I have changed my views on abortion

Jesus. · 06-10-2016 01:42PM

Jen44 wrote: »

Have you ever had to travel following a medical procedure??

Is that what its called these days?

06-10-2016 01:43PM

Why did you feel you needed to create another thread when you could have just said you changed your mind in whatever thread the posts that you're talking about are?

You're just being attention seeking.

HensVassal · 06-10-2016 01:44PM

Jesus. wrote: »

Is that what its called these days?

What would you call it?

Samaris · 06-10-2016 01:45PM

Jesus. wrote: »

Is that what its called these days?

...Well, yes, it IS a medical procedure. You may agree or disagree on the ethics or necessity of it, but to deny it is a medical procedure is a bit..pointless. And the point which has sailed merrily over is that travelling after pretty much any medical procedure doesn't really help.

seamus · 06-10-2016 01:46PM

Jesus. wrote: »

Is that what its called these days?

That's what it is. It requires doctors and a process. It's a medical procedure.

Tsipras wrote: »

That'll never get voted in in Ireland, if you abort a 8 month old baby you're a psychopath surely

Thankfully there will never be a public vote about abortion on demand in Ireland.

If the eighth amendment is repealed, nothing will change. Abortion will still be illegal except where the mother's life is in danger.

What it will do is allow politicians to remove the ties around their hands and include provisions which permit domestic abortion in the case of fatal foetal abnormalities and provide freer access to abortion where the mother's life or health is threatened. It will also allow women who've been raped to obtain an abortion and save themselves the horror of having to carry their rapist's child to term.

You know, very simple and basic things that any humane society would allow.

Whether abortion on demand is legalised, all comes down to who you vote for in the future.

Sionnach7 · 06-10-2016 01:49PM

kupus wrote: »

How, convenient.

Firstly, regardless of whatever else we may disagree on, as one human being to another, I appreciate what you said first that people should be heard, "and not showboated".

Obviously there's a 'But'...

Many people here in Ireland are not catholic and still absolutely maintain that an unborn baby, is - 'an unborn baby'. And last I heard, babies are still considered human beings. It really is THAT simple.
That cannot, for love nor money, be altered. It's an undeniable fact. A child could understand that.

Obviously yes, having a baby causes life complications. Many of us non-catholic pro-life believing people completely acknowledge that.
But I just cannot, for the life of me, understand why a woman can't see through the remaining 8 months or so of pregnancy (it's not even 9 months as she's most likely not aware of it before end of month 1). See the baby through, go through the intense but (relatively) extremely short pain of delivery, and just walk away. The baby still has a life, even if it's without the mother. Leave the child "on the church steps" as it were.
For the sake of a WHOLE LIFE, 8 months or less extremely short. Anyone who makes excuses about this, I'm sorry, is just selfish *in this regard*.

Lastly, your point re.
"Its too bad some of you dont go to saudi arabia and shout there for womens rights

No, its easier to bully the against vote in good old catholic controled ireland."

This as you know, is a wide, crude generalisation, and as such is hard to not dismiss off-hand for its generality. For what it's worth, I don't suspect that there would be many pro-abortion women either who travel to Saudi Arabia to "shout for women's rights". So from that point of view, your point really is negated.
In any case, the treatment of women in some countries like this is atrocious. But it or any injustice for that matter, cannot be used as trump over killing an unborn baby. Sorry to remind you, but two wrongs don't make a right.

After all that, I wish you well in everything else in life, peace and happiness.

06-10-2016 01:51PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Why did you feel you needed to create another thread when you could have just said you changed your mind in whatever thread the posts that you're talking about are?

You're just being attention seeking.

I think fair play if pro choice and repeal campaigns have made some people rethink their views on abortion...

I'm admittedly surprised to see same poster who openly berated a poster last week (for choosing to try an IVF pregnancy) change stance so suddenly and can only be commended for it...

Providing it is not one of the best boards trolls we have seen in a while, which I think it may more lean towards...

Jesus. · 06-10-2016 01:53PM

KillerShamrock wrote: »

Well you have been reported for that.

I hope this.... poster are shut down asap.

Why on earth did you do that and why did the Moderators act on your instruction? This is After Hours FFS and although people might say some things to your distaste you've got to be an adult and handle it, not go running to teacher.

I can't for the life of me think why somebody would report someone for saying something on an anonymous internet message board.

OldNotWIse · 06-10-2016 01:53PM

seamus wrote: »

That's what it is. It requires doctors and a process. It's a medical procedure.

Thankfully there will never be a public vote about abortion on demand in Ireland.

If the eighth amendment is repealed, nothing will change. Abortion will still be illegal except where the mother's life is in danger.

What it will do is allow politicians to remove the ties around their hands and include provisions which permit domestic abortion in the case of fatal foetal abnormalities and provide freer access to abortion where the mother's life or health is threatened. It will also allow women who've been raped to obtain an abortion and save themselves the horror of having to carry their rapist's child to term.

You know, very simple and basic things that any humane society would allow.

Whether abortion on demand is legalised, all comes down to who you vote for in the future.

In fairness, nobody knows what they will legislate for.

osarusan · 06-10-2016 01:55PM

OldNotWIse wrote: »

In fairness, nobody knows what they will legislate for.

The legislation already exists - Protection of Life during Pregnancy Act 2013 - and limits abortions to cases when there is a risk of loss of life (physical health or suicide).

OldNotWIse · 06-10-2016 01:57PM

osarusan wrote: »

The legislation already exists - Protection of Life during Pregnancy Act 2013 - and limits abortions to cases when there is a risk of loss of life (physical health or suicide).

And you think there wont be further legislation or an amendment of current? How would they shoehorn FFA or rape/incest cases into existing legislation?

Jesus. · 06-10-2016 01:58PM

HensVassal wrote: »

What would you call it?

Samaris wrote: »

...Well, yes, it IS a medical procedure.

seamus wrote: »

That's what it is. It requires doctors and a process. It's a medical procedure.

So is a Doctor injecting someone with 50mg of Sodium thiopental. You could call executions in the US mere "medical procedures" too because as you say that's technically what they are. But that'd be a bit daft wouldn't it?

Abortion is the word.

06-10-2016 02:02PM

ScumLord wrote: »

Yeah, and men who masterbate are genocidal maniacs. All those millions of babies.

Sperm are cells with limited lifespans which are incapable of division, which is one of the most basic features of an individual life form. It is not in any way comparable to a foetus. It is a haploid sex cell incapable of dividing and reproducing itself.

The foetus is a living entity. There really can be no disputing that. It is a fact.

Walter H Price · 06-10-2016 02:02PM

Why is it so unimaginable that someone could have their views challenged and changeged ? so the OP was posting pro life stuff a few weeks back , if we say his change of mind is just attention seeking then you undermine the entire purpose of rational debate , i.e he put his pro life views out there they were challenged by others who made counter points and ultimately on reflection and having seen the protests in Poland he shifted his position.

My Fiance was very pro life before we got together but over the last few years has changed her views completely and now would fully support repealing the 8th amendment , cases like Savita Halipanivar and others help her to change her views as well as allot of debate with me and our friends where she would have been proabily the only pro lifer, i found as well the further she got away from relgion (not that she was ever perticularly religious) her views became more rational and logial than emotional and judgemental on allot of issues.

Pro and anti choice are not clubs , you don't have to be a card carrying member , its not a Jet and Sharks or IRA style once your in your in for life, its just a point of view a moralistic stand point, open to be challenged and free to be changed

osarusan · 06-10-2016 02:03PM

OldNotWIse wrote: »

And you think there wont be further legislation or an amendment of current?

I'm sure there will be. But my point is that even if there wasn't, the situation currently is not some never-legislated-for black hole. We would still have extremely restrictive abortion laws.

OldNotWIse · 06-10-2016 02:03PM

Jesus. wrote: »

So is a Doctor injecting someone with 50mg of Sodium thiopental. You could call executions in the US mere "medical procedures" too because as you say that's technically what they are. But that'd be a bit daft wouldn't it?

Abortion is the word.

It's both no? It's abortion, but abortion IS a medical procedure. Tecnically, it's not incorrect to call it as such. I suppose from a pro-choice stance, it "sanitises" the issue somewhat for the purposes of debate? Semantics though.

OldNotWIse · 06-10-2016 02:05PM

osarusan wrote: »

I'm sure there will be. But my point is that even if there wasn't, the situation currently is not some never-legislated-for black hole. We would still have extremely restrictive abortion laws.

I'm not saying it's a black hole. I was responding to a post that suggested as a near certainty exactly what will be legislated for, and I (correctly) responded that we don't know what will be legislated for (and we don't know for certainty that the law will continue to be really restrictive).

osarusan · 06-10-2016 02:11PM

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I'm not saying it's a black hole. I was responding to a post that suggested as a near certainty exactly what will be legislated for, and I (correctly) responded that we don't know what will be legislated for (and we don't know for certainty that the law will continue to be really restrictive).

Ok, I see what you mean.

To be honest, I'm not even sure that the government of the day will be able to offer sample legislation which would be implemented, depending on the result of a referendum. The campaign would take time, and then changing the constitution would take time. The government could well have changed.

Are they not more likely to just let the existing legislation remain for the time being, and then legislative changes would come later?

Even if they did offer some sample legislation, and it was agreeable to you (or whoever), by it's nature it's changeable anyway.

Samaris · 06-10-2016 02:34PM

Jesus. wrote: »

So is a Doctor injecting someone with 50mg of Sodium thiopental. You could call executions in the US mere "medical procedures" too because as you say that's technically what they are. But that'd be a bit daft wouldn't it?

Abortion is the word.

That might make sense if the debate was directly about whether or not it's a medical procedure, but it's not. The debate is about whether the travel on top of the procedure is adding needless discomfort, pain and even damage.

You're nitpicking the word (and you are incorrect, btw, it is a medical procedure of which there are thousands, this one is more directly called abortion; you may as well insist that an apple isn't a fruit.) to avoid the actual point.

Also, anyone who's been injected with 50mg of sodium thiopental probably has the concept of travelling home afterwards pretty darn far from their minds!

me_right_one · 06-10-2016 04:03PM

seamus wrote: »

That seems a bit bizarre.

If there was a very large group of people campaigning to have murder or rape legalised and who seemed to have a good chance of succeeding, you can bet your arse I'd be out there trying to get in their way and oppose them.

Could it be, that you don't actually think abortion is as serious as murder? You think it's not nice, but not bad enough for you to actually oppose it?

This is why the "abortion is murder" line is hyperbole. Because you don't actually believe it is. You don't like it, but you don't believe it's anything at all close to murder.

If you did, you'd be out on the streets.

Eh....

https://lifesite-cache.s3.amazonaws.com/images/news/Screen_Shot_2013-06-10_at_3.45.07_PM.png

talking_walnut · 06-10-2016 04:29PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Sperm are cells with limited lifespans which are incapable of division, which is one of the most basic features of an individual life form. It is not in any way comparable to a foetus. It is a haploid sex cell incapable of dividing and reproducing itself.

The foetus is a living entity. There really can be no disputing that. It is a fact.

Most things are "living entities". Being alive is not reserved for human beings.

me_right_one · 06-10-2016 04:37PM

talking_walnut wrote: »

Most things are "living entities". Being alive is not reserved for human beings.

Yep. And yet, you need planning permission to cut down a tree. But a human being? Sure lets just make some living humans have less equality than others, based on their age. Nothing wrong with that:rolleyes:

Walter H Price · 06-10-2016 04:43PM

me_right_one wrote: »

Yep. And yet, you need planning permission to cut down a tree. But a human being? Sure lets just make some living humans have less equality than others, based on their age. Nothing wrong with that:rolleyes:

You dont necesserily need permision to cut down a tree in your own garden though do you , you know if you dont want it or that.

You can legaly detemine a point where a faetus becomes a viable human being , it happens at around the 24 week mark and rightly most contries do not allow abortion beyond this point before that point you are not ending a life you are just stopping the potential for life its a grey area but a dependant faetus should not have equal right to its living mother

me_right_one · 06-10-2016 04:51PM

Walter H Price wrote: »

You dont necesserily need permision to cut down a tree in your own garden though do you , you know if you dont want it or that.

You can legaly detemine a point where a faetus becomes a viable human being , it happens at around the 24 week mark and rightly most contries do not allow abortion beyond this point before that point you are not ending a life you are just stopping the potential for life its a grey area but a dependant faetus should not have equal right to its living mother

You can also scientifically determine the point where life starts - personally, thats the definition I'd go with - and that is the point where cells spontaneously self-propagate with their own individual DNA. ie, conception.

Did you know that a babys heart starts beating at 21 days? So that means it has a heart, a nervous system, blood, a body etc... Another thing, are you aware that the technology exists for a baby to be conceived and born completely outside a wombb, ie in a petri dish, and that this technology has been around since the 1970's?

Not fully understanding the biology is part of the pro-abortion peoples problem. You kill a person when you have an abortion. End of.

CdeC · 06-10-2016 04:57PM

The OP should now be known as

Johnny Flip-Flop

Lingua Franca · 06-10-2016 04:57PM

me_right_one wrote: »

Another thing, are you aware that the technology exists for a baby to be conceived and born completely outside a wombb, ie in a petri dish, and that this technology has been around since the 1970's?

[citation needed]

Blind us with your scientific evidence.

Rezident · 06-10-2016 06:55PM

brickmauser wrote: »

In recent days I have changed my view on abortion. Especially when I saw the protests in Poland.

I now believe women should have the right to choose.

Abortion should be available at anytime during pregnancy for any reason.

Who am I to stop a woman or stand in her way?

I want to apologize to anyone upset with previous thread

So nine months into a pregnancy the baby can just be terminated for any reason? Like inconvenience? Or cost-saving? You think that's ok? I think human life is more important, but that's obviously a waning view these days. Good luck! You're going to need it.

Wibbs · 06-10-2016 07:29PM

ScumLord wrote: »

Potential life, is potential life. Why use an arbitrary event like contraception dictate when life begins?

Given medical technology birth has become an "arbitrary event". Tell parents with very premature kids in incubators that. Only someone bereft of sense could compare a single celled sperm cell and a foetus with a brainstem and heartbeat and fingers and toes etc and say the destruction of one is the same as the destruction of another. That's beyond idiotic a position IMH. It's also more than a tad insensitive for women who have gone through abortions to dismiss their experiences as little more than a glorified ****. This debate has gone full retard on a few levels on both sides.

JuliusCaesar · 06-10-2016 07:34PM

dont bother wrote: »

sorry, but abortion is sick. it's horrible to think that so many people in this country are brainwashed into believing it's their "right".

what do women want - in a nutshell - to go around having promiscuous sex, having abortions "until they're ready" and become succesful "businesswomen"?

Who's saying all the pro-choice women (and men) are going around having "promiscuous sex"? What's your definition of 'promiscuous' anyway? More than 1 partner?

Or do you mean outside of marriage?

Women can find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy because of:
contraceptive failure
irregular cycles (some have extremely irregular cycles, some have gynacological issues, some may be menopausal)
rape/incest

Some are married, some are single, some are in other kinds of stable relationships but
already have a complete family
are in debt/impoverished/struggling financially

How many adults (men or women) are prepared to have a celibate life due to the risk of an unwanted pregnancy? We all have sex drives. Without it, we wouldn't continue the human race. And thank heavens we aren't reproducing at the rate we were, when contraception was illegal here.

dont bother wrote: »

it's absolute bullsh!t. i'm not religious in any way either, and would normally support a lot of socialist ideals, but i've changed MY mind about it recently.

it's horrible. it's not right. it's just downright selfish.
if you don't want to be in the position, then stop trying to be the "modern woman who "has it all" " cos you cant.

While social supports for single parents and people with large families may have increased, it isn't just "modern women" who have sex.

What did women do with unwanted pregnancies in the old days, before we had access to legal abortions abroad?

Well, there were a lot of folk tales about how to bring about a miscarriage. Some were harmless or caused at worst diarrhoea; some were dangerous and potentially fatal.

There were back street abortionists.

And the old favourite - infanticide. As recently as the 1980s - anyone remember the Kerry babies? Infanticide was surprisingly leniently dealt with in Irish courts, probably because they recognised the desperation that led to such deaths.

So the trite "modern women having it all" is just an aul' trope. It means nothing, except maybe jealousy.

The Rape of Lucretia · 06-10-2016 07:36PM

Rezident wrote: »

So nine months into a pregnancy the baby can just be terminated for any reason? Like inconvenience? Or cost-saving? You think that's ok? I think human life is more important, but that's obviously a waning view these days. Good luck! You're going to need it.

Its a legitimate view. If you are in favour of killing unborn babies, then there is consistency in being in favour of killing unborn babies right up to the nine months.

I certainly dont see any logic in the like of the following :

hairyslug wrote: »

let's just say prior to 12 weeks, FFA, mother's health and well-being

The point has which a baby is able to live independently of the mother possibly has some merit - up to that she can abort it. After that give it for adoption.

I would go for this middle ground myself. Not free for all abortion up to 9 months. But free for all abortion as long as the unborn is dependent on the mother to live, and so the mother has a life and death decision over the child anyway.

I have changed my views on abortion

Comments