Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

RBG, abortion and Ireland

Options
1234689

Comments

  • Options
    #152
    Smee_Again
    Registered Users Posts: 2,024 ✭✭✭Smee_Again


    Yellow_Fern wrote: »
    No one is forced to be a mother. There is adoption.

    Rarely in Ireland.

    79 adoptions in Ireland in 2019 with nearly 70% being step-parents adopting a child.

    And half of all adoptions were of kids aged 17.

    There were only 6 infant adoptions.

    All irrelevant really as adoption isn’t a solution to an unwanted pregnancy.


  • Options
    #153
    Yellow_Fern
    Registered Users Posts: 2,584 ✭✭✭Yellow_Fern


    SusieBlue wrote: »
    Adoption is pretty much non existent in Ireland, there were 5 infants domestically adopted in 2016 according to the CSO.
    There are probably more recent statistics available now but those are the ones I’m familiar with..
    Because there are so many abortions. Hence families go to the like of Vietnam to adopt!
    SusieBlue wrote: »
    I don’t think it’s ethical to force a woman to gestate a pregnancy just to resign an innocent child to a life stuck in the foster care system.
    Fake claim. Adopted kids never end up in foster homes.
    SusieBlue wrote: »
    I don’t think it’s ethical to force a woman to gestate a pregnancy just to resign an innocent child to a life stuck in the foster care system. Regardless, adoption is of no help to a woman who cannot or will not stay pregnant.
    No more unethical than forcing a mother to a raise born child, which we do... Of course some countries like the Netherlands do allow infanticide in some cases so I should not assume that you as a prochoicer is against that.


  • Options
    #154
    Deebles McBeebles
    Registered Users Posts: 5,754 ✭✭✭Deebles McBeebles


    bfa1509 wrote: »
    Amount of lives lost to abortion 2019 - 6666
    Amount of lives lost to Covid19 - 1802 so far

    More chance of dying in the womb.

    LOL!


  • Options
    #155
    Deebles McBeebles
    Registered Users Posts: 5,754 ✭✭✭Deebles McBeebles


    Yellow_Fern wrote: »
    No one is forced to be a mother. There is adoption.

    We have too many unwanted dogs in Ireland but its ok because we have rescues.


  • Options
    #156
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,278 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Yellow_Fern wrote: »
    Because there are so many abortions. Hence families go to the like of Vietnam to adopt!

    Fake claim. Adopted kids never end up in foster homes.

    No more unethical than forcing a mother to a raise born child, which we do... Of course some countries like the Netherlands do allow infanticide in some cases so I should not assume that you as a prochoicer is against that.

    no woman should be forced to give birth. End of story.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #157
    Yellow_Fern
    Registered Users Posts: 2,584 ✭✭✭Yellow_Fern


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    no woman should be forced to give birth. End of story.

    The parental obligation to protect the life of her child outweighs her right to have her uterus as she please, just like all parents are obligated to feed, water and cloth born kids.


  • Options
    #158
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,278 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Yellow_Fern wrote: »
    The parental obligation to protect the life of her child outweighs her right to have her uterus as she please, just like all parents are obligated to feed, water and cloth born kids.

    no, it doesn't. the woman has the right to do with her body as she pleases. she is pregnant. there is no kid. there is no obligation, morally or legally. Her rights massively outweigh the right of a zygote or fetus.


  • Options
    #159
    bfa1509
    Registered Users Posts: 1,022 ✭✭✭bfa1509


    Yellow_Fern wrote: »
    The parental obligation to protect the life of her child outweighs her right to have her uterus as she please, just like all parents are obligated to feed, water and cloth born kids.

    Exactly. Abortions on healthy unborn children should never be allowed for as long as there is someone who will look after them whether that is the mother or not. (and there will always be someone to look after them). If ever there was a more worthy cause for the disgusting amount of tax we pay it would be to look after unwanted children. But instead it's going towards their abortion. Shocking.


  • Options
    #160
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,278 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    bfa1509 wrote: »
    Exactly. Abortions on healthy unborn children should never be allowed for as long as there is someone who will look after them whether that is the mother or not. (and there will always be someone to look after them). If ever there was a more worthy cause for the disgusting amount of tax we pay it would be to look after unwanted children. But instead it's going towards their abortion. Shocking.

    Unfortunately for you, and fortunately for woman with unwanted pregnancies, they are allowed.


  • Options
    #161
    Yellow_Fern
    Registered Users Posts: 2,584 ✭✭✭Yellow_Fern


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    no, it doesn't. the woman has the right to do with her body as she pleases. she is pregnant. there is no kid. there is no obligation, morally or legally. Her rights massively outweigh the right of a zygote or fetus.

    What magically happens when the clump of cells when it passes through the vagina that it is now endowed with personhood?

    For the record no prolife organisation has ever advocated for the unborn to have equal rights as the mother. they only push for the unborn to have one single right, The right to exist. So don't strawman us!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #162
    Igotadose
    Registered Users Posts: 13,085 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    Topography wrote: »

    It's a reasonable opinion to believe that killing an unborn child is immoral. The Mother had a choice when she had sex, the child had no choice.

    /QUOTE]

    Except it's not true, that pesky rape/incest business.

    So no, it's not a reasonable opinion. It's a *biased* opinion.


  • Options
    #163
    Igotadose
    Registered Users Posts: 13,085 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    Yellow_Fern wrote: »
    The parental obligation to protect the life of her child outweighs her right to have her uterus as she please, just like all parents are obligated to feed, water and cloth born kids.

    And, uhh, those kids that are taken away from their parents? That never happens in Ireland, right?

    Unfortunately, there's no such thing as obligations without laws. That's humans.

    And the law is, the woman is not compelled to give birth unlike in the past.


  • Options
    #164
    Yellow_Fern
    Registered Users Posts: 2,584 ✭✭✭Yellow_Fern


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    it is the opinion of the majority of this country.

    fifty million frenchmen cant be wrong


  • Options
    #165
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,278 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Yellow_Fern wrote: »
    What magically happens when the clump of cells when it passes through the vagina that it is now endowed with personhood?

    For the record no prolife organisation has ever advocated for the unborn to have equal rights as the mother. they only push for the unborn to have one single right, The right to exist. So don't strawman us!

    i have no intention of rehashing the 10s of thousands of post already made on the subject. this has all been discussed before.


  • Options
    #166
    Igotadose
    Registered Users Posts: 13,085 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    bfa1509 wrote: »
    Yes but your last line is an argument tantamount to eugenics. The argument that won. Just because it won, doesn't make it right or not crazy.

    The last argument about 'children better off because they were choices' was never up for debate. The debate argument was, 'repeal the eighth' which won. Don't move the discussion, didn't work 2 years ago, won't work now. Anti-woman types like yourself *want* that to be the argument, but it isn't.


  • Options
    #167
    Yellow_Fern
    Registered Users Posts: 2,584 ✭✭✭Yellow_Fern


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    i have no intention of rehashing the 10s of thousands of post already made on the subject. this has all been discussed before.

    You don't have an answer, because even though you are principled on womens rights, you haven't rationalised how what abortion involves could be justified.


  • Options
    #168
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,278 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Yellow_Fern wrote: »
    You don't have an answer, because even though you are principled on womens rights, you haven't rationalised how what abortion involves could be justified.

    go back and read the 10s of thousands of existing posts on the subject. I must have written 3 or 4000 of them. you lost, get over it.


  • Options
    #169
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    Yellow_Fern wrote: »
    Because there are so many abortions. Hence families go to the like of Vietnam to adopt!

    Fake claim. Adopted kids never end up in foster homes.

    No more unethical than forcing a mother to a raise born child, which we do... Of course some countries like the Netherlands do allow infanticide in some cases so I should not assume that you as a prochoicer is against that.

    Shows you know sweet fcuk all about adoption, I strongly suggest you familiarise with The Hague convention, which makes adopting from abroad extremely difficult, and The Children’s Act, which makes fostering-to-adopt an extremely long emotionally taxing process because it upholds a child’s relationship with its natural parents at all costs, even if they’re crap parents.

    Adoption is almost non existent, therefore you are suggesting a woman gives birth to a child wouoenbe surrendering it to the system.
    There were 6,666 abortions last year, there were 6 domestic infant adoptions.
    Where are you going to find 6k+ adoptive parents each year and every year to adopt all these children that would otherwise be aborted when there are only a minuscule amount of adoptions happening as it is?

    It’s absolutely disgraceful and very telling that you would bring up the Netherlands, the euthanising of newborns only occurs there when infants are born with extreme life limiting terminal conditions that would cause a lot of pain and suffering such as anencephaly, where the skull never forms and the brain is exposed, and severe spina bifida.
    Both parents and a team of doctors must agree in order for it to be granted.
    It’s extremely rare and reserved for the most unwell of babies, statistics show that there were just 16 cases neonatal euthanasia between the years 2006-2014.

    Absolute shame on you for exploiting these heartbreaking circumstances that these parents find themselves in with their extremely sick children to further your own agenda.
    And no, I’m not against it either. I don’t think anyone with a compassionate bone in their body would want a tiny baby suffer to in agony with no hope of recovery or any standard of living.

    Truly tragic circumstances all round and it’s actually quite disgusting that you would try to exploit these heartbreaking cases to imply they occurred out of indifference or callousness, when that couldn’t be further from the truth.
    They were extremely ill babies who were not given life saving treatment, but instead given palliative care and allowed to pass away peacefully.


  • Options
    #170
    bfa1509
    Registered Users Posts: 1,022 ✭✭✭bfa1509


    Igotadose wrote: »
    The last argument about 'children better off because they were choices' was never up for debate. The debate argument was, 'repeal the eighth' which won. Don't move the discussion, didn't work 2 years ago, won't work now. Anti-woman types like yourself *want* that to be the argument, but it isn't.

    Read post #150. Don't make idiotic generalisations about no-voters just because it fits your agenda.


  • Options
    #171
    bfa1509
    Registered Users Posts: 1,022 ✭✭✭bfa1509


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    go back and read the 10s of thousands of existing posts on the subject. I must have written 3 or 4000 of them. you lost, get over it.
    Who lost? The only ones who lost are the millions of those who have and will be aborted. Public opinion changes with the wind. One day we will look back and realise the mistake we made and it will weigh on your conscience no matter how much you think it won't.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #172
    Igotadose
    Registered Users Posts: 13,085 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    bfa1509 wrote: »
    Who lost? The only ones who lost are the millions of those who have and will be aborted. Public opinion changes with the wind. One day we will look back and realise the mistake we made and it will weigh on your conscience no matter how much you think it won't.

    So, how long before millions are aborted?


  • Options
    #173
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,278 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    bfa1509 wrote: »
    Who lost? The only ones who lost are the millions of those who have and will be aborted. Public opinion changes with the wind. One day we will look back and realise the mistake we made and it will weigh on your conscience no matter how much you think it won't.

    that wont happen in my lifetime and if it did the only thing on my conscience would be the woman forced to give birth or undertake unsafe abortions. outlawing abortions doesnt stop them. it just makes them unsafe


  • Options
    #174
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,278 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    why do these threads ALWAYS attract "brand new" posters? curious.


  • Options
    #175
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    bfa1509 wrote: »
    My very own sister had an unplanned pregnancy at 19 in the early 90s. But she was looked after and reassured that everything would work out, and it did, and there was never any question that it wouldn't. What do you think her reaction would be if I asked her or her 28 year old daughter now if she would have had an abortion if it was available to her? I would have two black eyes and rightly so.

    If I was the polititian who was to put forward a referendum it would be a referendum to change the societal stigma associated with unplanned pregnancies, not to obliterate the only innocent party! It is outrageous what we did. We decided to keep the stigma and sweep the problem under the carpet.

    How wonderful that your sister was supported and reassured everything would work out, but that isn’t the case for all women and girls.
    And frankly, whatever she had chosen to do, it would have been absolutely none of your business because you would never have had to bear the consequences.

    We have never lived in an abortion free society.
    There has always been abortion and there will always be abortion, the only difference is whether we want to regulate it to make it safe for the women of this country, or if we want to pretend it’s not happening and put them on the plane to England. Either way Irish babies will be aborted.
    Either we want one cohort of society deciding on behalf of everyone that it’s the wrong choice, regardless of their circumstances, or we acknowledge that life can be complex and and hard and trust that the person in the best position to make the decision is the woman who will be left bearing the responsibility, and her doctor to give her support and advice.
    I think it’s the height of arrogance to assume to be able to decide on behalf of everyone. And if you are ok with abortion in certain circumstances, you are being a total hypocrite. It’s either a life, or it’s not.
    It’s either murder, or it’s not.
    It doesn’t stop being a life just because it happens for a reason you personally think is ok, and therein lies the problem with your position.


  • Options
    #176
    Acosta
    Registered Users Posts: 2,296 ✭✭✭Acosta


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    i have no intention of rehashing the 10s of thousands of post already made on the subject. this has all been discussed before.

    Indeed it has. There was fierce debates on this all across social media, on TV, radio and in print. Together For Yes won the referendum conclusively. I spent much time arguing with people about it online and in person and take great pleasure in that I will never do so again. Because it's over, finally it's over. Some people will never change their opinion on it as is their right, but it's utterly pointless arguing with them anymore because ultimately their opinion no longer matters. The country has spoken and it voted to Repeal.


  • Options
    #177
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,278 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Cartography500 wrote: »
    This is where people like you completely miss the point to those being averse to abortion. Do you realise that some people believe that the unborn deserve protection? It has nothing to do with being "anti woman". That sounds like feminist propoganda you have been brainwashed with.

    We, or certainly I, do not care that you are averse to abortion. if you are averse to abortions then dont have them. what somebody else does with their body is none of your business.


  • Options
    #178
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    Cartography500 wrote: »
    This is where people like you completely miss the point to those being averse to abortion. Do you realise that some people believe that the unborn deserve protection? It has nothing to do with being "anti woman". That sounds like feminist propoganda you have been brainwashed with.

    The 8th held the unborn and the pregnant woman to an equal standard of worth.
    It said her life was equal to that of a zygote. It was a terrible awful law that caused confusion during emergencies and caused untold amounts of pain and suffering to many women and families.
    Agreeing with and supporting a law that considers a woman’s and a zygote to be of equal value and consideration is anti women, as far as I’m concerned.

    You are still free to think and believe whatever you want, you just don’t get to impose it on others any more.


  • Options
    #179
    Igotadose
    Registered Users Posts: 13,085 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    bfa1509 wrote: »
    Read post #150. Don't make idiotic generalisations about no-voters just because it fits your agenda.

    That was a serious post? Had me spitting my coffee. 3rd wave feminism. Hilarious!


  • Options
    #180
    bfa1509
    Registered Users Posts: 1,022 ✭✭✭bfa1509


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    why do these threads ALWAYS attract "brand new" posters? curious.
    What does it matter if it's a new poster or not? This sounds like a deflection if ever I heard one. Why don't you answer his/her question as to whether or not a woman should be compelled to give birth to a 36 week old baby?
    SusieBlue wrote: »
    How wonderful that your sister was supported and reassured everything would work out, but that isn’t the case for all women and girls.
    And frankly, whatever she had chosen to do, it would have been absolutely none of your business because you would never have had to bear the consequences.

    We have never lived in an abortion free society.
    There has always been abortion and there will always be abortion, the only difference is whether we want to regulate it to make it safe for the women of this country, or if we want to pretend it’s not happening and put them on the plane to England. Either way Irish babies will be aborted.
    Either we want one cohort of society deciding on behalf of everyone that it’s the wrong choice, regardless of their circumstances, or we acknowledge that life can be complex and and hard and trust that the person in the best position to make the decision is the woman who will be left bearing the responsibility, and her doctor to give her support and advice.
    I think it’s the height of arrogance to assume to be able to decide on behalf of everyone. And if you are ok with abortion in certain circumstances, you are being a total hypocrite. It’s either a life, or it’s not.
    It’s either murder, or it’s not.
    It doesn’t stop being a life just because it happens for a reason you personally think is ok, and therein lies the problem with your position.

    Yes my sister was privaleged to have been in the house she was, my point was rather than opening up access to abortion, we should be looking after the women and their unborn children just like she was. You completely missed the point on this.

    No disrespect, but the "Sending her on a plane to England" or "Exporting the problem" argument was always incredibly weak and lazy. It completely ignores the moral foundation on which people object to abortion. Abortion on healthy unborn is not ok in Ireland or England.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #181
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,278 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    bfa1509 wrote: »
    What does it matter if it's a new poster or not? This sounds like a deflection if ever I heard one. Why don't you answer his/her question as to whether or not a woman should be compelled to give birth to a 36 week old baby?


    Yes my sister was privaleged to have been in the house she was, my point was rather than opening up access to abortion, we should be looking after the women and their unborn children just like she was. You completely missed the point on this.

    No disrespect, but the "Sending her on a plane to England" or "Exporting the problem" argument was always incredibly weak and lazy. It completely ignores the moral foundation on which people object to abortion. Abortion on healthy unborn is not ok in Ireland or England.

    i dont engage with brand new posters. they are only out for one thing. nor do i engage with ridiculous strawman arguments.


Advertisement