eviltwin wrote: » Sigh. No it's not. It's illegal to perform or seek an abortion here but neither party will be charged with murder. You can't murder someone who doesn't legally exist. This kind of stuff is just confusing the issue, let's stick to facts.
Tigger wrote: » Performing an abortion is murder under Irish law under the 8th in some circumstances
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » Not too surprisingly, I'm still waiting.
One eyed Jack wrote: » "unborn”, in relation to a human life, is a reference to such a life during the period of time commencing after implantation in the womb of a woman and ending on the complete emergence of the life from the body of the womanhttp://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2013/act/35/enacted/en/pdf
Tigger wrote: » What if you shot a woman in the womb the day before her due date and the fetus dies Is that the same as shooting the baby the next day after it was born or much less bad cos it seems the same to me
notjustsweet wrote: » Which part exactly?????
notjustsweet wrote: » Grand. The existing law relating to murder has nothing to do with changing the 8th amendment. It's a really weird thing to ask anyway TBH.
oneilla wrote: » Ah yes, another abortion = infanticide red herring. I'm not planning on shooting a woman in the womb. I'd hope neither would you.
Tigger wrote: » Sorry that doesn't make any sense Your stomach is part of your digestive system. I'll say again shot in the woman who is going to have a baby tomorrow's womb, not the stomach in the abdomen yes but not the womb. And surely the existing law is irrelevant when discussing changing the law is it not ? I'm referring to materially or morally
notjustsweet wrote: » If you shot the baby the day after it was born you wouldn't have shot the woman in the stomach anymore would you? Or if you did it'd be two shots. Two separate people, no longer one. Think about it.
notjustsweet wrote: » It's not in law which is what matters. She would be shot in the stomach not in "the womb" as she's still one person with one body.
oneilla wrote: » Your opinion is that pregnancy is a "human being's life". You believe terminating a pregnancy is infanticide ie. murdering a baby. It's not.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » Poor comprehension. I said a "human being's life" - not merely 'human life' as you misquoted me as saying.
oneilla wrote: » Most abortions are earlier rather than later - abortifacient tablets can be taken ~9weeks in. Later abortions are more risky and at that point it's more down to the medical opinion rather than the woman's choice. Deadlines are a red herring. That people focus on terms to maintain the current regime imo. proves that they don't want to argue the Catholic line that implantation = human being, not-one-sperm, and all the other daft stuff the church believes around reproductive rights.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » Can you define 'the unborn' please?
Tigger wrote: » What is your deadline for abortion of a healthy fetus ? How many weeks in do you think it's a right for the woman and no rights for the fetus till? See that's my stumbling block I thorough I was pro choice and I think I'm 90's pro choice but 2017 pro choice seems to think abortions should be free and available for Mach later terms than I think are appropriate
oneilla wrote: » I'm as pro-abortion as I am pro-kidney transplants, pro-heart surgery, pro-chemotherapy etc. You think ending a pregnancy (ie. after implantation) is infanticide. It is not. The comment about making abortion "palatable" in order to "sell it" is absurd and inflammatory.
oneilla wrote: » Skin cells are "human life". If human cloning by cells were possible then each time a woman washes her hands she takes a life. Absurd argument again Pete. Abortion is not infanticide - if you and others believed so you'd do more than post nonsensical arguments on a message board.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » ...it takes a human being's life. Has fcuk all to do with wanting to be scientific.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » So when a baby is born at 23 weeks gestation and is in an incubator, that's not a baby.. cause it's still developing? Ha. Be honest folks, the reason you all hate the word baby is because it brings home the reality of what abortion entails and that is that it takes a human being's life. Has fcuk all to do with wanting to be scientific.
infogiver wrote: » It was 20 years ago. From the day I knew I was pregnant she was my baby. When I went to my ante natal check ups at Holles St starting at 18 weeks the midwives would have used the expression "have you felt baby move yet?" and subsequently "have you felt baby move much?", even though posters here who claim to work in the oby/gynae world claim that only the expression "foetus" is used. I'm afraid no one told the midwives in Holles St that in 1997. It strikes me that a lot of the politics of the pro abortion lobby is tied up with terminology and phrases. For example, even though you are either "pro water charges" or "anti water charges" you cannot use the expression "pro abortion" . The lobby insists its "pro choice ". It's not aborting a baby or even a foetus, it's "terminating a pregnancy ". And it's definitely not a baby. The contents of my 40 week gestation womb is a foetus even though once it's travelled down the 4 or 5 inches of my vagina(sometimes quite quickly) it then becomes a baby. It strikes me that in order to "sell" abortion to the masses, the exhausting mental gymnastics is like a strict code to make it palatable to people, and there's a level of dishonesty there that's disturbing.
eviltwin wrote: » It's a developing baby.
infogiver wrote: » ...and more condescending prattle as you become increasingly frustrated. Do you use that kind of patronising language in real life with people who simply don't agree with you and won't acquiesce to your demands or do you reserve it for your anonymous persona?
infogiver wrote: » Probably the best thing to do is report the post you think breaks the rules and let the mods take care of it, lest you be found to be back seat modding
One eyed Jack wrote: » Posters objected to an observable statistic that more unmarried women availed of abortion due to socioeconomic circumstances than married women. Their objection appeared to be based on their perception that I was inferring something untoward about unmarried women. I didn't make up the categories for these surveys and reports. I couldn't care less for a pregnant woman's marital status personally. It appears those posters who objected to my use of the term cared more about their perception of unmarried women who would choose to avail of an abortion than I do, and they chose to project their perceptions and preconceived ideas onto my observations.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/6b0748b4741870baaad828fe92174b3c.svg)
