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 58,456 ✭✭✭✭ibarelycare


    On Youth Defence's twitter page, they said that the van was stuck in traffic. Looks like heavy traffic alright!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    lazygal wrote: »
    This is the company which owns the trucks:
    http://www.admobile.ie/contact.html

    Message sent. Thanks Lazygal.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,829 ✭✭✭Nemeses


    lazygal wrote: »
    This is the company which owns the trucks:
    http://www.admobile.ie/contact.html

    I doubt they would remove it though..

    Would be interesting enough to see if they would oblige..


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,458 ✭✭✭Hoop66


    What's important is that nobody, and I mean NOBODY, should throw **** at this truck if they see it.

    That would be awful.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,829 ✭✭✭Nemeses


    Hoop66 wrote: »
    What's important is that nobody, and I mean NOBODY, should throw **** at this truck if they see it.

    That would be awful.

    I agree, two wrongs don't make a right.

    However, relocating the trailer I feel, Isn't vandalising.. .


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 93 ✭✭TheFOB


    beeno67 wrote: »
    There are very few recorded instances of pregnant women committing suicide worldwide.

    An abortion is obviously forever. To decide you want an abortion you should be able to make a clear decision and be of "sound mind". If you are suicidal you are almost by definition unable to make that decision.

    Why would the persons suicidal wish be cured by an abortion?

    There is still a massive stigma against young single mothers in this country. Remember the tragic case of 15 yo Anne Lovett who died alone and afraid in the grotto of Longford Cathedral.
    Irish Times

    Before abortion was introduced in England in 1950, 10 per cent of women in Ireland who died by suicide were found to be pregnant, he said. While it was impossible to say why these women killed themselves, that figure now was much lower.

    http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/suicidal-women-will-still-go-abroad-for-abortions-says-leading-psychiatrist-1.1369112


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,788 ✭✭✭✭krudler


    On Youth Defence's twitter page, they said that the van was stuck in traffic. Looks like heavy traffic alright!

    on their facebook they said the trucks "pulled in sometimes" well they did before they deleted any posts about the truck, so everyone should just bombard their page with the same pic over and over.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    conorhal wrote: »
    That is one sick statement.

    I'm pretty sure that if your doctor came in and said 'so lazygal, we're gonna abort your baby today' you'd have a $h1t fit.

    The intention of an abortion is to terminate the life of a baby, and you still haven't explained how this is not the case. Late term abortion are not intended to delver a live baby, is that what you are trying to claim?
    Abortions very late in the gestation period require a partial birth abortion, typically rupturing the membranes, opening the baby's skull and sucking out the contents to collapse it to provide ease of delivery.

    The bill still has to be constitutional, so the life of the mother and baby has to be considered.

    You are trying to make this out as some massive change from the existing position, it isn't. Any doctor performing an abortion at 38 weeks or so, just like that, is going to have a hell of a to answer for.

    And still we have no legislation for the women who have to go to England to abort unviable babies.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,443 ✭✭✭Bipolar Joe


    If anyone uses the argument that people "Can choose not to read it" you're a moron and anything you say is therefore invalid. You have to read something to find out if you should or should not have read it, dipshits.

    Saw a full page ad in the paper full of misinformation and outright lies today. YDL are out and out propagandist scumbags, and I'd love it if there were funds available for an equal sized and strength rebuttal.


  • Registered Users Posts: 69 ✭✭kennryyr


    conorhal wrote: »
    What are you taking about, where did I suggest 'mandatory abortions'? I was merely mocking her suggestion that an early delivery by c-section is the same thing as an abortion, which that trolling fool was attempting to claim.

    The bill includes permitting the abortion of a healthy foetus in the case of a mother with suicidal ideation who clams that she will end her life as a result of the pregnancy, and there is no limit in legislation to how late in a pregnancy this can be perfomed. That I object to. Clear enough?

    Classy


  • Registered Users Posts: 776 ✭✭✭Eramen


    Thats grand Jonjo, if you have an unplanned pregnancy and you don't want an abortion fine, but no woman should be forced to carry a baby she doesn't want.


    This is entirely secondary to the whole debate imo in that feelings don't and shouldn't come before facts. There are a number of reasons why this abortion on demand decision is questioned and you're not grasping it.

    Firstly the woman in question is not 'forced' to carry it. The fetus exists as a result of the natural occurrence of a series of events leading up to her situation. Are we saying that nature is 'oppressive' forcing people to deal with their actions and the results of actions? Sometimes people, male or female, will make up any old sob story to hide the fact that they make a bad choice or foolish decision. This is in no way a solid argument in favour of anything, yet alone an abortion.


    Secondly, under legislation and the legislation of the vast majority of the world, a fetus is

    1) a human entity,

    2) a 3rd person distinct from mother and father [A fetus isn't 'your body'],

    3) therefore the mother [or father] does not have ownership over the fetus and thus cannot, unless extreme circumstances apply, attempt to terminate/kill it, as it counts as an act of fatal aggression.


    Under these precepts no person has any right to kill a living entity without good cause (unless life or death situations or cases were extreme abuse was involved). The only exception is what is termed 'abortion' in some countries at this point in time. If we are to think that a mother [or father] does actually own a fetus, then we are certainly harkening back to the days of slavery when it was possible to claim ownership over another individual and to do to that person as we pleased.


    Also we must ask ourselves an increasingly important question: When does the fetus become a state interest? There are a multitude of reasons for this, but the key ones are:

    1) We have an aging population,

    2) Reproduction rates are well below normal/replacement, thus;

    3) This will result in under-financing/lack of public infrastructure and services in the short & long term future,

    4) Which will in turn lead to the stagnation of the national/regional economy


    5) It jeopardizes the very core existential interests of the state and people itself.


    The abortionists economic interest and the couple who is aborting 'their' fetus personal/emotional interests must come second when we look at the big picture.

    Thankfully a few countries in E. Europe and Asia are beginning to understand the actual cost of abortion, in that it severely undermines the collective national, social and economic interest. Measures have been taken in terms of actively reversing the trend of on-demand abortioneering. In the future it's predicted that casual abortions will become less and less common & placed under severe restrictions as governments and peoples realise these facts.

    Do you not grasp what can of worms we are opening on this issue considering the whole picture? It goes beyond abortion, far beyond. The pro-(bad)choice think like spoiled children, thinking they must have their way whatever the cost, without regard for anything outside of their own petty situation.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    Eramen wrote: »
    This is entirely secondary to the whole debate imo in that feelings don't and shouldn't come before facts. There are a number of reasons why this abortion on demand decision is questioned and you're not grasping it.

    Firstly the woman in question is not 'forced' to carry it. The fetus exists as a result of the natural occurrence of a series of events leading up to her situation. Are we saying that nature is 'oppressive' forcing people to deal with their actions and the results of actions? Sometimes people, male or female, will make up any old sob story up to hide the fact that they make a bad choice or foolish decision. This is in no way a solid argument in favour of anything, yet alone an abortion.


    Secondly, under legislation and the legislation of the vast majority of the world, a fetus is

    1) a human entity,

    2) a 3rd person distinct from mother and father,

    3) therefore the mother [or father] does not have ownership over the fetus and thus cannot, unless extreme circumstances apply, attempt to terminate/kill it, as it counts as an act of fatal aggression.


    Under these precepts no person has any right to kill a living entity without good cause (unless life or death situations or cases were extreme abuse was involved).

    If we are to think that a mother [or father] does actually own a fetus, then we are certainly harkening back to the days of slavery when it was possible to claim ownership over another individual and to do to that person as we pleased.


    Also we must ask ourselves an increasingly important question: When does the fetus become a state interest? There are a multitude of reasons for this, but the key ones are:

    1) We have an aging population,

    2) Reproduction rates are well below normal/replacement, thus;

    2) This will result in under-financing/lack of public infrastructure and services in the short & long term future,

    3) Which will in turn lead to the stagnation of the national/regional economy.


    The abortionists economic interest and the couple who is aborting 'their' fetus personal/emotional interests must come second when we look at the big picture. Thankfully a few countries in E. Europe and Asia see that the collective national, social and economic interest is being undermined actively reversing the trend of on-demand abortioneering. In the future it's predicted that casual abortions will become less and less common & placed under severe restrictions as governments and peoples understand these facts.

    Do you not grasp what can of worms we are opening on this issue considering the whole picture? It goes beyond abortion, far beyond. The pro-(bad)choice think like spoiled children, thinking they must have their way whatever the cost, without regard for anything outside of their own petty situation.
    How many children have you had?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,951 ✭✭✭B0jangles


    Eramen wrote: »
    This is entirely secondary to the whole debate imo in that feelings don't and shouldn't come before facts. There are a number of reasons why this abortion on demand decision is questioned and you're not grasping it.

    Firstly the woman in question is not 'forced' to carry it. The fetus exists as a result of the natural occurrence of a series of events leading up to her situation. Are we saying that nature is 'oppressive' forcing people to deal with their actions and the results of actions? Sometimes people, male or female, will make up any old sob story to hide the fact that they make a bad choice or foolish decision. This is in no way a solid argument in favour of anything, yet alone an abortion.


    Secondly, under legislation and the legislation of the vast majority of the world, a fetus is

    1) a human entity,

    2) a 3rd person distinct from mother and father,

    3) therefore the mother [or father] does not have ownership over the fetus and thus cannot, unless extreme circumstances apply, attempt to terminate/kill it, as it counts as an act of fatal aggression.


    Under these precepts no person has any right to kill a living entity without good cause (unless life or death situations or cases were extreme abuse was involved). The only exception is what is termed 'abortion' in some countries at this point in time.

    If we are to think that a mother [or father] does actually own a fetus, then we are certainly harkening back to the days of slavery when it was possible to claim ownership over another individual and to do to that person as we pleased.


    Also we must ask ourselves an increasingly important question: When does the fetus become a state interest? There are a multitude of reasons for this, but the key ones are:

    1) We have an aging population,

    2) Reproduction rates are well below normal/replacement, thus;

    2) This will result in under-financing/lack of public infrastructure and services in the short & long term future,

    3) Which will in turn lead to the stagnation of the national/regional economy.


    The abortionists economic interest and the couple who is aborting 'their' fetus personal/emotional interests must come second when we look at the big picture.

    Thankfully a few countries in E. Europe and Asia see that the collective national, social and economic interest is being undermined actively reversing the trend of on-demand abortioneering. In the future it's predicted that casual abortions will become less and less common & placed under severe restrictions as governments and peoples understand these facts.

    Do you not grasp what can of worms we are opening on this issue considering the whole picture? It goes beyond abortion, far beyond. The pro-(bad)choice think like spoiled children, thinking they must have their way whatever the cost, without regard for anything outside of their own petty situation.


    Wow.

    I think we have here a person who read The Handmaid's Tale and thought "Yeah, that's how society should be run, dammit!"


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,788 ✭✭✭✭krudler


    Eramen wrote: »
    This is entirely secondary to the whole debate imo in that feelings don't and shouldn't come before facts. There are a number of reasons why this abortion on demand decision is questioned and you're not grasping it.

    Firstly the woman in question is not 'forced' to carry it. The fetus exists as a result of the natural occurrence of a series of events leading up to her situation. Are we saying that nature is 'oppressive' forcing people to deal with their actions and the results of actions? Sometimes people, male or female, will make up any old sob story to hide the fact that they make a bad choice or foolish decision. This is in no way a solid argument in favour of anything, yet alone an abortion.


    Secondly, under legislation and the legislation of the vast majority of the world, a fetus is

    1) a human entity,

    2) a 3rd person distinct from mother and father,

    3) therefore the mother [or father] does not have ownership over the fetus and thus cannot, unless extreme circumstances apply, attempt to terminate/kill it, as it counts as an act of fatal aggression.


    Under these precepts no person has any right to kill a living entity without good cause (unless life or death situations or cases were extreme abuse was involved). The only exception is what is termed 'abortion' in some countries at this point in time.

    If we are to think that a mother [or father] does actually own a fetus, then we are certainly harkening back to the days of slavery when it was possible to claim ownership over another individual and to do to that person as we pleased.


    Also we must ask ourselves an increasingly important question: When does the fetus become a state interest? There are a multitude of reasons for this, but the key ones are:

    1) We have an aging population,

    2) Reproduction rates are well below normal/replacement, thus;

    3) This will result in under-financing/lack of public infrastructure and services in the short & long term future,

    4) Which will in turn lead to the stagnation of the national/regional economy


    5) It jeopardizes the very core existential interests of the state and people itself.


    The abortionists economic interest and the couple who is aborting 'their' fetus personal/emotional interests must come second when we look at the big picture.

    Thankfully a few countries in E. Europe and Asia are beginning to understand the actual cost of abortion, in that it severely undermines the collective national, social and economic interest. Measures have been taken in terms of actively reversing the trend of on-demand abortioneering. In the future it's predicted that casual abortions will become less and less common & placed under severe restrictions as governments and peoples realise these facts.

    Do you not grasp what can of worms we are opening on this issue considering the whole picture? It goes beyond abortion, far beyond. The pro-(bad)choice think like spoiled children, thinking they must have their way whatever the cost, without regard for anything outside of their own petty situation.

    Ah the "oh you got pregnant? tough sh1t" argument. brilliant. What do you think happens in countries who have abortion? no children born in a nation of oap's or something?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 776 ✭✭✭Eramen


    B0jangles wrote: »
    Wow.

    I think we have here a person who read The Handmaid's Tale and thought "Yeah, that's how society should be run, dammit!"



    Everything you have today - and which most take for-granted - can't be maintained without great effort and foresight.

    Having children it crucial to any peoples, states, and society's survival and continued progression.

    Pro-(idiot)choicers demand all the benefits of this high civilisation, but support a cause that completely undermines the society itself and puts its future in limbo. Pure idiocy to say the least.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 18,535 CMod ✭✭✭✭The Black Oil


    Casual abortion? Good.
    Line on the left. One foetus each.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,192 ✭✭✭pharmaton


    Eramen wrote: »
    Everything you have today - and which most take for-granted - can't be maintained without great effort and foresight.

    Having children it crucial to any peoples, states, and society's survival and continued progression.

    Pro-(idiot)choicers demand all the benefits of this high civilisation, but support a cause that completely undermines the society itself and puts its future in limbo. Pure idiocy to say the least.
    a little fap every now and again is good for you


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    conorhal wrote: »
    Early delivery of your child ensured that both you and your child are alive and well, why are you trying to pretend that an abortion is the same thing, it's not and semantics wont make it otherwise.
    How is a D&C (dilate and curate - or 'cut up) going to deliver a living child?

    How is a D&X one of the procedures used for late term abortions to remove a fetus that is developed enough to require dilation of the cervix for its extraction, intact dilation and evacuation, dilation and extraction , intrauterine cranial decompression, or in the vernacular of the US as partial-birth abortion that makes an incission in the skull of the foetus, sucks out the contents to collapes it to ensure the ease of 'delivery'. How is that likely to deliver a living child tell me?

    Both are late term abortion methods, yet you curiously suggest that a c-section is, a method NEVER used for abortion. You should check your facts.

    In 1984 my doctor advised me to abort my pregnancy as my child was very over due and his heart monitor was picking up signs of serious distress.
    I knew what he meant. He wanted to chemically induce and therefore terminate/abort/end the pregnancy.
    My son is now 28 with two children of his own.

    The semantics game is being played by the pro-birthers.

    Anything which ends a pregnancy is considered an abortion as we found out when my sister's unknown ectopic pregnancy caused her Fallopian tube to burst nearly killing her. The words used by the doctor were 'it caused her pregnancy to be aborted.'


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Eramen wrote: »
    Pro-(idiot)choicers demand all the benefits of this high civilisation, but support a cause that completely undermines the society itself and puts its future in limbo. Pure idiocy to say the least.

    Mod:

    If you can't post without calling people with alternate views idiots, don't bother posting on the topic at all, thank you.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,960 ✭✭✭DarkJager


    Eramen wrote: »
    Everything you have today - and which most take for-granted - can't be maintained without great effort and foresight.

    Having children it crucial to any peoples, states, and society's survival and continued progression.

    Pro-(idiot)choicers demand all the benefits of this high civilisation, but support a cause that completely undermines the society itself and puts its future in limbo. Pure idiocy to say the least.

    No pure idiocy would be suggesting that the availability of abortion is suddenly going to result in a major decrease in the number of children. Do you actually think before you speak?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 776 ✭✭✭Eramen


    DarkJager wrote: »
    No pure idiocy would be suggesting that the availability of abortion is suddenly going to result in a major decrease in the number of children.



    Do you have any idea how many fetus' and people were killed due to abortion?

    Check out Russian, Japanese, Eastern European and US stats. It's very, very substantial.
    DarkJager wrote: »
    Do you actually think before you speak?

    I'm sure that was a rhetorical question?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    Eramen wrote: »
    Do you have any idea how many fetus' and people were killed due to abortion?

    Check out Russian, Japanese, Eastern European and US stats. It's very, very substantial.



    I'm sure that was a rhetorical question? lol

    How many children have you added to the population?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,965 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


    lazygal wrote: »
    How many children have you added to the population?

    Are only the opinions of people who've had children to be considered? That doesnt sound very democratic...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    Zulu wrote: »
    Are only the opinions of people who've had children to be considered? That doesnt sound very democratic...

    Someone who's happy to enforce pregnancy and birth because of population concerns must surely be adding to the population themselves, or actively planning to, perhaps?


  • Registered Users Posts: 776 ✭✭✭Eramen


    DarkJager wrote: »
    No pure idiocy would be suggesting that the availability of abortion is suddenly going to result in a major decrease in the number of children. Do you actually think before you speak?


    At the time of the fall of the Soviet Union 86% of women over the age of fifteen had had at least one abortion.

    The average 25-year-old woman had had three abortions and some women had had more than twenty
    .


    China has more than 13 million abortions per year.




    Quite substantial. This is having profound effects on the population demographics of our countries, and certainly on-demand abortion conflicts with the state interests considering where we are at demographically today in the West. We are aged and childless, or worse, killing off our future.

    It's only a matter of time before people and governments stem the flow of this type of abortion - out of pure necessity for societies common interest & progress.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    Eramen wrote: »
    At the time of the fall of the Soviet Union 86% of women over the age of fifteen had had at least one abortion.

    The average 25-year-old woman had had three abortions and some women had had more than twenty
    .


    China has more than 13 million abortions per year.




    Quite substantial. This is having profound effects of population demographics, and certainly on-demand abortion conflicts with the state interests considering where we are at demographically today in the West. We are aged and childless, or worse, killing off our future.
    I'm prochoice and have children. Some people go to great lengths to reproduce, even in countries where abortion is available.


  • Registered Users Posts: 79 ✭✭jimmy5694


    Hi

    I wish to raise awareness and just to get peoples opinions, about a week ago I was walking through the square in my local town when I observed anti abortion campaigners taking names for there petition, now i didnt sign the petition however, i noticed the campaigners taking names from girls around 12 years of age up. Now the issue here is and i was thinking about it for a while you can if you were a campaigner talk a person that young into signing a slip of paper for example "killing unborn babies is wrong" what else is the child going to do only sign the petition which right of way bulks up the number of names on that petition.

    Just wondering what is your views on this.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,302 ✭✭✭**Vai**


    I'd say thats pretty typical of their tactics. Those ridiculous posters for a start.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,094 ✭✭✭wretcheddomain


    jimmy5694 wrote: »
    Just wondering what is your views on this.

    It's exactly the type of dirty and disgusting underhand tactics I expect from the anti-women brigade. There's no low too low that they cannot find a way to stoop down to.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,664 ✭✭✭✭hotmail.com


    They should spend their campaign money on sick children.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,903 ✭✭✭Napper Hawkins


    They should spend their campaign money on sick children.

    But those children are outside the womb, they couldn't give a **** about them.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,011 ✭✭✭conorhal


    ash23 wrote: »
    And what if the foetus isn't? Should the mother be allowed to die? I had pre-eclampsia and then eclampsia. Luckily I was far enough along to deliver a healthy baby, albeit earlier. Had it happened weeks before, that wouldn't have been the case and I'd have preferred they save me than risk my life.

    I'd prefer that doctors would save your life also, and I'm sure that you wen't through many weeks of awful anxiety at the prospect of loosing your son or potentally losing your life, as I'm sure you probably worked with doctors to ensure the best outcome for your son while ensuring your own saftey.
    Equally your condition could have become critical and an abortion would have to be performed, it happens in hospitals in Ireland every week. I've no problem with that either. Who could argue against an outcome that would see two lives ended through the failure to save one, it makes no sense.



    ash23 wrote: »
    You really think it never happens where a termination is necessary to save the mother? It's not as rare as you would like to believe. What about cases where medical treatment is needed for cancer?

    I'm not just talking about the suicide clause. This bill is for the real and substantial risk to the life of the mother.

    Again this already happens, it's already permissable to treat a mother for a life threatening condition where that treatment will result in the death of the foetus. What's different about this legislation is that there is no consideration given to the foetus even if the foetus is near term, now it's highly unlikely that an expectant mother who was 8 months pregnant would opt to abort as opposed to deliver early, but there's always that one extreme case that can arrise. This would be a very rare scenario I'd imagine.

    When it comes to the suicide clause however you are establishing in law the right to destroy a healthy foetus in quite uncertian circumstances. My fear is that the legislation will be used to throw open the door to abortion on demand. People say that can't happen, but if the threat to the health of a woman is a checkbox formality in the UK, so can the threat to life be, when it's subjective. Will, 'so you're suicidal eh?' become as nod and a wink as 'so you fear for your health eh?' is in the UK.

    This legislation should not be allowed through without a time limit being placed on abortions where suicide is threatened.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,788 ✭✭✭✭krudler


    "get em young", the motto of any church based organisation :pac:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    Eramen wrote: »
    At the time of the fall of the Soviet Union 86% of women over the age of fifteen had had at least one abortion.

    The average 25-year-old woman had had three abortions and some women had had more than twenty
    .


    China has more than 13 million abortions per year.




    Quite substantial. This is having profound effects on the population demographics of our countries, and certainly on-demand abortion conflicts with the state interests considering where we are at demographically today in the West. We are aged and childless, or worse, killing off our future.

    It's only a matter of time before people and governments stem the flow of this type of abortion - out of pure necessity for societies common interest & progress.

    China does it to itself with their one child policy. Was contraception available in Russia?
    Abortion isnt meant to replace contraception, it is to protect the health or when the contraception fails.
    If someone is using it as contraception they probably shouldnt be having children anyway.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,533 ✭✭✭Jester252


    Ireland is a democracy. People can campaign the goverment for what they think is right. While I don't agree with what they stand for I have no isdues with them campaign to the general public. I have issues with sh1t slingers that do nothing but attack people who have oposing views, which this tread will be full of calling them "religious nut jobs" etc. If you what to oposing their campaign, you should campaign your views


  • Advertisement
Advertisement