WhiteRoses wrote: » But even if we did, the appetite for adoption is minute compared to what it used to be. More people than ever are opting not to have kids at all. Families are getting smaller. And those that want kids but struggle, have a plethora of fertility options available to them. The world is vastly over populated as it is. So unless we start farming them out to the USA like previous generations, we’ll still end up with more children than necessary suffering by being brought up in the care system. That’s the reality of it.
david75 wrote: » I’m predicting the 8th will pass. Where then will this ‘Christian’ morality go? It opposed marriage equality in Ireland and lost. Abortion seems to be the last grasp at maintaining control and domonion on the lives of others that don’t share their faith or view. So if the 8th is repealed what then? Personally I think next up we’re gonna have the right to die debate. And that too will probably be opposed by the same people opposing the 8th What do you think?
J C wrote: » Well then domestic adoption should be made available, obviously with proper safeguards in place for the mother and the child. Look, we are not going to save every child ... but we can do a lot better than we do at present ... and it is in everybodies interest, particularly for the women involved in these life-altering decisions, that we do so.
J C wrote: » I have noticed an interesting silence from our Atheist brethern to my posting on pro-life Atheists ... which goes to show (as I would expect) that unlimited killing of any category of Human, is equally of concern to people of all religions and none.https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=105910734&postcount=884
WhiteRoses wrote: » I agree, but as has already been stated twice now, domestic adoption isn’t available here. And for what it’s worth, I agree the system needs to be improved. But it will be years, if ever, before that happens. We will realistically never see a reform sufficient enough to meet the needs to children in the system. So denying someone abortion on the basis of those fantasies is just not seeing the bigger picture, it’s extremely naive.
J C wrote: » ... it is, unless you deny that this isn't somebody else.https://www.babycenter.com/fetal-development-images-12-weeks Quote:- "1. Reflexes are developing. Your baby's already busy kicking and stretching. Soon his fingers will open and close. 2. Intestines in place. Your baby's intestines, which have grown so rapidly they protrude into the umbilical cord, are moving back into the abdominal cavity. 3. Your baby looks practically human. His eyes have moved from the sides to the front of the head and his ears are where they should be."
J C wrote: » ... it certainly is ... and it is something that I personally care deeply about. Where a mother reckons that she will be unable to care for her child permanently, than adoption would generally be the best option for the long-term welfare of the child.
WhiteRoses wrote: » Do you actually know anyone who has grown up in the foster care system in this country? It’s a fate I wouldn’t wish on my worst enemy. I can’t comprehend why anyone would deem a life in the care system as an option or even as a positive thing. Never mind the fact that state services are withdrawn the minute the child turns 18, and then they are literally out in the world on their own. There is a huge correlation between children who grew up in the care system and homeless young adults. But that’s a topic for another thread.
david75 wrote: » Adoption is a seriously flawed argument. It’s almost impossible to adopt in Ireland. Look it up. You’re also missing another point. So we force the mother to give birth and you don’t think giving the baby up won’t damage her mentally? We’re making flawed and uninformed arguments using broad strokes about women’s lives when every single scenario is totally different and ultimately none of our business. We won’t be there to help her raise a child she didn’t want. To pay for its upbringing. To be a guide and a parent to it. So imposing a severely flawed morality from a great remove on a woman’s and all women’s lives is simply wrong. This is what the majority of people are thinking and those opposed to repealing the 8th haven’t seemed to realise. This is why the 8th will be repealed. In a modern society a redundant self appointed moral minority imposing their moral view on all society, just won’t fly. This is why I suggested pro life so called should look at changing tactics in my previous post.
uptherebels wrote: » Having an abortion at 12 weeks isn't harming somebody else either
david75 wrote: » Adoption is a seriously flawed argument. It’s almost impossible to adopt in Ireland. Look it up. You’re also missing another point. So we force the mother to give birth and you don’t think giving the baby up won’t damage her mentally? We’re making flawed and uninformed arguments using broad strokes about women’s lives when every single scenario is totally different and ultimately none of our business.We won’t be there to help her raise a child she didn’t want. To pay for its upbringing. To be a guide and a parent to it.
david75 wrote: » So imposing a severely flawed morality from a great remove on a woman’s and all women’s lives is simply wrong. This is what the majority of people are thinking and those opposed to repealing the 8th haven’t seemed to realise. This is why the 8th will be repealed. In a modern society a redundant self appointed moral minority imposing their moral view on all society, just won’t fly. This is why I suggested pro life so called should look at changing tactics in my previous post.
J C wrote: » What he means is her right to choose to harm somebody else ... unless there are substantive reasons for doing so.
J C wrote: » Demand for adopted children is vastly in excess of mothers wanting to put their children up for adoption. ... and if a mother reckons that fosterage is the way to go, that is available as well ... so there is absolutely no socio-economic reason for aborting.
koumi wrote: » we had magdalen laundries which took care of these concerns years ago, the suggestion is hardly a new one. Do you still not consider the suffering involved for the mother, who with no other option must go through birth and then hand over her child and just be ok with that? Like, she just walks out of a place, job done and get on with life? It is inconceivable that you believe that to be more humane.
koumi wrote: » As for children who end up in either foster care or adopted in these circumstances, they are often left bearing the scars too and can have difficulty maneuvering through life dealing with issues of abandonment and rejection.
koumi wrote: » These are just the tip of the ice berg, the conditions which caused and brought about systemic abuse of women and children in state run institutions was born out the same principle.
J C wrote: » ... its nowhere near as damaging as killing her child would be to the child ... and if she cannot raise the child she can have it fostered or adopted ... and some time in the future she may even be re-united with her child. Abortion is a 'council of despair' ... unless there are serious reasons for aborting. ... and the reasons you cite above, occur after the child is born ... and adoption / fosterage is available to address these issues.
uptherebels wrote: » There ya go contradicting yourself again
J C wrote: » I don't understand ... how would fosterage or adoption cause these problems?
end of the road wrote: » except nobody is opposing a woman’s right to choose.
koumi wrote: » I disagree. I was with you right up to here but as someone speaking from experience, it's not. It's actually just prolonged suffering and the affects on both the parent and childs health are compromised, and yes even up to and including death. In an ideal world I would wholeheartedly support your suggestion but mans inhumanity to man utterly knows no bounds and to force a life of suffering, poverty and in some cases abuse and trauma on a woman and her child because you believe it is a better alternative is just wrong.
david75 wrote: » By opposing a woman’s right to choose. For a million reasons she may not be able to raise a child or have the capacity within her life financially or structurally. Forcing a woman to have a child is damaging that woman’s life.
WhiteRoses wrote: » There is extremely limited domestic adoption in Ireland. We have long term fostering in its place. The option to adopt is only available after long term fostering of the child. That’s why when couples adopt in Ireland, it’s done internationally from countries such as India, Vietnam, Russia, etc.
J C wrote: » ... its nowhere near as damaging as killing her child would be to the child ... and if she cannot raise the child she can have it fostered or adopted ... and some time in the future she may even be re-united with her child. Abortion is a 'council of despair' ... unless there are serious reasons for aborting.
Katie Full Leak wrote: » There's plenty of childless couples looking to adopt!
