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

How do Pro Life campaigners want women who have abortions punished?

1…910121415…25

Comments

  • #332
    AbusesToilets
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,863 ✭✭✭✭AbusesToilets


    feargale wrote: »
    I must remember that the next time I see my two Nigerian non-citizen neighbours. I could do with a pair of slaves.

    The rights of citizens are defined by the state. Non-citizens have less rights.

    Your point is intentionally specious, as slavery is crime.


  • #333
    AbusesToilets
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,863 ✭✭✭✭AbusesToilets


    No, I don't feel that it is morally just to force a woman to carry to term a baby she does not want.

    A fetus is not a person nor a citizen. It should not have rights ascribed to it that place it's importance ahead of it's mother.


  • #334
    Grayson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,777 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    So what about 10 weeks or 5 weeks? You'll find few pro choice people here that want it up to 26 weeks. How about 5 weeks? And what should the punishment be for the woman if she takes an abortion pill at that stage?


  • #335
    feargale
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,636 ✭✭✭feargale


    Decent Skin wrote: »
    If you like labels then yes. I don't know anyone who's "anti-life" though.

    I'll rephrase it. You're against abortion in some circumstances?

    P.S. Thanks for answering my original question btw. I'm sorry others didn't


  • #336
    AbusesToilets
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,863 ✭✭✭✭AbusesToilets


    People have rights, cells do not. Should a tumor have rights? It is alive, self replicating and reacts to stimuli.


  • Advertisement
  • #337
    The Specialist
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,539 ✭✭✭The Specialist


    Because to apply human rights you kind of need to be a human person.


  • #338
    eviltwin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    What's your fixation on 26 weeks?


  • #339
    The Specialist
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,539 ✭✭✭The Specialist


    What is this 26 weeks emotive bull**** you keep going on about? The debate is around FFA and early term unwanted pregnancies. Nobody i know in favour of this would agree with near full term abortion and thats not what this topic is even about. Typical over emotive bull**** from the pro life side.


  • #340
    thee glitz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,294 ✭✭✭thee glitz


    AbusesToilets wrote: »
    No, I don't feel that it is morally just to force a woman to carry to term a baby she does not want.

    Do you have any concept of responsibility?


  • #341
    AbusesToilets
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,863 ✭✭✭✭AbusesToilets


    Repeating yourself doesn't make your post any less silly.

    The actions of the Nazis has no bearing on a discussion about abortion in Ireland and the rights afforded to a woman therein.


  • Advertisement
  • #342
    Grayson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,777 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    People have rights, human cells don't. I have a right to vote, my arm if it gets chopped off doesn't even though it's a collection of cells. Likewise if I become brain dead the machines can be switched off because technically I am dead and not a person. If I was in a coma and not brain dead I would still have rights and the machines keeping me alive would not be switched off.


  • #343
    eviltwin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    What are the specifics of this case? Why did the woman wait until 26 weeks


  • #344
    AbusesToilets
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,863 ✭✭✭✭AbusesToilets


    thee glitz wrote: »
    Do you have any concept of responsibility?

    You find it to be more responsible to force mothers to bring unwanted children into society. Children who would possibly then go on to become burdens upon society in one fashion or another?


  • #345
    Grayson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,777 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    why? What's your deciding factor. For me it's brain activity. A functioning brain is what makes us human. You can replace every other organ without destroying the person. Replace my brain with say yours and I'm effectively you.


  • #346
    eviltwin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    Oh really? After 26 weeks she just decided out of the blue she didn't want to be pregnant?


  • #347
    Decent Skin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,288 ✭✭✭Decent Skin


    Because only people can have human rights ?


  • #348
    Little CuChulainn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,624 ✭✭✭Little CuChulainn


    The Specialist wrote: »
    No it's pretty much fact.

    It's quite clearly an opinion.
    Decent Skin wrote: »
    Wouldn't trust a government in a million years, but that won't stop me voting the way I believe is right.

    And if they introduce something more restrictive then you would have wanted?


  • #349
    Decent Skin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,288 ✭✭✭Decent Skin


    Hence the need for proper support services beforehand where such things are clearly outlined.

    Throwing them in as if someone was so immature as to change their mind on a life-changing decision overnight on a whim is disingenuous.

    Be it keeping it or carrying it or giving it for adoption aborting it NEITHER decision should be taken lightly or without proper support.


  • #350
    Decent Skin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,288 ✭✭✭Decent Skin


    Little CuChulainn wrote: »
    It's quite clearly an opinion.



    And if they introduce something more restrictive then you would have wanted?

    Anything is an improvement on what we have at present, so I'd take it.


  • #351
    feargale
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,636 ✭✭✭feargale


    AbusesToilets wrote: »
    The rights of citizens are defined by the state. Non-citizens have less rights.

    Your point is intentionally specious, as slavery is crime.

    It is, but no more than your original post which implied that the unborn have no rights - wrong in law, and wrong in morality.

    I'm p1ssed off posters shouting about human rights every time they want to shout down those they disagree with. Too many here don't seem to comprehend the concept of conflicting rights, something any pair of neighbouring sheep or goat farmers on the Kerry Mountains could educate them about.


  • Advertisement
  • #352
    Decent Skin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,288 ✭✭✭Decent Skin


    Or - as happened here - the abortion was delayed against her wishes until such time as it was objectionable and she was induced.

    Absolutely disgusting to then land her with the consequences of such an imposition.


  • #353
    AbusesToilets
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,863 ✭✭✭✭AbusesToilets


    feargale wrote: »
    It is, but no more than your original post which implied that the unborn have no rights - wrong in law, and wrong in morality.

    I'm p1ssed off posters shouting about human rights every time they want to shout down those they disagree with. Too many here don't seem to comprehend the concept of conflicting rights, something any pair of neighbouring sheep or goat farmers on the Kerry Mountains could educate them about.

    I have said that the rights of the woman should outweigh any afforded to the fetus. Which you seem to have missed somewhat ironically, given your last paragraph.


  • #354
    Decent Skin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,288 ✭✭✭Decent Skin


    I'd missed this! Again I'm stunned; we're on the same page.

    Why are we arguing the crazy scenarios and discussing people who change their mind on a whim @ 26 weeks (which if it happened in most contexts where the right support had been given would actually prove that they were too immature to have the child in the first place) ?


  • #355
    PucaMama
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,129 ✭✭✭PucaMama


    AbusesToilets wrote: »

    People have rights, cells do not. Should a tumor have rights? It is alive, self replicating and reacts to stimuli.
    A tumour has no potential at all to develop into anything resembling a human life, whereas every day the unborn is alive it develops. The unborn deserve at least a chance at life.


  • #356
    thee glitz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,294 ✭✭✭thee glitz


    AbusesToilets wrote: »
    You find it to be more responsible to force mothers to bring unwanted children into society. Children who would possibly then go on to become burdens upon society in one fashion or another?

    Carrying a child to birth is not some kind of punishment - it's the reason we're all here. If you're lucky enough to have it happen, you should have that baby's interests at heart. Whether that involves raising him or her, or putting them up for adoption.


  • #357
    AbusesToilets
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,863 ✭✭✭✭AbusesToilets


    There is no right to life in nature, it is a fallacy to suppose that such a right exists.

    Society should place the rights of its current citizens ahead of potential future ones. That is the moral choice.


  • #358
    The Specialist
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,539 ✭✭✭The Specialist


    thee glitz wrote: »
    Carrying a child to birth is not some kind of punishment - it's the reason we're all here. If you're lucky enough to have it happen, you should have that baby's interests at heart. Whether that involves raising him or her, or putting them up for adoption.

    And in the case where a woman is raped, is she also lucky for this blessing?


  • #359
    AbusesToilets
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,863 ✭✭✭✭AbusesToilets


    PucaMama wrote: »
    A tumour has no potential at all to develop into anything resembling a human life, whereas every day the unborn is alive it develops. The unborn deserve at least a chance at life.

    Gametes have such potential, should they also be protected?


  • #360
    Widdershins
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,633 ✭✭✭✭Widdershins


    thee glitz wrote: »
    Carrying a child to birth is not some kind of punishment - it's the reason we're all here. If you're lucky enough to have it happen, you should have that baby's interests at heart. Whether that involves raising him or her, or putting them up for adoption.

    For you. In YOUR view. That's not a universal truth, it's your opinion.


  • Advertisement
  • #361
    AbusesToilets
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,863 ✭✭✭✭AbusesToilets


    thee glitz wrote: »
    Carrying a child to birth is not some kind of punishment - it's the reason we're all here. If you're lucky enough to have it happen, you should have that baby's interests at heart. Whether that involves raising him or her, or putting them up for adoption.

    Forcing a woman to carry an unwanted child would absolutely be a punishment.


Advertisement