Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

aloyisious

Cabaal wrote: »

Atleast one of them will be "randomly" selected from Lolek Ltd,

Ronan?

Cabaal

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-35793186

Sierra Leone's President Ernest Bai Koroma has again refused to sign a bill legalising abortion, saying it should be put to a referendum.

It was unanimously passed by MPs in December, but Mr Koroma refused to sign it after protests by religious leaders.

After consultations, MPs returned the bill to him last month, unaltered.

The law would allow women to terminate a pregnancy in any circumstances up to 12 weeks and in cases of incest, rape and foetal impairment up to 24 weeks.

Abortion is currently illegal in Sierra Leone under any circumstances.

Bowing to religious pressure, utter nonsense

Absolam

Cabaal wrote: »

Bowing to religious pressure, utter nonsense

Whereas bowing to irreligious pressure would be eminently sensible

volchitsa

Cabaal wrote: »

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-35793186

Bowing to religious pressure, utter nonsense

Yeah no wonder those countries are in the state they're in, wouldn't happen in a developed country would it?


Oh wait.

Cabaal

Cabaal wrote: »

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-35793186



Bowing to religious pressure, utter nonsense

When even a basket case of a country like Sierra Leone can see the abortion is wrong it shows the mentallity of people who want it legalised.

Hotblack Desiato

Kole Round Spectator wrote: »

When even a basket case of a country like Sierra Leone can see the abortion is wrong it shows the mentallity of people who want it legalised.

The mentality that offers healthcare to women instead of shaming and preaching? We could do with more of that mentality here.

Hotblack Desiato

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

The mentality that offers healthcare to women instead of shaming and preaching? We could do with more of that mentality here.

Yeah killing un-born babies because you don't want it is "healthcare" :rolleyes: particularly in looking after the baby's health.

Cabaal

Kole Round Spectator wrote: »

Yeah killing un-born babies because you don't want it is "healthcare" :rolleyes: particularly in looking after the baby's health.

Honest question,
Your a women, and tomorrow you are raped by your brother, you later find out your pregnant. You feel like throwing yourself under a bus and you get no support from doctors and your family.

Yeah giving birth to your brothers baby sounds just dandy!

You'd be ok with that incest?

frostyjacks

Cabaal wrote: »

Honest question,
Your a women, and tomorrow you are raped by your brother, you later find out your pregnant. You feel like throwing yourself under a bus and you get no support from doctors and your family.

Yeah giving birth to your brothers baby sounds just dandy!

You'd be ok with that incest?

Lol. Pro-life, not pro-rape or pro-incest. You can't just pick and choose who gets rights under the constitution. Would you argue to exclude people with disabilities from having rights? Or blacks, or the elderly? That's essentially what you're arguing.

PopePalpatine

frostyjacks wrote: »

Lol. Pro-life, not pro-rape or pro-incest. You can't just pick and choose who gets rights under the constitution. Would you argue to exclude people with disabilities from having rights? Or blacks, or the elderly? That's essentially what you're arguing.

The disabled (unless you're talking about patients in a vegetative state or with anenecephaly), black people and the elderly have one thing in common - sentience. A foetus in the first 20 or so weeks of pregnancy doesn't.

Delirium

frostyjacks wrote: »

Lol. Pro-life, not pro-rape or pro-incest. You can't just pick and choose who gets rights under the constitution. Would you argue to exclude people with disabilities from having rights? Or blacks, or the elderly? That's essentially what you're arguing.

And yet the 8th amendment does this by denying women access to abortion.

Cabaal

frostyjacks wrote: »

Lol. Pro-life, not pro-rape or pro-incest. You can't just pick and choose who gets rights under the constitution. Would you argue to exclude people with disabilities from having rights? Or blacks, or the elderly? That's essentially what you're arguing.

Really?
Thats the route you want to go down, utterly pathetic. You might as well start mentioning jews and nazi's while you're at it.
:rolleyes:

Everyone is pro-life, the problem with "pro-life" groups is they don't give a crap about the women and they only care about the fetus.

Once the fetus has come to term they don't care about it either...especially if its a women that is later raped in life. Sort of a vicious circle really and its utterly pathetic....

Life is precious it seems, exception if your a pregnant women, then your life doesn't matter a damn and your mental health is worth nothing.

Meanwhile we fail women and we fail to support them in being able to control their own bodies, especially when they have been violated by rape or incest.

aloyisious

frostyjacks wrote: »

Lol. Pro-life, not pro-rape or pro-incest. You can't just pick and choose who gets rights under the constitution. Would you argue to exclude people with disabilities from having rights? Or blacks, or the elderly? That's essentially what you're arguing.

So you think we can't pick and choose who get's rights put in the constitution? The 8th amendment to the constitution, giving an equal right to life to the unborn and women, was chosen by us for insertion into the constitution. How do you feel about that choice on rights?

Cabaal

frostyjacks wrote: »

You can't just pick and choose who gets rights under the constitution.

Except yes I can and yes as a country we can. So you are very much mistaken.

I voted yes in May, I got to be involved in giving a whole part of our country additional rights. I enjoyed giving more rights to my friends.

You may dislike democracy, but thankfully better minds then yours welcome it.

robdonn

Kole Round Spectator wrote: »

When even a basket case of a country like Sierra Leone can see the abortion is wrong it shows the mentallity of people who want it legalised.

So Sierra Leone is a basket case country, but when they make a decision that you agree with (well, one person makes a decision) suddenly you think they've seen the light? Could this not be seen as just another example of a basket case decision?

One eyed Jack

Cabaal wrote: »

Really?
Thats the route you want to go down, utterly pathetic. You might as well start mentioning jews and nazi's while you're at it.
:rolleyes:

Everyone is pro-life, the problem with "pro-life" groups is they don't give a crap about the women and they only care about the fetus.

Once the fetus has come to term they don't care about it either...especially if its a women that is later raped in life. Sort of a vicious circle really and its utterly pathetic....

Life is precious it seems, exception if your a pregnant women, then your life doesn't matter a damn and your mental health is worth nothing.

Meanwhile we fail women and we fail to support them in being able to control their own bodies, especially when they have been violated by rape or incest.

How true are those claims though really? Is the standard of care provided not just another matter of perspective? To say that "pro-life" groups "don't care" about either the mother or the baby after the baby is born is demonstrably false, given that all religious organisations have humanity covered from birth to burial, and all the education they can throw at them in between!!

Rather it was the State who promoted and allowed these organisations to profit by handsomely rewarding them for their services to society. The Poor Relief Act 1938 which set up the workhouses being an example, where the undesirables in society were put so that they were out of sight, out of mind. There exist people in society who would do the very same again today if they could.

Pherekydes

Kole Round Spectator wrote: »

Yeah killing un-born babies because you don't want it is "healthcare" :rolleyes: particularly in looking after the baby's health.

Take it up with your god. She's the biggest abortionist.

Cabaal

One eyed Jack wrote: »

given that all religious organisations have humanity covered from birth to burial, and all the education they can throw at them in between!!

Rather it was the State who promoted and allowed these organisations to profit by handsomely rewarding them for their services to society. The Poor Relief Act 1938 which set up the workhouses being an example, where the undesirables in society were put so that they were out of sight, out of mind. There exist people in society who would do the very same again today if they could.

those same religious organizations made tidy profit on the sale of those babys, ripping them away from their mothers without permission.

Religious organization may claim they have everything covered, but they have also all the abuse covered in between as well. Shoddy track record for caring for human life.

PopePalpatine

Cabaal wrote: »

those same religious organizations made tidy profit on the sale of those babys, ripping them away from their mothers without permission.

Religious organization may claim they have everything covered, but they have also all the abuse covered in between as well. Shoddy track record for caring for human life.

Not to mention that US pro-lifers tend to be Republican voters and love leaving the poor at the mercy of the Free Market - which I guess is the origin of the idea that they don't care about the already born.

One eyed Jack

Cabaal wrote: »

those same religious organizations made tidy profit on the sale of those babys, ripping them away from their mothers without permission.

Religious organization may claim they have everything covered, but they have also all the abuse covered in between as well. Shoddy track record for caring for human life.

The same could equally be said of any large organisation though, including but not limited to religious organisations. Just look at how children and vulnerable adults are treated in State care in 2015 where there were many reports of children and vulnerable adults subjected to abuse and neglect.

My point was really that I was wondering, when people on one side of the abortion debate accuse people on the other side of "not caring" (and this could apply to either "side"), it's simply a matter of perspective as to what one considers caring, from either perspective.

One eyed Jack

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Not to mention that US pro-lifers tend to be Republican voters and love leaving the poor at the mercy of the Free Market - which I guess is the origin of the idea that they don't care about the already born.

And again though, I'm just wondering how true is that, when I read something like this -


"In 1994, Carson and his wife started the Carson Scholars Fund, which awards scholarships to students in grades 4–11 for "academic excellence and humanitarian qualities". They founded it after reading that U.S. students ranked second to last in terms of math and science testing among 22 countries. They also noticed that schools awarded athletes with trophies, whereas honor students only received "a pin or certificate".

Recipients of the Carson Scholars Fund receive a $1,000 scholarship towards their college education. It has awarded 6,700 scholarships. In recognition for his work with the Carson Scholars Fund and other charitable giving throughout his lifetime, Carson was awarded the William E. Simon Prize for Philanthropic Leadership in 2005."

It's from Ben Carson's Wikipedia entry.

The Randy Riverbeast

frostyjacks wrote: »

Lol. Pro-life, not pro-rape or pro-incest. You can't just pick and choose who gets rights under the constitution. Would you argue to exclude people with disabilities from having rights? Or blacks, or the elderly? That's essentially what you're arguing.

Weren't you supporting people having different rights in the constitution a few months ago? You would arguing to deny gay people the same rights as straight so you can hardly take the high ground here.

Cabaal

Cabaal wrote: »

Meanwhile we fail women and we fail to support them in being able to control their own bodies, especially when they have been violated by rape or incest.

We rightly fail to support them in controlling their own bodies to the extent that they can choose to kill their un-born child.

It's tiresome how the pro-abortion side keep harping on about the extremely rare cases like rape, abnormalities etc when the vast vast majority of abortions in the UK for instance are just lifestyle choices.

lazygal

Kole Round Spectator wrote: »

We rightly fail to support them in controlling their own bodies to the extent that they can choose to kill their un-born child.

It's tiresome how the pro-abortion side keep harping on about the extremely rare cases like rape, abnormalities etc when the vast vast majority of abortions in the UK for instance are just lifestyle choices.

What do you think would be happening in Ireland if women couldn't travel to the UK for abortions to facilitate their lifestyle choices? Like say, not wanting another child or not wanting to go to full term with a dying foetus? Is having an abortion in the case of rape, abnormalities etc a lifestyle choice?

Delirium

Kole Round Spectator wrote: »

We rightly fail to support them in controlling their own bodies to the extent that they can choose to kill their un-born child.

It's tiresome how the pro-abortion side keep harping on about the extremely rare cases like rape, abnormalities etc when the vast vast majority of abortions in the UK for instance are just lifestyle choices.

Imagine how tiresome it must be for women to be told that someone knows better than they what they can and can't have access to with regard to their own bodies.

lazygal

Delirium wrote: »

Imagine how tiresome it must be for women to be told that someone knows better than they what they can and can't have access to with regard to their own bodies.

And that remaining pregnant isn't a lifestyle choice but not remaining pregnant is.

eviltwin

The implication that an abortion for a personal reason is bad and one for rape etc is good is also tiresome. Its not panto. While it's easy to see the added trauma that can be added to a woman who has been raped if she can't get an abortion it's also traumatic if a pregnancy might impact your relationship, your work or study. Nox is right, most abortions are for lifestyle reasons and there is nothing wrong with that.

lazygal

eviltwin wrote: »

The implication that an abortion for a personal reason is bad and one for rape etc is good is also tiresome. Its not panto. While it's easy to see the added trauma that can be added to a woman who has been raped if she can't get an abortion it's also traumatic if a pregnancy might impact your relationship, your work or study. Nox is right, most abortions are for lifestyle reasons and there is nothing wrong with that.

Having two children has been a lifestyle choice. The thoughts of having more would include the affect on our current lifestyle. There's no doubt in my mind that I would try to avoid a lifestyle of caring for a very disabled child if at all possible, for example, and would choose an abortion if certain disabilities were diagnosed. I can afford to have a choice about abortion. Other women simply can't afford the choices I have.

PopePalpatine

Kole Round Spectator wrote: »

We rightly fail to support them in controlling their own bodies to the extent that they can choose to kill their un-born child.

It's tiresome how the pro-abortion side keep harping on about the extremely rare cases like rape, abnormalities etc when the vast vast majority of abortions in the UK for instance are just lifestyle choices.

RAINN, the rape & sexual assault victims advocacy group, estimates that 5% of rapes result in pregnancy, and that's just in the USA, where access to contraception would be far easier than in the developing world. So please, educate yourself before going full Todd Akin.

Absolam

PopePalpatine wrote: »

The disabled (unless you're talking about patients in a vegetative state or with anenecephaly), black people and the elderly have one thing in common - sentience. A foetus in the first 20 or so weeks of pregnancy doesn't.

So, a person who is sufficiently disabled (or comatose) so as not to demonstrate sentience should not have a right to life either, in your opinion? Or is sentience only useful for excluding a particular portion of those who aren't sentient?

Delirium wrote: »

And yet the 8th amendment does this by denying women access to abortion.

Well, really it doesn't. It's not picking and choosing who gets a right to life; it gives it to everyone. It's not picking an choosing who gets a right to abort a life; it denies it to everyone.