Abortion, the real Truth!! BEWARE

Beruthiel

Ardent wrote:

That's a flat out stupid thing to say. What if that woman was my wife, for example, or my daughter? .

a discussion with your wife or you daughter means you have a say in what they do
I would say that it's pretty stupid if you can't tell the difference between that and a woman you don't know and have no business telling her what she can do with her body.

Lemming

Gurgle wrote:

True, in 3rd world countries.
Not true in the developed world.

Actually, quite true in the developed world too. It is still highly dangerous and if something goes wrong medical teams have to work very fast. It is testament to their professionalism that the mortality rate is not higher than it is.

You are also failing to take into account the debilitating effects, both mental and physical, that it can inflict. And that goes for the whole world since it's down to physiology and not technology.

With the variety and availability of contraception available today, there is no excuse for abortion.

Black. White. One thousand shades of grey in between.

BuffyBot

If you don't want to keep it, give it to one of the thousands of couples in Ireland who do

You're assuming all these couples want "second hand" goods, which judging by the amount of people opting for IVF, it would seem doubtful

uberwolf

Beruthiel wrote:

there is no issue side stepped
what a woman decides to do with her own body with regards to this subject, is not your or my business

I'm not even sure what question I want to ask you, but I want to take the chance to discuss this with some one before the thread inevitably descends into a circular argument.

With regards to her own body. There is a mass of cells in that womans body. Do you believe there is a point that the cells should be protected by the state and not by the mothers discretion? i.e the cells will, all going well become a life, does this occur at birth, 24 weeks? - Meaning at what point is it no longer her body alone and there is another body in there.

Ardent

BuffyBot wrote:

As for the "what if it's my X" argument, it's is the choice of the individual carrying the child in the eventuality. If the father is around, all well and good his input needs to be sought - but the casual wants of a family member who "wants" new relative isn't a good enough reason to have a child on it's own. The ability to care for, and provide a reasonable future for the child onthe part of the primary caregiver (most likely the mother in these situations) is a lot more important.

You see, this is the argument that gets my back up. Now, no doubt there's plenty of genuine issues to justify abortion, such as the mother's life being endangered for example, but not being able to care for a child, or finding out your child will have one foot longer than the other should not be grounds for abortion. It's like it's become an another trivial choice for our MTV generation, fast-food drive-thru, designer life styles.

I have to say I'm with the original poster - and I'm going to stick my colours to the mast here and you can call me old school or insensitive or whatever - but if a woman kills her unborn baby, unless there are extenuating circumstances involved, she should be held accountable some way or other.

*Page*

most women are held"accountable some way or other"

its called going through it.. go talk to a woman who has had an abortion then come back here and try and repeat what you have just said!

Beruthiel

uberwolf wrote:

With regards to her own body. There is a mass of cells in that womans body. Do you believe there is a point that the cells should be protected by the state and not by the mothers discretion?.

I can only answer for myself personally as I would never assume to tell anybody else what they should do
I am of the belief that you should certainly know by 12 weeks (3 months) what it is exactly you are going to do.
Perhaps having a view on this subject before you go get yourself accidently pregnant would also be an idea as you have a better understanding of the consequences of your actions.

Zulu

BuffyBot wrote:

"second hand" goods

It's a person. There exist plenty of people who want to adopt a child.

Lemming wrote:

the debilitating effects, both mental and physical, that it can inflict

...like death? The child dies. That's pretty debilitating.

what she can do with her body

Well it is her body, but it's directly impacting the life of another person. That argument is little childish and selfish.

the choice of the individual

and what of the choice of the child?

none of your business

If I kill somebody - straight out murder. Is it any of YOUR business? Your not going to convince anyone with that attitude.

Page wrote:

quality of life

Page, if it's a choice between a life of poverty/poor quality of life, or death - 99.9% choose life. Besides, there is social welfare - ok you're not going to drive a BMW and live in Donnybrook - but a mother and child WILL survive.

*Page*

social welfare ever live on it? ever live in a council estate?? zulu have you ever been a singel parents and have to go with out food so your child can eat?

Beruthiel

Ardent wrote:

It's like it's become an another trivial choice for our MTV generation, fast-food drive-thru, designer life styles.

the naivety of this comment is astounding,
it shows you have absolutely no clue of the mental anguish most women have to go through before making this decision, in fact for me, in negates anything you have to say on this subject

Ardent

*Page* wrote:

social welfare ever live on it? ever live in a council estate?? zulu have you ever been a singel parents and have to go with out food so your child can eat?

Ever hear of adoption?

Gurgle

Ardent wrote:

I have to say I'm with the original poster - and I'm going to stick my colours to the mast here and you can call me old school or insensitive or whatever - but if a woman kills her unborn baby, unless there are extenuating circumstances involved, she should be held accountable some way or other.

Amen.

I'm an athiest and a liberal, drugs for all, prostitution, divorce, gambling all fine with me but I can't agree with any of the 'reasoning' which says its OK for someone to get pregnant and just decide to have an abortion.

There are alternatives. This isn't China, if you put a baby up for adoption it will be with a new family within a week, and it will be a family screened and vetted way beyond what you could ask for. There are literally thousands of couples who would be only too happy to take a 'second-hand' baby.

*Page*

yes ever speak to a person that has been given up for adoption??

*Page*

Gurgle wrote:

Amen.

if you put a baby up for adoption it will be with a new family within a week, and it will be a family screened and vetted way beyond what you could ask for. There are literally thousands of couples who would be only too happy to take a 'second-hand' baby.

or it will end up in a forster home be past around and delevope many many problems like most children that are in foester care(not all but most)

Zulu

*Page* wrote:

social welfare ever live on it?

None of your business.

ever live in a council estate??

None of your business.

zulu have you ever been a singel parents and have to go with out food so your child can eat?

Yes single parents are droping dead all around us due to starvation. :rolleyes:

Page I'm not a single parent, so what?

Lemming

Zulu wrote:

It's a person. There exist plenty of people who want to adopt a child.

It is not a person since it has not been born yet. It is not recognised as a citizen of any nation.

...like death? The child dies. That's pretty debilitating.

I was using your point on medical grounds and showing its fallacy. But yes, since you point it out, children have been known to die during birth. I suggest you go educate yourself on what childbirth can actually do to a woman's body. And I mean beyond the superficial.

and what of the choice of the child?

Irrelevant since it is neither aware of society nor recognised by the state as a citizen.

If I kill somebody - straight out murder. Is it any of YOUR business? Your not going to convince anyone with that attitude.

We've had this argument before and that particualr analogy has been shot down and then continually riddled with automatic gun fire. Terrible, terrible analogy. You are killing a recognised citizen of the state. Someone who is aware of both themselves and society.

Jesus christ would you lot please stop using that analogy. At least try and compare apples to oranges and not tractors!

*Page*

i am and i've also havent had enough money to feed clothe and house my child.. try live it them try and speak the way you are!!

i'm sick and tired of people going on that its easy to be a single parent. that theres the wellfare!! f*** the wellfare it's bolox.

try it mind a child for one month on that money pay bills buy food and clothes then say its easy!

Beruthiel

Zulu wrote:

Page I'm not a single parent, so what?

don't presume to know a woman till you have walked a few miles in her shoes...

Zulu

*Page* wrote:

yes ever speak to a person that has been given up for adoption??

Plenty. Do you ever ask them if they'd prefer to be dead?

uberwolf

Beruthiel wrote:

I can only answer for myself personally as I would never assume to tell anybody else what they should do

I ask not for debates sake, but because I'm genuinely undecided on abortion.
The way I see it is as follows. Everyone is agreed that after some threshold there's definitely an indepedent life in there. People's views on that threshold differ. Once any given individuals threshold has passed then it is a killing rather than abortion for that person. Once they perceive it as a killing then they believe it is a question for society to deal with and not just that individual. - which is where people see it as there business. And from a neutral stand point that makes sense.

Beruthiel wrote:

I am of the belief that you should certainly know by 12 weeks (3 months) what it is exactly you are going to do.

sounds reasonable

Beruthiel wrote:

Perhaps having a view on this subject before you go get yourself accidently pregnant would also be an idea as you have a better understanding of the consequences of your actions.

absolutely. People often don't seem to recognise that pregnancy is a symptom of sex!!

Zombrex

*Page* wrote:

social welfare ever live on it? ever live in a council estate??

Every been dead? I am sure that ain't much fun either. :rolleyes:

I am pro-choice (pro-abortion, what ever it is called these days), but not because of the argument that the mothers life will be better off if she didn't have a child. That is what adoption is for. To be honest I have always been rather sickened by the convenence argument. If you accept that the baby is a life then killing it for a "better life" for yourself is rather disgusting.

The question isn't should the mother have a child or not? She already does have a child, from the moment of conception. The question is if this child is considered a human life yet, and should be protected as such, or the other argument is the child's right to exisit over right the mothers right to refuse to give up her body for the child.

The question of will the mothers life be better off without the child should not come into it. My life would probably be better off if that annoying neighbour of mine was dead but that don't mean I can kill him.

hallelujajordan

*Page* wrote:

yes ever speak to a person that has been given up for adoption??

Page . . your views are almost unreal . . . presumably you have spoken to people who have been adopted. . . How many of those have expressed the view that they would prefer to have been aborted ? ?

and as for . . .

*Page* wrote:

social welfare ever live on it? ever live in a council estate?? zulu have you ever been a singel parents and have to go with out food so your child can eat?

Do you really, honestly believe that the right not to have to survive on social welfare is more important than the right to life . .

Gimme a break . . this is a simple question. It is a balance between the right to life and the right to choice . . For me the balance always comes down on the right to life but I respect that others don't feel that way . .

However, I find it hard to listen to people like you devalue the right to life because of such trivialities . .

Ardent

Beruthiel wrote:

the naivety of this comment is astounding,
it shows you have absolutely no clue of the mental anguish most women have to go through before making this decision, in fact for me, in negates anything you have to say on this subject

How do you know I have no idea of the mental anguish women go through before and after abortion? I know very well. I also know women who thought it would be much preferable and less hassle than going through nine months of pregnancy and giving actual birth to the life inside them, because it didn't fit in with their immediate plans. I knew one particular woman who had three abortions. Rotten luck eh?

As for my views on the subject, I take yours with equal disdain after some of your simplistic views posted early on in this thread.

Zulu

Beruthiel wrote:

don't presume to know a woman till you have walked a few miles in her shoes...

Thats a very poor argument B. Do I have to have experienced everything I have and opinion about? Do I have to have done it before I can know if it's right or wrong??

Lemming - your whole argument seem to be based on being a "citizen of a state". That's a farce. This is about humans/people. We're not taking legalities here, we're talking morals.

*Page*

Zulu wrote:

Plenty. Do you ever ask them if they'd prefer to be dead?

i work with children that have development problems due to there up bringing. some do wish they were dead than live the life they have!!

Wicknight wrote:

Every been dead? I am sure that ain't much fun either. :rolleyes:

I am pro-choice (pro-abortion, what ever it is called these days), but not because of the argument that the mothers life will be better off if she didn't have a child. That is what adoption is for. To be honest I have always been rather sickened by the convenence argument. If you accept that the baby is a life then killing it for a "better life" for yourself is rather disgusting.

The question isn't should the mother have a child or not? She already does have a child, from the moment of conception. The question is if this child is considered a human life yet, and should be protected as such, or the other argument is the child's right to exisit over right the mothers right to refuse to give up her body for the child.

The question of will the mothers life be better off without the child should not come into it. My life would probably be better off if that annoying neighbour of mine was dead but that don't mean I can kill him.

i was talking about exsisting children and how hard it is already for single mothers and why some may opt for abortion than bring another child into the world!!

Lemming

Ardent wrote:

How do you know I have no idea of the mental anguish women go through before and after abortion? I know very well. I also know women who thought it would be much preferable and less hassle than going through nine months of pregnancy and giving actual birth to the life inside them, because it didn't fit in with their immediate plans. I knew one particular woman who had three abortions. Rotten luck eh?

You know? Knowing of women who have gone through such an ordeal isn't quite the same as being involved. Has your partner or a member of your family had an abortion? There isn't the same emotional attachment (whether you want to accept that or not) to someone you simply "know of".

So how can you possibly know beyond a "I know of such and such a person that someone else told me about".

As for my views on the subject, I take yours with equal disdain after some of your simplistic views posted early on in this thread.

Simplistic? As opposed to the "Abortion = murder because we say so" mantra that gets regurgitated constantly by the pro-life lobby?

Nevyn

There is a lot of contraception choice out there but we still dont have a healthbased sexual education program; and No form of contraception is 100%.

So some one who at the age of 18/19 that gets pregant and has a termination and goes on to make the most of her life so that she can provide
a beter life for herself and any further children she may have should not have
that choice but should ahve her womb removed or be stuck living a miserible
life in ballymun or a b&b with a child.

Unfortunatly in our socaity young and in some cases very young mothers are encouraged to keep thier children and those that do give thier child up for adoption are in many cases more vilified then those who quietly if they can go
for a termination.

Often the extended family refuse to see the child be but up for adoption, and there are now many cases were children that are damaged by unfit young
mothers are took into care and then due to thier tramua , behavioural problems they are stuck in foster care and can not be adopted as the mothers refuse to sign over thier parental rights.

We are still adoption leary in this county after the likes of the Laundries
and babies sent to america ect to be adopted.

Zulu

Wicknight wrote:

I am pro-choice (pro-abortion, what ever it is called these days), but not because of the argument that the mothers life will be better off if she didn't have a child. That is what adoption is for. To be honest I have always been rather sickened by the convenence argument. If you accept that the baby is a life then killing it for a "better life" for yourself is rather disgusting.

The question isn't should the mother have a child or not? She already does have a child, from the moment of conception. The question is if this child is considered a human life yet, and should be protected as such, or the other argument is the child's right to exisit over right the mothers right to refuse to give up her body for the child.

The question of will the mothers life be better off without the child should not come into it. My life would probably be better off if that annoying neighbour of mine was dead but that don't mean I can kill him.

I'm going to try and bow out on this. Wicknight, this pretty much sums up my feeling aswell, I couldn't determine where human life started - the olny difference between us (i think) is that I err on the side of caution, and fall on the other side to yourself.

Lemming

zulu wrote:

Lemming - your whole argument seem to be based on being a "citizen of a state". That's a farce. This is about humans/people. We're not taking legalities here, we're talking morals.

Well, legality is taken from social morality so go figure Zulu. The problem with the abortion debate is that it is often very polarised by nothing more than emotion. Which as we know is irrationality.

My comment about your "what if I kill someone" analogy is quite quite relevant even if you disagree with my stance on citizenship. Which is incidentally how the unborn is viewed. Whether you agree with that or not. Religious conviction has no business mixing with state.

Zombrex

*Page* wrote:

i work with children that have development problems due to there up bringing. some do wish they were dead than live the life they have!!

:rolleyes:

*Page* wrote:

i was talking about exsisting children and how hard it is already for single mothers and why some may opt for abortion than bring another child into the world!!

And I am saying that simply because the woman wants to abort the child, doesn't automatically mean she has the right to. The right of the woman to make that choice should be seperate from her desire to want to choose. The fact that she would choose to abort is not in of itself a justification for allowing the abortion.