volchitsa wrote: » How can you steal from a dead person? It's not like they are going to donate their organs to their next of kin instead.
volchitsa wrote: » In fact the forced use of someone's organs while they are still alive is a well known analogy for pregnancy (the "famous violinist" thought experiment), one which I've not seen convincingly debunked. After all, pregnancy does put a huge strain on a woman's organs, so she is temporarily donating the use of her organs. Which is why her ongoing consent is needed, IMO.
volchitsa wrote: » Any evidence on this? I'd bet the exact opposite, and moreover I'm fairly sure I can provide more examples relative to population size, of the most unbelievable abuse of vulnerable children and adults being condoned in Ireland than in the UK. Have you forgotten the "Grace" episode already?
Hannibal_Smith wrote: » Half? Where do you get your stats from?
end of the road wrote: » it's still their organs. theft is theft. they didn't give permission to take, therefore theft has taken place. the unborn via having the right to life are automatically entitled to the support they need to survive so consent isn't needed in that instence. i have no doubt pregnancy puts a strain on a woman's organs but until such time as artificial hosts are the norm in hosting the baby then ultimately the mother is doing a good thing by hosting the unborn, the majority of who will become future contributers to society. i haven't forgotten grace at all, i never stated abuses didn't happen. i'd be the first to call out anyone who would deny abuses don't take place.
Da Boss wrote: » Yes that however doesn’t mean men shouldn’t have a say, this does affect men too as I previously highlighted!!! If took time to read what I typed I would not have to repeat the fact that the eighth does indeed affect men as even I myself was an “accident “ and I thank the eighth because without it I would not be here today!! That’s the importance of it in my life!
Da Boss wrote: » I’m forcing no woman to be pregnant, play safe in the bed and there will be no problems, if a woman chooses not to, she must suffer the consequences. There is alternatives to abortion that don’t end life, it’s my belief these options should be explored and utilized
Da Boss wrote: » Well I ask this question- if abortion is available in Ireland why bother with a condom and just have the real deal! Sher you could just go get an abortion, no big deal. I ASK ALL CONSIDERING VOTING PRO CHOICE, IS THIS THE IRELAND YOU WANT???
end of the road wrote: » because an opt out system effectively means the theft of organs. if people want to donate good on them but it should be up to the person to make that decisian not the state. but that's for another thread i guess.
end of the road wrote: » it's still their organs. theft is theft. they didn't give permission to take, therefore theft has taken place.
end of the road wrote: » the unborn via having the right to life are automatically entitled to the support they need to survive so consent isn't needed in that instence. i have no doubt pregnancy puts a strain on a woman's organs but until such time as artificial hosts are the norm in hosting the baby then ultimately the mother is doing a good thing by hosting the unborn, the majority of who will become future contributers to society.
volchitsa wrote: » Bit of an aside there, but whatever. As long as you don't think what happens after your death is relevant to pregnancy. Especially since you omit the fact that in countries where this is the norm, the family can generally (always?) oppose this if they feel strongly enough.
Okay. No idea what your point is, other than a quick rerun of the current legal situation, which I think we're all aware of already. But perhaps I've missed something as I'm also doing other stuff here, preparing for kids going back to school and college tomorrow. If so I'm sure you'll let me know.
Which is why the notion that this country considers the unborn to be the equal of a born person in terms of rights is a thin fiction. The idea that one could openly and legally take a child abroad to harm it, never mind kill it, is inconceivable.
Yet not even the most pro-lifey of pro-lifers is prepared to stand up in public and say we should remove the the 13th and 14th amendments, never mind that we should try women for procuring illegal or legal abortions. I don't know whether they mostly don't believe their own claims about what the unborn is, or whether they're being sneaky about where they would really like to see our legislation ending up.
Well, as I say, it is legal for me to organize it all here, as long as i travel a few miles to carry it out. Which makes abortion more comparable to pot smoking than to harming children, yet the claim that it is indeed child-killing is the basis for the ban in the first place. A bit illogical to argue both sides of that coin at the same time I suspect.
This is not true, the Minister for Health confirmed not long ago that women needing health care including counseling after an abortion abroad were entitled to avail of it just like after a miscarriage.
That seems to be some sort of crack at me, but I've no idea why.
end of the road wrote: » i haven't forgotten grace at all, i never stated abuses didn't happen. i'd be the first to call out anyone who would deny abuses don't take place.
end of the road wrote: both our opinions are equally important. the issue here is that my statement in relation to the unborn isn't simply an opinion, but an actual fact in this country. the reason we have such laws is that we recognise the right to life to be almost absolute so therefore we include the unborn within that as we recognise their right to life to be important. changing that means long term we devalue life as a whole, as shown from britain for example where life is slowly but surely being devalued.
Da Boss wrote: Well I ask this question- if abortion is available in Ireland why bother with a condom and just have the real deal! Sher you could just go get an abortion, no big deal. I ASK ALL CONSIDERING VOTING PRO CHOICE, IS THIS THE IRELAND YOU WANT???
Deleted User wrote: » It is immoral to suggest that a woman has no right to refuse use of her organs, then.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » If you truly believed that then you would support abortion clinics being legally able to offer abortions at any stage of a pregnancy, even at 9 months. But I'm sure you have a caveat.
end of the road wrote: the unborn via having the right to life are automatically entitled to the support they need to survive so consent isn't needed in that instence. i have no doubt pregnancy puts a strain on a woman's organs but until such time as artificial hosts are the norm in hosting the baby then ultimately the mother is doing a good thing by hosting the unborn, the majority of who will become future contributers to society.
Bannasidhe wrote: » Jayzus - first women were compared to internal combustion engines and now it's hosts until an artificial alternative becomes available. You do realise you are talking about actual living, breathing, human beings here. Not 'hosts' but actual people who should own their bodies and decide if they wish to be a 'host' or not.
kylith wrote: » How does pregnancy affect men? Do they become incontinent? Do they suffer from pre-eclampsia? Do they have to go through labour? Please explain. And if the contraception fails, no contraceptive being 100% effective? What then? What consequences should the man face, him being 50% of this equation? He can just walk away. You have no idea of the physical reality of an abortion, do you? It's not a walk in the park by any means, even the MAP takes a huge physical toll. How can you steal from the dead? So, corpses get more say over what happens to their bodies than women do, and that's ok?
Deleted User wrote: » If I have kidney failure and you are a match, can you be forced to donate a kidney to save my life? It won't kill you, just put your body under a bit of strain. But you have the right to refuse, and ultimately let me die. But what about my right to life? It is immoral to suggest that a woman has no right to refuse use of her organs, then.
end of the road wrote: » of course i'm aware i'm talking about other human beings. i wasn't trying to state otherwise, however given the debate sometimes clynical terms such as host will be used. i will try to avoid using such terms where possible but sometimes it won't be avoidible. women do own their bodies however correctly, they cannot kill the unborn within the state and that is fair.
WhiteRoses wrote: » It isn’t fair on the woman or the child to force motherhood on her simply because she got caught out and her contraception failed. It’s a barbaric punishment and has NO ONES best interests at heart, least of all the child’s.
WhiteRoses wrote: » As has already been posted numerous times, the support in this country for struggling women and for children in the care system is an absolute disgrace. It is nowhere near good enough.
WhiteRoses wrote: » Women’s rights are currently diminished with the 8th in place. Women’s bodily autonomy is threatened. Maternity care is extremely limited because of the 8th. Women currently don’t have the right to consent or withhold consent for ANY procedure a doctor may decide to carry out on her. This is nothing to do with abortion - this is women going for scans/in labor etc. They have no say in their medical care. Which is an absolute monstrosity of a disgrace in the 21st century mordern Ireland.
pilly wrote: » A person dying for lack of a kidney has a right to life too but you're happy denying them that, Why?
frag420 wrote: » If any of you pro lifers found out your 12yr old sister was pregnant and wanted an abortion...what would you do to stop her going abroad? Say your mother agreed with your sister that an abortion was best...what would you do to stop it happening? Report them? Lock them in their room for 9 months? Other?
One eyed Jack wrote: » It wasn't an aside, I didn't introduce the whole kidney snatching in the first place, I just went with the bad analogy that bore no relation to reality already.
One eyed Jack wrote: » My point was that the State doesn't need a pregnant woman's consent to protect and vindicate the right to life of the unborn as far as is practicable.
One eyed Jack wrote: » But the State doesn't consider the unborn to be equal to a born person in terms of rights, it's just one right, the right to life, that the State considers the unborn has an equal right to as the right to life of the woman.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Don't be giving them ideas :pac: The basis for the ban isn't at all that it is considered child killing. It's that nobody has the right to take it upon themselves to kill the unborn in this country.
One eyed Jack wrote: » That's not what I was referring to. I was referring to the fact that if a woman takes it upon herself to either perform an abortion, or procures an abortion, or provides an abortion, she could face criminal charges.
One eyed Jack wrote: » I can't say I blame you for being cynical, but rest assured it was a compliment.
eviltwin wrote: » Good luck getting a coherent answer from anyone on that.
frag420 wrote: Lastly please excuse the childish name calling, I’m willing to take the punishment for this from the mods but I think I and the vast majority of people debating here are tired of the crap non sensical babble coming from some people and it’s time they were called out for the weak ball-less frauds that they are!!
frag420 wrote: » I know, I’ve tried before several times. EOTR has to wait for someone else to step in to answer for him before he attempts to answer! The reality is that people like Da Boss and EOTR are pussies and would not have the balls to even attempt to stop someone going abroad to have an abortion. They talk about how it’s impossible to stop all Irish women travelling, when it’s their own flesh and blood and within their own household they cant/won’t do anything because they don’t have the balls to do it for fear people would find out what they did. Proof they care more about what people think of them than they do about the potential babies they tell us they care about!!Lastly please excuse the childish name calling:pac:, I’m willing to take the punishment for this from the mods but I think I and the vast majority of people debating here are tired of the crap non sensical babble coming from some people and it’s time they were called out for the weak ball-less frauds that they are!!
applehunter wrote: »
Spanish Eyes wrote: » It really is such a pity that anti choicers do not argue for, support and demand funding for the little children that ARE born and have special needs. Disabled children have a tough time here. In the past whether disabled or not they were incarcerated and often done away with in the orphanages. Tuam for example. Surely it is much worse to end a living child's life like that. Now I know we have moved on a lot, but it is still not great here for kids with special needs is it? So who on the anti choice side is speaking for kids ALREADY BORN, you know those who were NOT aborted, and their parents have such a difficult time getting them the supports they need. That is a question that must be answered by them. All good and fine to be anti choice, but the consequences of that must be followed through and argued.
WhiteRoses wrote: » And what consequences are there for the man who lay with her? As a precious poster said, I presume you are in support of the man in question also going through a life limiting state for 9 months, unable to drink alcohol or smoke, a restricted diet and be unable to fly? What consequences do you propose be inflicted on the man? Contraception fails. It’s been explained to you again and again and you still don’t get it. Isn’t fool proof. It isn’t fair on the woman or the child to force motherhood on her simply because she got caught out and her contraception failed. It’s a barbaric punishment and has NO ONES best interests at heart, least of all the child’s. As has already been posted numerous times, the support in this country for struggling women and for children in the care system is an absolute disgrace. It is nowhere near good enough. Women’s rights are currently diminished with the 8th in place. Women’s bodily autonomy is threatened. Maternity care is extremely limited because of the 8th. Women currently don’t have the right to consent or withhold consent for ANY procedure a doctor may decide to carry out on her. This is nothing to do with abortion - this is women going for scans/in labor etc. They have no say in their medical care. Which is an absolute monstrosity of a disgrace in the 21st century mordern Ireland. On one hand, your posts are frightening, that you spew such vitriol and have such little regard for the rights of women. Women who could be your mother, sister, aunt, friend, wife. On the other hand you are doing nothing but showing the Pro-Birth side for what they are. You don’t even fully understand the implications of the 8th yet you continue to argue. It’s bizarre.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w8.vanillicon.com/v2/80e9a6343fda9bcab0fa728a3336d1dc.svg)
