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

‘People think I’m the devil for having an abortion, but it’s the only option that&

1…1516182021…37

Comments

  • #512
    DuffmanGuy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 99 ✭✭DuffmanGuy


    26sdrawkcab wrote: »
    Also, just wanted to add how brave I think this woman is. I don't know if I could ever share my story so publicly. She is probably getting horrible abuse from all angles but is being so brave sharing her story to put this huge problem in the public arena.

    It's never brave to kill the defenceless. It cowardly in the extreme.


  • #513
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    liam24 wrote: »
    He didn't say it was a parasite, he said it was basically a parasite. In fact, his question was "can it survive on a basic level as an independent being". Well Stephen Hawking can't, so let's kill him.

    Actually, he can. Can Steven Hawking eat? Yes he can. Can he breathe? Yup. Does someone use the toilet on his behalf? Nope. So he is not completely dependent on someone else.
    DuffmanGuy wrote: »
    A Parasite is an inter-species description, where one species benefits at the expense of the other. The term can never be applied to a baby or foetus.

    They actually don't know how a mother doesn't reject a foetus. By all technicality, if a foetus wasn't a foetus, it would be rejected from the body.


  • #514
    super_furry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,355 ✭✭✭✭super_furry


    Christ are we back to the 'a foetus is more important than a living person nonsense' again?


  • #515
    super_furry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,355 ✭✭✭✭super_furry


    DuffmanGuy wrote: »
    It's never brave to kill the defenceless. It cowardly in the extreme.

    Says the brand new sockpuppet account who signed up specifically to rant and rave about the evils of women making their own choices about their bodies.


  • #516
    Frigga_92
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,801 ✭✭✭Frigga_92


    DuffmanGuy wrote: »
    It's never brave to kill the defenceless. It cowardly in the extreme.

    She is so BRAVE.


  • Advertisement
  • #517
    DuffmanGuy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 99 ✭✭DuffmanGuy


    Kiwi in IE wrote: »
    A human baby does not require a parasitical relationship with a host to survive. A foetus does, and whilst that is the case it is entirely illogical to grant it rights separate to or equal to, the rights of the host. The 'rights' of a foetus can only extend to those which it's host chooses to grant it. This applies whether or not abortion is legal and whether or not pro birthers scream until they are blue in the face that reality is something to the contrary. As a pregnant woman I may live in a country where I cannot legally avail of abortion, but I can drink a litre of metholated spirits if it takes my fancy. What do pro birthers suggest is done about the foetuses 'equal rights' then? Aside from locking up all pregnant woman and holding them incarcerated until they have safely birthed, foetuses cannot be granted rights that are equal to or superceed those of the pregnant woman. Aside from abortion there are untold things she may do that could cause the foetus harm. What do pro birthers plan to do about this to ensure the 'rights' of the foetus? Or is it just the 'right to life' that matters? Regardless of the quality of that life?


    A human Foetus is not in a parasitical relationship with her mother. To qualify as a parasitical relationship, they must be different species.


  • #518
    DarkJager
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,960 ✭✭✭DarkJager


    super_furry wrote: »
    Christ are we back to the 'a foetus is more important than a living person nonsense' again?

    The pro life side never left it because their simplistic minds cannot differentiate between a fully grown adult human and an unseen collection of cells.


  • #519
    liam24
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 369 ✭✭liam24


    sup_dude wrote: »
    Actually, he can. Can Steven Hawking eat? Yes he can. Can he breathe? Yup. Does someone use the toilet on his behalf? Nope. So he is not completely dependent on someone else.



    They actually don't know how a mother doesn't reject a foetus. By all technicality, if a foetus wasn't a foetus, it would be rejected from the body.

    Actually Stephen Hawking can't eat, breathe or go to the toilet without assistance.


  • #520
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    liam24 wrote: »
    He didn't say it was a parasite, he said it was basically a parasite. In fact, his question was "can it survive on a basic level as an independent being". Well Stephen Hawking can't, so let's kill him.

    He was able to, a medical condition stopped that. But he's still capable of independent thinking, so much so that he's probably contributed more to science than anyone else this century.


  • #521
    DuffmanGuy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 99 ✭✭DuffmanGuy


    DarkJager wrote: »
    The pro life side never left it because their simplistic minds cannot differentiate between a fully grown adult human and an unseen collection of cells.

    The pro-abortion side deny biology when it suits them to kill.


  • Advertisement
  • #522
    DuffmanGuy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 99 ✭✭DuffmanGuy


    super_furry wrote: »
    Says the brand new sockpuppet account who signed up specifically to rant and rave about the evils of women making their own choices about their bodies.

    As you rant and rave, but fail to contest any valid points I've made.


  • #523
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    DuffmanGuy wrote: »
    A Parasite is an inter-species description, where one species benefits at the expense of the other. The term can never be applied to a baby or foetus.

    I'm sure it is considered as one by the mother when it's unwanted.


  • #524
    DarkJager
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,960 ✭✭✭DarkJager


    DuffmanGuy wrote: »
    The pro-abortion side deny biology when it suits them to kill.

    No the opposite in fact, you only need to look at the case before Christmas for proof of that. The pro life side fully believing it acceptable to deny biology and natural order, just to use a clinically dead woman as an incubator.


  • #525
    B_Wayne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,039 ✭✭✭B_Wayne


    liam24 wrote: »
    Actually Stephen Hawking can't eat, breathe or go to the toilet without assistance.

    Except, there is not one single person who must care for him at all costs to the detriment of their own well being. Possible to resign as nurse etc.


  • #526
    DuffmanGuy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 99 ✭✭DuffmanGuy


    26sdrawkcab wrote: »
    Has anyone commenting on this thread about how easy travelling to the UK is ever travelled to the UK for an abortion? It's not the same as going away for a weekend with your partner or your friends.
    As if travelling isn't stressful enough, you're travelling knowing that at the end of your journey you will no longer be pregnant.
    Just because this woman decided to end her pregnancy because a child doesn't fit into her life right now (as valid a reason as any reason in my opinion) that doesn't mean the decision was made easily. People are making her into a monster because she has made the responsible choice to not bring a child that she doesn't want into the world. Would it be right to bring a child into the world and resent that child because she missed out on her dreams?
    In my opinion being in a long-term relationship or being married would make the decision very difficult. What if you really want a child but now is not the right time but what if you never get pregnant again? What if one of you can't forgive the other if you never get pregnant again?

    It is wrong that any woman should have to leave this country and go to another country to have an abortion. No ifs or buts, it's wrong, it shouldn't happen. Nobody should be forced to have a child that they don't want. Nobody should have the choice taken away from them.

    Nobody should have their LIFE taken away from them.


  • #527
    liam24
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 369 ✭✭liam24


    B_Wayne wrote: »
    Except, there is not one single person who must care for him at all costs to the detriment of their own well being. Possible to resign as nurse etc.

    That's not relevant to the point being made by the person I was responding to though.


  • #528
    mikom
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,391 ✭✭✭✭mikom


    DuffmanGuy wrote: »
    Nobody should have their LIFE taken away from them.

    Nobody should have to give birth to a rapists baby against their will.


  • #529
    DuffmanGuy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 99 ✭✭DuffmanGuy


    sup_dude wrote: »
    See all those cells in your hands? Yeah, full set of DNA. All your heart cells? Full set of DNA. In fact, you picked out the only cells that don't, which is kinda ironic...
    No, the foetus cannot grow without its mother. Take it out of the womb and it'll not only stop growing, it'll die. A foetus, especially during the early stages, act like most other cells.

    The fact are fact but irrelevant. Please stop trying to use science to prove anything. It's not working and undermining what science actually is.

    A Zygote or Foetus acts NOTHING like other cells. Ask any embryologist.
    The facts are relevant, but not suited to your opinion, so you're ignoring or denying them.


  • #530
    super_furry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,355 ✭✭✭✭super_furry


    DuffmanGuy wrote: »
    As you rant and rave, but fail to contest any valid points I've made.

    Rant and rave? Where have I done that?

    Contesting your 'valid points' with you would be as fruitful as screaming at a wall. Fundamentalists who only ever see their own religious based versions of right and wrong can never be reasoned with.


  • #531
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    DuffmanGuy wrote: »
    The pro-abortion side deny biology when it suits them to kill.

    And the anti-choice side deny freedom and human rights when it suits them to force women into things they don't want to do. :)


  • Advertisement
  • #532
    DuffmanGuy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 99 ✭✭DuffmanGuy


    mikom wrote: »
    Nobody should have to give birth to a rapists baby against their will.

    The baby has committed no crime.


  • #533
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,029 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    DuffmanGuy wrote: »
    The baby has committed no crime.
    Nor the woman.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #534
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    liam24 wrote: »
    Actually Stephen Hawking can't eat, breathe or go to the toilet without assistance.

    Neither can a baby, however he doesn't need someone to eat and digest the food for him, he doesn't need someone to physically breathe for him, nobody goes to the toilet on his behalf. That is what I meant by completely dependent.


  • #535
    bodice ripper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,681 ✭✭✭bodice ripper


    DuffmanGuy wrote: »
    The baby has committed no crime.



    yeah, some of us don't think a fetus is a baby. try and keep up.


  • #536
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    DuffmanGuy wrote: »
    A Zygote or Foetus acts NOTHING like other cells. Ask any embryologist.
    The facts are relevant, but not suited to your opinion, so you're ignoring or denying them.

    In the way you were talking they do. Why do you keep saying that?


  • #537
    DuffmanGuy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 99 ✭✭DuffmanGuy


    super_furry wrote: »
    Rant and rave? Where have I done that?

    Contesting your 'valid points' with you would be as fruitful as screaming at a wall. Fundamentalists who only ever see their own religious based versions of right and wrong can never be reasoned with.

    Religion is irrelevant.
    Contesting or considering science's 'Valid Points' might cause you to see what you so far have failed to see - that abortion kills a human being.


  • #538
    liam24
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 369 ✭✭liam24


    sup_dude wrote: »
    Neither can a baby, however he doesn't need someone to eat and digest the food for him, he doesn't need someone to physically breathe for him, nobody goes to the toilet on his behalf. That is what I meant by completely dependent.

    If it were the year 3000, and if Stephen Hawking could only survive if his wife was hooked up to him by a remote device implanted in her stomach, and every breath she took and every piece of food she ate was shared with him, would she be a good or a bad person for letting her husband die because it was inconvenient to her?


  • #539
    DuffmanGuy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 99 ✭✭DuffmanGuy


    bodice ripper wrote: »
    yeah, some of us don't think a fetus is a baby. try and keep up.

    Science proves that a human foetus is fully a human being.
    Try to keep up.


  • #540
    super_furry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,355 ✭✭✭✭super_furry


    DuffmanGuy wrote: »
    Religion is irrelevant.

    First thing you've said that actually makes sense.


  • Advertisement
  • #541
    mikom
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,391 ✭✭✭✭mikom


    mikom wrote: »
    Nobody should have to give birth to a rapists baby against their will.
    DuffmanGuy wrote: »
    The baby has committed no crime.

    True.

    Now again......

    Nobody should have to give birth to a rapists baby against their will.
    .
    .


Advertisement