NaFirinne wrote: » How many of those people abstained from sex until married or in that partnership?
NuMarvel wrote: » In 2016, 49% of the Irish women who had abortions in Britain were married or in a civil partnership. So any kind of suggestion that making people marry would eliminate or reduce the incidence of abortion is completely unrealistic. (Aside from the fact that suggesting we should make people marry for any reason is itself preposterous.)
NaFirinne wrote: » To cut down the amount of unwanted babies yes. It's a start.
fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: » I'm afraid that the time has come.
eviltwin wrote: » Cause no married couples ever have abortions
WhiteRoses wrote: » So you are in favour of taking away free will from grown adults?
Delirium wrote: » just to be clear, you want to outlaw sex outside of marriage to avoid the requirement for abortion?
Gerry T wrote: » I haven't moved the goal post, if a woman needs an abortion because of risk to her life (physical or mental), then yes that in my book is a priority. But if a woman only wants an abortion and the father wants the child then she should be compelled to carry it and let the father have sole custody.
NuMarvel wrote: » I fail to see how any of this supports your argument that the father's wants should be a factor in a woman's decision. In fact, I notice you've completely cut the father out of the picture in your comments above. I think you need planning permission to move the goalposts that far.
WhiteRoses wrote: » Actually domestic adoption in this country is pretty much non existent, what we actually have is long term foster care. You can only adopt in Ireland after long term fostering, and unfortunately the care system is such a mess that by the time the child has been fostered long enough, the majority of children have social, emotional and behavioral issues and become very hard to place. Nobody wants to adopt them then. That’s why you’ll find the majority of parents looking to adopt do so internationally.
WhiteRoses wrote: » I believe the opinion/wants/needs of a living, breathing woman are far superior to that of a clump of cells that has potential to be human. I don’t feel forcing motherhood on someone is fair on the woman or the child.
WhiteRoses wrote: » What about women who don’t have a job? Or women who are experiencing domestic violence? Or women who can’t cope or afford any more children? I agree equality rights have improved in recent years but that’s not the issue here. The issue is that there simply isn’t enough support from the government to justify forcing a woman to stay pregnant.
WhiteRoses wrote: » Survival outside the womb has everything to do with it.
WhiteRoses wrote: » When it can survive outside the womb, the baby can be passed into state care/social services to be cared for by foster parents. In the early stages of pregnancy, removal of the baby will result in a termination, because the baby simply cannot survive without the woman. You are entitled to believe it is a child from the moment of conception but that doesn’t mean that you are right. Develop is a key word in your reply here - it can develop into a baby.
fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: » I would advise you to listen to me, as time is short.
Gerry T wrote: » When your pregnant your a guardian for another person, that responsibility carries a duty of care. If you want to "rename" that person as a lump of meat, fine, if that's how you reason putting the mothers wants above another persons needs fine. It doesn't change the face your arguing for a want above a need.
Gerry T wrote: » It was an example, and the childs needs are more important that the mothers wants. I do think if it came to endangering the mothers health, physically or mentally then that is a need and would in my opinion take priority over the babys.
Gerry T wrote: » Why does she have to rear it, if she doesn't want to she can put it up for adoption. There's a very long list of couples waiting for a baby to love and care for.
So you think the baby would prefer to be aborted than born and adopted.
The best interest of the child. There's that word again "want" the mother doesn't want to be pregnant. Well tough luck, your want is trumped by the baby's need. Luckily for women, equality rights movements have secured great protections for working women. They can exit the workplace and have a baby, taking months out, full in the secure knowledge that their job is waiting for them. This should rule out many a reason given for abortion.
Its relevant if you expand on your point,it becomes a question as to when is a baby not a baby. As far as I'm concerned, its a baby straight after conception, and that will continue to develop for 18yrs (+/- some years) before it becomes an adult. What has survival outside the womb got to do with it, silly argument. It can't survive alone outside the womb after a natural birth either. It doesn't change the fact that given a couple of months the baby will develop and remain a baby. At leat be honest and call it what it is, termination of a babys life.
fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: » I have no more to say. Thank you.
WhiteRoses wrote: » Sorry, why should the mother, the person who will be rearing this baby, the person whose arrival of this baby will most affect, NOT have a say in the course of her future and in the medical care she receives?
WhiteRoses wrote: » If a woman doesn't want to be pregnant, and she is forced to remain so, it is neither in the best interests of the woman or the child.
WhiteRoses wrote: » Why would we force someone who doesn't want to be pregnant, to be pregnant? Whose best interest is that in?
WhiteRoses wrote: » Yes, we definitely differ. I think you'll be hard pressed to find any society on earth that allows or supports the euthanising of infants. I haven't seen one single pro-choice person, online or in real life, support extremely late term abortions or euthanising a week old baby (??) so it isn't really relevant.
WhiteRoses wrote: » I believe it becomes a baby when it becomes sentient and/or can survive independently outside the womb. It is widely debated in the scientific community when sentience begins, but most agree it to be around week 17. That said, the vast majority of abortions occur at the very beginning of pregnancy, so I think the 12 week limit currently being discussed is more than enough.
fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: » God has reached the limit of His anger. All those sins you list must be repented of as soon as possible. There is no time to lose.
WhiteRoses wrote: I think I’ll take my chances.
eviltwin wrote: Because all this "bad" stuff, abortion, contraception, homosexuality etc has been around a long time. What's changed?
fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: » Why not now?
eviltwin wrote: Why? Abortion has been around forever. I don't think little old Ireland matters that much.
eviltwin wrote: why now?
fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: » There is still a very short time to repent of all sins. If there is no repentence, the full wrath of the Almighty will be felt.
fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: » I mean God's time has come to visit retribution.
eviltwin wrote: What do you mean?
