anyone else fed up hearing about abortion already

Infini · 09-01-2017 09:25PM

Tbh they could just have a damn referendum and be done with it. We'd probably end this crap sooner. The real reason the pro-looney side kick up so much about is because they know in the back of their minds that theyre on the losing side of the argument and cant accept it out of blind conviction than logic. On top of that we dont have a leader who cant just simply say were having a referendum just to shut up the damn whining because the crazy people cant accept times change.

thee glitz · 09-01-2017 09:25PM

Grayson wrote: »

The freedom to choose should be a basic right.

Choice is great ye, when making decisions that only impact you.

The right to have adequate medical care is just that, a right.

At what stage of life should this right arise?

The fact that women have died because of this is disgusting.

That babies have died because of this is disgusting. There's no need to seek elective abortion in order to ensure women don't unnecessarily die.

Every so often I take a break from threads like this and ones about race and sexism, because it can be exhausting having a discussion about basic human rights again and again and again. But I keep coming back to them because it's the right thing to do.

It's a bit strange that you (presumably) are against sexism and racism, but also argue against the most basic human right. You're certainly right that such debates can be exhausting.

09-01-2017 09:29PM

Pablo Escobar wrote: »

I get angry whenever I hear somebody blowing on about either side. A proper debate is necessary, but is basically impossible due to the existence of extremists on both sides.

On a lighter note, has anyone realised the likeness of the Repeal banner to that of HB Ice Cream?.....just an observation.......

I am pro-choice and vocal about it, but actually agree with you. I think the problem is the organisations and ambassadors who represent each side of the debate, are founded on extremist views, therefore everything they do is by nature extreme.

jameorahiely · 09-01-2017 09:32PM

Grayson wrote: »

Freedom of speech is important. We need to have these discussions but yep, it's sickening having to have it over and over again. Especially about something that we shouldn't even need to discuss.

The freedom to choose should be a basic right. The right to have adequate medical care is just that, a right. Women shouldn't be forced to live with substandard care just because of an archaic law. The fact that women have died because of this is disgusting.

So year, I'm sick of this discussion. Every so often I take a break from threads like this and ones about race and sexism, because it can be exhausting having a discussion about basic human rights again and again and again. But I keep coming back to them because it's the right thing to do.

Women have also died from legal abortions. Does that disgust you too?

thee glitz · 09-01-2017 09:42PM

222233 wrote: »

I am pro-choice and vocal about it, but actually agree with you. I think the problem is the organisations and ambassadors who represent each side of the debate, are founded on extremist views, therefore everything they do is by nature extreme.

It is the silent sizeable middle that will decide what prevails and I believe / hope that the Constitutional Convention will recommend a referendum which, if passed, would still afford protection of life but not where it's not the best outcome. Debate on such is not to be found anywhere.

mikeym · 09-01-2017 09:46PM

Im sick of turning on the news to see the minister of health, hes on the tele box 24/7.

I'll sit on the fence over the abortion debate.:(

Johnboner · 09-01-2017 10:00PM

thee glitz wrote: »

It is the silent sizeable middle that will decide what prevails and I believe / hope that the Constitutional Convention will recommend a referendum which, if passed, would still afford protection of life but not where it's not the best outcome. Debate on such is not to be found anywhere.

Nice outdated logic would suit middle ages.

Electric Sheep · 09-01-2017 10:13PM

jameorahiely wrote: »

Women have also died from legal abortions. Does that disgust you too?

Women die more frequently in childbirth than from legal abortions. Does that disgust you?

thee glitz · 09-01-2017 11:08PM

Johnboner wrote: »

Nice outdated logic would suit middle ages.

Did you forget to make your point?

Johnboner · 10-01-2017 12:51AM

thee glitz wrote: »

Did you forget to make your point?

No, now off to the gas chamber.

Grayson · 10-01-2017 01:13AM

jameorahiely wrote: »

Women have also died from legal abortions. Does that disgust you too?

You have a greater chance of dying from a colonoscopy than an abortion. That's an actual fact. It's a medical procedure and there are risks but they are tiny.

When a woman like Savita is denied treatment because of the law, and then dies because of it, that's disgusting. And yes she did die because of the lack of a termination. There were over 20 points of failure in her treatment. Inadequate treatment meant that she reached a stage where a termination probably would have saved her. And at that point she was denied the treatment, the treatment she requested, because of the law. Or as someone in the hospital put it "Because Ireland is a catholic country".

We let people die in Ireland because of it and religious nutjobs are ok with that.

Edit to add. The report is here. https://www.hiqa.ie/publications/patient-safety-investigation-report-services-university-hospital-galway-uhg-and-reflect

It's 253 pages long and I've read it multiple times. Maybe you should.

Grayson · 10-01-2017 01:29AM

thee glitz wrote: »

Choice is great ye, when making decisions that only impact you.

At what stage of life should this right arise?

That babies have died because of this is disgusting. There's no need to seek elective abortion in order to ensure women don't unnecessarily die.

It's a bit strange that you (presumably) are against sexism and racism, but also argue against the most basic human right. You're certainly right that such debates can be exhausting.

You use the phrase babies. See a baby is there after birth, not before.
That may sound like semantics but it's important. The fact is that you'll find that no-one is pro killing babies (I'm saying no-one but I'm pretty certain that you could probably find one person in the billions on the planet who actually thinks culling children is ok. )

Even when it comes to fetuses most people, including most pro choice people, believe they have rights to an extent. I say to an extent because they don't say that it's a human being from the moment of conception.

That's where they and you differ. Every statement you made there is made with the assumption that we both agree that a baby exists from conception (I'm making an assumption there, you never said conception but you never mentioned time frames so I'm assuming that but feel free to correct me. If you don't believe it's a baby from conception then you are pro choice but you just differ on the time frame.)

When you assume that it's a baby you are missing the most important part of the argument.

Outlaw Pete · 10-01-2017 02:04AM

Ah, the old 'a fetus is not a baby' argument yet again.

Nothing the pro-choice crowd hate more than a fetus being spoken of as such. They'd much rather use dehumanizing terms such as 'bunch of cells' and 'blobs of biological matter'.

Helps them avoid having to deal will the reality of just what an abortion is, that's why.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53tzMV9OmvY

infogiver · 10-01-2017 02:08AM

Grayson wrote: »

You use the phrase babies. See a baby is there after birth, not before.
That may sound like semantics but it's important. The fact is that you'll find that no-one is pro killing babies (I'm saying no-one but I'm pretty certain that you could probably find one person in the billions on the planet who actually thinks culling children is ok. )

Even when it comes to fetuses most people, including most pro choice people, believe they have rights to an extent. I say to an extent because they don't say that it's a human being from the moment of conception.

That's where they and you differ. Every statement you made there is made with the assumption that we both agree that a baby exists from conception (I'm making an assumption there, you never said conception but you never mentioned time frames so I'm assuming that but feel free to correct me. If you don't believe it's a baby from conception then you are pro choice but you just differ on the time frame.)

When you assume that it's a baby you are missing the most important part of the argument.

So...I was in labour with a fetus and she(sorry it) became a baby...when exactly?

10-01-2017 02:11AM

it seemed a straight enough question and two big long replies hmmmmmm

infogiver · 10-01-2017 02:16AM

Grayson wrote: »

You use the phrase babies. See a baby is there after birth, not before.
That may sound like semantics but it's important. The fact is that you'll find that no-one is pro killing babies (I'm saying no-one but I'm pretty certain that you could probably find one person in the billions on the planet who actually thinks culling children is ok. )

Even when it comes to fetuses most people, including most pro choice people, believe they have rights to an extent. I say to an extent because they don't say that it's a human being from the moment of conception.

That's where they and you differ. Every statement you made there is made with the assumption that we both agree that a baby exists from conception (I'm making an assumption there, you never said conception but you never mentioned time frames so I'm assuming that but feel free to correct me. If you don't believe it's a baby from conception then you are pro choice but you just differ on the time frame.)

When you assume that it's a baby you are missing the most important part of the argument.

Your very first line. A baby is there after birth, not before.
Be honest, do you actually believe that?

infogiver · 10-01-2017 02:19AM

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Ah, the old 'a fetus is not a baby' argument yet again.

Nothing the pro-choice crowd hate more than a fetus being spoken of as such. They'd much rather use dehumanizing terms such as 'bunch of cells' and 'blobs of biological matter'.

Helps them avoid having to deal will the reality of just what an abortion is, that's why.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53tzMV9OmvY

This needs to be played in every secondary school in the country

stinkle · 10-01-2017 02:33AM

infogiver wrote: »

So...I was in labour with a fetus and she(sorry it) became a baby...when exactly?

When she was born. When she began to exist outside the womb/BIRTH canal. When her lungs started to function and she began breathing the outside world, as opposed to floating around in amniotic fluid, tethered to your blood supply via the umbilical cord. The date it says on the BIRTH certificate and which confers citizenship onto her. Did you collect children's allowance retroactively, for example?

Grayson · 10-01-2017 02:44AM

infogiver wrote: »

Your very first line. A baby is there after birth, not before.
Be honest, do you actually believe that?

Yes, that's the technical term. I'm not denying that a foetus at a certain age is a human being but it's not a baby. A baby is after birth and before a certain age.

Despite my mum telling me I'll always be her baby I know that's not technically correct.

Now if I'm looking at a birth (not that I ever do) and see a baby come out I'm not denying that ontologically they are the same thing 5 minutes before they come out. I'm just saying that technically they have different names.

The problem with a pro lifer is that they say that it's the exact same all the way back to conception. They're not. There's huge differences. And those differences are enough for it to be ontologically something different.

I know I keep using the word ontologically but that's because it's the most precise language I can think of. It's about what it is "to be" something.
When we look at a corpse or a brain dead person we don't think of them as human. That thing that makes them human has gone. That's why it's not murder to switch off the power on a brain dead patient.
Likewise that thing that makes us human is not there at conception. It develops later. After it develops then it's a human being in a womb but beforehand it's a cluster of cells.

That's why you won't find an abortion activist who thinks that it's ok to terminate at 8 months and 3 weeks. We recognise just like you that it's a human being in there. But if you want to convince me it's a human being at 2 weeks after conception than work away.

I think in all the abortion threads I've been in only two people have actually bothered. Most will just say "Don't be stupid, it just is". And the people who have bothered rely on the fact that there's human DNA. Sure all humans have human DNA but having human DNA does not make you a human being. As I mentioned patients on life support with no brain activity have human DNA.

infogiver · 10-01-2017 03:50AM

stinkle wrote: »

When she was born. When she began to exist outside the womb/BIRTH canal. When her lungs started to function and she began breathing the outside world, as opposed to floating around in amniotic fluid, tethered to your blood supply via the umbilical cord. The date it says on the BIRTH certificate and which confers citizenship onto her. Did you collect children's allowance retroactively, for example?

You really do believe this. How sad. Are you a woman?Do you have biological children? If so then how on earth have you managed to convince yourself that the life you carried inside you, that kicked and stretched and hiccuped and waved at you on the scan, was a "thing"and not a baby! That's utterly preposterous.
This genuinely makes me feel sad for you. If you think that an unborn baby at 40+ weeks is not a human and can thus have his or her heart stopped on the whim of its mother then your life must be a very lonely place.
I'm always sorry when I even read these threads and even sorrier when I get involved.
You even employed that old hackneyed chestnut about the CB in an effort to make your point.
Good grief.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5 · 10-01-2017 04:24AM

As a very pro choice person I would encourage anyone to watch the Silent Scream. Presuming that they're a reasonably intelligent person with the most basic capacity for critical thought they'll see what a steaming pile of shíte it is.

It is an exercise in ideology, widely and definitively debunked. I do respect people's right and reason to personally hold pro life views, but when people use that sort of bullshít to back those views up, tbh it only draws attention to the fact that they either don't have or don't understand actual legitimate arguments.

And again, very beside the point when it comes to repealing the eighth amendment which directly affects every single pregnant woman in Ireland regardless of whether or not abortion has even crossed her mind

stinkle · 10-01-2017 06:23AM

infogiver wrote: »

stinkle wrote: »

When she was born. When she began to exist outside the womb/BIRTH canal. When her lungs started to function and she began breathing the outside world, as opposed to floating around in amniotic fluid, tethered to your blood supply via the umbilical cord. The date it says on the BIRTH certificate and which confers citizenship onto her. Did you collect children's allowance retroactively, for example?

You really do believe this. How sad. Are you a woman?Do you have biological children? If so then how on earth have you managed to convince yourself that the life you carried inside you, that kicked and stretched and hiccuped and waved at you on the scan, was a "thing"and not a baby! That's utterly preposterous.
This genuinely makes me feel sad for you. If you think that an unborn baby at 40+ weeks is not a human and can thus have his or her heart stopped on the whim of its mother then your life must be a very lonely place.
I'm always sorry when I even read these threads and even sorrier when I get involved.
You even employed that old hackneyed chestnut about the CB in an effort to make your point.
Good grief.

Can you point out where I said "thing" and "not human" please? Or else stop twisting my comments and projecting your own emotions onto them.

You asked a q and I answered. You carried a foetus and gave birth to a neonate, or in laywoman's terms, a baby. Congratulations btw, and I genuinely mean that. Unfortunately not every woman had the same positive experience as you. do you have actual specific issues with the biology I spoke about?

I'm sorry you don't like actual medical terminology, but that's your problem. I say this as a woman working in reproductive health, where we use the term "foetus" daily. It's not intended to piss prolifers off, it's for clarity in communication.

My gestational history is none of your business and adds nothing to anyone's opinion on this topic IMO.

Zubeneschamali · 10-01-2017 07:26AM

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

For one side it's just a clump of cells that needs to be got rid of and for the other side it's a human life and killing it is murder.

This is true of the extremists on each side, but most people do not believe either of those. Abortion has never been murder legally and isn't today, while most people would agree that a fetus is more than a clump of cells in that it usually has the potential to grow to be a baby, and in later weeks can survive outside the womb.

The debate tends to be screaming between the extremes about things that don't matter, but there are practicalities that the law, politicians and the public have to think about.

Joe Hill · 10-01-2017 07:33AM

When will the referendum take place?

jameorahiely · 10-01-2017 08:06AM

Grayson wrote: »

You have a greater chance of dying from a colonoscopy than an abortion. That's an actual fact. It's a medical procedure and there are risks but they are tiny.

When a woman like Savita is denied treatment because of the law, and then dies because of it, that's disgusting. And yes she did die because of the lack of a termination. There were over 20 points of failure in her treatment. Inadequate treatment meant that she reached a stage where a termination probably would have saved her. And at that point she was denied the treatment, the treatment she requested, because of the law. Or as someone in the hospital put it "Because Ireland is a catholic country".

We let people die in Ireland because of it and religious nutjobs are ok with that.

Edit to add. The report is here. https://www.hiqa.ie/publications/patient-safety-investigation-report-services-university-hospital-galway-uhg-and-reflect

It's 253 pages long and I've read it multiple times. Maybe you should.

What has a colonospy got to do with abortion?

Here's a woman who died after a legal abortion, but I suppose the pro-abortionists are ok with that

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/medics-deny-causing-death-of-woman-from-ireland-after-abortion-1.2446075

Aisha Chithira (32) died after having a termination at a Marie Stopes clinic in Ealing, west London, on January 21, 2012.

Not to mention unscrupulous abortion clinics

https://www.thesun.co.uk/living/2446839/marie-stopes-clinics-tried-to-give-vulnerable-woman-an-abortion-without-consent-and-left-dead-foetuses-in-bin-cqc-report-finds/

Marie Stopes clinics ‘tried to give vulnerable woman an abortion without consent and left dead foetuses in BIN,’ CQC report finds
CQC inspectors said patients are still at risk of "avoidable harm" at the Marie Stopes

Graces7 · 10-01-2017 09:36AM

Small points; have not read the whole thread but

Savita died through medical negligence. Even at that late stage had they done their job and treated her she would have lived. Of course the hospital tried to cover that up.

If you seek to avoid pregnancy when you know you do not "want" a baby, then do not have sex.

It really is so simple.

Pregnancy is the natural and often unavoidable result of your own actions. An adult takes full responsibility for their actions;you set a human life in motion and to not have the right and should not have the need to kill it.

Because whatever quibbles you make re when a baby becomes a baby, there is a life there else you would not need to destroy it.

Oh and you need some research on the long term mental health of women who have killed their unborn babies. Going against a basic natural force and in a state when the body and hormones are geared to the protection f the new life within you is a brutality,

And that 30 unborn babies were killed last year because they were Down's Syndrome?

Shameful ,

\I am away now!!! Have a lovely day and I mean that.

Zubeneschamali · 10-01-2017 09:41AM

Joe Hill wrote: »

When will the referendum take place?

Enda and FG have to be careful - abortion legislation is a minefield, and they need the Citizen's Assembly to walk out there ahead of them and clear a path.

Zubeneschamali · 10-01-2017 09:43AM

Graces7 wrote: »

Savita died through medical negligence.

Yes, she should have been given a termination when she requested one.

lawred2 · 10-01-2017 09:49AM

I heard that the citizen's assembly was 'split' down the middle on abortion.

That surprised me because I wouldn't expect the Irish population to be split down the middle on abortion at all.. How were these people selected? I'm not fully confident that they are necessarily representative.

Zubeneschamali · 10-01-2017 10:18AM

lawred2 wrote: »

That surprised me because I wouldn't expect the Irish population to be split down the middle on abortion at all.. How were these people selected? I'm not fully confident that they are necessarily representative.

Why would you not expect it? The original 8th referendum was the first thing I ever voted in, so I would expect most people older than me to be strongly "pro-life" (I'm 52) and to vote in droves. I would also expect any referendum today to be much closer than the gay marriage one among younger voters.

The polls suggesting that some kind of change to the 8th might pass don't mean much, since a) we haven't seen an actual wording yet and b) the American funded baby murdering propaganda hasn't started yet.

anyone else fed up hearing about abortion already

Comments