nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Strike For Repeal?

fatknacker

Anyone gonna? I've the day off anyway but I probably wouldn't have stroked if I hadn't, although I would like everyone to have abortions. Whoops, I mean, choice for abortions.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

jameorahiely

JupiterKid wrote: »

Why does every single thread on abortion here inevitably end up in name calling and mud slinging, in distortions and lies given as opinions?

Limited abortion for certain cases with a time limit (with exception for medical emergencies) should be introduced in Ireland. Ireland needs to get in line with the rest of the developed world.

And yes, whether some posters here want to hear it or not, years of religious brainwashing in their formative years has made many, many Irish people vehemently so-called "pro-life".

The funny thing is - I don't hear what the "pro-life" brigade have to say about the welfare of children that actually ARE born. They are pretty quiet on that issue.

I'm firmly pro-choice, within reason.

Limited abortion in certain cases is already available here.

Wibbs

JupiterKid wrote: »

The funny thing is - I don't hear what the "pro-life" brigade have to say about the welfare of children that actually ARE born. They are pretty quiet on that issue.

I wouldn't be.

I'm firmly pro-choice, within reason.

So am I actually, within limits. "Reason" can vary way too much. One has to legislate for idiots. I'd also be in favour of men having the option to opt in/out of father "termination". In particular cases where the genetic father's opinions are ignored by the genetic mother's. I mean, if we're talking about "there is no right or wrong time to have an abortion" and that's only in such particular examples then why not have equality of outcome for both parents? Not a debate that is likely to find much favour mind you.

freshpopcorn

JupiterKid wrote: »

Why does every single thread on abortion here inevitably end up in name calling and mud slinging, in distortions and lies given as opinions.

That's happens whenever abortion is mentioned around the world in my opinion.

JupiterKid

Why does every single thread on abortion here inevitably end up in name calling and mud slinging, in distortions and lies given as opinions?

Limited abortion for certain cases with a time limit (with exception for medical emergencies) should be introduced in Ireland. Ireland needs to get in line with the rest of the developed world.

And yes, whether some posters here want to hear it or not, years of religious brainwashing in their formative years has made many, many Irish people vehemently so-called "pro-life".

The funny thing is - I don't hear what the "pro-life" brigade have to say about the welfare of children that actually ARE born. They are pretty quiet on that issue.

I'm firmly pro-choice, within reason.

Wibbs

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I've never personally used that phrase, and in previous threads I've always pointed out that anyone who does use it, or terms like 'parasite', etc, to describe unborn human life, really isn't helping themselves.

We're in a agreement there at least.

Well he has zero say before the child is born, because he's not a father.

Reinforcing my point really. He doesn't matter, it's all about the mother and her choice regardless. Yet after...

If the child is born, then yes, of course he's financially responsible for that child, whether he wants to be or not, legally he is.

because of an autonomous decision by the woman?

It's not biology when it suits at all, but there is no way legally a man could ever force a woman to have an abortion.

or force a woman to keep the kid. Either way the man is out of the loop. Until his wallet is required. The sooner the reliable male pill is invented the better.

Wibbs

Grayson wrote: »

BTW, note I said embryo. I said that for a reason. An embryo is up to 8 weeks. By using such an early stage it provides a strong contrast. Any argument that is able to demonstrate that can easily be extended to later stages.

Semantics. At 8 weeks and one hour does the bunch of cells magically transform? Technically speaking human babies are born "early" in developmental terms when compared to other animals, including our nearest relatives. Because the human brain is so large we have evolved a gestation period that continues beyond the womb. So in late stage abortions, which are apparently on the table for some, where the foetus could survive independently, is an "argument", but the same people would baulk at "aborting" a foetus a day after a premature birth which could easily overlap with another foetus in the womb?

Let's call a spade a spade here, abortion is the destruction of a potential life and it has a sliding scale going on. On that scale the morning after pill is a large remove from surgically removing a healthy foetus at 30+ weeks. And you know that's cool if we majority think as a society that they may be equal under cultural laws and morality, but hiding the realities under semantics is a little naive.

One eyed Jack

Wibbs wrote: »

Hmm, it seems to be "a bunch of cells" when it's the woman's decision.

I've never personally used that phrase, and in previous threads I've always pointed out that anyone who does use it, or terms like 'parasite', etc, to describe unborn human life, really isn't helping themselves.

So he has zero say in the child whether it lives or dies before birth, but then through the magic of a few weeks, which some like the aforementioned muppets seem happy to be OK with, he is now financially responsible? Biology when it suits, not so much otherwise.

Well he has zero say before the child is born, because he's not a father. If the child is born, then yes, of course he's financially responsible for that child, whether he wants to be or not, legally he is. It's not biology when it suits at all, but there is no way legally a man could ever force a woman to have an abortion.

ArmaniJeanss

martingriff wrote: »

Am I missing something here. We have Abortion laws for certain things and repelling the Eight will do nothing to change that right? Yes it will help with the doctors making the decision easier so they do not think they be charged with the law. We will not suddenly have abortion on demand. Changing the abortion laws would be a separate referendum question

No, changing laws is only a matter for the Dail. The 8th (and indeed the whole Constitution) acts as a potential blocker against what legislation is allowed through the Dail.
Changing the constitution would however be a separate referendum question.

One eyed Jack

jameorahiely wrote: »

Nice way of dodging the question (which included an if btw). I didn't see you jumping in with the same response to the story of the woman who was allegedly gangraped.

I know it included an 'if', which made it a completely hypothetical scenario, a complete departure from my post you quoted, which was originally referring to the question of a man being obliged to pay maintenance for his child. He doesn't have a choice to give up either his rights, nor his responsibilities to that child. That's a totally separate issue from abortion. He wouldn't be obliged to maintain an unborn human life, only the woman is obliged to do that, in line with current Irish laws.

Key word there in your post again is 'allegedly", and because I never put forward the argument that abortion should be permitted in cases of alleged rape, I don't see why I should need to address it. I'm not going to use women who have become pregnant as a result of rape to further my own agenda, nor would I use a person who was conceived and was born under those circumstances to make my arguments. It's a ridiculous assumption on the part of anyone to assume that a woman who has become pregnant as a result of rape, would actually automatically want to go through with an abortion.

Wibbs

meeeeh wrote: »

So how many of those do you know of happening?

One would be too many for me TBH, save for in the direst of circumstances. No way would I be OK with it as a general option like the muppets I quoted seem to think it is. "There is no right or wrong time to have an abortion". Eh no, they can head right off.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

A child is not a possession that a man can simply "give up all rights to",

Hmm, it seems to be "a bunch of cells" when it's the woman's decision.

he would still be obliged to pay to maintain the child, regardless of whether he wants to or not.

So he has zero say in the child whether it lives or dies before birth, but then through the magic of a few weeks, which some like the aforementioned muppets seem happy to be OK with, he is now financially responsible? Biology when it suits, not so much otherwise.

jameorahiely

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I read the same case, no mention that she is pregnant, only that she has been charged with allegedly raping a man, and as far as I'm aware in the UK, the charge of rape means the alleged victim was penetrated, not the alleged rapist.

Nice way of dodging the question (which included an if btw). I didn't see you jumping in with the same response to the story of the woman who was allegedly gangraped.

farmerwifelet

For me I am ok with abortions in the case of rape, incest or fatal foetal abnormalities. I am not ok with someone using abortion as a form of birth control. There are condoms, pills, femidoms, coils, implants, injections and the morning after pill, you don't even need a prescription for it - just pop down to your nearest boots.

kylith

fatknacker wrote: »

Let's say the average Irish person lives around 1.5 hours from the airport and that's being generous. An hour before check in and an hour for flight including taking off and landing and disembarking. Then maybe an hour to the clinic, thats 4.5 hours travelling just to get to the clinic. Not accounting for traffic, delays, rural dwellers etc. And then the same all the way back or perhaps forking out for a crappy hotel too. All without raising an eyebrow from anyone close to them.

I wouldn't say it's the exact same thing, really.

Not to mention the cost of travelling to and from the airport, flights, and accommodation.

Here we go

Grayson wrote: »

Could you demonstrate why? Most prolifers I know, including the ones I see on here, seem to assume that an embryo is the same as a fully developed human and deserves the same rights. Care to elaborate your reasoning as to why? You might even convert someone to your cause if your logic is strong enough.

(BTW, note I said embryo. I said that for a reason. An embryo is up to 8 weeks. By using such an early stage it provides a strong contrast. Any argument that is able to demonstrate that can easily be extended to later stages).

I won't speak for others but my belief is life starts when the egg implants on the wall of the womb I'm not a doctor and you are prob more educated on this then me but from that point as far as I know if Everything goes ahead as intended it developes into a child and then born why think of it as anything less then a life a different stage of life but life non the less a developmental stage of life we where all embryos once

meeeeh

infogiver wrote: »

Not annoyed . Sad. When I was having my baby all the health professionals during my pregnancy referred to my daughter as my "baby".
When did that stop and why?

Did it stop? It certainly didn't four years ago.

I think you are talking bs. Apparently.

Grayson

infogiver wrote: »

Not annoyed . Sad. When I was having my baby all the health professionals during my pregnancy referred to my daughter as my "baby".
When did that stop and why?

Never knew it was a fixed thing. Also you said female healthcare professionals. Why female?

uck51js9zml2yt

infogiver wrote: »

Not annoyed . Sad. When I was having my baby all the health professionals during my pregnancy referred to my daughter as my "baby".
When did that stop and why?

I've a 3 year old. He was referred to as a baby all through the pregnancy.

Grayson

Here we go wrote: »

As someone who's pro life I find this a cheap argument it as Notting to do with religion or sexism or a lack of respect for women it's the belief that the unborn are just as important as me or you or anyone else and should be protected I feel terrible for women who find them selfs in a situation where they feel they need an abortion but as bad as I feel for them I feel worse for the child who I belive is a life haveing zero say there life over before it enters the world

Could you demonstrate why? Most prolifers I know, including the ones I see on here, seem to assume that an embryo is the same as a fully developed human and deserves the same rights. Care to elaborate your reasoning as to why? You might even convert someone to your cause if your logic is strong enough.

(BTW, note I said embryo. I said that for a reason. An embryo is up to 8 weeks. By using such an early stage it provides a strong contrast. Any argument that is able to demonstrate that can easily be extended to later stages).

infogiver

Grayson wrote: »

Are you annoyed that medical professionals use medical terms?

Not annoyed . Sad. When I was having my baby all the health professionals during my pregnancy referred to my daughter as my "baby".
When did that stop and why?

martingriff

Am I missing something here. We have Abortion laws for certain things and repelling the Eight will do nothing to change that right? Yes it will help with the doctors making the decision easier so they do not think they be charged with the law. We will not suddenly have abortion on demand. Changing the abortion laws would be a separate referendum question

infogiver

[Deleted User] wrote: »

How the Hell could abortions be facilitated in a country that cannot find beds for seriously ill people? https://www.inmo.ie/trolley_ward_watch

Oh I'd imagine Mr Soros is willing and able to stock an abortion clinic and staff it at pretty much the drop of a hat.

Grayson

infogiver wrote: »

A 40 week baby is not a baby it's a foetus. Apparently female healthcare professionals providing ante natal care never EVER call a 40 week foetus a baby.
It's a foetus.
Can you even imagine the level of denial needed to cope with a day's work?

Are you annoyed that medical professionals use medical terms?

infogiver

Wibbs wrote: »

Which completely ignores the reason why many if not most would take issue with late term abortions where the foetus is beyond the survivable outside the womb stage.

What the actual hell? So according to this statement and while they might not approve of it(though I'm giving benefits of the doubt there), they'd be OK with a healthy foetus being aborted at say 30 weeks, or beyond? Apparently there's no right or wrong time. Get off the stage.

A 40 week baby is not a baby it's a foetus. Apparently female healthcare professionals providing ante natal care never EVER call a 40 week foetus a baby.
It's a foetus.
Can you even imagine the level of denial needed to cope with a day's work?

MightyMandarin

Sweetemotion wrote: »

What values would you be teaching these women, that have been forced into concentration camps for "re-education"?

Well they certainly wouldn't be teaching women to think for themselves.

Here we go

Live65a846d0ee wrote: »

It will not be legal because of religion and religious freaks who have nothing better to do then to tell people to breed non stop and ha e kids even if they don't want to. The only place for them is the concentration camp so their eyes are opened to reality.

As someone who's pro life I find this a cheap argument it as Notting to do with religion or sexism or a lack of respect for women it's the belief that the unborn are just as important as me or you or anyone else and should be protected I feel terrible for women who find them selfs in a situation where they feel they need an abortion but as bad as I feel for them I feel worse for the child who I belive is a life haveing zero say there life over before it enters the world

mzungu

osarusan wrote: »

I don't really see what this has to do with my point.

I'm not commenting on what some campaigners say- I'm commenting on what I see as the complicated nature of trying to implement a time-limit on the (future) legality of a procedure that is currently completely illegal.

Fair enough, I misread your post.

meeeeh

Wibbs wrote: »

Which completely ignores the reason why many if not most would take issue with late term abortions where the foetus is beyond the survivable outside the womb stage.

What the actual hell? So according to this statement and while they might not approve of it(though I'm giving benefits of the doubt there), they'd be OK with a healthy foetus being aborted at say 30 weeks, or beyond? Apparently there's no right or wrong time. Get off the stage.

So how many of those do you know of happening? How many countries allow late term abortion unless there are some very serious medical reasons and more than one doctor signs on them. Not to mention that late term abortion is already allowed under current law. I'm all for debate but this kind of scaremongering doesn't help anyone.

[Deleted User]

How the Hell could abortions be facilitated in a country that cannot find beds for seriously ill people? https://www.inmo.ie/trolley_ward_watch

Sweetemotion

Live65a846d0ee wrote: »

It is not abuse just re-education.

What values would you be teaching these women, that have been forced into concentration camps for "re-education"?

Live65a846d0ee

Anyway there is no way that abortion will ever be legal in this country due to brainwashed freaks. The only abortion that might be legal is one under extremely strict criteria which wouldn't much difference, planes to the UK would still be flying.