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

Repeal the 8th Bandwagoning

Options
13567…18

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    wakka12
    Registered Users Posts: 9,786 ✭✭✭wakka12


    LexieOnRale wrote: »
    I think wanting a say in your own body is good reason enough

    I agree but the girls in that video saying this seemed like they couldn't give a rats arse about any consequences of the outcome and just want to be seen as loud liberals and get the day off college to go shout about with their friends


  • Options
    #63
    TheChizler
    Registered Users Posts: 9,442 ✭✭✭TheChizler


    ......... wrote: »
    surely you know when human life begins, and surely you can tell the difference between an unfertilized chicken egg and a human life ? because most educated adults can, and are not fooled otherswise.

    Human life began tens of thousands of years ago. No new life has started since, just combined in different ways.


  • Options
    #64
    qo2cj1dsne8y4k
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,646 ✭✭✭✭qo2cj1dsne8y4k


    Woodhenge wrote: »
    You are the one claiming science backs up the pro-choice argument, so let's be logical for once and reason it out. The embryo that isn't aborted can survive in the womb and the outside world if left to develop. The newborn can survive infancy if given adequate care. I don't see the difference here? Newborns can die of disease or complications during birth, the logic of Nye's argument is that infanticide is therefore permissible if that is the mothers choice.

    Everyone should have the right to decide if they want to act as an incubator. You have no right to expect or demand anyone do something to their body that they don't want to do.


  • Options
    #65
    SterlingArcher
    Registered Users Posts: 2,767 ✭✭✭SterlingArcher


    Lady Spangles wrote: »
    Rape and sexual abuse victims are others who find this whole campaign triggering.

    When I see people using " triggering".And not in an ironic way. That person makes me find the pro life campaign triggering.

    You and Lena Dunham should definitely switch sides to pro life. Kinda like a trojan horse. Then I have no doubt the repeal the 8th will smash it.


  • Options
    #66
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    .........
    Closed Accounts Posts: 624 ✭✭✭.........


    TheChizler wrote: »
    Human life began tens of thousands of years ago. No new life has started since, just combined in different ways.

    biologically, according to any biological textbook, when does any human life begin, I'll give you a clue, it's not thousands of years ago.


  • Options
    #68
    .........
    Closed Accounts Posts: 624 ✭✭✭.........


    LexieOnRale wrote: »
    You have no right to expect or demand anyone do something to their body that they don't want to do.

    like aborting'them for example ?


  • Options
    #69
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    freshpopcorn wrote: »
    During the marriage referendum the yes and no campaign knew what they wanted. So it was a clear choice on what you were voting for. If you ask some of the people in involved in the repeal campaign what they wanted they'd have different opinions.
    Whilst the people who want to keep the eight are all on the same page!

    Not really. The various parts of the Coalition to Repeal have different ideas about what should happen after repeal, but they all want the 8th repealed completely and not replaced with any constitutional protection.

    If the referendum ends up being a repeal-and-replace referendum, the Coalition will likely fracture and the campaign will be at risk. If it's a simple repeal referendum, their line is pretty clear, and the aftermath doesn't much matter as nobody is voting on what happens afterwards.


  • Options
    #70
    Outlaw Pete
    Registered Users Posts: 10,423 ✭✭✭✭Outlaw Pete


    Lady Spangles wrote: »
    You have to make your voice heard....

    Absolutely, and there's no 'voice' that needs to be heard more than that of the unfortunately voiceless........... the unborn developing child.


  • Options
    #71
    qo2cj1dsne8y4k
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,646 ✭✭✭✭qo2cj1dsne8y4k


    ......... wrote: »
    like aborting'them for example ?
    Don't worry, if you find yourself with child, I will protest for your rights to have a say over your own body too, so as nobody would force you into doing something you don't want to do with your body, including forcing an abortion on you, if you didn't want an abortion


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    jameorahiely
    Registered Users Posts: 825 ✭✭✭jameorahiely


    LexieOnRale wrote: »
    Everyone should have the right to decide if they want to act as an incubator. You have no right to expect or demand anyone do something to their body that they don't want to do.

    Meanwhile, over at the abortion clinic..



    One staff member reported,”Girls” being distressed at
    the door to theatre and persuasion taking place with
    pressure on them to proceed.
    http://www.cqc.org.uk/location/1-130902809


  • Options
    #73
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    Woodhenge wrote: »
    You are the one claiming science backs up the pro-choice argument, so let's be logical for once and reason it out. The embryo that isn't aborted can survive in the womb and the outside world if left to develop. The newborn can survive infancy if given adequate care. I don't see the difference here? Newborns can die of disease or complications during birth, the logic of Nye's argument is that infanticide is therefore permissible if that is the mothers choice.

    A newborn's continued existence (usually) places nobody else at risk of serious health complications or death, whereas an embryo/foetus always does.


  • Options
    #74
    Outlaw Pete
    Registered Users Posts: 10,423 ✭✭✭✭Outlaw Pete


    LexieOnRale wrote: »
    Don't worry, if you find yourself with child, I will protest for your rights to have a say over your own body too, so as nobody would force you into doing something you don't want to do with your body, including forcing an abortion on you, if you didn't want an abortion

    A fetus is NOT a "woman's body". They are a separate human being.

    The parents of the following baby, born at 24 weeks, released the following photo specifically so people like you would stop speaking of them as if they were merely a part of a woman's body to be disposed of as they wish.


    Emily_Caines.jpg


  • Options
    #75
    Lady Spangles
    Registered Users Posts: 434 ✭✭Lady Spangles


    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    Absolutely, and there's no 'voice' that needs to be heard more than that of the unfortunately voiceless........... the unborn developing child.

    They don't have a voice because they're non-sentient. What on earth do you value the non-sentient over living women, for? It's absurd.


  • Options
    #76
    gctest50
    Registered Users Posts: 9,605 ✭✭✭gctest50


    jameorahiely wrote: »
    Meanwhile, over at the abortion clinic..



    One staff member reported,”Girls” being distressed at
    the door to theatre and persuasion taking place with
    pressure on them to proceed.
    http://www.cqc.org.uk/location/1-130902809


    Meanwhile, in the care centre:

    https://static.rasset.ie/documents/news/4910-14-january-2015.pdf




  • Options
    #77
    RayM
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,973 ✭✭✭RayM


    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    Absolutely, and there's no 'voice' that needs to be heard more than that of the unfortunately voiceless........... the unborn developing child.

    If you genuinely cared about the survival of all foetuses, would you not be better off campaigning to prevent women from travelling for abortions?


  • Options
    #78
    Lady Spangles
    Registered Users Posts: 434 ✭✭Lady Spangles


    SterlingArcher wrote: »
    When I see people using " triggering".And not in an ironic way. That person makes me find the pro life campaign triggering.

    You and Lena Dunham should definitely switch sides to pro life. Kinda like a trojan horse. Then I have no doubt the repeal the 8th will smash it.


    And now you're tone policing what I say? People find sh1t upsetting. That more to the point enough for you?


  • Options
    #79
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    Absolutely, and there's no 'voice' that needs to be heard more than that of the unfortunately voiceless........... the unborn developing child.

    They don't have a voice because they don't have a mind, not because they don't have vocal cords or because it's a bit muffled in there.


  • Options
    #80
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #81
    jameorahiely
    Registered Users Posts: 825 ✭✭✭jameorahiely


    gctest50 wrote: »
    Meanwhile, in the care centre:

    https://static.rasset.ie/documents/news/4910-14-january-2015.pdf



    Meanwhile over in the abortion clinic
    Staff were concerned that ‘Did Not Proceed’ was
    measured as a KPI linked to their performance bonus as
    they felt is encouraged pressure and coercion to
    continue to treatment.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    qo2cj1dsne8y4k
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,646 ✭✭✭✭qo2cj1dsne8y4k


    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    A fetus is NOT a "woman's body". They are a separate human being.

    The parents of the following baby, born at 24 weeks, released the following photo specifically so people like you would stop speaking of them as if they were merely a part of a woman's body to be disposed of as they wish.


    Emily_Caines.jpg
    If there is something in the woman's body taking nutrients from her body, causing her to be ill and restricting her from partaking in her usual activities and she does not wish to allow another human being rely on her body to become viable, putting pressure on her body physically or mentally then she trumps the rights of a potential human


  • Options
    #83
    Will I Am Not
    Registered Users Posts: 3,495 ✭✭✭Will I Am Not


    LexieOnRale wrote: »
    If there is something in the woman's body taking nutrients from her body, causing her to be ill and restricting her from partaking in her usual activities and she does not wish to allow another human being rely on her body to become viable, putting pressure on her body physically or mentally then she trumps the rights of a potential human

    And if she just doesn't want to be a mother?


  • Options
    #84
    Outlaw Pete
    Registered Users Posts: 10,423 ✭✭✭✭Outlaw Pete


    Lady Spangles wrote: »
    They don't have a voice because they're non-sentient. What on earth do you value the non-sentient over living women, for? It's absurd.

    Sentience is a nonsense argument given that there is no scientific consensus on just what sentience is. Some scientists argue that certain plants are sentient and at the other other end of the scale some will argue that even new born babies are not yet sentient...... is it okay to kill them too??

    How about people in comas who are no longer conscious. Should it be legal to kill them? Surely by the criteria set by people like you, they are no longer human beings who are alive and so if that's the case, how could it be murder if someone chose to still their heartbeat?


  • Options
    #85
    qo2cj1dsne8y4k
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,646 ✭✭✭✭qo2cj1dsne8y4k


    The Fake Sheikh wrote: »
    And if she just doesn't want to be a mother?
    Then her options are
    - deciding she doesn't mind leaving a foetus inside her until such time it's viable to survive outside her body independentally
    Or
    - deciding she does not want/will not allow her body to be used as an incubator


  • Options
    #86
    Will I Am Not
    Registered Users Posts: 3,495 ✭✭✭Will I Am Not


    LexieOnRale wrote: »
    deciding she does not want/will not allow her body to be used as an incubator

    Up to what point is it ok to decide this in your opinion?


  • Options
    #87
    Lady Spangles
    Registered Users Posts: 434 ✭✭Lady Spangles


    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    Sentience is a nonsense argument given that there is no scientific consensus on just what sentience is. Some scientists argue that certain plants are sentient and at the other other end of the scale some will argue that even new born babies are not yet sentient...... is it okay to kill them too??

    How about people in comas who are no longer conscious. Should it be legal to kill them? Surely by the criteria set by people like you, they are no longer human beings who are alive and so if that's the case, how could it be murder if someone chose to still their heartbeat?


    People in a persistent vegetative state already have their machines switched off depending on the wishes of the family (I'm quoting UK law, not sure where RoI stands). But you're obfuscating the issue here as we're talking about embryos and foetuses. That's not quite the same thing as someone in a coma.

    An embryo is just cells. Nothing more.


  • Options
    #88
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #89
    jameorahiely
    Registered Users Posts: 825 ✭✭✭jameorahiely


    bennyl10 wrote: »
    A charitable organisation that threw that life, literally, in a sewage pipe.

    .

    Meanwhile over at tge abortion charithy
    Staff had to carry a bucket of pregnancy remains
    through a patient waiting area, upstairs to a records
    cupboard where the fridge was sited. This was poor
    infection prevention and control practice as well as
    compromising the dignity of patients waiting.

    The bucket with multiple pregnancy remains was
    carried through the waiting area and upstairs to a
    freezer in a records storage cupboard. This risked
    causing distress to patients.


  • Options
    #90
    Outlaw Pete
    Registered Users Posts: 10,423 ✭✭✭✭Outlaw Pete


    RayM wrote: »
    If you genuinely cared about the survival of all foetuses, would you not be better off campaigning to prevent women from travelling for abortions?

    Would be like trying to prevent people from going to Holland to smoke drugs.. unworkable.. should we stop pregnant women from going on holidays just in case they have an abortion?
    LexieOnRale wrote: »
    If there is something in the woman's body taking nutrients from her body, causing her to be ill and restricting her from partaking in her usual activities and she does not wish to allow another human being rely on her body to become viable, putting pressure on her body physically or mentally then she trumps the rights of a potential human

    Well, if you actually believed the above then you would support abortions at 8 months into a pregnancy?

    Do you? If so, why, and if not, why not?

    Also, you speak about unborn children as if they are parasites. They are not. They result primarily for consensual sex and the risks of such are known from we are children ourselves. A certain level of facing one's responsibilities would be nice.

    I don't believe men should be able to run away from facing their responsibilities either and if they can't run, I don't see why women should be able to. Some might argue for the so called financial 'male abortion', not me though. Adults need to be responsible for their actions.

    This is not sub saharan Africa. A woman gets pregnant in Ireland and she will be given financial assistance, medical care etc. If she does not wish to keep the child, there are other options available to her too, such as adoption. Barring risk to life and ffa, there is no morally justifiable reason for women to be having non medically necessary abortions in this day and age... in western society at least.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    RayM
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,973 ✭✭✭RayM


    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    Would be like trying to prevent people from going to Holland to smoke drugs.. unworkable.. should we stop pregnant women from going on holidays just in case they have an abortion?

    The idea that it's "unworkable" is a total cop-out. If it stops abortion from happening, then surely it makes sense to campaign to prevent pregnant women from leaving the country. What's more important to you - someone's right to a holiday, or 3,541 people's (2015 figures) right to be born? Otherwise, you're basically saying it's acceptable for a woman to have an abortion, as long as she doesn't have it here.


Advertisement