J C wrote: » What is this 'harm' that you speak of which pregnant women suffer? Pregnancy is a natural state for a fertile woman to find herself and most pregnancies proceed smoothly and with no ill effects. If a pregnancy threatens a womans life or if necessary medication for a womans health and wellbeing has the effect of harming her unborn child, then so be it, the woman's life and health 'trumps' the unborn's rights in this regard. However, unlimited abortion is abortion simply because a woman decides to abort (or those around her convince her, sometimes against her better judgement, to have an abortion).
david75 wrote: » Nobody is fighting for abortion on demand. That isn’t what the referendum Or cause leading to it is about at all. You and the anti choice brigade can try frame it like that as you are but that’s one of the misleading narratives that people see through and it will turn them against your position. You’re deliberatley misleading people and lying about the entire premise. People aren’t stupid. The same misdirection tactics were tried in the marriage equality referendum. ‘But what about the children??? They deserve a mother and father. ’ We weren’t voting on children or mother or father. You’re creating a different narrative to suit your aim and not dealing with the actual facts and realities at hand. This is why pro life if it continues this attempt to derail the debate, will fail.
gallifreya wrote: » I disagree that any Christian who votes to repeal is not a Christian. There is a dilemma and perhaps there should be, but to take a truly equal view, is it not multifaceted? If a Christian knows that a woman could be put at risk of injury or death by either pregnancy or by taking an abortion pill in unsafe circumstances, should there be a moral obligation NOT to contribute to the tragedy? Not imposing faith related views on it which only protect the unborn. There seems to be a view that pregnancy just takes time and sails by seamlessly and at most is an inconvenience. I can only interpret that as either ignorance or misogyny. Adoption and fostering are parenting options not pregnancy options. I cannot agree with women being forced to suffer unwanted pregnancy or forced to suffer physical changes, pain and trauma or emotional damage that can impact her health and her future. I’m not talking about stretch-marks or normal morning sickness here. Pregnancy is challenging – even when planned and wanted. Consider the common risks. High blood pressure, pelvic girdle pain, softening of the pelvic floor, thrombosis, embolism, diabetes, congestive heart failure, PND ..... It’s hard to comprehend how anyone can say pregnancy is an inconvenience and women must endure it for the sake of the end result. Maybe this view is taken because the state is temporary, and women should be prepared to make that sacrifice. Maybe they are speaking from the privilege of their own circumstances. To really consider abortion equally (from the aspect of both the woman and the unborn) I would suggest supporting unborn life as potential life, to be weighed against the life, health and circumstances of the mother and the proposed legislation does that to a limit of 12 weeks. Currently, in extenuating circumstances, legislation protects the life of the Mother but not her health. Abortion is a very difficult decision not made lightly but it can be the most responsible decision a woman can make when faced with an unplanned pregnancy or a pregnancy that will have serious health consequences.
J C wrote: » Would fosterage/adoption not be best for both her and her child?
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?
WhiteRoses wrote: » Reading this thread has lead me to believe that some people in this country must live extremely sheltered lives. Every woman they know is maternal and would be delighted to welcome an unexpected child, those that struggle financially have excellent standards of living due to the plethora (lol) of government support available. Women don't mind sacrificing their futures, hopes and dreams to have this baby, sure what else would they be up to. That's what women are for. On the off chance the mother isn't willing, there are literally THOUSANDS of adults akin to Daddy Warbux from Annie simply lining up to take these unwanted kids out of the care system. But the care system is like living at Disneyland so the kids are having great lives anyway while waiting to be adopted. Oh and at the end of their lives, they receive top notch pallative care, are in no pain, the family aren't traumatised from witnessing the agony of their loved one and they die quickly with dignity. What a wonderful world that must be to live in. Sure no wonder they don't see any need for abortion when they don't have a clue of the struggles people are going through. They must never have known a days worry in their lives.
end of the road wrote: » we don't see any need for unrestricted and on demand abortion because there is no need for it. there is a want for it, and wants don't trump rights. so one's want for an abortion does not trump the right of the unborn to life. abortion is needed in certain circumstances such as FFA or where there is a threat to the life of, or of permanent injury or disability to the mother, and it should be provided in those circumstances. but for non-extreme reasons, it is not the job of the state to provide it and it shouldn't. and nobody has said there are no problems with our systems, plenty of us have and said they need solving. however their problems are not justification to allow for abortion on demand. abortion on demand is a non-solution looking for problems.
WhiteRoses wrote: » There is a need for it. Many, many people have explained why there is a need for it. Women who have procured abortions have explained to you why there was a need for it.
WhiteRoses wrote: » You can keep shouting with your fingers in your ears that there is no need for it and women have no right to it, but the FACT of the matter is, we are HAVING a referendum due to public interest in reforming our laws to allow abortion in Ireland. A large portion of society feel that Irish women are not being afforded full bodily autonomy and want to see the laws amended to reflect same. Whether you like it or not, this is a fact. You can disagree with it by all means, but don't be so ignorant to assume you (as a man) can speak for the whole of our society by making blanket statements about there being no "need" for abortion, when public demand is so large we're actually having a referendum on the issue.
end of the road wrote: » they wanted it, they didn't need it. they may have thought they needed it but they didn't. there is no need for abortion on demand.
end of the road wrote: » they wanted it, they didn't need it. they may have thought they needed it but they didn't. there is no need for abortion on demand. there is a need for abortion in certain circumstances currently not covered by existing legislation and if that was to be offered then there would be lots of support for repeal from the pro-life movement as well. however what is being offered has forced many of us to vote no to repeal to try and protect against abortion on demand. there is no need for abortion on demand, there is a want for it. the people claiming there is a need for it are mixing up their needs and wants. full bodily autonomy is separate to the abortion issue and if we were voting on full bodily autonomy then there would be full support for repealing the 8th. but prohibiting someone from having an abortion outside extreme circumstances is not going against bodily autonomy. if it's not okay to kill a child after it's born, it's not okay to kill it before hand unless there is absolutely no other option to prevent death or permanent disability or injury to the mother, or the baby is unable to be caried to term or will not live to term. you don't have to like that but if you believe in the right to life in general, i can't see why you wouldn't agree with such a stance.
WhiteRoses wrote: You are implying that women are so stupid that they'd go out and get an abortion because they're mixing up their needs and wants, as if zero consideration went into the matter at all.
WhiteRoses wrote: Your blatant lack of respect or trust in women is truly astounding.
WhiteRoses wrote: You are doing both yourself and the pro-life side no favours making blanket statements like this. It just comes across as if you have some bizarre deep rooted hatred and distrust for females.
Gerry T wrote: » If your saying women only have abortions because of needs and not wants then there's no argument. No requirement for on demand abortion. That's very condescending and totally sqewing what was said. What???? He said abortions are fine if it's a need. Just not wants...so put it this way, if a woman has an abortion because it will eat into her social life and spending power then that's ok with you?
....... wrote: » Is that really why you think women are having abortions? You must have a very low opinion of women.
WhiteRoses wrote: » So we've now progressed (or regressed? you've made statements like this before) to statements about how women are imbeciles and don't know what they really need, they just think they do. And you, with your superiority, know better than them, and can assume to dictate what she really wants/needs, because you feel you have the authority to do so, and of course, you know better. You are implying that women are so stupid that they'd go out and get an abortion because they're mixing up their needs and wants, as if zero consideration went into the matter at all. Your blatant lack of respect or trust in women is truly astounding. You are doing both yourself and the pro-life side no favours making blanket statements like this. It just comes across as if you have some bizarre deep rooted hatred and distrust for females.
end of the road wrote: » i have never ever said women are imbeciles and don't know what they really need. you have said that i said this, and you saying i said something i never said doesn't make it accurate. i have full trust in women, but disagree with the killing of the unborn outside limited circumstances. that view is shared by the pro-life side and if anyone isn't doing anyone any favours, it's yourself not doing the pro-choice any favours with your lies, allegations and misrepresentation, something you have been getting away with far to much. suggesting that being against the killing of the unborn, and that most abortions aren't needed, = a "bizarre deep rooted hatred and distrust for females" says it all about the person who makes such a suggestion and believes such rubbish.
WhiteRoses wrote: » It’s actually sickening the way women are spoken about in this thread.
WhiteRoses wrote: » You are once again full of contradictions. Here is where you said what you are denying to have said, quoting you for truth:
david75 wrote: » Quote: end of the road they wanted it, they didn't need it. they may have thought they needed it but they didn't. there is no need for abortion on demand. This is exactly what’s wrong. That last sentence.
eviltwin wrote: » What do you expect from a bunch of pro life, religious men. They are knuckle draggers with a keyboard.
end of the road wrote: » yeah, the post i wrote which you quoted, is very different to what you claim i said. now stop misrepresenting me.
Gerry T wrote: » I do believe from conception there's a child in the womb and not a clump of cells.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » Just because an acorn can become an oak tree, does not mean that an acorn IS an oak tree.
antiskeptic wrote: » As the poster said, it's a matter of what you believe to be the case. Someone else might see shoots as having no more value than the acorns. Me? It's life and life automatically, naturally, garners a different level of respect. I can't help feeling that mankind in general shares that view, when it comes to shoots. Indeed, we consider a man who would thread carelessly through a bed of shooting plants ignorant and boorish.
smacl wrote: » The above is an entirely valid sentiment in my opinion, but that doesn't make opposing sentiment any less valid. In a forest or orchard we commonly remove saplings which for various reasons will never thrive. Personally, I would consider telling someone else how to tread in their own garden ignorant and boorish. Not every garden is the same, nor should it be.
