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: » 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: » 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
sondagefaux wrote: » 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.
sondagefaux wrote: » 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 Ireland. Very weird.
spookwoman wrote: » Would agree with the 16 weeks not everything shows up in tests and access to tests in ireland can be a nightmare
WhiteRoses wrote: » Another contraction from yourself, how surprising.
WhiteRoses wrote: » How can you not see that forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy she does not want is denying her a right to bodily autonomy?
WhiteRoses wrote: » You just said in the same post that my right to control my womb is not being disputed, except for when I want to have an abortion. You aren’t half a hypocrite.
WhiteRoses wrote: » Another contraction from yourself, how surprising. How can you not see that forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy she does not want is denying her a right to bodily autonomy? You just said in the same post that my right to control my womb is not being disputed, except for when I want to have an abortion. You aren’t half a hypocrite.
splinter65 wrote: » The absolute hypocrisy. My body my choice for 40 weeks I say. I’m absolutely sick of being told what to do. Abortions for all right up to term. We should keep going till we get what we want, not only for ourselves, but but daughters and granddaughters . They have a right to bodily autonomy.
end of the road wrote: » how is it another contraction. because ultimately it isn't, as while she is carying the baby her decisian to abort will effect the right to life of the unborn baby. i'm no hypocrite. any of our rights are not disputed, apart from when we take the life of someone else. you can do what you like with your womb, you cannot take the life of your unborn baby. because the unborn baby is a separate entity.
splinter65 wrote: » What if I wanted a female and all the scans show it’s turned away and I can’t find out what it is and then eventually a 30 week scan shows it’s a male fetus ? I have 4 boys . I don’t want anymore. I’m getting rid.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » you should start a campaign on that basis.
splinter65 wrote: » Well I absolutely will. Surely it makes no sense whatsoever to tell women “here, here’s your bodily autonomy ! After all these years in the dark, step into the light and take control of your womb(but only for 12 weeks!!” What is this ? Cinderella! Really girls ? You outa be ashamed of yourselves!
Zerbini Blewitt wrote: » This is prompted from something on the politics forum thread (but isn’t appropriate to there) I was just thinking today about one formerly powerful section of the community who might find it hard nowadays to make their voice heard in this national debate. This would be the segment of people who think that women should be shamed and/or outcast and/or punished for engaging in recreational sex – i.e. the punishment being: to endure a pregnancy against her will. A fine upstanding stance, no? This cohort of ‘simple’, plain ‘decent’ people is not very audible at the moment. Why is that? For full disclosure - some of my close family members would be in this group, so I’m just thinking out loud! Anyway regrettably, these people seem to either half-heartedly argue some other tangential point or stay silent in this debate!! Could they be muted & cursed by the existence of a better educated electorate or maybe the age of enlightenment being hundreds of years ago! I just don’t know the reason for the silence when they were a deafening cacophony in decades past? If this is you, I for one want to hear your voice in this debate. Please Sir/Madam come thee out from the shadows, present yourself and tell us proudly - why punishing women for sex is still the right way to go about things.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » that was established a long time ago. they even admitted as much.
Zerbini Blewitt wrote: » I don’t believe you are the segment of voters I was posing my question to (although I can’t be sure). But putting this aside; I’m despondent to see that you still are pretending that a foetus (without even a foundation of a nervous system) is a baby. This has been thrashed out exhaustively by many here, not least nozz. But if you are still trying to mis-use words in order to smuggle in emotive energy into this debate (& yes, I know you’re focussed mainly on weeks 13-24 in the main), then there isn’t much hope for a rational exchange of ideas. They are not babies until they are born. We are talking about foetus’s (for the 14 millionth time). They are totally dependent and subservient to the host i.e. the woman. There is not a baby to consider. There is a woman and a developing embryo/foetus.
pitifulgod wrote: » It's possible to end a pregnancy and for the child to survive at 40+ weeks. So it's literally a matter of delivering at that stage. Not remotely viable at 12. You'll also find the vast majority of abortions that occur around 20 weeks are for 2 reasons, late abortion due to inaccessibility(economic or geographic) and for medical reasons. Most tend to occur at 12 weeks or earlier and I really don't see why it should be anyone's business outside of a woman and her doctors.
Loafing Oaf wrote: » I think they may have been blindsided by the prospect of a referendum asking upfront whether 'abortion on demand' should be legalised. I reckon they had stockpiled the old arguments about how it's impossible to legislate for limited abortion and the government is looking to introduce unrestricted access through the back door, but it seems these will be beside the point. If the referendum is along the lines proposed by the committee, there won't actually be that much debating to be done. The people either agree with unrestricted abortion or not...
Joeytheparrot wrote: » No. They were not blindsided at all. They are sitting back right now formulating their campaign.
end of the road wrote: » where did they admit it? .
WhiteRoses wrote: » So I can do what I want with my womb, except for when I am pregnant? Which is the whole point of this referendum?
WhiteRoses wrote: » It may be a separate entity but it cannot grow or survive without her. While it is inside her and depends on her to continue to grow it is part of her body. Her body which ultimately she should be in control of.
WhiteRoses wrote: » I really don’t understand how you don’t see you are contradicting yourself here. It’s blinding.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » why are you speaking about yourself in the third person?
end of the road wrote: » it is a life actually. it's not a person yet, but will be, and therefore it is still being killed given that it is a life.
