Pro-choice group put banner advertising abortion pills on Galway Cathedral

volchitsa

PucaMama wrote: »

isnt ivf about concieving? and not prevention. ivf is a positive really. if its with the intention of concieving. dont think its ethical to create loads and loads of embryos only to destroy most. thinking about it i dont even know where an ivf clinic is in ireland hadnt thought about it

There are several in Dublin. SIMS is well known, and Beacon Care does IVF too.

But the thing is if the embryo has a right to life, isn't that independent of how it is conceived?

So IVF embryos can be selected before implantation and the less healthy ones rejected, yet a couple who learn that their unborn child will never live because it has no brain, or will die a painful death in the hours or days after birth, they have no right to call a halt to that pregnancy in order to start again and hopefully have a viable child at the end? Those extra months, quite apart from the traumatism of giving birth to a dying baby, could make all the difference to whether or not that couple end up being able to carry another, healthy, fetus to term.
Why should that be so different, if it is based on an inherent right to life of the fertilised egg?

It seems hypocritical to me.

PucaMama

volchitsa wrote: »

There are several in Dublin. SIMS is well known, and Beacon Care does IVF too.

But the thing is if the embryo has a right to life, isn't that independent of how it is conceived?

So IVF embryos can be selected before implantation and the less healthy ones rejected, yet a couple who learn that their unborn child will never live because it has no brain, or will die a painful death in the hours or days after birth, they have no right to call a halt to that pregnancy in order to start again and hopefully have a viable child at the end? Those extra months, quite apart from the traumatism of giving birth to a dying baby, could make all the difference to whether or not that couple end up being able to carry another, healthy, fetus to term.
Why should that be so different, if it is based on an inherent right to life of the fertilised egg?

It seems hypocritical to me.

if we allowed for that, how long until its allowed for babies who are found to have disabilities? unacceptable. doctors have been wrong. life deserves a chance.

volchitsa

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Maybe someone should tell them that it's the Government that makes the rules so next time they can put their little poster outside Leinster House instead.

But what they did was always going to be popular on here where it's open season on all things Catholic.

Maybe if the Catholic Church hadn't been so instrumental in getting the 8th amendment through in the first place, and still is deeply involved - remember the marches in Merrion Square before the new legislation was passed? - then there would be less point in targetting the Catholic Churches on this matter either.

Just a thought.

iPink

PucaMama wrote:

whether they be concieved through ivf or naturally if i had my way they would go on to develop and grow. if you are unwilling to allow it then get sterilised the most reliable way possible, and deal with your decision.

you don't have any right to tell ANYONE what they should or shouldn't do with their own bodies, including what's potentially growing in it...!!!
I REALLY hate that attitude!

fair play to this women's group for the poster. .. The church had been breaking into & violating us & our bodies in so many ways for FAR too long, I think they can stand a poster being hung on their outside wall for a few hours!!!

Its Only Ray Parlour

PucaMama wrote: »

im also not punishing women, im protecting the innocent.

No, you're punishing women and if that child grew up to be a paedophile or a murderer, I bet you wish the mother had an abortion. Abortions do not hurt the foetus.

Do you enjoy having taxes wasted on pregnant teenage girls dropping out of school and claiming welfare? Many of those relationships break down because they were young and immature. If women had the option to abort, we could reduce the number of single mothers in the country and the Government would more have money to spend on things that could benefit us all.

Please stop arguing from a moralistic standpoint and apply some logic to this debate.

volchitsa

PucaMama wrote: »

if we allowed for that, how long until its allowed for babies who are found to have disabilities? unacceptable. doctors have been wrong. life deserves a chance.

But it is allowed, for IVF embryos - and that is often only based on probabilities, because the embryos appears less vigorous.

So why is it acceptable to destroy those embryos? And why don't you even care enough to even know that they exist? I mean, if you care about the right to life of the embryo?

PucaMama

iPink wrote: »

you don't have any right to tell ANYONE what they should or shouldn't do with their own bodies, including what's potentially growing in it...!!!
I REALLY hate that attitude!

fair play to this women's group for the poster. .. The church had been breaking into & violating us & our bodies in so many ways for FAR too long, I think they can stand a poster being hung on their outside wall for a few hours!!!

noone is forced to follow the catholic church.

volchitsa

PucaMama wrote: »

noone is forced to follow the catholic church.

Plenty have been forced to live their lives according to their rules all the same. A recent one being a poor Indian lady who was told "this is a catholic country" - remember? She died for the Catholic Church's beliefs. But she didn't have the choice, it was forced on her.

PucaMama

volchitsa wrote: »

But it is allowed, for IVF embryos - and that is often only based on probabilities, because the embryos appears less vigorous.

So why is it acceptable to destroy those embryos? And why don't you even care enough to even know that they exist? I mean, if you care about the right to life of the embryo?

what makes you think i dont care im not sure where this is going

PucaMama

volchitsa wrote: »

Plenty have been forced to live their lives according to their rules all the same. A recent one being a poor Indian lady who was told "this is a catholic country" - remember? She died for the Catholic Church's beliefs. But she didn't have the choice, it was forced on her.

id say she is pretty fed up with her death being used the way it is as a political tool

Galwayguy35

volchitsa wrote: »

Maybe if the Catholic Church hadn't been so instrumental in getting the 8th amendment through in the first place, and still is deeply involved - remember the marches in Merrion Square before the new legislation was passed? - then there would be less point in targetting the Catholic Churches on this matter either.

Just a thought.

Well shock horror, a religious organisation is against abortion!

This is certainly breaking news!

volchitsa

PucaMama wrote: »

what makes you think i dont care im not sure where this is going

Well you obviously don't think they are really babies being killed, or you would at least inform yourself about it, instead of which you don't even know that there are IVF clinics in Ireland. So why do you claim to care about embryos inside pregnant women - what is the difference? Why not just let each woman decide for herself, same as with couples going for IVF?

PucaMama

volchitsa wrote: »

Well you obviously don't think they are really babies being killed, or you would at least inform yourself about it, instead of which you don't even know that there are IVF clinics in Ireland. So why do you claim to care about embryos inside pregnant women - what is the difference? Why not just let each woman decide for herself, same as with couples going for IVF?

no person in my opinion should feel they have the right to end a pregnancy on a whim. you ask my opinion. thats it.

volchitsa

PucaMama wrote: »

id say she is pretty fed up with her death being used the way it is as a political tool

She's dead, she can't care about anything any more. As for being used as a political tool, yes I imagine that would be unacceptable, to her family for one thing - but in the context of a discussion on abortion it is not using her death as a "tool" to mention why and how she died. It's very relevant. Just as it would be relevant to mention a victim of a crime when discussing other examples of similar crimes.

PucaMama

volchitsa wrote: »

She's dead, she can't care about anything any more. As for being used as a political tool, yes I imagine that would be unacceptable, to her family for one thing - but in the context of a discussion on abortion it is not using her death as a "tool" to mention why and how she died. It's very relevant. Just as it would be relevant to mention a victim of a crime when discussing other examples of similar crimes.

she has been very widely used as a political tool :rolleyes:

volchitsa

PucaMama wrote: »

no person in my opinion should feel they have the right to end a pregnancy on a whim. you ask my opinion. thats it.

That wasn't my question though. What do you see as the difference between ending a pregnancy and destroying a non-implanted embryo of the same age?

PucaMama

volchitsa wrote: »

That wasn't my question though. What do you see as the difference between ending a pregnancy and destroying a non-implanted embryo of the same age?

i see no difference, its right there in my answer i dont support the ending of a pregnancy just because

volchitsa

PucaMama wrote: »

she has been very widely used as a political tool :rolleyes:

Well obviously I can see how you would think so, if you think any mention of her death is exploitation. I would remind you that her husband went to Galway ProChoice because he couldn't get any response from GUH, so I don't think he would agree with you on who showed a lack of respect towards her. And he should know.

volchitsa

PucaMama wrote: »

i see no difference, its right there in my answer i dont support the ending of a pregnancy just because

So if it isn't implanted there's no pregnancy therefore it's ok, is that your point?

volchitsa

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Well shock horror, a religious organisation is against abortion!

This is certainly breaking news!

You were the one complaining that they were being targeted. So it seems you want the church to be able to have its views heard, but not for anyone else to be able to point out that as celibate males, they are not best placed to have any opinion on the matter.

PucaMama

volchitsa wrote: »

Well obviously I can see how you would think so, if you think any mention of her death is exploitation. I would remind you that her husband went to Galway ProChoice because he couldn't get any response from GUH, so I don't think he would agree with you on who showed a lack of respect towards her. And he should know.

i find it very hard to believe he exhausted all routes of communication with the hospital before he went to the pro choice group.

PucaMama

volchitsa wrote: »

So if it isn't implanted there's no pregnancy therefore it's ok, is that your point?

are you confusing me with someone else? i have always been against abortion on any of these threads. of course when you throw something like ivf in its going to change my line of thought. abortion was my original subject. now ivf is here too.

volchitsa

PucaMama wrote: »

i find it very hard to believe he exhausted all routes of communication with the hospital before he went to the pro choice group.

So what routes of communication do you think he neglected in the nearly three weeks between her death and his first contact with Galway pro choice?

Or does your complete ignorance of this, as with your posts about female sterilization - actually benefit you because it allows you to post complete BS without realizing how embarrassed you should be?

volchitsa

PucaMama wrote: »

are you confusing me with someone else? i have always been against abortion on any of these threads. of course when you throw something like ivf in its going to change my line of thought. abortion was my original subject. now ivf is here too.

You're confusing yourself I think.

You mentioned the embryos' "right to life" I asked you if that applied to all embryos, including IVF ones, and you replied with some off topic point about only women getting themselves pregnant through lack of precautions, owtte.

So you still haven't explained why you seem convinced that a pregnancy contains a baby with a right to life, yet an IVF embryo of the same age which hasn't yet been implanted in a woman, apparently doesn't. The fact that you haven't thought about it before is irrelevant, except in so far as it shows how little you have actually thought this through.

The point is that since you advocate banning abortion based on the right to life of a fertilised egg, why does no-one, including you, care enough about the right to life of all these embryos in IVF clinics to organize protests there?

PucaMama

volchitsa wrote: »

So what routes of communication do you think he neglected in the nearly three weeks between her death and his first contact with Galway pro choice?

Or does your complete ignorance of this, as with your posts about female sterilization - actually benefit you because it allows you to post complete BS without realizing how embarrassed you should be?

do not assume ignorance, you know nothng about what i do and dont know. you dont think i already knew about the consequences of female sterilisation? its only unatractive to people because its easier for these people to have an abortion and to move on with their life.

just so you know, there are plenty of ways to complain in a hospital about a nurse not doing their job.

rainbow kirby

PucaMama wrote: »

noone is forced to follow the catholic church.

Apart from when their beliefs become the law of the land, which I and many others have a serious problem with.

PucaMama

volchitsa wrote: »

The point is that since you advocate banning abortion based on the right to life of a fertilised egg, why does no-one, including you, care enough about the right to life of all these embryos in IVF clinics to organize protests there?

hold on till i get onto the prolife hive mind :rolleyes:

volchitsa

PucaMama wrote: »

do not assume ignorance, you know nothng about what i do and dont know. you dont think i already knew about the consequences of female sterilisation? its only unatractive to people because its easier for these people to have an abortion and to move on with their life.

just so you know, there are plenty of ways to complain in a hospital about a nurse not doing their job.

You can't know anything about human physiology if you can seriously advocate ovariectomy simply for contraceptive reasons. No doctor would do it, the consequences are too great. It's not about it being unattractive, it's about it being dangerous.

And yes I do know, and I think you can take it that Praveen Halappanavar was able to find out too. Or do you think that he, unlike you, is stupid? Or that he didn't care?

PucaMama

volchitsa wrote: »

You can't know anything about human physiology if you can seriously advocate ovariectomy simply for contraceptive reasons. No doctor would do it, the consequences are too great. It's not about it being unattractive, it's about it being dangerous.

And yes I do know, and I think you can take it that Praveen Halappanavar was able to find out too. Or do you think that he, unlike you, is stupid? Or that he didn't care?

i know plenty about physiology, thank you.

volchitsa

PucaMama wrote: »

hold on till i get onto the prolife hive mind :rolleyes:

Well when you came out with that stupid crack about women being surprised about getting pregnant, as a way of avoiding a question about IVF embryos, I think you were pretty well connected up with the hive mind at that point.

You weren't able to defend it of course, so apparently the connection must go down from time to time.