Cabaal wrote: » Nobody is being forced to have an abortion, so to say forced is pretty disingenuous.
Cabaal wrote: » Regardless of if you like it, we have a society norm where a majority want change of some level to the current situation, a society norm is abortion in this country...people like yourself just want to ignore it though.
Cabaal wrote: » If you don't agree with it then don't have an abortion, thats your personal choice to do that and that is perfectly fine. Same as you don't have to agree with marriage equality but nobody is ever going to force you to marry a person of the same sex as you, but why are people so obsessed and against something that has zero effect on them?
Cabaal wrote: » Abortion is a society norm in the UK and USA too, why are pro life groups so insistent in going against society by trying to change what is see as fine by so many?
Delirium wrote: » There is no collective consensus that a foetus from conception is a person, as evident by this thread.
Delirium wrote: » Also, unless you're talking about abortion pills, women aren't exempt as it's doctors/medical professionals that perform the abortion.
Delirium wrote: » Should women be impregnated with every frozen embryo in storage? If not, why? Why are those embryos exempt from the right to life you espouse?
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » I didnt say threaten i said if someone KILLS my child.
david75 wrote: » Oh come on. All these self appointed pro life groups currently active in this campaign are completely invested in and coming from a religious perspective. Look up Iona institute alone. It’s All about religion and a attempts to force a conservative and utterly redundant morality on a society that has moved away from that. These methods and thinking no longer apply and that’s why it will fail. We’re a society now, no longer beholden to an all but extinct religion forcing its will in us or how we think or what we do with our bodies or who we marry. Do you not get that?
Delirium wrote: » The thousands of Irish women who have had an abortion would suggest that you're incorrect in that statement.
Delirium wrote: » Taking an abortion pill is not the same thing as murdering an infant. Equally, people don't share your narrow definition of 'necessary' when it comes to abortion.
david75 wrote: » Honest question JC What will you oppose when the 8th is repealed? Where will you go next?
J C wrote: » I'm not convinced that the Irish people, when faced with a stark choice to introduce abortion on demand will do so TBH. It may be 'a bridge too far' IMO. If it isn't, 'a bridge too far' I will continue to oppose injustice and the abuse of the weak by the strong, wherever I find it ... always with love for both the perpretrator and the victim ... because in many ways they are both damaged by what has been done.
end of the road wrote: » continuing to oppose abortion on demand will be the next step if the referendum is passed. i would also hope that opposing the state funding of abortion in anyway would be another step. if the referendum is passed then those who want an abortion should have to pay for it as they want it so badly. medical circumstances being an exception.
david75 wrote: » You once again didn’t answer the question asked. This is prevalent across the entire so called pro life campaign. You are losing by thinking misdirection will work. It will not.
david75 wrote: What’s that bishops name? The one who opposed life saving drugs fighting cancer being tested in the rotunda? And women does as a result?
david75 wrote: » What’s that bishops name? The one who opposed life saving drugs fighting cancer being tested in the rotunda? And women does as a result?
J C wrote: » That wasn't what I meant ... I was using drink driving as an example of where society sanctions behaviour that can lead to the injury and death of others. Pregant women don't have impaired judgement ... and that makes any decision by them to kill their unborn children all the more wrong.
There are major ethical issues about how human embryos are created, stored and utlised ... issues that haven't actually been addressed in Ireland yet. In this case, there is no woman involved ... and there is a Human life there.
If its legal it will be done ... otherwise why have the law there, in the first place.
They can't ... and therein lies a further demand ... and a precedent in English abortion law allowing abortion with no time restriction where the unborn baby has disability.
J C wrote: » That is just a convenient legal fiction to allow abortion. It is a scientifically verifiable fact that at the moment of fertilisation, a new Human life is formed.
... and my question as to why a strong party should be empowered to kill a weak and vulnerable party is just as applicable to medical professionals who do this, as the women who ask them to kill their unborn children.
Of course women should not be impregnated with surplus Human embryos... they bear no responsibility for creating these embryos. ... but is is a very serious ethical issue for medical technicians to be creating surplus Human embryos and then killing them or experimenting on them. Indeed, although it hasn't been tested yet, the 8th does potentially offer protection to Human embryos ex utero ... and there was a failed attempt to remove this protection from them, when the 25th Amendment was put to the people in 2001, but not passed. The relevant provision in the proposed amendment was as follows:- "In particular the life of the unborn in the womb shall be protected in accordance with the provisions of the Protection of Human Life in Pregnancy Act 2002."
This was an attempt (amongst other things) to limit the definition and protection of the unborn in the 8th to 'unborn in the womb' ... thereby definitively removing protection from unborn not in the womb ... e.g. frozen Human embryos. It was rejected by the people ... and so there is still potential protection for the unborn ex utero.
J C wrote: » I don't know what you're talking about ... probably some unfounded story ... by the looks of it, given that the Rotunda isn't a Roman Catholic Hospital, and therefore not subject to the pronouncement of any bishop. Please stop re-telling 'old wives tales' ... that are doing your credibility no good whatsoever.
The priest who has ruled out abortions at Dublin's Mater Hospital had previously objected to cancer drug trials at the hospital – because it would have required the women involved to use contraceptives. Fr Kevin Doran, a member of the Mater hospital board of governors, has said the hospital "cannot comply" with the new Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act because it goes against the hospital ethos. Fr Doran was previously one of a three-person sub-committee at the hospital that halted clinical trials for a cancer drug.
J C wrote: » The fact that they had to go to England for the abortion would beg to differ with you on this. Equally, if a tiny minority do something unapproved of by society ... how can what they do be regarded as a societal norm?
... and infanticide is not punished the same as murder either ... but they are all crimes ... some treated more leniently by society because of the belief that a mother wouldn't kill her own child. unless she found herself in some kind of extremis ... a contention that is becoming increasingly untenable, as some women (and men) demand to be allowed kill their unborn children for no reason, other than they want to.
The 'scales are falling off peoples eyes' on this ... and the tragic image of an abused and pregnant young girl that is often used to justify the introduction of unlimited abortion ... is being compared in people's minds with the reality of the perfectly healthy and well to do women and their partners who are demanding the right to kill their unborn children ... as a lifestyle choice ... or simply because they want to.
Delirium wrote: I understand you don't agree with someone having an abortion, but do you really need to suggest that women don't give serious consideration of whether or not to have an abortion?
Delirium wrote: » The number of Irish women who have had abortions, public polls and public marches/meetings in favour of repeal would suggest that it's not a minority that would consider abortion a societal norm.
Delirium wrote: » That's a pretty awful characterization of pro-choice people, essentially suggesting they are sociopaths solely interested in killing children.
Delirium wrote: » It couldn't possibly be that people think that having a child should be a choice
Delirium wrote: » I understand you don't agree with someone having an abortion, but do you really need to suggest that women don't give serious consideration of whether or not to have an abortion?
end of the road wrote: » actually, i'm not sure i agree. poles, marches and meetings on repeal wouldn't necessarily suggest that it's not a minority that would consider abortion a societal norm.
there are a number of issues in relation to the debate over repealing the 8th, and a lot of people who would be voting to repeal, wouldn't necessarily be doing so on the abortion issue. of course the abortion issue is a big part of this debate regardless.
i would agree if that was how they were being characterized, but i don't believe they are. however the fact they want the ability for the unborn to be killed without good reason or restriction apart from a time limit, some even wanting it at tax payer's expence, doesn't put them in the best light in my opinion.
it is a choice yes, however there is a difference between the choice to have a child and the choice to kill an unborn one. there is no requirement for the choice to kill an unborn child, the choice to have a child or not already exists however.
they may give serious consideration, but in my view many do use it as contraception and a life style choice.
Delirium wrote: » But pregnancy also has risk of injury and death for the woman. Why can't a woman who is unwilling to take that risk terminate the pregnancy? Considering you gave drink driving as an example where a behaviour is banned because of possible injury or death, it seems somewhat contradictory to impose an equivalent risk onto all pregnant women.
Delirium wrote: » unless they're generating artificial embryos, there are most certainly women involved. It also falls within the scope of some pro-life folks argument against abortion, i.e. person is created at fertilization.
Delirium wrote: » So the women who have their embryos frozen should by that pro-life perspective be required to be implanted with each of the embryos in order to protect the unborn.
Delirium wrote: » It's also legal for me to levitate yet I won't be flying home from work anytime soon. I asked for evidence it happens, not that it could.
Delirium wrote: » Has there been any proposal to have abortion on request beyond 12 weeks here in Ireland?
Delirium wrote: » So following on from our frozen embryo discussion, you would be in favour of legal requirements to implant women with each of their frozen embryos so as to protect the life of the unborn?
Delirium wrote: » So when it comes to pregnancy, you don't support the notion of informed consent when it comes to the rights of the woman? That motherhood is a requirement, rather than a choice, if a woman should become pregnant?
Delirium wrote: » So not all unborn are not equal then? The start of your post said it's a fact a new human life begins at fertilization, yet the women who own the embryos have no responsibility because it's pre-implantation?
Delirium wrote: » You should know by now, when it comes to abortion, potential isn't the same thing as actual.
Delirium wrote: » And the potential protection will quote possibly be a moot point if the vote goes the way of the latest public polls.
WhiteRoses wrote: » It’s very easy for you to make the judgment that the risks are ‘minuscule’ as a man who will never have to endure a pregnancy. Even for healthy women with wanted pregnanies, there are a myriad of health issues and risks at play, not to mention the morning sickness, limited mobility and fatigue. Please don’t be so patronizing. Even the easiest/most straight forward of pregnancies comes with pain and health issues.
J C wrote: » I'm not in the least patronising ... but I'm a little fed up by the 'too posh to push' brigade not being too posh to kill their unborn child ... just because they want to. There are serious life and death situations where abortion is necessary ... but it is sickening, quite frankly, for perfectly healthy women and their so-called partners utilising the plight of these seriously ill women, to campaign to be allowed kill their unborn children ... for no other reason, than just because they want to.
Delirium wrote: » I imagine the poster was possibly referring to this:Source Or could be referring to Sheila Hodgers who died after being refused cancer treatment because she was pregnant.
WhiteRoses wrote: » Too posh to push??? Frankly that post has told me all I need to know about you. Your level of disdain for people whose circumstances don’t know and never will speaks volumes. All I’m seeing is lots of judging and absolutely no compassion or humanity. You seem hell bent on forcing everyone to bow to your beliefs. So intolerant. If you keep posting in that style you will be doing no favours to the pro life side.
Delirium wrote: » It couldn't possibly be that people think that having a child should be a choice:rolleyes:
Delirium wrote: » yes, affluent couples love nothing better than heading out for a meal on the weekend and quick abortion before heading home for the night:rolleyes::rolleyes:
J C wrote: » Only a tiny minority is actively campaigning on either side of the debate. Its a fact that they are campaigning for and support the introduction of abortion on demand ... which is the killing of unborn children on demand. I never said that this was sociopathic ... you are the one characterising this behaviour as such. 'Baiting' people with hard case stories and then 'switching' the solution to abortion on demand is also deeply hypocritical IMO. It's exploiting the undoubted pain of hard cases, to introduce unlimited abortion just because somebody wants to. The two are not remotely comparable.Having a child (and parenting it) should be a choice ... killing it should not be a choice. ... its worse than that ... they aparently love nothing better than campaigning for and voting for unlimted abortion ... while pointing to hard cases as justification for this completely disproportionate response. With hard cases women certainly do ... and they should be facilitated ... but do you think that a perfectly healthy woman who aborts has given any meaningful consideration to the killing of her unborn child?
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » Absolutely disgraceful commenr by a so called "christian"! You seem to think that when a woman chooses to have an abortion (for whatever her reason is) that she makes this decision on a whim as if she is decidung between a caramel mocha or a frappachino! Disgusting and vile post!
