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
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.

Abortion- Right or Wrong

1…1011131516…19

Comments

  • #362
    JC 2K3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,794 ✭✭✭JC 2K3


    Jakkass wrote: »
    1) So you recognise that an aborted baby is just that a baby?
    No, I recognise that it looks like a baby, or to be more specific, a very young human being on which we confer rights.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    2) There is a difference between the sanctity of human life and that of animal life in the UN Declaration of Human Rights. See it's human rights not mammal rights.
    Well, that's not what you said in what I quoted, and if humans can decide that animals are ok to kill, why can't they decide that unborn humans are too?

    Also:

    1) The UN Declaration of Human Rights, while a formidible and applaudable document, is not absolute, and it's contents should not be undebatable.
    2) It's an unfortunate case of linguistics that it happens to be called the Declaration of Human Rights, because "human" simply means to pertain to anything relating to the human species. If they were called "Person Rights" or something, it would be better. My point here is basically that it's not a valid argument to say you can't debate whether these rights apply to a foetus or not because it's human and they're called human rights.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    3) There is no earlier stage of development from human life. It starts at conception.
    Why? What is so special and important about conception and what is so unimportant and trivial about the development of sperm and ova?


  • #363
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    tallaght01 wrote: »
    I think that's an important point.

    No-one should claim that a dictionary manufacturer has the answers to a question that has stumped experts in the field for so long.

    But Zulu was accused of using an inappropriate term. he was just showing that some dictionary makers use the same definition. So, it really wasn't an outrageous statement for him to call the unborn child a child.

    But one of the main sticking points in the whole abortion argument is when does a child become a child.

    Which is why I'd again like to invite anyone to offer up their thoughts on what's an acceptable cut off point for abortions, in terms of gestational age.
    I find your posts explanatory and thanks for posting them .This is a part I dont really understand and when it gets to stuff like zygotes and whatever I am completely lost.

    The bioligy side of it looses me and Im with the ladybird edition here.

    But I think Im getting the hang of sorting out metaphysics from metaphors and now know what CNS is .

    What are zygots are they a bioligy term pre sperm and ova.

    The term singularity also I dont understand.Do people mean at point of conception or is it baby at birth.

    I am not looking for information to use as an argument but really would like to understand a bit more on what is being posted.


  • #364
    JC 2K3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,794 ✭✭✭JC 2K3


    CDfm wrote: »
    What are zygots are they a bioligy term pre sperm and ova.

    The term singularity also I dont understand.Do people mean at point of conception or is it baby at birth.
    Zygotes are what is formed after a sperm and ovum meet and fuse together.

    Singularity means the state of being a single entity, and what I mean by it in my arguments is that you could view any sperm-ovum pair which haven't merged yet as a potential person, and if one of them dies then the potential person dies too. I see the progression from existing as two entities, a sperm and an ovum, to one, a zygote, as simply being an arbitrary step in the development process. This is what I mean when I ask why singularity is so important.


  • #365
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Many thanks it has explained an awful lot.

    Is the zygote what divides it to cells which eventually becomes a foetus?

    What is the next step to the foetus ?

    Is what your trying to get to is decide a point of conception where life is born or something?


  • #366
    carlybabe1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,069 ✭✭✭carlybabe1


    always a pleasure earthhorse :)
    Earthhorse wrote: »
    Why 4 in 10?[/
    [

    cause thems the figures, for every ten babies born at 24 wks, only four will survive outside the womb in an incubator

    What a total load of crap. Most posts on this thread have been completely reasonable. If you don't like a vigorous debate then Humanities is not the place for you.

    You've just proved my point here with your reply,jees anyone would think you didnt agree with my opinion :)


    Nobody said it had little or no effect on the feotus.
    Eh actually, yeah they did or I wouldnt have posted this info, flick back a few pages before ye get on your high horse (no pun intended)


    What about them? You think their lives aren't worthwhile?

    On the contrary, my thoughts are how dare the irresponsible adult put an innocent child through the mill,because they have been careless, and continue to be careless towards that child. And its not because of some misplaced morality that junkies dont get abortions, its cause they spend all the money they can get on drugs.


    That wasn't Dragan's criteria as far as we can tell from his post.

    I wasnt replying to anything in dragans post or Id have quoted him....like I have you


    Other cut off points are decided upon in the same way. Really, I don't think your suggestion of abortion until birth is actually workable. I think even most pro-choicers would have problems with it.

    No mention of my cut off point??? why's that

    That's avoiding the question frankly. It doesn't matter why the baby is in the incubator, what matters is that it is there. This leads us to the question as to why its life is valuable outside the womb and not inside when the same amount of development has taken place or the same time period has elapsed.
    Thats the whole basis of his argument, location, and whether the baby is wanted or not

    To die naturally and to be killed are not the same thing.


    neither is prochoice and proabortion
    The point you've picked is really just as arbitrary as everyone elses, you've just given a different weighting to different criteria. Most people recognise that this debate isn't just about a physical stage of development; the problem has always been coming up with a defintion of what it is to be a human being, and thus a point at which we can identify that you have become one, that is satisfactory to all parties.

    Eh actually it is, several posts and arguments bare based on when the cut off point should be. If you dont think a cut off point is relevent, and abortion is just wrong no matter when it occurs then it would follow, (in a logical debate) that you must think the morning after pill is murder too???
    or do you indeed have a cut off point????


  • Advertisement
  • #367
    Phototoxin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,398 ✭✭✭Phototoxin


    carlybabe1 wrote: »
    always a pleasure earthhorse :)

    Eh actually it is, several posts and arguments bare based on when the cut off point should be. If you dont think a cut off point is relevent, and abortion is just wrong no matter when it occurs then it would follow, (in a logical debate) that you must think the morning after pill is murder too???
    or do you indeed have a cut off point????

    the morning after pill usually contains an abortificant aswell so that even if it does not cause a miscarrage (also killing the foetus) then it will destroy it.

    I would say and believe that using the morning after pill is killing an unborn baby.


  • #368
    carlybabe1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,069 ✭✭✭carlybabe1


    Phototoxin wrote: »
    the morning after pill usually contains an abortificant aswell so that even if it does not cause a miscarrage (also killing the foetus) then it will destroy it.


    As the morning after pill is only effective for up to 72 hrs after sex there is no feotus present at this time, just a ball of 12-16 cells called the morula




    I would say and believe that using the morning after pill is killing an unborn baby.

    As that statement has been made with no obvious scientific background, I feel compelled to ask if your against contraception also, on the basis that it is preventing the potential for life of a feotus


  • #369
    LovelyHurling
    Closed Accounts Posts: 955 ✭✭✭LovelyHurling


    phototoxin, your central argument, i presume revolves around the premise that if left to its own devices and the natural order of things, the initial blastocyst becomes a human being with thoughts, sentience and self perception with the ability to feel pail and emotion and generally experience life, thus abortion is wrong all along the line from fertilisation onwards. correct?

    Well what about the situation where if a non abotificant ecp were used? This would prevent a potential fertilisation taking place which would perhaps other wise have happened, if the couple were to go with nature/ God, whatever. In this case, the zygote that never was could have become a human but didn't because a woman took the morning after pill (ecp).

    So do you also oppose these pills even if they are not abortificants, but prevent fertilisation?

    And if so, what is your take on the condom?


  • #370
    tallaght01
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,778 ✭✭✭tallaght01


    carlybabe1 wrote: »
    Heres an idea, what about a cut off point of 24 wks, as there is a 4 in 10 chance that the fetus can survive outside the womb in intensive care..... No takers?

    It's more like 50% nowadays. So, what's your new cut off point now, seeing as 40% was the gold standard?
    carlybabe1 wrote: »
    Heres the way the law lies in regards to a woman having a miscarriage at the hands of an assault, the perp will only be done for assault because " the feotus needs an independent existence to qualify as a person under common law".

    So, the law as it stands should provide the moral framework for this debate?

    In that case, seeing as abortion is ilegal in Ireland, it's end of discussion....abortion must be wrong, no?
    carlybabe1 wrote: »
    As for women who drink/smoke/ take drugs, how can you say that it little or no affect on the feotus??? thats rediculous, for **** sake, we wouldnt be told not to if it had no affect...What about premature babies that have to be weaned off smack in intensive care, that cant stop cryin because they are goin through withdrawls that thier adult parents couldnt stick or they wouldnt be born addicted.... not to mention Feotal Alcohol Syndrome

    If this was directed at my post, then re-read it. I said that the majority of people who do the above have structurally normal babies I even specifically mentioned neonatal abstinence syndrome. It's horrific to watch. It doesn't require an intensive care admission, though, on it's own.
    carlybabe1 wrote: »
    Heres what I REALLY think, in the words of a famous friend " NO UTERUS, NO OPINION" :p:p:p:p:p:p
    Put that in your smoke and pipe it

    If a woman has a hysterectomy, does that then make her opinions invalid? Your mate can say what she wants, but her opinion is no more valid than anyone else's. I feel I have a professional and moral responsibility to advocate for babies, regardless of what my reproductive organs are.


  • #371
    tallaght01
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,778 ✭✭✭tallaght01


    JC 2K3 wrote: »

    Presumably, if it's in the incubator, the parents want it.


    .

    That's just not true. Preterm babies are often really difficult to look after when they get discharged from hospitals. Many of them get put up for fostering/adoption.
    Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »
    Zygote can't feel pain, zygote can't think, unless you believe in a soul that's meaningless.

    So, is the ability to think and feel pain your central criteria. Because there's a lot of debate and unanswered questions about when babies can start to think, and even when they can feel pain. No-one really knows all the answers, when it comes to those questions.
    JC 2K3 wrote: »
    I don't believe location is as unimportant as you make it out to be.

    so what os it about location that makes it the important issue?
    Earthhorse wrote: »
    What happens after 18 weeks? Not a trick question or anything, genuinely interested.

    I'd be interested to know this too.
    CDfm wrote: »
    I find your posts explanatory and thanks for posting them .This is a part I dont really understand and when it gets to stuff like zygotes and whatever I am completely lost.

    The bioligy side of it looses me and Im with the ladybird edition here.

    But I think Im getting the hang of sorting out metaphysics from metaphors and now know what CNS is .

    What are zygots are they a bioligy term pre sperm and ova.

    The term singularity also I dont understand.Do people mean at point of conception or is it baby at birth.

    I am not looking for information to use as an argument but really would like to understand a bit more on what is being posted.

    Apologies if my terminology was too scientific. I think another poster answered the questions you asked. But if I say anyting in the future that I haven't fully explained, please feel free to ask for clarification :D
    Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »
    Nervous system develops 18-27 weeks

    Well, the nervous system starts developing at week 4 to 5, and it's not finished developing even when the child is born.


  • Advertisement
  • #372
    carlybabe1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,069 ✭✭✭carlybabe1


    [
    quote=tallaght01;57122736]But the vast majority of babies born to, say, junkies, don't have any structural abnormalities. They very often withdraw from the drug for a few days, which is horrific to watch. But most of them come to no long term harm.



    really? no cases of hiv or aids, hepatitis or kidney problems?


    tallaght01 wrote: »
    Most women who drink and smoke during pregnancy don't have babies with any particular structural abnormality either. Though many do.


    Wats asthma? feotal alcohol syndrome? renal problems or low birth weight

    The adoption issue is, however, available to them of they really didn't want the baby. That's where I'm not sure where a group of women who abuse their bodies during pregnancy really come into the equation. They either want the baby or they don't. If the do, they won't get an abortion anyway. If they don't want it, they can put it up for adoption. This subgroup of women should have little effect ont he overall point of this debate.



    They should be able to have an abortion if they so wish, as they are not in a position to look after a child when clearly they cant look after themselves.

    tallaght01 wrote: »
    I think the point that Malari is making is that taking the pregnancy to full term isn't neccesarily going to benefit the child, as some parents can really abuse their bodies while they're pregnant.

    I don't agree with the point, though. Parents do all kinds of crazy **** while they're pregnant, and their kids are, by and large, OK. It's once they go home the trouble starts!

    What evidence do you base this on, and if they go home to an abusive/neglected home is that ok cause they are no longer your problem?

    What about the women who DO take every precaution and still get caught?? Condoms like people are not infallible, the pill while a better option still isnt infallible, so short of sterilisation or total abstinence nothing is 100% babyproof


  • #373
    tallaght01
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,778 ✭✭✭tallaght01


    carlybabe1 wrote: »
    really? no cases of hiv or aids, hepatitis or kidney problems?







    They should be able to have an abortion if they so wish, as they are not in a position to look after a child when clearly they cant look after themselves.




    What evidence do you base this on, and if they go home to an abusive/neglected home is that ok cause they are no longer your problem?

    What about the women who DO take every precaution and still get caught?? Condoms like people are not infallible, the pill while a better option still isnt infallible, so short of sterilisation or total abstinence nothing is 100% babyproof


    Do you just have an issue witht he word "most" or the phrase "by and large"? Or is the the overall logic that has you stumped.

    Let me reiterate for you what I've already said.

    Most children of people who drink or smoke or take drugs don't have structural abnormalities.

    By and large these children are OK.

    These children have horrific lives AFTER they go home...THAT is where te real problems starts. So, the argument is simple....I have no problem with these people taking their baby to term, rather than aborting them. They can then give up a relatively healthy baby for adoption.

    I don't see what's so complex about that.

    Bringing in HIV/hepatitis is, again, focussing on a very small issue. The vast majority of babies born to, say, HIV positive parents don't go on to contract the disease. In Ireland it's down to about 1% transmission rate.


  • #374
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    carlybabe1 wrote: »
    really? no cases of hiv or aids, hepatitis or kidney problems?







    They should be able to have an abortion if they so wish, as they are not in a position to look after a child when clearly they cant look after themselves.




    What evidence do you base this on, and if they go home to an abusive/neglected home is that ok cause they are no longer your problem?

    What about the women who DO take every precaution and still get caught?? Condoms like people are not infallible, the pill while a better option still isnt infallible, so short of sterilisation or total abstinence nothing is 100% babyproof
    carlybabe1 by this logic dont we go into the realm of eugenics where we organise out all societies problems but not thru sterilisation but abortion? is this your proposal with a kind of socio- economic criteria.

    So to save the child from this we kill them?

    Whats wrong with adoption or fostercare. If the same interest groups pushing abortion decided in the morning to make adoption part of the aims why not. It would be a logical conclusion in the context of child welfare if child welfare is the justification for abortion.(I suspect it would alienate political support so the question is rhetorical if you want it to be - but I would like to hear your take on it).

    thats ( abortion on socio-economic grounds) is a very arbitrary decision to make and who makes it? Do we appoint an Abortion Ombudsman to make a decision on who to abort?( I suppose you would see yourself in that role)

    The point being you are using the exceptions to create the rule which seems to be what has happened in other countries.Many people in those countries disagree with practice as it has developed but are desensitised to it and many of the laws have developed not as intented.

    Im a guy or sorry a uterus challenged person .


  • #375
    eveie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 307 ✭✭eveie


    i havent posted in the last few days and i dont have time yo look at all the posts.
    ok carlybabe i have a MAJOR problem with your attitude towards me, please point out where i suggested that women who have abortions are BAD people? i never once said that not once, i do not judge people but i can judge actions as i judge my own actions on an on going basis.
    if you are soooooooo pro-choce about everything then i presume you are pro-choice about rape, murder etc, you did say that you do not have the right to judge anyone.
    i dont kow what age you are carlybabe and im trying not to sound patronising although i know it will come across that way but maybe just maybe you will chance your mind on this.
    and again just because im pro-life does not directly mean that i attribute my beliefs on the back of some religion. i dont need religion to know what is right or what is wrong.


  • #376
    eveie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 307 ✭✭eveie


    can i just say some arguments here are ridiclious, i mean a baby would talk more sense
    "Well, that's not what you said in what I quoted, and if humans can decide that animals are ok to kill, why can't they decide that unborn humans are too?" jc2k3
    now come on!!!!!! what seperates us from animals is that we have a conscience, wanna argue with that one too? an animal will eat its own ****, will kill for survival, will piss up against your leg, it doesnt have a conscience, and if you argue that we are no better then animals then you can let out all the rapist, murderers, abusers etc from prision because we must not have a conscience therefore we know not what we did


  • #377
    Nevyn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 43,044 ✭✭✭✭Nevyn


    Phototoxin wrote: »
    the morning after pill usually contains an abortificant aswell so that even if it does not cause a miscarrage (also killing the foetus) then it will destroy it.

    It does not if it did it would not be legal.
    Phototoxin wrote: »
    I would say and believe that using the morning after pill is killing an unborn baby.

    The medical and legal institution and profession disagree with you.

    tallaght01 you asked about statstics for % of what week gestation abotions were being carried out.

    http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsStatistics/DH_085508
    Key facts

    In 2007, for women resident in England and Wales:

    * the total number of abortions was 198,500, compared with 193,700 in 2006, a rise of 2.5%

    * the age-standardised abortion rate was 18.6 per 1,000 resident women aged 15-44, compared with 18.3 in 2006

    * the abortion rate was highest at 36 per 1,000, for women age 19

    * the under-16 abortion rate was 4.4 and the under- 18 rate was 19.8 per 1,000 women, both higher than in 2006

    * 89% of abortions were funded by the NHS; of these, just over half (57%) took place in the independent sector under NHS contract

    * 90% of abortions were carried out at under 13 weeks gestation; 70% were at under 10 weeks

    * medical abortions accounted for 35% of the total compared with 30% in 2006

    * 1,900 abortions (1%) were under ground E, risk that the child would be born handicapped


  • #378
    Blazer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,507 ✭✭✭✭Blazer


    Right and Wrong.

    Right for when girl is sexually abused as in rape/incest etc.
    Wrong for all other cases and this includes disabilities etc.


  • #379
    eveie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 307 ✭✭eveie


    thedydal if you are of the beliefe that conception is the begining of a life then the m.a.p is a form of abortion, not always it depends on weather conception/implantation has taken place but it can destroy the zygote and it can also prevent implantation, so its hit and miss to be honest, no one can say for sure weather or not the m.a.p always induces abortion


  • #380
    Nevyn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 43,044 ✭✭✭✭Nevyn


    eveie wrote: »
    thedydal if you are of the beliefe that conception is the begining of a life then the m.a.p is a form of abortion, not always it depends on weather conception/implantation has taken place but it can destroy the zygote and it can also prevent implantation, so its hit and miss to be honest, no one can say for sure weather or not the m.a.p always induces abortion

    Again The medical and legal institution and profession disagree with you.


  • #381
    eveie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 307 ✭✭eveie


    thedydal im not arguing with you over this point im just stating that if you believe that from the moment of conception that a life is created then m.a.p can sometimes be clasified as a very early abortion. i am aware that the medical profession do not agree with this


  • Advertisement
  • #382
    eveie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 307 ✭✭eveie


    thedydal ive heard statistics that are not in line with the ones you gave now i am not saying that your ones are false but there is some mis-leading information our there, however the statistics ive heard may be wrong


  • #383
    Dragan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,497 ✭✭✭✭Dragan


    CDfm wrote: »
    Whats wrong with adoption or fostercare. If the same interest groups pushing abortion decided in the morning to make adoption part of the aims why not. It would be a logical conclusion in the context of child welfare if child welfare is the justification for abortion.(I suspect it would alienate political support so the question is rhetorical if you want it to be - but I would like to hear your take on it).

    I'd like to see some links or numbers around how long these kids end up waiting around, how many moves from foster homes, later mental health etc.

    Why? Because i'm curious. Any links would be appreciated.

    Also, i see nothing wrong with adoption or foster care, perfect options for those who want it.


  • #384
    tallaght01
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,778 ✭✭✭tallaght01


    Thaedydal wrote: »
    It does not if it did it would not be legal.



    The medical and legal institution and profession disagree with you.

    tallaght01 you asked about statstics for % of what week gestation abotions were being carried out.

    http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsStatistics/DH_085508

    Key facts

    In 2007, for women resident in England and Wales:

    * the total number of abortions was 198,500, compared with 193,700 in 2006, a rise of 2.5%

    * the age-standardised abortion rate was 18.6 per 1,000 resident women aged 15-44, compared with 18.3 in 2006

    * the abortion rate was highest at 36 per 1,000, for women age 19

    * the under-16 abortion rate was 4.4 and the under- 18 rate was 19.8 per 1,000 women, both higher than in 2006

    * 89% of abortions were funded by the NHS; of these, just over half (57%) took place in the independent sector under NHS contract

    * 90% of abortions were carried out at under 13 weeks gestation; 70% were at under 10 weeks

    * medical abortions accounted for 35% of the total compared with 30% in 2006

    * 1,900 abortions (1%) were under ground E, risk that the child would be born handicapped



    I think I was more talking about the statistics relating to when women find out they're pregnant....BUT the above stats beg an interesting question......

    You see how they talk about "ground E" above?....
    well this relates to the grounds upon which it is legal for a woman to have an abortion in the UK. Ground E refers to the possibility of the child being born handicapped etc. I've listed the "grounds for abortion" in the UK below:

    Statutory grounds for abortion

    4.2.1 A legally induced abortion must be
    certified by two registered medical
    practitioners as justified under one or more
    of the following grounds:


    A the continuance of the pregnancy
    would involve risk to the life of
    the pregnant woman greater than
    if the pregnancy were terminated
    (Abortion Act, 1967 as amended,
    section 1(1)(c))


    B the termination is necessary to
    prevent grave permanent injury to
    the physical or mental health of
    the pregnant woman (section
    1(1)(b))


    C the pregnancy has not exceeded its
    twenty-fourth week and that the
    continuance of the pregnancy
    would involve risk, greater than if
    the pregnancy were terminated, of
    injury to the physical or mental
    health of the pregnant woman
    (section 1(1)(a))


    D the pregnancy has not exceeded its
    twenty-fourth week and that the
    continuance of the pregnancy
    would involve risk, greater than if
    the pregnancy were terminated, of
    injury to the physical or mental
    health of any existing children of
    the family of the pregnant woman
    (section 1(1)(a))


    E there is a substantial risk that if
    the child were born it would suffer
    from such physical or mental
    abnormalities as to be seriously
    handicapped (section 1(1)(d))
    or in an emergency, certified by the
    operating practitioner as immediately
    necessary:


    F to save the life of the pregnant
    woman (section 1(4))


    G to prevent grave permanent injury
    to the physical or mental health of
    the pregnant woman (section 1(4))

    So, if we look at the above reasons, we can see the circumstances under which you're allowed have an abortion in the UK.

    98% are based on option C.

    the pregnancy has not exceeded its
    twenty-fourth week and that the
    continuance of the pregnancy
    would involve risk, greater than if
    the pregnancy were terminated, of
    injury to the physical or mental
    health of the pregnant woman

    This is the claim made by most women who get an abortion.

    Do the pro-choice people believe that the majority of women who get an abortion really do risk injury to their physical or mental health that is greater than if they carried the pregnancy to term?

    My experience tells me that people take the piss with this loophole. But that's my opinion. It's not more valid than anyone else's. But I'm curious as to whether people think most women really, genuinely fall intot his category.


  • #385
    Dragan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,497 ✭✭✭✭Dragan


    eveie wrote: »
    thedydal ive heard statistics that are not in line with the ones you gave now i am not saying that your ones are false but there is some mis-leading information our there, however the statistics ive heard may be wrong

    I work with statistics to make my bread and butter. You either make them up or they are right.

    It's advisable to check sources very well with these things tbh.


  • #386
    tallaght01
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,778 ✭✭✭tallaght01


    Dragan wrote: »
    I'd like to see some links or numbers around how long these kids end up waiting around, how many moves from foster homes, later mental health etc.

    Why? Because i'm curious. Any links would be appreciated.

    Also, i see nothing wrong with adoption or foster care, perfect options for those who want it.


    You wouldn't believe how little exists in the way of proper government stats on fostered and adopted kids. It's shocking. They're not a powerful lobby. They have no political sway, and they're not a trendy group to be associated with, so there's no real interest in them, though that has been changing a bit over the last few years. But not much, sadly.


  • #387
    eveie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 307 ✭✭eveie


    your opinion is right and no one can argue with it, countless women have abrotions where there is no risk to thier health be it physical or mental.


  • #388
    tallaght01
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,778 ✭✭✭tallaght01


    eveie wrote: »
    your opinion is right and no one can argue with it, countless women have abrotions where there is no risk to thier health be it physical or mental.


    That's a very entrenched stance.

    Of course people can argue with it. Maybe it's better to have a loophole like this than to allow women who will be mentally damaged by their birth carry a baby to term? How do we police the "risk of mental illness" criterion too?

    All difficult questions, unfortunately.


  • #389
    JC 2K3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,794 ✭✭✭JC 2K3


    eveie wrote: »
    can i just say some arguments here are ridiclious, i mean a baby would talk more sense
    "Well, that's not what you said in what I quoted, and if humans can decide that animals are ok to kill, why can't they decide that unborn humans are too?" jc2k3
    now come on!!!!!! what seperates us from animals is that we have a conscience, wanna argue with that one too? an animal will eat its own ****, will kill for survival, will piss up against your leg, it doesnt have a conscience, and if you argue that we are no better then animals then you can let out all the rapist, murderers, abusers etc from prision because we must not have a conscience therefore we know not what we did
    I would, but I've had enough of this thread at this stage, and while an external observer might not agree with my views, they certainly would be able to take them seriously, with you I'm not so sure about that. I'd advise you to argue in a more calm and rational fashion and without putting words in others' mouths.


  • #390
    Nevyn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 43,044 ✭✭✭✭Nevyn


    Really eveie can you cite studies that show that continuing an unwanted pregnany has no ill effects what so ever on a woman ?


  • Advertisement
  • #391
    Dragan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,497 ✭✭✭✭Dragan


    eveie wrote: »
    your opinion is right and no one can argue with it, countless women have abrotions where there is no risk to thier health be it physical or mental.

    Now that my dear is what we call a leap of logic.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement