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…3738404243

Comments

  • #1172
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,644 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    end of the road wrote: »
    we are not outsourcing abortion. never have been. The Attorney General had to enforce the law at the time as the state had a duty to protect the life of the unborn at any cost.

    Yes, I know.

    So we changed the law to stop him doing that.

    To allow thousands of women to travel to the UK every year and murder their babies.

    So yes, we are indeed outsourcing our abortion on demand services to England. 14 years in jail if you do it here, perfectly legal to book an appointment in London, fly over and back, post about it on Facebook if you like.


  • #1173
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,735 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Eh no I do not, that is a wanton complete dodge from you now.

    I wanted you to MOMENTARILY step out of the abortion debate and consider the GENERAL point I am making.

    Then, having understood the GENERAL point to then step back into the abortion debate and apply that general point there.

    The GENERAL point being that you do not have 100% choice anywhere in life. The moment your rights to do some X impact the rights of another entity for whom we have moral and ethical concerns, your rights get curtailed.

    So, specifically in the context of abortion, I feel similarly a woman's rights to do what she wants with a fetus inside her stop being 100% the moment that fetus becomes a sentient entity to whom we similarly have moral and ethical concerns.

    Nothing "stupid" about that.


    I've already considered the point you're trying to make, and your analogy doesn't change anything about the point that the moral and ethical concerns you concern yourself with, are entirety from your own perspective, as opposed to the perspective of women who are pregnant who actually require that they be able to make the choice on their terms, not yours.

    Any argument you make from your perspective, will be completely irrelevant to anyone who isn't you, and when the person who isn't you is a woman who seeks to terminate her pregnancy - once she is beyond the point which you are arguing is where your moral and ethical concern kicks in, then she no longer has any choice but to remain pregnant and give birth.

    It's like a pro-life organisation running a fake abortion clinic, where a woman goes in expecting to be able to avail of a termination of her pregnancy, only to be told you're now more concerned with the foetus, and her rights are of secondary concern.

    It's disingenuous at best to say one is pro-choice, when the reality of their position means that they would allow only for a woman to avail of a termination of her pregnancy not according to her choice at all, but rather according to the choice they make for her.

    That's the kind of nonsense that serves absolutely no purpose other than to introduce more half-measures, and really doesn't alleviate any concerns that either pregnant women nor the medical profession will have to be concerned about making sure they don't fall foul of it.

    If we are to have a referendum on the issue, then it would be best to either go all-in, or just don't bother, because what use is legislation that enforces a time limit when there is a time limit inherent in the pregnancy itself? I expect that's what we'll end up with though, which will still see women travel abroad rather than take the risk of going to a fake abortion clinic that pretends to support her, but is more interested in making her pregnancy all about themselves?

    Playing God with peoples lives really, that's all that is as far as I can see.


  • #1174
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,644 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    end of the road wrote: »
    awe don't simply value life based on sentience alone. the unborn is living.

    So is my appendix.


  • #1175
    Outlaw Pete
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,423 ✭✭✭✭Outlaw Pete


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Yes. Thank you. It grows INTO a human being. So therefore, by your own wording here, we agree it is NOT ONE NOW.

    Thank you for making my point for me.

    Good man, nozz, yet again you managed to tie someone's shoelaces together and watch them fall over.

    Well done, enjoy the backslaps...... now back to reality:

    A embryo/fetus is a human being. That's an indisputable scientific fact.

    What you mean is that at certain stages of gestation a fetus is not a human person.... which is a much different matter altogether. Where does personhood begin is more a philosophical question than a factual one, no matter how much, and how often, you claim otherwise. Even on that point mind, you couldn't be more wrong with regards the timeline you assert we're 'safe' to abort at.
    My argument is that the life of a fetus, which is a life, is not a "human life" in terms of personhood. And you acknowledge that yourself when you clearly say "an unborn life grows into a human being.".

    It's life but but not 'human' life?? Ha. So what species does the lifeform belong to so, nozz?
    Ex. Act. Ly. You got it now!

    You're in no position to be condescending to anyone given some of the nonsense you're posting.


  • #1176
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,537 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Well yes, you did, your words were my position/point exactly. How is that NOT making my point for me? "an unborn life grows into a human being." is exactly my position on this subject!!! The inference there though is that if it grows into one, then that means it is not one now. Simples.

    well no, i didn't. my words aren't your position/point. an unborn life is a human being. it grows into a human person, but it is a human being from the minute it begins. your position is that if it isn't sentient then it's not a human being.
    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Sure, I am happy to acknowledge what the current laws and situations are, or are not.

    But that is different to the conversation I have been having which is about what I feel the situation SHOULD be. Not what it currently IS.

    The latter conversation is one boards.ie has better speakers on. I shall defer to them.

    you do that, but they have been effectively saying what i have been saying. i have given exactly what i believe the situation should be. you not agreeing with it doesn't make what is being said in opposition invalid. because it's not invalid unlike some of what you have posted, which does not work in terms of the abortion debate, given that life isn't simply valued on 1 word or circumstance.
    WhiteRoses wrote: »
    You can't make the point of abortion not being ok because we judge a society on how we treat out disabled citizens, therefore it is wrong, and then in your next post say you are not responsible for and don't agree with how society behaves.

    You also just acknowledged that you don't operate in the same way as society, as a whole, may operate on an issue.
    That is exactly the argument the choice side is making. We appreciate that we don't all operate the same on an issue, and have different opinions and circumstances, therefore we want to allow women of this country to make their own choice.

    You don't half continuously contradict yourself.

    i have never contradicted myself in my years on this site.
    women already do have the choice to abort on demand if they so wish. they aren't able to do it here apart from extreme circumstances but ultimately they do have the choice to do it should they wish to do so by going abroad. they are not being legally prevented from going abroad to procure abortion on demand.
    that includes those who may not have the means to afford it, they aren't been legally prevented from procuring abortion on demand abroad, and aren't being prevented legally from making the choice. they don't have the means to go abroad, but abortion on demand being availible in ireland won't help them, unless it's subsidized in some form by the tax payer, which in my opinion would really not be the best use of funds, given we have pressing issues that need funding. if their life is under threat, they can have an abortion in this country. if their unborn baby is sadly going to die anyway, i believe abortion in ireland isn't currently open to them in ireland, i would agree that it should be. but any of the major issues that exist due to the 8th do not need abortion on demand to solve them .

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



  • Advertisement
  • #1177
    kylith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,741 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    end of the road wrote: »

    it's not being voided as you can ultimately change that situation. but the state does ultimately have a duty to try and protect the life of the unborn so a balance will be struck, that has to happen for the greater good. if there are other unforseen issues then they can be dealt with but we don't need abortion on demand to strike a better fairer balance for those who feel the current balance is unfair.
    It is voided. In this country I lose my bodily autonomy the moment I become pregnant. I cannot change that situation without travelling outside Ireland. If I cannot travel outside Ireland I continue to have my right to bodily autonomy denied.


  • #1178
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,367 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    I've already considered the point you're trying to make, and your analogy doesn't change anything about the point that the moral and ethical concerns you concern yourself with, are entirety from your own perspective, as opposed to the perspective of women who are pregnant who actually require that they be able to make the choice on their terms, not yours.

    Except it does consider things from their perspective. Because my position on abortion is to give women as much choice at any given time as is humanly possible without impinging on the rights of anyone else.

    Which is, you might notice, the same policy I have in ALL areas of my life and I am not seeing any rebuttal to it coming from you other than this "I have considered it and nah" non-response you are essentially offering it here.

    This "perspective" diatribe does not address a thing I am saying. From my perspective a human adult should not murder another human adult. Should I be considering there too that "my perspective will be completely irrelevant to anyone who isn't me" too? Should I be considering the perspective of the would be murdered too? What nonsense are you spewing.

    Again the point is simple. Every person has rights. I think they attain those rights at the moment they attain sentience. Including a right to life. Every persons rights are free until the point they impinge on the rights of another person. Once THAT happens their rights need to be curtailed in some way.

    The problem with YOUR approach to allowing them to terminate the pregnancy at ANY point is that you are never clear, even when asked, what that means or entails at any given time. Let us say 32 weeks for example. What options in your mind SHOULD be available to the woman not wanting to be pregnant at that point? And what are / would be the implications for the aborted pregnancy at that point? Mere removal? Death? Up to what point in your mind should such a woman be allowed to choose a procedure that will, or even intends to, kill the thing inside her?

    These are all things that need to be clear in a "terminate it at any time" argument. What does it mean for her, what does it mean exactly for the fetus/baby.
    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    It's disingenuous at best to say one is pro-choice, when the reality of their position means that they would allow only for a woman to avail of a termination of her pregnancy not according to her choice at all, but rather according to the choice they make for her.

    So it is disingenuous because YOU have decided what "pro choice" means, choosing a meaning for it that differs from the people who actually identify the term? Hardly. You are pedantically equivocating over linguistics by distorting the meaning of the label they identify with, rather than considering the actual position they are putting that label on. Dodge city, once again.
    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    That's the kind of nonsense that serves absolutely no purpose other than to introduce more half-measures

    Hardly a "half measure". More like a 98% measure. The near vast TOTALITY of abortions that are sought purely on the grounds of choice are sought and attained around the world in or before week 16.

    Offering a CHOICE to women, that accounts for the choice the vast majority of them actually seek, is hardly a "half" measure. It is a measure that serves and deals with the near totality of the people who actually choose to seek an abortion.

    You have a funny definition of "half" that varies wildly from my own.


  • #1179
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,367 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Oh good, another user who ignores my posts to them, but replies to my posts to others instead.
    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    Good man, nozz, yet again you managed to tie someone's shoelaces together and watch them fall over.

    Or perhaps I am celebrating common ground and the fact someone is slowly seeing the point, despite their being very obtuse about it so far. That is progress, and progress worth celebrating.

    The fact is that you can not be "x" and be becoming "x" at the same time. Zou are either "x" or you are not "x".

    So if someone acknowledges a fetus is growing INTO a human life, than said person is also acknowledging that said fetus is not human life now.
    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    A embryo/fetus is a human being. That's an indisputable scientific fact.

    Biologically yes, no one I have ever met or read or seen so far has denied that even once. But despite it being explained to you many times, over many threads, the phrase "human life" has a biological meaning in taxonomy........ and a philosophical meaning in terms of "person hood". So many times in fact that how you can not see when I say the fetus is not a human life, which context I am referring to, is really anyone's guess. I know what my guess is though.

    Being the former does not automatically make you the latter. And it is not being the latter that means there is no moral or ethical concern around abortion of it.
    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    Where does personhood begin is more a philosophical question than a factual one, no matter how much, and how often, you claim otherwise.

    Where have I ONCE claimed otherwise? Quote me. Cite me. Point me to the words where I did it. When you fail to find them though, I trust you will be honest enough to come back and retract your nonsense misrepresentation of me.

    No, I have actually said your words myself MANY times. That there is a difference between being human in taxonomy, and being a human being philosophically in terms of personhood. So many times I can not even believe you are pretending otherwise at this moment.

    And what I have done is presented, at some length and repetition, the exact philosophical arguments where and why I think personhood arises. In response you have offered..... what..... nothing that boils down to more than "oooo it has ikkle fingers and toes and a tongue that moves"?
    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    Even on that point mind, you couldn't be more wrong with regards the timeline you assert we're 'safe' to abort at.
    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    You're in no position to be condescending to anyone given some of the nonsense you're posting.

    Ah back to your old MO of declaring me to be "wrong" or "nonsense" without a single argument as to how or where. Do you honestly believe shouting "wrong" and "nonsense" at someone enough times will magically make it so?`

    WHAT is wrong exactly? WHAT is nonsense exactly? And WHY is it wrong and nonsense exactly? Just because you declare it to be so? Go back over all my posts to you and you will never find me simply telling you you are wrong, but you will always find me explaining how and why I think you are wrong.

    Perhaps afford me the same courtesy and level of decorum if you can.


  • #1180
    JupiterKid
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 13,693 Mod ✭✭✭✭JupiterKid


    Probably hundreds of Irish women are already travelling to the UK to terminate foetuses with severe Downs or Spina Bifida or other significant health/genetic problems.

    So the question by the OP is somewhat academic. I suppose the pro-lifers would rather have them arrested and detained at the airport and forced to carry their unwanted pregnancies to term.

    I seriously despair at this country at times. We think we are in the 21st century but at times we are very, very far from it.


  • #1181
    Outlaw Pete
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,423 ✭✭✭✭Outlaw Pete


    kylith wrote: »
    In this country I lose my bodily autonomy the moment I become pregnant.

    You wouldn't have full body autonomy in the UK either:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/12057229/Woman-who-took-poison-to-terminate-pregnancy-jailed.html

    And you wouldn't want it. It's just the feminist line which only serves to make the discussion even more divisive than it already is.

    This is all about having abortion available to women at certain stages of their pregnancy, differing only when there's a life risk or when there's a ffa involved. So why not argue your case on that then. When do YOU believe human personhood begins for example? And surely you wouldn't want it legal for women to be able to procure an elective abortion at that stage, would you?

    Also, do you believe that just because a baby has DS it should be legal to abort them at a later stage than other prenates?


  • Advertisement
  • #1182
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,537 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Again the point is simple. Every person has rights. I think they attain those rights at the moment they attain sentience. Including a right to life.

    but life isn't simply valued on sentience alone. that's the reality, so therefore ultimately rights need to include those who are going to become sentient.
    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    So it is disingenuous because YOU have decided what "pro choice" means, choosing a meaning for it that differs from the people who actually identify the term? Hardly. You are pedantically equivocating over linguistics by distorting the meaning of the label they identify with, rather than considering the actual position they are putting that label on. Dodge city, once again.

    not at all. the definition of pro-choice is that someone has a choice, full stop. if you are pro-choice, you have to be able to be willing to allow the woman to abort without a time limit. otherwise you are only partly pro-choice, given that you want to ultimately impose limits on when the woman can abort. so essentially, she only has a choice within limits, meaning she really doesn't have that much of a choice.
    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    The fact is that you can not be "x" and be becoming "x" at the same time. Zou are either "x" or you are not "x".

    So if someone acknowledges a fetus is growing INTO a human life, than said person is also acknowledging that said fetus is not human life now.

    except that never happened. the unborn is human life, it is a human being. it's not a fully developed person, but developing into a person. so we have not reached any common ground.
    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Biologically yes, no one I have ever met or read or seen so far has denied that even once. But despite it being explained to you many times, over many threads, the phrase "human life" has a biological meaning in taxonomy........ and a philosophical meaning in terms of "person hood". So many times in fact that how you can not see when I say the fetus is not a human life, which context I am referring to, is really anyone's guess. I know what my guess is though.

    Being the former does not automatically make you the latter. And it is not being the latter that means there is no moral or ethical concern around abortion of it.

    it is a human life, therefore bar extreme circumstances it is moraly and ethically wrong to abort it.

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



  • #1183
    Triceratops Ballet
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,894 ✭✭✭Triceratops Ballet


    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    You wouldn't have full body autonomy in the UK either:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/12057229/Woman-who-took-poison-to-terminate-pregnancy-jailed.html

    And you wouldn't want it. It's just the feminist line which only serves to make the discussion even more divisive than it already is.

    But we're not in the UK so what is available to women there is irrelevant.

    Out of interest why so you think women in Ireland wouldn't want bodily autonomy?


  • #1184
    rainbow kirby
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,928 ✭✭✭✭rainbow kirby


    You have a lot more options in the UK in terms of screening, prenatal care and birthing places and choices. Might not be perfect but in my experience (I'm 28 weeks with my 2nd baby in London) it is outright better for women than what's on offer in Ireland.

    How about listening to what women actually want for once?


  • #1185
    swampgas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,617 ✭✭✭swampgas


    end of the road wrote: »
    but life isn't simply valued on sentience alone. that's the reality, so therefore ultimately rights need to include those who are going to become sentient.

    And what about the pregnant woman, who is already fully sentient? What about her rights?
    it is a human life, therefore bar extreme circumstances it is moraly and ethically wrong to abort it.

    Do you not consider forcing a woman through a pregnancy she really does not want to be extreme enough though? What about forcing a woman to endure a pregnancy for an FFA, or for a baby that will be severely disabled?

    Why don't you seem to be concerned about the women? Why is it all about the foetus? Do you really think pregnant women who don't want to be pregnant should all just shut up, accept their lot and get on with it?


  • #1186
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,048 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • #1187
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,048 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • #1188
    uptherebels
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,083 ✭✭✭uptherebels


    end of the road wrote: »
    we are not outsourcing abortion. never have been.

    What do you understand outsourcing to mean?


  • #1189
    Outlaw Pete
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,423 ✭✭✭✭Outlaw Pete


    Triceratops Ballet wrote: »
    But we're not in the UK so what is available to women there is irrelevant.

    Eh, hello... the user said she would have to leave the country to get full bodily integrity.

    The UK and Holland tend to be where women from Ireland go for elective abortions.

    Just pointing out that those countries don't give pregnant women full bodily integrity either.


  • #1190
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,537 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    swampgas wrote: »
    And what about the pregnant woman, who is already fully sentient? What about her rights?

    her rights are being upheld for the most part.
    swampgas wrote: »
    Do you not consider forcing a woman through a pregnancy she does really does not want to be extreme enough though?

    i'm not forcing anyone to be anything. nobody is ultimately forced to remain pregnant. there are circumstances where some can't go abroad but that's down to their means (which can't be helped) but isn't ultimately stopping them legally from going abroad, or not having the right documentation (which, one doesn't have the right to travel anywhere without correct documentation) . both are not reasons for abortion on demand to be availible in ireland. there are in my view no good reasons for abortion on demand to be availible in ireland. there are reasons for abortion in extreme circumstances to be availible which aren't covered by the current law, and they should be availible, but abortion on demand isn't needed.
    swampgas wrote: »
    What about forcing a woman to endure a pregancy for an FFA, or for a baby that will be severely disabled?

    FFA sould come under the abortion in extreme circumstances law which already exist.
    swampgas wrote: »
    Why don't you seem to be concerned about the women? Why is it all about the foetus? Do you really think pregnant women who don't want to be pregnant should all just shut up, accept their lot and get on with it?

    i already said i'm concerned about all. however i am satisfied that there are remedies for the major issues without having abortion on demand.

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



  • #1191
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    end of the road wrote: »
    her rights are being upheld for the most part.

    Her rights should be upheld in full. End of.


  • Advertisement
  • #1192
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,048 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • #1193
    swampgas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,617 ✭✭✭swampgas


    end of the road wrote: »
    her rights are being upheld for the most part.
    "For the most part"? Very funny.
    i'm not forcing anyone to be anything. nobody is ultimately forced to remain pregnant. there are circumstances where some can't go abroad but that's down to their means (which can't be helped) but isn't ultimately stopping them legally from going abroad, or not having the right documentation (which, one doesn't have the right to travel anywhere without correct documentation) . both are not reasons for abortion on demand to be availible in ireland. there are in my view no good reasons for abortion on demand to be availible in ireland. there are reasons for abortion in extreme circumstances to be availible which aren't covered by the current law, and they should be availible, but abortion on demand isn't needed.
    Really? That's your answer? Go to the UK? It's a morally bankrupt argument. A pity Savita Halappanavar couldn't magic her hospital bed out of the country for a few hours, maybe she would still be alive today. But sorry, I forgot, her rights were being upheld "for the most part".
    i already said i'm concerned about all.
    Except you're not. You might as well be honest about it. Your position is to throw pregnant women under the bus rather than accept a situation where Irish women are having their abortions here in Ireland instead of in another country.
    however i am satisfied that there are remedies for the major issues without having abortion on demand.
    You might be satisfied, but you're in a very small minority.


  • #1194
    Triceratops Ballet
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,894 ✭✭✭Triceratops Ballet


    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    Eh, hello... the user said she would have to leave the country to get full bodily integrity.

    eh, hello....That's not an untrue statement


  • #1195
    kylith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,741 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    You wouldn't have full body autonomy in the UK either:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/12057229/Woman-who-took-poison-to-terminate-pregnancy-jailed.html
    What a sad case. That foetus was past the point of viability so could have been delivered early if she truly was depressive.
    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    And you wouldn't want it.
    How fúcking dare you tell me what I do and do not want. Do you want your rights over your own body taken away?
    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    It's just the feminist line which only serves to make the discussion even more divisive than it already is.
    Feminist is not a bad word. Women would be a lot worse off without feminism.
    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    This is all about having abortion available to women at certain stages of their pregnancy, differing only when there's a life risk or when there's a ffa involved. So why not argue your case on that then. When do YOU believe human personhood begins for example? And surely you wouldn't want it legal for women to be able to procure an elective abortion at that stage, would you?
    I believe that terminations should be able to be procured until viability.
    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    Also, do you believe that just because a baby has DS it should be legal to abort them at a later stage than other prenates?
    I believe that it should be allowable to terminate foetuses with profound disabilities at a later stage than other prenates. With advances this is getting earlier and earlier. Now it is possible to determine that a foetus likely has DS in the first trimester, and definitively in the second trimester.


  • #1196
    kylith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,741 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    Eh, hello... the user said she would have to leave the country to get full bodily integrity.

    The UK and Holland tend to be where women from Ireland go for elective abortions.

    Just pointing out that those countries don't give pregnant women full bodily integrity either.
    So, because other jurisdictions don't give full autonomy it's ok for Ireland to give less?
    end of the road wrote: »
    i'm not forcing anyone to be anything. nobody is ultimately forced to remain pregnant. there are circumstances where some can't go abroad but that's down to their means (which can't be helped) but isn't ultimately stopping them legally from going abroad,
    If someone can't go abroad, then they can't go abroad. If they cannot go abroad then they are stopped from going abroad. That is what words mean.

    "Joan can't afford to buy sweets, but there's nothing stopping her from buying sweets." Good grief :rolleyes:


  • #1197
    GreeBo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,466 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    end of the road wrote: »
    we are not causing poverty, and not everyone's anti-abortion on demand stance is based on religion, never mind some mythical "catholic guilt"
    So more children then you can afford and the state having to spend money looking after unwanted people doesnt cause or at the very least contribute to poverty?
    end of the road wrote: »
    whereas the pro-choicers are just making out those who don't agree with them to be bogeymen and horrible wicked people. you see, 2 can play that game. the point of posting the video was to remind us all that having ds doesn't always mean one barely being able to function. it's a reminder we all can do with now and again.
    If this is you playing the game, you suck at the game. People think those that refuse women the choice are horrible wicked people.
    end of the road wrote: »

    no . they wouldn't go away. people can terminate the pregnancy currently if they wish.
    Where is that again?
    end of the road wrote: »
    because that's not charity. it's allowing the taking of life, which this state does not believe to be acceptible.
    Incorrect. The line just happens to be in a different place than where the rest of believe it should be right now.
    end of the road wrote: »
    that human right is and always has been upheld. it's not a human right to be able to have abortion on demand however and nor should it be. abortion for medical reasons is availible in ireland and that is necessary.

    SO you have the right to have a child if you want one, but not the right to *not* have one if you *dont* want one?
    Thats a pretty specific "human right" wouldnt you say?


  • #1198
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,537 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    swampgas wrote: »
    A pity Savita Halappanavar couldn't magic her hospital bed out of the country for a few hours, maybe she would still be alive today.But sorry, I forgot, her rights were being upheld "for the most part".

    her case was a case which would have been covered by the abortion in extreme circumstances law, had it been availible. however her case is a bankrupt justification for abortion on demand.
    swampgas wrote: »
    Except you're not. You might as well be honest about it. Your position is to throw pregnant women under the bus

    not true. again this is more of the bogeyman nonsense that will ultimately lose the pro-abortion on demand supporters their argument on here.

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



  • #1199
    GreeBo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,466 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    end of the road wrote: »
    and their needs are being met.

    Can you share your stats that show 100% of women who want an abortion are getting it please?
    Otherwise, as I suspect, you are again speaking from the lower orifice.


  • #1200
    kylith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,741 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    end of the road wrote: »
    her case was a case which would have been covered by the abortion in extreme circumstances law, had it been availible. however her case is a bankrupt justification for abortion on demand.

    Her case is an example of how the 8th Amendment is bad for women and maternal healthcare.


  • Advertisement
  • #1201
    swampgas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,617 ✭✭✭swampgas


    end of the road wrote: »
    swampgas wrote: »
    Except you're not. You might as well be honest about it. Your position is to throw pregnant women under the bus
    not true. again this is more of the bogeyman nonsense that will ultimately lose the pro-abortion on demand supporters their argument on here.

    So what's your obsession with Irish women having abortions in a specific location? The end result is the same (except maybe the abortion might have happened earlier in Ireland).

    Why force women to travel, and why put women who cannot travel in a truly invidious position - maybe buying pills on-line, maybe trying something more drastic. The women who cannot travel really are being thrown under the bus. You might not like to hear that, but that's your position.


Advertisement