Healthy baby aborted at 15 weeks

Bredabe

The fact that afaik, this info was leaked. Causing as planned a chilling effect and distrust about giving necessary information to a source that should be safe, reminiscent of the former soviet union from what I hear.

The subsequent lack of compassion/glee from the pro life sickens me about it all.

Even the staunch No voters around me, are saying these things are not right.

nullzero

STB. wrote: »

Yes.


For yourself and other poster please.

So you being openly abusive is acceptable and me asking you a simple question is a problem?

Plumbthedepths

Mrsmum wrote:

It doesn't matter that the majority of abortions take place in the first trimester. Circumstances can just as easily change thereafter and at the very least we still force her to travel for abortion. It seems to me we are quite comfortable with 'force' when it suits.

Of course it matters when they take place but the legislature also acted for extreme cases such as FFA which is what this case feel under.
You use of the word force is not the same as what one poster here would like to see. The incarceration of a pregnant female until she gives birth. That's actually a barbaric suggestion.

cournioni

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

You didn't you side stepped the question. So the woman's rights are secondary to the foetus, thanks for confirming. Thankfully your attitude exists in the minority and rightly so. Women are not brood mares.

The Cathy Newman school of putting words into others mouths being put into good use here I see.

Rights being used to kill defenseless unborn? I’d rather everyone be give the chance at having their voice heard, at least once.

volchitsa

cournioni wrote: »

Only when it comes to women wanting to kill their unborn.

That's the only form of coercion that's been legal for a long time now. But as we're seeing in several places, it really is just the start of what some men would like to be able to do - they're already trying to reduce access to contraception in some parts of the States, and Russia and Poland are removing laws against physical abuse of women by partners.

Timberrrrrrrr

cournioni wrote: »

The Cathy Newman school of putting words into others mouths being put into good use here I see.

Rights being used to kill defenseless unborn? I’d rather everyone be give the chance at having their voice heard, at least once.

Ok


In your world how would things happen?

Woman gets pregnant, thanks to yourself and your pro life friends there is no abortion in ireland. Woman decides she will travel to the UK for an abortion.

Do you let her go?

Lock her up until she gives birth?

Are there forced pregnancy tests at each port/airport?

cournioni

cournioni wrote: »

The Cathy Newman school of putting words into others mouths being put into good use here I see.

Rights being used to kill defenseless unborn? I’d rather everyone be give the chance at having their voice heard, at least once.

ye had your once.

cournioni

Faugheen wrote: »

Nah, you don’t give a **** about the babies when they’re born, so don’t pretend to give a **** when they’re unborn.

This is all a control mechanism because you don’t agree with a woman making a choice for herself. Stupid wimmins.

Another Cathy Newman...

I might not give too much of a **** about people when they’re born, but I do give a **** about people being given the opportunity.

Plumbthedepths

cournioni wrote:

The Cathy Newman school of putting words into others mouths being put into good use here I see.

Didn't put words in your mouth, you said you would to see the birth happen, so it is fair to assume that the women's wishes are secondary in your opinion.
The rest of your comment is emotive nonsense.

Plumbthedepths

Timberrrrrrrr wrote:

Lock her up until she gives birth?

I believe locking her up in a mental health facility until the birth was suggested along with making it illegal for an Irish woman to have an abortion anywhere. The poster you are replying to seems to agree with at least one of the suggestions I mentioned.

cournioni

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Ok


In your world how would things happen?

Woman gets pregnant, thanks to yourself and your pro life friends there is no abortion in ireland. Woman decides she will travel to the UK for an abortion.

Do you let her go?

Lock her up until she gives birth?

Are there forced pregnancy tests at each port/airport?

Same laws should apply to the killing of unborn as born.

cournioni

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Didn't put words in your mouth, you said you would to see the birth happen, so it is fair to assume that the women's wishes are secondary in your opinion.
The rest of your comment is emotive nonsense.

Yes you did, it’s there in writing, and you’ve done it again with “so it’s fair to assume”.

A woman or a mans wishes are always secondary when it comes to killing an unborn, can it be any more black and white than that? I’ve been consistently saying that since I’ve started posting in this thread.

Mrsmum

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Of course it matters when they take place but the legislature also acted for extreme cases such as FFA which is what this case feel under.
You use of the word force is not the same as what one poster here would like to see. The incarceration of a pregnant female until she gives birth. That's actually a barbaric suggestion.

Not going to debate this back and forth all day as I think I've make my point now that pregnant women are still 'controlled' and restricted in certain ways even after the vote and there are valid reasons for that but absolutely to lock pregnant women up would be so barbaric that I doubt anyone seriously would want that.

Plumbthedepths

cournioni wrote:

Yes you did, it’s there in writing, and you’ve done it again with “so it’s fair to assumeâ€.

You comprehension needs work

Outlaw Pete

STB. wrote: »

People die in hospitals every day in every country because of wrong decisions/wrong scan results/wrong diagnosis.

Absolutely, Savita Halappanavar was one such person of coarse, but I bet the farm you weren't as philosophical about her death at the hands of medical error as you are about this baby's.

It wasn't a surprise that the pro-life lunatics jumped on this.

Pro-lifers are lunatics? You seriously believe that?

I mean, I think that argument could be made about anybody that thinks abortion shouldn't be available when a woman's life is in jeopardy or when a baby has zero chance of having any kind of quality of life as a result of a ffa, but such people are few and far between and so I think you're about as wrong as a person can be when you make such a disparaging remark.

Mrsmum

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

I agree


Hopefully the 12 week limit is moved out soon.

While I don't agree with your wishes, I actually think your position is quite logical. It must have been a very easy vote for you if I'm right in thinking the life in the womb has no value in itself to you.

AulWan

Mr.H wrote: »

Yes forced. The couple. Not just the woman, were told that their child would likely die very early on if it were born. The option was to go through with pregnancy and leave their child suffer for what little life they had, or have an abortion. Yes that is forcing someones decision. They were given the wrong information and if the laws didnt change they would have not been given the option. A healthy baby would have lived.

You can't say with any degree of certainly that "a healthy baby would have lived" if the law hadn't changed.

This couple could have travelled to the UK and terminated anyway - you left that out the list of options they had, and its one which many took before repeal.

Thankfully, due to repeal no one is now forced to travel for an abortion.

Nobody was forced into having an abortion.

Plumbthedepths

Outlaw Pete wrote:

Pro-lifers are lunatics? You seriously believe that?

Its no different than one of those which thanked your post suggesting any sane person disagrees with abortion, it would seem according to them nearly 1.5 million of the population are insane. There are always extremes on both sides of an argument

Plumbthedepths

cournioni wrote:

A woman or a mans wishes are always secondary when it comes to killing an unborn, can it be any more black and white than that? I’ve been consistently saying that since I’ve started posting in this thread.

Unfortunately you your fellow citizens disagreed with your black and white position and now the woman is first and foremost as always should have been the case.
Still think 1.5 million are insane because they voted yes?

Timberrrrrrrr

cournioni wrote: »

Same laws should apply to the killing of unborn as born.

She is pregnant, nothing/no one has been killed.

To ensure this stays that way how do you go about it if you know a woman is actively seeking an abortion?

Timberrrrrrrr

Mrsmum wrote: »

While I don't agree with your wishes, I actually think your position is quite logical. It must have been a very easy vote for you if I'm right in thinking the life in the womb has no value in itself to you.

I have 5 children, 2 of thise are daughters in their 20's. I believe they should have a choice thats why i travelled back from the UK to vote yes.

B0jangles

cournioni wrote: »

The Cathy Newman school of putting words into others mouths being put into good use here I see.

Rights being used to kill defenseless unborn? I’d rather everyone be give the chance at having their voice heard, at least once.

You keep on refusing to answer the question, so people extrapolate from your evasive answers to get an actual solid reply and you accuse them of putting words in your mouth?

If you believe that a fetus' right to life is more important than the pregnant woman's right to decide whether or not to remain pregnant, and that your belief should be the law of the land, how can that law be implemented without forcing women to remain pregnant against their will?

In practical terms, how do you ensure unwillingly pregnant women stay pregnant?

stefanovich

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

I have 5 children, 2 of thise are daughters in their 20's. I believe they should have a choice thats why i travelled back from the UK to vote yes.

So not legally resident? That would make you guilty of fraud.

Plumbthedepths

stefanovich wrote:

So not legally resident? That would make you guilty of fraud.

Not necessarily the poster could be working for the D of FA and based abroad .

Ken.

Mod- stefanovich and nullzero thread banned.

volchitsa

cournioni wrote: »

Another Cathy Newman...

I might not give too much of a **** about people when they’re born, but I do give a **** about people being given the opportunity.

Better get busy sticking pins in all those condoms then, considering all the millions and millions of people they've stopped from being born over decades, and still do...

cournioni

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Unfortunately you your fellow citizens disagreed with your black and white position and now the woman is first and foremost as always should have been the case.
Still think 1.5 million are insane because they voted yes?

Some insane and some misguided IMO.

The Germans voted Hitler into power once upon a time, were they right to do so?

volchitsa

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Absolutely, Savita Halappanavar was one such person of coarse, but I bet the farm you weren't as philosophical about her death at the hands of medical error as you are about this baby's.

No. All medical error should be taken seriously, but it's a fallacy to consider that we can ever reach zero mistakes. That won't happen, because we're human. Mistakes need to be taken seriously so as to learn from them, but we won't reach perfection.

However, and this is the point about Savita, that is exactly why anyone of sound mind must be allowed to have the final say about whether or not they are forced to put their health, never mind their life, at risk when another alternative is feasible.

Savita didn't choose to forego the usual medical procedure (usual in all other developed countries I mean) so she was not only not consenting, but also entirely dependent on GUH not to then mess up the treatment path that had been imposed on her against her wishes.

That's even worse than consenting to a treatment that is botched. Neither is acceptable, but forced treatment is itself an abuse of the patient's human rights.

Plumbthedepths

cournioni wrote:

The Germans voted Hitler into power once upon a time, were they right to do so?

Ah Godwin when you have nothing of value to add.

cournioni wrote:

Some insane and some misguided IMO.

What percentage and their insanity based on what qualifications ?

volchitsa

cournioni wrote: »

Some insane and some misguided IMO.

The Germans voted Hitler into power once upon a time, were they right to do so?

You Godwinned the thread, so you lose.

Especially as this is a lie, they didn't. There was a power grab that completed the Nazi takeover.