Would Ireland follow Europe's Lead in Aborting the Huge Majority of Down Syndrome Pos

.......

This post has been deleted.

Triceratops Ballet

end of the road wrote: »

i feel sorry for anyone who is suffering. however i recognise the right to life of the unborn and i believe that that right needs to be protected as much as is practical.

We're asking for insight into why you believe that

GreeBo

Is the defense that some are afraid to use simply "Religion"?

end of the road

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

no i haven't. i have said i feel sorry for them. but i don't believe that it's necessarily enough to remove the rights and protections for the unborn.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

i explained my position on abortion on demand in general. i explained that as much as i don't agree with it full stop, i cannot stop people from traveling abroad to procure it. it's just not practical.

Zubeneschamali

GreeBo wrote: »

Is the defense that some are afraid to use simply "Religion"?

Even narrower, it is "Roman Catholicism". Every other Christian Church in Ireland opposed the 8th first time out.

Outlaw Pete

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Suggesting a child can be born into neglect and poverty is a bit different to sharing a message directed at those who are Pro Choice to reconsider their position, straight from a little child with DS.

Ah here. Think about what you're saying.

So it's fine to appeal to emotion by sharing how a child CAN be born into neglect and poverty but yet it's not fine to share how DS children CAN have happy, productive lives? You want one side of the argument but not the other.

Also, people are posting on this thread with stories of how they know someone with DS who's life wasn't so great, for them or their families (which is fine, highlighted some of those difficulties myself) but how then can it not be okay to highlight the opposite of that, which is more common?

Sofia's family set up their instagram account precisely for that reason in fact, to show how DS needn't be scary in the hope that it might change some people's mind's who might be considering aborting a baby with DS.


https://www.instagram.com/p/BYmZSsFB3Vn/

Virgil°

end of the road wrote: »

i don't agree with abortion on demand and nothing can change me from that view

Well there we have it. If ever there was a reason to stop replying to someone , I cant think of a better one.

Given that you've displayed utter disdain and disinterest in points many posters have raised and painstakingly elaborated on and given that your replies also rarely consist of more than "no you're wrong" and now to find out that , by your own admission, it was all for naught anyway because you'd never have changed your position regardless.... given all that :

Why should anyone waste a single keystroke more on you?

.......

This post has been deleted.

gctest50

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Sofia's family set up their instagram account precisely for that reason in fact, to show how DS needn't be scary in the hope that it might change some people's mind's who might be considering aborting a baby with DS.

[/quote]


When they get older and you can't look after them apparently you can put them in a home/petting zoo and visit them once a week n stuffs. But they're happy

GreeBo

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Sofia's family set up their instagram account precisely for that reason in fact, to show how DS needn't be scary in the hope that it might change some people's mind's who might be considering aborting a baby with DS.

The fact that Sofia has Downs is irrelevant.

Your point is that the Sanchez family had the means to support a family of six and so decided to adopt another child.

Sorry but isn't that all anyone on here is asking for? The right to choose based on your personal circumstances?

end of the road

GreeBo wrote: »

The fact that Sofia has Downs is irrelevant.

Your point is that the Sanchez family had the means to support a family of six and so decided to adopt another child.

Sorry but isn't that all anyone on here is asking for? The right to choose based on your personal circumstances?

they are asking for abortion on demand. lets not dress it up any other way, that is what they are asking for.

gctest50

end of the road wrote: »

they are asking for abortion on demand.

A bit like there is :

Beer on demand
Air Travel on demand
McD on demand
KFC on demand
BK on demand

All been in Oirland years, I've never had anyone call to the door with a Kalishnakov and make me go to any of the above

sunshine and showers

end of the road wrote: »

they are asking for abortion on demand. lets not dress it up any other way, that is what they are asking for.

That's exactly what I'm asking for anyway.

Zubeneschamali

end of the road wrote: »

they are asking for abortion on demand. lets not dress it up any other way, that is what they are asking for.

No, we already have abortion on demand, guaranteed in the Constitution. We just have to travel to the UK to avail of it.

What we want is abortion on demand in Ireland, without the unnecessary travel, expense and medical downsides.

end of the road

gctest50 wrote: »

A bit like there is :

Beer on demand
Air Travel on demand
McD on demand
KFC on demand
BK on demand

All been in Oirland years, I've never had anyone call to the door with a Kalishnakov and make me go to any of the above

abortion on demand isn't any bit comparible to any of the rest of what you mention. abortion on demand is taking a life.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No, we already have abortion on demand, guaranteed in the Constitution. We just have to travel to the UK to avail of it.

What we want is abortion on demand in Ireland, without the unnecessary travel, expense and medical downsides.

you don't have a right to get it though. there is no obligation on the state to give it to you.
there may be some room to extend the criteria for abortion in extreme circumstances law that we have, but that's the only law that is necessary for ireland given that ireland values human life greatly. allowing abortion on demand would put that at risk and be a backward step.

gctest50

end of the road wrote: »

abortion on demand isn't any bit comparible to any of the rest of what you mention.........

very good.

on demand doesn't equal compulsory

I can get chips on demand, I've never had a Provo with a Kalashnikov call to the door and make me go get them and eat them though

Hammer Archer

end of the road wrote: »

abortion on demand isn't any bit comparible to any of the rest of what you mention. abortion on demand is taking a life.

Are they looking for the right to make a choice based on their own personal circumstances whether or not to have an abortion in Ireland?
Yes or no? One word is all that's required.

end of the road

gctest50 wrote: »

very good.

on demand doesn't equal compulsory

i didn't say it did. however it's still abortion on demand and i hope it will be kept out of ireland for as long as possible so that the rights and protection for the unborn can remain.

end of the road

gctest50 wrote: »

But if the woman travels to the UK, it's OK ?


Yes or No ?

i already answered that question.

gctest50

end of the road wrote: »

i didn't say it did. however it's still abortion on demand and i hope it will be kept out of ireland for as long as possible so that the rights and protection for the unborn can remain.

But if the woman travels to the UK, it's OK ?


Yes or No ?

You're never going to get a woman pregnant anyway so you will never be involved in any shape or form, so ..,........,. just another interfering bystander

gctest50

end of the road wrote: »

i already answered that question.

Are you 4rt1f1cil intelligence?

Grayson

end of the road wrote: »

abortion on demand isn't any bit comparible to any of the rest of what you mention. abortion on demand is taking a life.

That's the crux of the argument. These threads should be a reasoned debate about what constitutes a human being but rather than that they turn into arguments about everything else.


There's not a single person who's pro choice that believe that abortion is taking a human life so stating it isn't going to change anyone mind. Likewise pro life people won't be convinced by someone stating "it's not a baby".

Maybe if the two sides broke down the argument into that it might be possible to convince the other side but the argument always veers off before that.

I'm pretty certain that it doesn't matter what i say, as long as you believe it's a baby any argument I present to you that doesn't address that fact won't have an impact.

Outlaw Pete

GreeBo wrote: »

The fact that Sofia has Downs is irrelevant.

How the hell could the fact that she has DS be irrelevant when the point of posting her video is to show how DS doesn't have to be scary.

Your point is that the Sanchez family had the means to support a family of six and so decided to adopt another child.

No, that was not my point, nor anywhere close to it. Sofia's family's message has nothing to do with means and when I initially posted the video I said Sofia had a message. That was, and still is, being referred to as emotional blackmail. My point (a simple one) was that if users are going to appeal to people's emotions on one side, then they are in no position to whinge when someone appeals to people's emotions on the other.

Sorry but isn't that all anyone on here is asking for? The right to choose based on your personal circumstances?

All anyone is asking for is the right to choose based on their personal circumstances? Nope, far from it. They are asking for the 'right to choose' to be available for all women.

Abortion in Ireland is already legal for certain personal circumstances though. But no, I don't think poverty should be one of them. As a country we certainly need to do more for people in poverty though, especially so for those who have children with special needs. Spoke of that on the other thread with regards to autism, care facilities and schooling. Just don't thinking killing our developing young is necessarily the best way to address those issues, real and all as they are.

Outlaw Pete

gctest50 wrote: »

When they get older and you can't look after them apparently you can put them in a home/petting zoo and visit them once a week n stuffs. But they're happy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7VuC0wGCg4

Care homes are "petting zoos" now? What a disgusting suggestion to make.

Oh and I'm not sure what the point is you're trying to make with this video of the troubled teen with DS.

He's violent, okay? And? Has someone said that people with DS can't be?

gctest50

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Care homes are "petting zoos" now? What a disgusting suggestion to make.......

Some seem to want them solely for entertainment

Then they go see them once a week, then that becomes a month

What about the DS kids life ? what about them ?

In a care home because they're too much to look after ?

Outlaw Pete

gctest50 wrote: »

What about the DS kids life ? what about them ?

You're the one advocating the killing of them. I should be asking you that question.

gctest50

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

You're the one advocating the killing of them.....

Jetlagged ? Where am I advocating killing DS kids ?


Or do you mean terminating pregnancies where the foetus tests positive for DS at 10 weeks say ?

One eyed Jack

gctest50 wrote: »

Jetlagged ? Where am I advocating killing DS kids ?


Or do you mean terminating pregnancies where the foetus tests positive for DS at 10 weeks say ?

I'm curious as to why you allow all sorts of nuance in defence of your own point of view, yet at the same time you're arguing as though giving birth to a child with downs syndrome inevitably leads to a life of misery for all involved, like your earlier comments about 'petting zoos'.

You paint a vivid image of a dystopian future that really bears no resemblance to reality. You're doing your own 'argument' no favours because all you're highlighting is the fact that we aren't providing appropriately for those people who need it already.

This is why I said earlier in the thread that all the other tactics haven't worked, so the latest tactic is to use people with special needs to argue that because they're an inconvenience, they shouldn't exist. Outside of the Boards "intelligentsia" echo chamber, that sort of nonsense simply wouldn't be acknowledged, as to do so would lend it legitimacy it doesn't deserve.

Outlaw Pete

gctest50 wrote: »

Jetlagged ? Where am I advocating killing DS kids ?

You said:

What about the DS kids life ? what about them ?

But if we kill them they won't have any life, none (well, apart from four or five months or so in a womb, maybe a little more if they're lucky).

So who are you to be asking such a question when you're saying that it should be okay to kill them in the womb?

Or do you mean terminating pregnancies where the foetus tests positive for DS at 10 weeks say ?

You do realise that's not the case for every baby aborted with DS, right?

Hammer Archer

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

All anyone is asking for is the right to choose based on their personal circumstances? Nope, far from it. They are asking for the 'right to choose' to be available for all women.

Perish the thought.