Would Ireland follow Europe's Lead in Aborting the Huge Majority of Down Syndrome Pos

A Little Pony · 15-11-2017 10:21PM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

So what though? Who cares if you think it's right or wrong? There are still people out there who think homosexuality is wrong. And we only got divorce in Ireland by the tiniest margin, how well I remember that dirty fight.

Laws tend to reflect the current morality of a society, and for particular issues, such as marriage equality, divorce and now hopefully abortion, when the actions of an individual DONT IMPACT ANYONE ELSE, then it certainly should be legal.

Your view of women is really appalling with the comparison you are making. Women are not children who don't know what's good for them.[/quote]

How do you know that?

lawred2 · 15-11-2017 10:23PM

Deleted User wrote: »

In one sense I think it's sad that people are singled out because of things like DS. In a much larger sense I hope I would never be part of making such a decision and have a pretty strong idea what side I'd fall on.

Bit reductive to call DS a 'thing'...

For the parents, carers, guardians of a person with DS it's a whole lot more than a 'thing'

A Little Pony · 15-11-2017 10:28PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Winston Orange Pennant wrote: »

At 6 weeks it has a heartbeat...just like everyone else has. It's alive.

So what? Human beings are very much in the business of ending lives. Our meat industry does it. Our farming industry. Our medical industry. Our paper industry. And much, much more. "It is alive" tells us nothing about the moral and ethical nature of the situation at hand.

Clearly "it is alive" is not enough for us to say "We should not kill this thing". Something more is needed. Something to philosophically hang things like "Right to life" off.

The pro-choice person is just one who realizes A) what that "something more" is and that the fetus being aborted lacks it.

Winston Orange Pennant wrote: »

But making it legal doesn't make it morally right.

One of the few axioms, since we all have some, I hold to in life is "innocent until proven guilty". The sheer lack of any arguments suggesting it is not morally WRONG is enough for me. I see no onus on me to prove it to be "morally right" given the vacuum of arguments morally against it.

Winston Orange Pennant wrote: »

I also know the impact those kids have had on those of us who've had the privilege of knowing them.

Me too, but this is irrelevant. The wonder and joy such children bring to the world when they come into it places NO moral or other onus on any given parent(s) to produce one. It in no way means any given parent(s) should not be given both the choice and the knowledge required to make that choice.

Winston Orange Pennant wrote: »

Does the father have no right to decide what happens his child?

I am somewhat "agnostic" on that one myself. I think generally "no" is my conclusion on it. I think ultimately the mother is the one to choose whether to bring a fetus to sentience or not, no one else.

Ideally such a mother should listen to, and take into consideration the wishes of the father. But I can not force that ethical view point on her, just admonish about it.

But I am open to the discussions people have had on a legal abortion for fathers where, if they do not want to have a child and the mother does not want to abort, they can seperate themselves legally (within limits and caveats I am also open to) from all responsibility.

But as I said I am agnostic on it, open to argument, and it is an area of the abortion discussion I admit wide ignorance of, and lack of indepth thinking about. It is just not an area I have managed to turn my inner eye to yet.

Which confirms my own view on how society is going now, the complete lack of ethics, comparing babies in the womb to livestock like the sheep outside my house, unbelievable really but this is the reality now in 2017 and the future is going to sadly involve drive thru system of abortion on demand, it will end up like going to McDonalds, it will be normalized in society to the such a degree that it will end up like butchering cows for meat.

I don't hold out much hope on reversing the cultural revolution.

....... · 15-11-2017 11:30PM

This post has been deleted.

optogirl · 16-11-2017 09:45AM

A Little Pony wrote: »

the future is going to sadly involve drive thru system of abortion on demand, it will end up like going to McDonalds, it will be normalized in society to the such a degree that it will end up like butchering cows for meat.

I don't hold out much hope on reversing the cultural revolution.

is this happening in countries where abortion is available? No. Do you think having an abortion is fun? It's a medical procedure - hardly likely to be done in a drive thru scenario unless the professionals involved wish to be struck off.

MrPudding · 16-11-2017 09:52AM

A Little Pony wrote: »

Which confirms my own view on how society is going now, the complete lack of ethics, comparing babies in the womb to livestock like the sheep outside my house, unbelievable really but this is the reality now in 2017 and the future is going to sadly involve drive thru system of abortion on demand, it will end up like going to McDonalds, it will be normalized in society to the such a degree that it will end up like butchering cows for meat.

I don't hold out much hope on reversing the cultural revolution.

You might want to read this.

MrP

Triceratops Ballet · 16-11-2017 09:54AM

A Little Pony wrote:

Which confirms my own view on how society is going now, the complete lack of ethics, comparing babies in the womb to livestock like the sheep outside my house, unbelievable really but this is the reality now in 2017

If that's what you think this poster said then you have fundamentally misunderstood something.

This idea you present of a "drive thru/McDonald's" system of abortion is emotively manipulative bs. Can you point me to a country in the world where abortion is legal where this happens, where babies are killed like cows for meat? I doubt it, so why do you think Ireland would be such a special case?

The reality is abortion would be legal, and the women who require it would have it at their local hospital or clinic, as part of routine medical care, instead of hoping on a flight to Liverpool or wherever. The women who do not require it will go on having babies, people won't suddenly think "oh sure will I get an abortion? I mean it's available now"

MrPudding · 16-11-2017 10:06AM

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

If that's what you think this poster said then you have fundamentally misunderstood something.

This idea you present of a "drive thru/McDonald's" system of abortion is emotively manipulative bs. Can you point me to a country in the world where abortion is legal where this happens, where babies are killed like cows for meat? I doubt it, so why do you think Ireland would be such a special case?

The reality is abortion would be legal, and the women who require it would have it at their local hospital or clinic, as part of routine medical care, instead of hoping on a flight to Liverpool or wherever. The women who do not require it will go on having babies, people won't suddenly think "oh sure will I get an abortion? I mean it's available now"

No, you have it all wrong. The street will be crawling with black vans, and men in black, abducting pregnant women and taking them for abortions. How else will we be able to keep the abortion mill in business? The New World Order One World Government Abortion Industrial Complex demands it.

MrP

....... · 16-11-2017 10:14AM

This post has been deleted.

lawred2 · 16-11-2017 10:19AM

A Little Pony wrote: »

Which confirms my own view on how society is going now, the complete lack of ethics, comparing babies in the womb to livestock like the sheep outside my house, unbelievable really but this is the reality now in 2017 and the future is going to sadly involve drive thru system of abortion on demand, it will end up like going to McDonalds, it will be normalized in society to the such a degree that it will end up like butchering cows for meat.

I don't hold out much hope on reversing the cultural revolution.

Hysterical nonsense.

GritBiscuit · 16-11-2017 10:29AM

I have to say the whole idea that women are so lacking in trustworthiness and ethics that they will be lining up the streets to have abortions for contraception if ever legalised in Ireland while simultaneously trying to foist the huge responsibility and empathy required in parenting on the same women, a completely baffling stance to take.

Are women trustworthy and empathetic or is the 8th the only thing standing between us and baby murdering blood lust. Make up your mind. Which is it? They can't both be true.

Pherekydes · 16-11-2017 02:35PM

Ever since contraception became widely available the birth rate has dropped through the floor and Ireland's population has nosedived.

Hang on, it hasn't. Could it be that people will continue to have children even though abortion would be legal?

A Little Pony · 16-11-2017 02:48PM

optogirl wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

the future is going to sadly involve drive thru system of abortion on demand, it will end up like going to McDonalds, it will be normalized in society to the such a degree that it will end up like butchering cows for meat.

I don't hold out much hope on reversing the cultural revolution.

is this happening in countries where abortion is available? No. Do you think having an abortion is fun? It's a medical procedure - hardly likely to be done in a drive thru scenario unless the professionals involved wish to be struck off.

Read the post, it says the future in it and it was in reference to the poster who brought up livestock in a discussion on abortion and it seems perfectly feasible that it becomes so normal that it ends up like going to get a pint of milk, that is how things advance when the culture is changed and you have less critique of it in society.

You weren't the only one who didn't read it properly, so I'm not having a go at you, a number of others did too.

....... · 16-11-2017 02:50PM

This post has been deleted.

A Little Pony · 16-11-2017 02:56PM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You think equating abortion with buying a pint of milk is a reasonable analogy?

Seriously?

In what country, culture or society ANYWHERE on this planet is having an abortion in any way equivalent to buying a pint of milk?[/quote]

That was the logic of the poster I replied to who thought of it as no different from killing cows, so that person obviously thinks that is the direction that abortion is heading in and openly supports it. That's fine, at least that person is honest. I tend to agree with him for different reasons.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5 · 16-11-2017 02:58PM

A Little Pony wrote: »

Read the post, it says the future in it and it was in reference to the poster who brought up livestock in a discussion on abortion and it seems perfectly feasible that it becomes so normal that it ends up like going to get a pint of milk, that is how things advance when the culture is changed and you have less critique of it in society.

You weren't the only one who didn't read it properly, so I'm not having a go at you, a number of others did too.

Ok, and for how many decades does a society have to have access to abortion for that to happen? It's convenient to fob it off to the future so you can't ever actually be wrong, just not proved right yet. All the things that happen in the present which undermine your already weak argument are just precursors to your vindication. Nice little trick little pony.

Having actually known women who have had abortions and being in possession of the female reproductive system and familiar with the ungodly pain it inflicts when anything is being expelled from the womb, it doesn't seem in the least bit feasibleto me that abortion will ever be as casual as eating. Vasectomies are widely available now and don't even involve ending the life of a foetus, do people just get them for the craic or with as little consideration as a snack? Do they fcuk, because that's MENTAL.

SusieBlue · 16-11-2017 03:09PM

A Little Pony wrote: »

That was the logic of the poster I replied to who thought of it as no different from killing cows, so that person obviously thinks that is the direction that abortion is heading in and openly supports it. That's fine, at least that person is honest. I tend to agree with him for different reasons.

You make an awful habit of assuming what other people "obviously think".
The truth is that you are (not for the first time) manipulating what other people say to make them sound like monsters and to suit your own agenda.
The only saving grace is that its painfully obvious what you're doing, so no one is even taking your arguments seriously.
Reference: people will treat getting abortions with the same level of seriousness as they would buying a pint of milk.

....... · 16-11-2017 03:21PM

This post has been deleted.

Billy86 · 16-11-2017 03:34PM

Am I the only one noticing the, uh, strange, amount of anti-abortion threads (a mix of pure anti-abortion and attempts to vilify the pro choice side) popping up quite recently? I certainly don't expect to see it ramp up more and more leading into next summer, surely it's just some bizarre coincidence! :pac:

....... · 16-11-2017 03:51PM

This post has been deleted.

end of the road · 16-11-2017 04:05PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

"It is alive" tells us nothing about the moral and ethical nature of the situation at hand.

Clearly "it is alive" is not enough for us to say "We should not kill this thing". Something more is needed. Something to philosophically hang things like "Right to life" off.

The pro-choice person is just one who realizes A) what that "something more" is and that the fetus being aborted lacks it.

no, they don't know what that more is but have decided that they do, and that the unborn lacks it because it fits and justifies their agenda.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

One of the few axioms, since we all have some, I hold to in life is "innocent until proven guilty". The sheer lack of any arguments suggesting it is not morally WRONG is enough for me. I see no onus on me to prove it to be "morally right" given the vacuum of arguments morally against it.

oh but it is moraly wrong. and if you want to justify it to be moraly right it is on you to prove that it is

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am somewhat "agnostic" on that one myself. I think generally "no" is my conclusion on it. I think ultimately the mother is the one to choose whether to bring a fetus to sentience or not, no one else.

Ideally such a mother should listen to, and take into consideration the wishes of the father. But I can not force that ethical view point on her, just admonish about it.

the father is half of the DNA of that child. i know that idea seems to be slowly been thrown out the window these days but it will never change the reality.

January wrote: »

I always thought of you as a reasonable man tatranska it's sad to see you comparing women wanting bodily autonomy to 'spoilt' children demanding toys or sweets.

but you have bodily autonomy. you just cannot kill the unborn in this country bar absolute extreme circumstances.

SusieBlue · 16-11-2017 04:09PM

end of the road wrote: »

no, they don't know what that more is but have decided that they do, and that the unborn lacks it because it fits and justifies their agenda.

oh but it is moraly wrong. and if you want to justify it to be moraly right it is on you to prove that it is

the father is half of the DNA of that child. i know that idea seems to be slowly been thrown out the window these days but it will never change the reality.

but you have bodily autonomy. you just cannot kill the unborn in this country bar absolute extreme circumstances.

In your opinion. Which you are entitled to. However, you cannot force your opinion on every single person in this country just because you believe it to be so. It is extremely egotistical to assume that your opinion is so superior it should be applied to every single person in Ireland, regardless of whether they disagree or not.

MrPudding · 16-11-2017 04:13PM

end of the road wrote: »

the father is half of the DNA of that child. i know that idea seems to be slowly been thrown out the window these days but it will never change the reality.

OK, so the father is half the DNA, and the woman is the other half. Does the woman not get any credit for being pregnant for 9 months with the pain, inconvenience and risk that it brings?

How about one vote for you share of DNA and one vote for carrying it? Seriously, you can't equate successfully ejaculating in a woman's vagina, and thereby contributing half the DNA of the resulting embryo with contributing the other half and then carrying it about inside your for 9 months.

Of course the man should have some input, and in a lot of cases probably does, but ultimately we are not talking about an even contribution here. Ejaculating is easy, I have done it loads of times, taking a pregnancy to term is anything but easy.

end of the road wrote: »

but you have bodily autonomy. you just cannot kill the unborn in this country bar absolute extreme circumstances.

I don't think you know what bodily autonomy means... Maybe you should look it up.

MrP

end of the road · 16-11-2017 04:33PM

WhiteRoses wrote: »

In your opinion. Which you are entitled to. However, you cannot force your opinion on every single person in this country just because you believe it to be so. It is extremely egotistical to assume that your opinion is so superior it should be applied to every single person in Ireland, regardless of whether they disagree or not.

because in my view the unborn are entitled to some sort of protection in my country. even if that protection is small, it's better then nothing.

MrPudding wrote: »

OK, so the father is half the DNA, and the woman is the other half. Does the woman not get any credit for being pregnant for 9 months with the pain, inconvenience and risk that it brings?

How about one vote for you share of DNA and one vote for carrying it? Seriously, you can't equate successfully ejaculating in a woman's vagina, and thereby contributing half the DNA of the resulting embryo with contributing the other half and then carrying it about inside your for 9 months.

Of course the man should have some input, and in a lot of cases probably does, but ultimately we are not talking about an even contribution here. Ejaculating is easy, I have done it loads of times, taking a pregnancy to term is anything but easy.

I don't think you know what bodily autonomy means... Maybe you should look it up.

MrP

i never said carying a child for 9 months was easy. however at the end of the day that unborn baby currently has some protection in this country and i believe that should remain to be the case. of course i know what bodily autonomy means.

MrPudding · 16-11-2017 04:38PM

end of the road wrote: »

because in my view the unborn are entitled to some sort of protection in my country. even if that protection is small, it's better then nothing.

i never said carying a child for 9 months was easy. however at the end of the day that unborn baby currently has some protection in this country and i believe that should remain to be the case. of course i know what bodily autonomy means.

With the greatest respect, you clearly don't. You can't say, "you have bodily autonomy, you just can't do this thing with your body." And that is what you are saying. Yes the foetus currently has some protection, but that protection is at the expense of a woman's bodily autonomy. That really can't be argued against, sorry.

MrP

end of the road · 16-11-2017 04:54PM

MrPudding wrote: »

With the greatest respect, you clearly don't. You can't say, "you have bodily autonomy, you just can't do this thing with your body." And that is what you are saying. Yes the foetus currently has some protection, but that protection is at the expense of a woman's bodily autonomy. That really can't be argued against, sorry.

MrP

i disagree. she can leave the country and have an abortion if she wishes and nobody can stop her. so therefore ultimately her bodily autonomy is intact. she just cannot do it in this country and i believe if that protects 1 child then that is better then nothing. in this country the unborn have some rights and that should remain the case.

rainbow kirby · 16-11-2017 04:59PM

end of the road wrote: »

i disagree. she can leave the country and have an abortion if she wishes and nobody can stop her. so therefore ultimately her bodily autonomy is intact. she just cannot do it in this country and i believe if that protects 1 child then that is better then nothing. in this country the unborn have some rights and that should remain the case.

Not really pro-life so, just "not in my back yard".

SusieBlue · 16-11-2017 04:59PM

end of the road wrote: »

i disagree. she can leave the country and have an abortion if she wishes and nobody can stop her. so therefore ultimately her bodily autonomy is intact. she just cannot do it in this country and i believe if that protects 1 child then that is better then nothing. in this country the unborn have some rights and that should remain the case.

If she's going to do it anyway what does it matter whether it happens here or in the UK?

And as previously explained to you, what happens to the women who don't have a passport/legality to travel, or don't have the money to afford to make the trip?

Probably the women who are actually most in need of one, if we're honest here, will be the ones prevented from travelling, if you have your way.

This is just going round in circles now. Your logic is bizarre, there is the same outcome whether the procedure occurs here or across the atlantic.

....... · 16-11-2017 05:11PM

This post has been deleted.

eviltwin · 16-11-2017 05:17PM

end of the road wrote: »

i disagree. she can leave the country and have an abortion if she wishes and nobody can stop her. so therefore ultimately her bodily autonomy is intact. she just cannot do it in this country and i believe if that protects 1 child then that is better then nothing. in this country the unborn have some rights and that should remain the case.

Yeah it's not that easy for everyone to leave the country just like that and its usually the ones most negatively affected by crisis pregnancy least able to take that trip in the first place so no, it's not an acceptable compromise.

Besides, I think anyone having surgery shouldn't have to put their health at risk by having to travel for it with the additional risks that brings and the lack of adequate aftercare when there is a clear acceptance from the majority of the public that such treatment should be available here.

It's no Ionger a question of if we get abortion here but when.

Would Ireland follow Europe's Lead in Aborting the Huge Majority of Down Syndrome Pos

Comments