mrkiscool2 wrote: » "Hmmm, mrkiscool2 just made a good point. How to argue it? I know, let's completely be disingenuous and intellectually dishonest and make him look like an ass!" No, as I have said, I think abortion should be up to week 16, but week 12 is enough. A fetus is not life until at least week 17 and doesn't have more than a 50% survival rate until week 24. So, yeah, I absolutely think it's not a life until week 17, because science says it isn't. I put much more faith in science than people who think abortion is murder or believe in a mystical being that apparently loves us but allows people to suffer all the time.
splinter65 wrote: » If an unborn fetus is not a life at 40+ gestation then why not legalise abortions right up to term? It’s the same thing at 40+ weeks as 12 weeks then why are we even talking about 12 weeks? There’s far too much pussy footing going on about this. If it’s my womb my body my choice at 12 weeks then it’s still my body my womb my choice at 40 weeks. Any other suggestion is ridiculous, absolute nonsense . Just get on with it. Give women their rights. Abortions available no questions asked right up to term.
Consonata wrote: » I have a feeling you know your argument is a bit disingenuous. Obviously there is a stage where the baby is viable outside of the womb where it can then obviously be put up for adoption or what have you. It isn't abortion a jumble of cells, it is aborting a baby. The 12 week limit allows for 90% of abortions that do happen to happen. It is adequate.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » So, tell us, PROUDLY, why stilling the hearbeats of babies as they develop in the womb is still the right way to go about things, even when the mother's health and developing baby's health are not in any danger.
mrkiscool2 wrote: » So, one of the requirements for life is homeostasis. One of the parts of homeostasis is the carbon dioxide levels in the blood. You don't breath in due to lack of oxygen, you breath out due to excess carbon dioxide in the blood. Now, we do call this the respiratory system but it falls under homeostasis. A fetus, up until 17 weeks, does not have fully developed lungs. Therefore it cannot carry out one of the most important aspects of homeostasis therefore it cannot be classified as life. So a. calling it a baby isn't true, as it isn't a life. In fact, a baby is classified as from birth to 12 months, learn you words and b. as it's not life, it isn't killing. Hence, the referendum as it stands would not be killing, under any category of life.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » Tell us proudly why punishing a human baby as it's developing in the womb is still the right way to go about things! A developing baby who is a human being and through no fault of it's own is now at the mercy of another being who want's the right to be able to take thier life should they feel to not do so would inconvenience them. And don't come back with talk off ffa and rape. Enough with using the rare reasoning for why women choose to have an abortion as if it's one of the main reasons. Most of those against abortion demand, to the degree that it is in the UK, would have no issue with abortions being carried out here for reasons of ffa. Indeed many already are and I hear no complaint about it. So, tell us, PROUDLY, why stilling the hearbeats of babies as they develop in the womb is still the right way to go about things, even when the mother's health and developing baby's health are not in any danger.
sondagefaux wrote: » Of course it would be practical to check every woman leaving the state to see if they were pregnant. Pregnant women would be banned from leaving the state. You can campaign to amend the Constitution to permit this if you're genuinely bothered. If you characterise 'the unborn' as 'babies', regard abortion as killing babies but don't mind if women travel abroad to 'kill babies', that makes you weird. Or else you don't mind 'babies' being killed as long as it's done outside the state. Which is also weird. I get the feeling that you aren't really against abortion at all, just against abortions being carried out in . Very weird.
end of the road wrote: » again nobody is disagreeing with this. it is not being disputed. however, the state does have a right to tell us that we cannot take a life. that goes for both men and women
Zerbini Blewitt wrote: » .... tell us proudly - why punishing women for sex is still the right way to go about things.
end of the road wrote: » WhiteRoses wrote: » You have no right to dictate what I do with my womb. My body, my life, my choice. It may not be legal here (yet) but it wouldn’t stop me doing what I want with MY body if I deemed it to be necessary. again nobody is disagreeing with this. it is not being disputed. however, the state does have a right to tell us that we cannot take a life. that goes for both men and women. sondagefaux wrote: » Do you support a ban on pregnant women travelling outside the state to obtain abortions? If not, why not? It would be extremely weird if you genuinely thought that abortion was child murder but didn't support a travel ban. i don't support such a bann as i believe it isn't practical to enforce it, and people who aren't going abroad to procure an abortion would be effected.
WhiteRoses wrote: » You have no right to dictate what I do with my womb. My body, my life, my choice. It may not be legal here (yet) but it wouldn’t stop me doing what I want with MY body if I deemed it to be necessary.
sondagefaux wrote: » Do you support a ban on pregnant women travelling outside the state to obtain abortions? If not, why not? It would be extremely weird if you genuinely thought that abortion was child murder but didn't support a travel ban.
spookwoman wrote: » So its ok to just move it from one bad situation to another. That's going to help the child a lot, there are children being abused in care and nothing is being done about it!
spookwoman wrote: » Local hospital here hasn't enough beds in psychiatric wing for people to stay over night if they are having problems. Do you think it is acceptable to lock up a person for feeling suicidal because they don't want to be pregnant?
spookwoman wrote: » It wont solve the issues but it will take pressure off it and there would no chance of it being abused or neglected.
end of the road wrote: » killing it is worse, as a child born into bad circumstances can be removed from those circumstances, if the parents are unable to bring the child up.
end of the road wrote: » in the case of mental health we have systems in place, they need improving massively but they exist and are rife to be improved. in the case where a baby is a threat to the mother's life then there already is a facility to have an abortion.
end of the road wrote: » agreed but it's not a reason for abortion on demand, which would not solve those issues.
end of the road wrote: » spookwoman wrote: » Not when its not wanted, especially if it was conceived through rape incest. I don't know about you but to have a child that is not wanted, loved, born into poverty is worse. killing it is worse, as a child born into bad circumstances can be removed from those circumstances, if the parents are unable to bring the child up. spookwoman wrote: » I agree but also if you don't want a child its responsible to end it. You cannot expect others to pay for your mistakes especially if it's going to be dumped on other people to mind, not cared about, expecting the state to subsidize you and then complain about it not being enough. Also if you cannot afford to house, feed and clothe a child then you're being responsible if you end it it is not responsible to kill it. spookwoman wrote: » Necessary if it could be detrimental to your health / mental health. Again is it not worse to have a child that is not wanted, cannot afford to feed and clothe it. in the case of mental health we have systems in place, they need improving massively but they exist and are rife to be improved. in the case where a baby is a threat to the mother's life then there already is a facility to have an abortion. spookwoman wrote: » No its not I never said it was but the simple truth is the state does not have the resources. Again is being a responsible person to not put further pressure on a broken system. agreed, however not by killing the unborn. spookwoman wrote: » The systems in place are broken and there are not enough resources to fix it. even if there was it would take years to sort out. agreed but it's not a reason for abortion on demand, which would not solve those issues.
spookwoman wrote: » Not when its not wanted, especially if it was conceived through rape incest. I don't know about you but to have a child that is not wanted, loved, born into poverty is worse.
spookwoman wrote: » I agree but also if you don't want a child its responsible to end it. You cannot expect others to pay for your mistakes especially if it's going to be dumped on other people to mind, not cared about, expecting the state to subsidize you and then complain about it not being enough. Also if you cannot afford to house, feed and clothe a child then you're being responsible if you end it
spookwoman wrote: » Necessary if it could be detrimental to your health / mental health. Again is it not worse to have a child that is not wanted, cannot afford to feed and clothe it.
spookwoman wrote: » No its not I never said it was but the simple truth is the state does not have the resources. Again is being a responsible person to not put further pressure on a broken system.
spookwoman wrote: » The systems in place are broken and there are not enough resources to fix it. even if there was it would take years to sort out.
drkpower wrote: » Has anyone got any insight as to why the majority of the articulate pro-life side are staying remarkably quiet at the moment. The likes of maria steen, david quinn, william binchy, the one from spirit radio, even cora sherlock etc. Have barely heard a word for them while the referendum and the surrounding talking points are being framed. My instinct is/was that they are holding fire until the Gov confirms that it will be a straight repeal accompanied temporally with a bill allowing for unrestricted access to 12 weeks, at which point they will come out all guns blazing. But by staying relatively silent for now, they are in danger of allowing a narrative to develop amongst the middle ground that unrestricted aceess up to 12 weeks is a form of 'nothing to see here'. If that gains a foothold, it may be very difficult to reverse.
end of the road wrote: » there are systems in place to help. a baby who is killed cannot be brought back to life
end of the road wrote: » unfortunately there is always going to have to be some trade off in relation to some rights, and the right to life for the unborn verses the right to kill the unborn means the right to life of the unborn has to come first, as difficult for some as that may be.
end of the road wrote: » no, it's not the thinking for most pro-life. as i'm sure you know it takes 2 to make a baby, therefore both are responsible for it's creation.
end of the road wrote: » that's no different to anyone getting into debt for something that is unnecessary. as unfortunate as debt is, they are getting into it for what is an unnecessary medical procedure which they do not have a right to have caried out.
end of the road wrote: » abortion is not the solution to the problems of the care system. improving the care system is the solution to the problems of the care system. the idea that because a child service has a problem therefore we should allow the killing of the unborn just does not work.
Da Boss wrote: » A lot of people here seem to be of the opinion that abortion is a “right”. It’s not! Nobody has the right to end the life of another
....... wrote: » This post has been deleted.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » but sure it is their own fault for getting pregnant and being poor in the first place. Or so the thinking seems to be.
kylith wrote: » Or to put themselves into debt travelling to the UK.
spookwoman wrote: » Also you hear about the horror stories of children in the irish care system. I wonder how many would be there if women could have had easy access to abortions.
January wrote: » It's not a right but it should be a choice. What about the life of the mother, or her already born children?
mrkiscool2 wrote: » Oh my glob, it absolutely does! If there are less children up for adoption, it makes sense that there would be less children in care!
mrkiscool2 wrote: » If your bias can't make you see that simple logic, then there is absolutely no hope for you. You've been proven wrong, GTF over it.
mrkiscool2 wrote: » By the way, I searched "Does abortion affect the number of children in foster care?" and that was the first non-ad result to come up. So get out of here trying to say I am not doing due diligence. Such intellectual dishonesty and poisoning the well, typical of anti-choicers.
Martina1991 wrote: » Are you of the opinion that the state should tell a women what to do with her body.
Martina1991 wrote: » Nobody has the right to tell someone else what to do in their life.
One eyed Jack wrote: » That wasn't the original claim at all though. The original claim had nothing to do with adoption, it related to the numbers of children in care if we had or hadn't abortion in Ireland, and I said there was simply no way of knowing whether it would make any difference, but the evidence from other countries suggests that it doesn't. As for the rest of your post I think you really need to sit down or something. You've already called me a liar and you're still suggesting I'm an "anti-choicer" in spite of all evidence to the contrary. Sure this thread is going nowhere at this stage, I should have known better than to have bothered getting involved again. I'll leave yiz to it.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Will you give over with the weasel wording. I don't believe for a minute you don't know that I was referring to the fact that I carried out my research without bias.
One eyed Jack wrote: » The fact that the 8th amendment has saved lives is self-evident in that it places an obligation on the State to protect as far as is practicable the equal right to life of the unborn. Without the obligation placed on the State by the 8th amendment, well, the State simply doesn't have that obligation!
Da Boss wrote: A lot of people here seem to be of the opinion that abortion is a “rightâ€. It’s not! Nobody has the right to end the life of another
