Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

1…2627293132…43

Comments

  • #842
    gctest50
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,597 ✭✭✭gctest50


    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    ..............
    then abortion threads won't have to get bogged down with your essay esque replies. They make these threads a fcuking chore to read let alone post in.

    Candidate for funniest post that

    post running out of steam - posts complaint of post length


  • #843
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • #844
    captbarnacles
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,972 ✭✭✭captbarnacles


    ....... wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    Like in every encounter they've had. Usual result: Pete claims victory while making no arguments at all and starts attacking the poster.


  • #845
    Outlaw Pete
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,423 ✭✭✭✭Outlaw Pete


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    And yet aside from merely CALLING it "ridiculous" you have never offered a SINGLE argument as to why it is.

    Not only have I shown your nonsense argument to be just that, on many different threads, many users have. Like I said, people have driven buses through the holes in them but yet you will always say that nobody has. Not just here, you do the same elsewhere also, where after months and months of users on those forums indulging you, and pointing out the flaws in your remarkable logic, you will still yet claim nobody has shown WHY your theory is not as flawless as you undoubtedly think it is. But, these threads are 98% prochoicers so you'll get away with it more here than elsewhere.


  • #846
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • #847
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,363 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    Not only have I shown your nonsense argument to be just that, many users have.

    Then you will have to either do it again or paste in the links to the posts in question because I genuinely do not recall my core position on abortion being called into question by you with any arguments at all.

    Nor anyone else. You mentioned one user name, Corinthian, but the dishonesty of post dodging he had to employ to NOT answer my points was ridiculous, and only compounded when two users (one who likes to claim to be a lawyer but never seems to be one) rolled in and started doing the same.

    But I am happy to take it in tiny steps if you like. I just laid out a short layout of my approach to my thinking on abortion. I can make it clearer

    Maybe you could START the conversation by dropping the personal attacks and fantasies about users on long dead threads......... and giving me the point numbers below where you think the "flaws" actually lie. Then we can go from there:

    1) The concept of morality and ethics exist.
    2) Contrary to religious claims they appear to only exist in, and be formed by, human minds. Not some external morality that we "discover".
    3) The purpose of morality and ethics is geared towards the well being of sentient creatures and hence dictate "right" and "wrong" human action generally in relation to other sentience creatures.
    4) The arguments therefore that we should have moral and ethical concern to NON sentient entities, except in so far as the dependency of sentient creatures on them (our ethics towards our planet and environment for example) are non existent.
    5) The majority of choice based abortion (leaving FFA and medical aside) is done before week 12. The near complete totality by week 16.
    6) NO aspect of the biology or make up of the fetus at week 16 is indicative of ANY level of sentience or consciousness AT ALL in play. The faculty is not just not running much, it is not there AT ALL.
    7) In fact bearing out this idea is the fact that our moral and ethical concern for a member of any given species tends to vary in DIRECT correlation to that species capacity for sentience and consciousness at their level (which is why we would have more moral and ethical concern for a fly than an ameoba, for a cat than a fly, for a dolphin than a cat, for an ape than a dolphin and so forth).
    8) Given point 4 and 6 together therefore, there is no reason to have moral and ethical concern towards such a fetus, and hence no reason on offer as to why people should not abort them if they choose.

    So by all means START by telling me which point from 1 - 8 there is where you think the bus sized hole actually lies?


  • #848
    Outlaw Pete
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,423 ✭✭✭✭Outlaw Pete


    ....... wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    You'll be waiting a long time if you think I'm going to indulge nozz in his sentience nonsense "arguments".

    Boards has a search function, use it.

    Besides, I've been called away to speak at a conference in Dusseldorf.


  • #849
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,363 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    sentience nonsense

    So as expected you can not even point to a number on my list and even say where the problem lies, let alone what it is.

    Actually i did a quick edit of my post to include point 7, and your subsequent link makes me glad I did.

    But i am curious what you think some kook thinking trees are sentient has to do with my arguments about human sentience? And even if they turned out to be, do you understand my logic enough to know how that would fit into it?


  • #850
    Triceratops Ballet
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,894 ✭✭✭Triceratops Ballet


    Outlaw Pete wrote:
    You'll be waiting a long time if you think I'm going to indulge nozz in his


    I couldn't give a f about indulging nozz.I'm curious to the reasons behind your opinion, I've read the whole thread and struggle to find a simgle coherent reason. Your main arguing point seems to be "it's the law" (as if that's a fact we're all blithely unaware of) and it's wrong, which is not a reason, its an opinion based on your own morals. I want to know WHY it's wrong


  • #851
    flatface
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 738 ✭✭✭flatface


    There are existing tests in Ireland (the panorama test is one) that will give in-utero screening for genetic conditions. I would be an advocate for the availability of any tests to give parents early information.

    For me, I would like to know as early as possible if there was a genetic condition present. Whether or not the decision would be to terminate I really do not know (luckily our tests showed very low risks), I could see myself going either way. But If the decision was to continue on with the pregnancy and all the emotional, financial and family impact that would entail it would be a relief to know it was my own choice.

    What about the case of couple who have a child with a genetic condition and the test can allow them to try for another child. Without the test there would have been no extra child in their household. But now they have a healthy baby, so in this case the choice (and maybe a termination) has lead to one more baby in the world.


  • Advertisement
  • #852
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,363 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    flatface wrote: »
    What about the case of couple who have a child with a genetic condition and the test can allow them to try for another child. Without the test there would have been no extra child in their household.

    Indeed, and the "other children" effect is not something we could easily get figures on. So I have always wondered about it.

    But how many couples once planned to have 2 kids. 3. 5. 8. But then due to their first child having a condition requiring much deeper and intensive care led them to not have any more?

    Those lives, much like the dreams of the couples themselves, were also dead before they got off the ground. And we will never know.


  • #853
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • #854
    Outlaw Pete
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,423 ✭✭✭✭Outlaw Pete


    WhiteRoses wrote: »
    I think that video you put up from Sophia (amongst other similarly themed posts) with advice to anyone considering having an abortion was emotional blackmail.

    Babies with Down Syndrome are having their lives taken from them just as they are beginning and many are using 'quality of life', or lack thereof (for the parents as well as the person with DS) as a justification for doing so. Therefore, showing that Sofia, someone with DS, has an excellent quality of life, as do her parents, is an apt response. Citing emotional blackmail here is absurd.
    I did read that post, but that post completely contradicts the fact that you are posting here about how children with DS bring such joy and are so happy and lovable, which comes across as extremely naive.

    If you read that post you wouldn't have said that I didn't understand the difficulties involved in raising someone with disabilities, and secondly, citing that people with DS are lovable, can have good lives, often enriching the lives of the familes, in no way shape or form "contradicts" my also highlighting how there can be difficulties. What a bizarre thing to say.
    Posting excerpts from blogs and instagram of children with DS. At the very least its emotional blackmail.

    Again, here you go with this nonsense. That's like calling road traffic campaigns emotional blackmail. Sometimes people need to shown what it is their actions could destroy.
    I just don't understand why you would deprive someone of the choice in this kind of situation when you clearly know the challenges that will be faced.

    Well, then you didn't read my post close enough:
    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    Would my parents life have been better had she not been born? I have no idea. Would it have been different? Sure. Would my life have been easier, would my other siblings have had more attention? Perhaps. Perhaps not. That's just the tapestry of life. Pull one thread and nobody can truly know for sure what would have, could have, been. But one thing's for sure, my sister wouldn't have had any life at all and mine would be a hell of lot less richer without her in it.


  • #855
    A Little Pony
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,875 ✭✭✭A Little Pony


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    A Little Pony wrote: »
    That does not equate to most of us who dislike abortion agree with the murder of babies.

    It is not MEANT to "equate". It is MEANT to highlight the fact that there is a difference there, and that identifying that difference is important in discussing why abortion is ok or not ok.

    And as I keep saying, pro choice people tend to be those that have done that introspection, identified what the differences must be, and found that they do not morally or ethically preclude abortion as a concept at all.

    Meanwhile all YOU are doing it, seems, is willfully contriving to misuse the word "murder" in order to avoid and deep or meaningful discussion of the subject. Which is, at least, representative of ALL my discussions with anti choice campaigners.
    end of the road wrote: »
    i'm not repeating an error, giving a statement of fact

    Alas the only evidence for your "facts" that you have offered is to declare they are facts, and little more.
    end of the road wrote: »
    the taking of a life bar extreme circumstances is wrong

    Yet we as humans "take life" all the time. Huge swaths of our flora industries do. Huge swaths of our fauna industry does. Our species is daily in the business of ending life all over this planet, pretty much all the time.

    So why SPECIFICALLY is abortion of a fetus from 0-16 weeks a problem? Other than you keep saying it is by fiat, and running out the door again.
    end of the road wrote: »
    i have already told you a plenty why allowing abortion on demand is wrong

    Nope. You really have not. You have declared it to be wrong, over and over again, and mentioned briefly the current legal situation. But a moral or ethical argument about aborting a fetus, by choice, in the 0-16 weeks window you most certainly have not offered me. At all.
    end of the road wrote: »
    it would be impossible for you to accept any argument for it to be wrong. therefore you are arguing nothing here.

    Not impossible at all. I know EXACTLY what it requires to make me think aborting a fetus at or before 16 weeks are wrong. It would only take a single good argument as to why such a fetus should be of moral or ethical concern to us.

    Screeching "We should not be ending life" at me however, is not such an argument because, as I keep pointing out, that is something we do ALL the time.
    You believe in pro choice, fine but do you believe in a timeline, should it be illegal after a certain amount of weeks? What is the view of people here on the timeline issue or should it just be abortion on demand?


  • #856
    gctest50
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,597 ✭✭✭gctest50


    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    Babies with Down Syndrome are having their lives taken from them just as they are beginning and many are using 'quality of life', or lack thereof, as a justification for doing so. Therefore, showing that Sofia, someone with DS, has an excellent quality of life, as do her parents, is an apt response. ......

    Not every DS kid is Sofia and well you know it, only post the happy stuff though







    Outlaw Pete

    and mine would be a hell of lot less richer without her in it.

    and sure that's the main thing - bit of entertainment

    can't keep you waiting though

    Outlaw Pete wrote: »

    Besides, I've been called away to speak at a conference in Dusseldorf.

    .


  • #857
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    Babies with Down Syndrome are having their lives taken from them just as they are beginning and many are using 'quality of life', or lack thereof (for the parents as well as the person with DS) as a justification for doing so. Therefore, showing that Sofia, someone with DS, has an excellent quality of life, as do her parents, is an apt response. Citing emotional blackmail here is absurd.



    If you read that post you wouldn't have said that I didn't understand the difficulties involved in raising someone with disabilities, and secondly, citing that people with DS are lovable, can have good lives, often enriching the lives of the familes, in no way shape or form "contradicts" my also highlighting how there can be difficulties. What a bizarre thing to say.



    Again, here you go with this nonsense. That's like calling road traffic campaigns emotional blackmail. Sometimes people need to shown what it is their actions could destroy.



    Well, then you didn't read my post close enough:

    You keep missing the fundamental point I'm making. We're both correct in what we're saying, we just see things differently.
    You are free to never have an abortion, if you wish. I too, will probably never have one.
    However I don't feel my morals and opinions are so superior that they should be applied to the whole country, therefore I believe everyone should have a choice.
    If someone wants to have an abortion, particularly in the case of disability, they should be able to have one. Who are you or I to stop them?
    Stopping them won't mean your sister will cease to exist. It won't mean my brother will cease to exist. It doesn't mean we wish all people with disabilities never existed in the first place.

    And as for the pictures you are so keen on sharing, I could find 10 stories if I wanted to about disabled children ending up being stuck in the care system, vulnerable and abused, and post them here. However I know it would be manipulative to do so, so I won't.
    Have a look at the thread over in parenting and read how the 8th affected the healthcare they received. Similar stories all over the internet. Women suffering needlessly. Its truly eye opening. Its mindblowing how anyone can stand behind a campaign that endorses the needless suffering of women and children.


  • #858
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    A Little Pony wrote: »
    You believe in pro choice, fine but do you believe in a timeline, should it be illegal after a certain amount of weeks? What is the view of people here on the timeline issue or should it just be abortion on demand?

    We've gone over this about 45 times already.


  • #859
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,494 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    Triceratops Ballet wrote: »
    Yes I have that choice because I'm an EU citizen of means. But were I a 16 year old I would not, so what should I do just be forced to have a baby, because consequences?
    I believe that the country I live in should not place equal value on my life and the "life" of an unborn foetus I may be carrying. I'm a living human, who contributes to this state and I want my choices respected, and acknowledged in my home country. I don't appreciate, the level of care or choice available to me being compromised, by the morals of others.

    ireland has to place equal value on all otherwise it would allow for forms of discrimination to be acceptible which cannot happen. you are not entitled to be able to get an abortion on demand in this country. your choice to get an abortion is respected, you will just have to go to the uk and pay for it. my choice not to pay for your abortion is respected, so we both win. it's nothing to do with the morls of others, but the morals of the republic.
    Triceratops Ballet wrote: »
    What boogeyman have "the pro choice abortionists" created?

    plenty. those of us against abortion on demand have been accused of wanting to punish women, accused of wanting them to be locked up in the laundries, accused of lots more. it's shameful.
    Triceratops Ballet wrote: »
    No it is A moral stance not THE moral srance, you're confusing moral and legal here.The 8th amendment was not put in place by the founders of the state. It was decided upon 34 years ago, and can be changed by the will of the people.

    it is the moral stance. abortion on demand is not a right, it's a luxury that you can avail of elsewhere and isn't needed in ireland. abortion for extreme circumstances such as where the life of the mother is at threat of being lost is availible, and i have no problem with that because someone's life is genuinely at stake.
    the 8th was implemented because it was obvious that it wasn't practical to stop people from traveling to seek an abortion.
    Triceratops Ballet wrote: »
    Are you saying then that if abortion becomes widely available here that you'll support that, as a republican who believes in the laws of our land?

    no i will never support or respect abortion on demand in this country, and as i said, i hope it's implementation will be made very very difficult.

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • #860
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • #861
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,912 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    end of the road wrote: »
    ireland has to place equal value on all otherwise it would allow for forms of discrimination to be acceptible which cannot happen. you are not entitled to be able to get an abortion on demand in this country. your choice to get an abortion is respected, you will just have to go to the uk and pay for it. my choice not to pay for your abortion is respected, so we both win. it's nothing to do with the morls of others, but the morals of the republic.



    plenty. those of us against abortion on demand have been accused of wanting to punish women, accused of wanting them to be locked up in the laundries, accused of lots more. it's shameful.



    it is the moral stance. abortion on demand is not a right, it's a luxury that you can avail of elsewhere and isn't needed in ireland. abortion for extreme circumstances such as where the life of the mother is at threat of being lost is availible, and i have no problem with that because someone's life is genuinely at stake.
    the 8th was implemented because it was obvious that it wasn't practical to stop people from traveling to seek an abortion.



    no i will never support or respect abortion on demand in this country, and as i said, i hope it's implementation will be made very very difficult.

    so if the 8th is repealed and abortion is allowed via legislation you wont respect the law of the land? your republicanism seems to be shaky at best.


  • Advertisement
  • #862
    A Little Pony
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,875 ✭✭✭A Little Pony


    WhiteRoses wrote: »
    A Little Pony wrote: »
    You believe in pro choice, fine but do you believe in a timeline, should it be illegal after a certain amount of weeks? What is the view of people here on the timeline issue or should it just be abortion on demand?

    We've gone over this about 45 times already.
    It's not very clear at all. For example what is the question or questions on the ballot paper in this vote next year? The question/s is as important as the vote itself, it almost dictates the result.


  • #863
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,494 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    WhiteRoses wrote: »
    If someone wants to have an abortion, particularly in the case of disability, they should be able to have one. Who are you or I to stop them?

    we have every right to be able to stop them in this country as allowing abortion on demand goes against this country and it's stance on protection of life. we also as tax payers have a right not to be expected to pay for it when treatments for actual issues are going unfunded or partly funded, something which abortion on demand will only make worse. the fact is you don't have the right to have an abortion on demand in ireland and it's not my job to pay for it.
    WhiteRoses wrote: »
    We've gone over this about 45 times already.

    it's never been answered though

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • #864
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,494 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    ....... wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.


    if you get enough support. you may not get enough support. this is not going to be the gay marriage referendum over again. most people agree with gay marriage, a lot of people don't agree with abortion on demand.
    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    so if the 8th is repealed and abortion is allowed via legislation you wont respect the law of the land? your republicanism seems to be shaky at best.

    my republicanism is firm. abortion on demand has no place in ireland.

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • #865
    gctest50
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,597 ✭✭✭gctest50


    A Little Pony wrote: »
    You believe in pro choice, fine but do you believe in a timeline, should it be illegal after a certain amount of weeks? .........

    It should be between a woman and her doctor

    Do you not "trust" women ?
    Not "trust" her doctor ?

    No criminal law restricting abortion at all

    Restrictive laws don't equal lower rates


  • #866
    A Little Pony
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,875 ✭✭✭A Little Pony


    gctest50 wrote: »
    A Little Pony wrote: »
    You believe in pro choice, fine but do you believe in a timeline, should it be illegal after a certain amount of weeks? .........

    It should be between a woman and her doctor

    Do you not  "trust" women ?
    Not "trust" her doctor ?

    No criminal law restricting abortion at all

    Restrictive laws don't equal lower rates
    At least you are honest, I can respect and fundamentally disagree. I don't think the pro choice side looks that united on this going by this thread. Seems a bit all over the place actually. I don't see how you can argue for on demand being perfectly legal while your friends next to you have time limits at the same time, it makes no sense.


  • #867
    January
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,862 ✭✭✭✭January


    A Little Pony wrote: »
    It's not very clear at all. For example what is the question or questions on the ballot paper in this vote next year? The question/s is as important as the vote itself, it almost dictates the result.

    We don't know yet, the Joint Oireacthas Committee on the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution meet every Wednesday to discuss the findings of the Citizens Assembly. They are who will decide what wording the referendum should have and it will have to be passed by the government anyway. We possibly won't find out for a while yet what the wording of the referendum will be.


  • #868
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,912 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    end of the road wrote: »
    if you get enough support. you may not get enough support. this is not going to be the gay marriage referendum over again. most people agree with gay marriage, a lot of people don't agree with abortion on demand.



    my republicanism is firm. abortion on demand has no place in ireland.


    but if it was introduced you said you wouldn't respect the law. that makes you a hypocrite.


  • #869
    January
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,862 ✭✭✭✭January


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    but if it was introduced you said you wouldn't respect the law. that makes you a hypocrite.

    We've established that about end of the road way back at the beginning of this thread and in the abortion stories thread too.


  • #870
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,912 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    January wrote: »
    We've established that about end of the road way back at the beginning of this thread and in the abortion stories thread too.


    I know. i just like saying it. :)


  • Advertisement
  • #871
    A Little Pony
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,875 ✭✭✭A Little Pony


    January wrote: »
    A Little Pony wrote: »
    It's not very clear at all. For example what is the question or questions on the ballot paper in this vote next year? The question/s is as important as the vote itself, it almost dictates the result.

    We don't know yet, the Joint Oireacthas Committee on the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution meet every Wednesday to discuss the findings of the Citizens Assembly. They are who will decide what wording the referendum should have and it will have to be passed by the government anyway. We possibly won't find out for a while yet what the wording of the referendum will be.
    Do we know if that committee is fairly represented and not a hatchet job?


Advertisement