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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Abortion (may contain details that some might find upsetting)

13

Comments

  • #102
    Pygmalion
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,082 ✭✭✭Pygmalion


    thebman wrote: »
    An unborn child be it a child or not is not a citizen and so in the eyes of the state, the rights of the citizen should come first.

    A tourist is not a citizen either, the state and the police force must still protect them against criminal acts, and it's still illegal to attack, steal from, or murder them.

    So no, the foetus isn't being granted the rights of a citizen, merely the rights of a human.


  • #103
    thebman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,012 ✭✭✭✭thebman


    Pygmalion wrote: »
    A tourist is not a citizen either, the state and the police force must still protect them against criminal acts, and it's still illegal to attack, steal from, or murder them.

    So no, the foetus isn't being granted the rights of a citizen, merely the rights of a human.

    No but they are citizens from recognised states with permission to be in the state. An unborn child has no such documentation.

    If Asylum Seekers come to Ireland, we deport them or request they apply for refugee status and in many cases even if they are claiming they are in fear of their lifes, we deport them.


  • #104
    Icarian
    Registered Users Posts: 256 ✭✭Icarian


    If someone accidentally ends up pregnant through consentual sex, then I disagree with anything except the morning after pill.

    If you don't want the kid, then at least give it up for adoption, killing an unborn baby is disgustingly inhumane when theres plenty of people who'd lova a kid, but can't have one.

    adoption means the kid won't ruin your life, and still gets a chance at life, and with that as an option, abortion is just sick. imo, it's murder


  • #105
    TEMPLAR KNIGHT
    Closed Accounts Posts: 961 ✭✭✭TEMPLAR KNIGHT


    i dont know which is worse killing a child in the womb, or letting that child grow up and feel unwanted its whole life....tough call


  • #106
    Pygmalion
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,082 ✭✭✭Pygmalion


    thebman wrote: »
    If Asylum Seekers come to Ireland, we deport them or request they apply for refugee status and in many cases even if they are claiming they are in fear of their lifes, we deport them.

    I don't see how this is relevant at all?

    Murder doesn't have anything to do with the nationality or citizenship of the victim*.
    I responded to your previous post only to make it clear that the right to life was a human right, not one granted to citizens (either citizens of Ireland or citizens of other countries with permission to be here), so the issue of nationality and asylum seekers doesn't really apply.
    The only issue is the point at which the unborn can be considered human.

    *I wish I could find a modern source for that, most modern legislation I can find related to murder is an English act from 1861 which lists the punishment as death so clearly it must've been amended since then :P


  • #107
    thebman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,012 ✭✭✭✭thebman


    Pygmalion wrote: »
    I don't see how this is relevant at all?

    Murder doesn't have anything to do with the nationality or citizenship of the victim*.
    I responded to your previous post only to make it clear that the right to life was a human right, not one granted to citizens (either citizens of Ireland or citizens of other countries with permission to be here), so the issue of nationality and asylum seekers doesn't really apply.
    The only issue is the point at which the unborn can be considered human.

    *I wish I could find a modern source for that, most modern legislation I can find related to murder is an English act from 1861 which lists the punishment as death so clearly it must've been amended since then :P

    A fetus doesn't have human rights or every country allows abortions would be violating those rights too. It isn't recognised as violating a living beings rights. Some people may argue it should but it isn't currently the case AFAIK.


  • #108
    Pygmalion
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,082 ✭✭✭Pygmalion


    thebman wrote: »
    A fetus doesn't have human rights or every country allows abortions would be violating those rights too.
    True, in fact looking at it now Irish law doesn't actually specifically call it "human" from what I see.
    Although there are many people who would consider it to be, which is very relevant to this discussion, but meaningless in a court :P.
    It isn't recognised as violating a living beings rights. Some people may argue it should but it isn't currently the case AFAIK.
    3° The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.

    It says that the unborn have the right to life and it must be defended by law, does this not classify abortion as "violating a living beings rights"?

    This isn't internationally recognised of course, but very few things past the incredibly clear-cut are, and even then it's up to individual countries to enforce them (or even if they wish to).


  • #109
    Slow Show
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,248 ✭✭✭Slow Show


    OK, I'll add my two cents on this.
    I'm probably not nearly informed enough to start a proper discussion, but I'm pro-choice. I don't agree with abortion, and I don't think I could ever go through with it, but in the end surely everyone has the right to decide what they want to do with their body. Call it murder or whatever, it's not up to us to decide. Although I think you have to draw the line where a baby could be brought up in a perfectly stable environment, but doesn't because the parents don't want a/another kid or something.
    But everyone is entitled to their opinion.


  • #110
    thebman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,012 ✭✭✭✭thebman


    Pygmalion wrote: »
    True, in fact looking at it now Irish law doesn't actually specifically call it "human" from what I see.
    Although there are many people who would consider it to be, which is very relevant to this discussion, but meaningless in a court :P.

    It says that the unborn have the right to life and it must be defended by law, does this not classify abortion as "violating a living beings rights"?

    This isn't internationally recognised of course, but very few things past the incredibly clear-cut are, and even then it's up to individual countries to enforce them (or even if they wish to).

    I don't think Irish law is relevant on the issue since we are questioning its merit TBH or at least I am :D

    Kind of like defining a word and using the word your trying to define in its definition.

    I'd love to see the reasoning behind this being the stance for Ireland other sure the nuns wouldn't approve if we let that go on.


  • #111
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Insect Overlord wrote: »
    In light of post #19, I'm going to edit the thread title slightly.
    Some of those details are extremely graphic. Upsettingly so, it might be said.

    The ins and outs of abortion itself are extremely graphic in all due fairness. Perhaps it is a reflection on the gravity of the practice and how seriously it should be regarded.


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    vladglenin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 100 ✭✭vladglenin


    n2209358666_29657.jpg

    "Abortions for some, minature american flags for others!"


  • #113
    Pygmalion
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,082 ✭✭✭Pygmalion


    thebman wrote: »
    I don't think Irish law is relevant on the issue since we are questioning its merit TBH or at least I am :D

    Kind of like defining a word and using the word your trying to define in its definition.

    Hey, you're the guy who brought citizenship into this and then posted about asylum seekers >.>

    Although I agree that the current law on it isn't that relevant to the discussion at hand


  • #114
    KnifeWRENCH
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,148 ✭✭✭✭KnifeWRENCH


    Davidius wrote: »
    By the same token some would argue as to why it shouldn't be given human rights if it's 'human', although one that is yet to be born.
    Well yes....that's where the whole crux of the argument lies.
    Well they can't really convince that it's wrong if you have a definite stance on the basis of their argument (i.e. you believe embryos aren't entitled to human rights).
    I have a definite stance now; that doesn't mean it won't change if a very convincing pro-life argument is put before me (I vcery much doubt the odds of that ever happening though.)
    On the note of late term abortions, do you believe that it is OK to kill a baby that was born long before it was due yet managed to survive? Would it not be considered similar to aborting a foetus at the same stage?
    I don't believe it's right to kill a baby that has actually been born, no. I wouldn't consider it that similar to aborting a foetus at the same stage, the vital difference being one is out of the womb, the other is still in the womb.

    Basically, I believe that as long as it's still in the womb, the rights of the mother should take precedence over the rights of the foetus. It's not a popular opinion among either pro-life OR pro-choice people, but it's just the way I feel personally. I don't expect everyone to agree.
    Bigdeadlydave wrote: »
    I think its sick that people maintain that fetuses aren't actually babies/alive/human or whatever.
    I think it's science. But sick, science = potato, po-tah-to. :rolleyes:
    Pro-choice? What a joke. People shouldn't be allowed to decide for themselves whats best in some circumstances. Thats why there are laws. If everyone could make up their own minds about everything we would have anarchy. Basically what these people want is the option of weather to blend up their unborn baby or not. Sick. Lets have a referendum on murder too. I would also like the choice of robbing my local bank and hitting biffo a box with no repercussions please!

    Yeah, because every pro-choicer believes in anarchy and murder! :rolleyes: If you people to listen to and respect your point of view, perhaps argue rationally and unemotively as opposed to making ridiculous comparisons and generalisations.


  • #115
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    KnifeWRENCH wrote: »
    I think it's science. But sick, science = potato, po-tah-to. :rolleyes:

    There isn't any science that says that a foetus isn't a living human being. I have a feeling there will be a lot of such attempts to pass off certain opinions as science in this thread.


  • #116
    KnifeWRENCH
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,148 ✭✭✭✭KnifeWRENCH


    Jakkass wrote: »
    There isn't any science that says that a foetus isn't a living human being.
    Fair enough, a scientific definition of when human life begins is pretty much
    impossible to pin down. The only thing one can do is look at what is known and make a judgement based on this.
    That comment was meant to be sarcastic/facetious btw (hence the :rolleyes:) It was a response to being labelled "sick" by the person I was replying to.
    I have a feeling there will be a lot of such attempts to pass off certain opinions as science in this thread.

    And any such attempts will come from both sides of the debate, not just the pro-choice side.


  • #117
    thatone!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 241 ✭✭thatone!


    I'd consider myself pro-choice but I could never imagine myself being able to go through with having an abortion. But then again I wouldn't judge anyone who makes the decision to have it, I don't think a judgement can be made without being in that situation. I've known women that have gotten abortions for various reasons so I think it should definitely be left up to the individual themselves to make the decision.
    Well anyway there's my opinion :P


  • #118
    Ginja Ninja
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,532 ✭✭✭Ginja Ninja


    vladglenin wrote: »
    n2209358666_29657.jpg

    "Abortions for some, minature american flags for others!"
    I'm all for a cheap laugh and lifting the tone of a thread,but less of that thanks.This is a topic that could effect people who post here.


  • #119
    Pigwidgeon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,590 ✭✭✭Pigwidgeon


    I'm pro-choice. Although I doubt I would ever be able to have an abortion myself, but in saying that, I honestly don't know what my decision would be if I was in the situation. I don't know how I'd feel about giving a child up for adoption, knowing they were out there and I didn't know how they were doing, if I wasn't ready (which I am nowhere near now) it is possible I would have one. Like I said, I wouldn't know until it was decision time.

    While abortion is not for me, I don't think anyone should be able to have the power to influence my decision, except the father, it's ridiculous that fathers have so little say in their child's life in this country, but that's a topic for another day. It isn't fair that the state should decide whether a woman must keep a child or not, as has been mentioned, if she wants an abortion she will get one. If the government did what they are supposed to and cared about the well being of the citizens of this country, they would want these procedures to be done properly.

    I am totally against late-term abortions. That is wrong. I think the fact it can be done in the UK as late as 24 weeks (6 months) unless it is due to serious health consequences, if you have let your pregnancy get that far you shouldn't have an abortion, as I think at that stage, it is most definitely alive, considering there have been babies born at 21 weeks that have gone on to survive. Honestly, I don't believe abortions should be carried out later than 9 weeks.

    I realise, that my views on this are very mixed up, but basically, I think everyone should have the option to choose whether or not they have a child.


  • #120
    hitlersson666
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,544 ✭✭✭hitlersson666


    You can get a abortion at 20 weeks!! Babies have been born at 20 weeks and survived!!1 This shows that there more than a bunch of cells but a living person!!
    Imo its fuked up and sick!! 4 weeks is one thing but to practially kill your unborn child who can see and hear is just wrong!


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    deisedude
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,921 ✭✭✭deisedude


    What about abortions for some, miniature American flags for others?


  • #122
    Ginja Ninja
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,532 ✭✭✭Ginja Ninja


    hitlersson666 wrote: »
    You can get a abortion at 20 weeks!! Babies have been born at 20 weeks and survived!!1 This shows that there more than a bunch of cells but a living person!!
    Imo its fuked up and sick!! 4 weeks is one thing but to practially kill your unborn child who can see and hear is just wrong!
    this I would agree with.I think maybe 2 months is the limit,once the child is able to sustain itself[I.E when the heart starts beating] it's alive and you're actually killing it.

    Just my opinion/definition of life.
    deisedude wrote:
    What about abortions for some, miniature American flags for others?

    see previous post for a response to this


  • #123
    hitlersson666
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,544 ✭✭✭hitlersson666


    Same here but if someone is to go through with this then at least have some thought into it rather that make the desision in like a hour other things!


  • #124
    Ginja Ninja
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,532 ✭✭✭Ginja Ninja


    hitlersson666 wrote: »
    Same here but if someone is to go through with this then at least have some thought into it rather that make the desision in like a hour other things!
    I can say with almost absolute certainty no one,just decides in an hour or so to up and have an abortion


  • #125
    cynder
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,128 ✭✭✭cynder


    thebman wrote: »
    A fetus doesn't have human rights or every country allows abortions would be violating those rights too. It isn't recognised as violating a living beings rights. Some people may argue it should but it isn't currently the case AFAIK.


    isnt there something called : Feticide or foeticide is an act that causes the death of a fetus.[1] In a legal context, "fetal homicide" or "child destruction" refers to the deliberate or incidental killing of a fetus due to a criminal human act, such as a blow to the abdomen of a pregnant woman. As a medical term, feticide is destruction of a fetus,[2] for example as the first phase of a legal induced abortion.[3] Feticide does not refer to the death of a fetus from entirely natural causes, such as the miscarriage of a pregnancy.


    In 2004, Congress enacted and President Bush signed the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which recognizes the "child in utero" as a legal victim if he or she is injured or killed during the commission of any of 68 existing federal crimes of violence. These crimes include some acts that are federal crimes no matter where they occur (e.g., certain acts of terrorism), crimes in federal jurisdictions, crimes within the military system, crimes involving certain federal officials, and other special cases. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."
    Of the 35 states that recognize fetal homicide, 25 apply the principle throughout the period of pre-natal development, while 10 establish protection at some later stage, which varies from state to state. For example, California treats the killing of a fetus as homicide, but does not treat the killing of an embryo (prior to approximately eight weeks) as homicide, by construction of the California Supreme Court.[7] Some other states do not consider the killing of a fetus to be homicide until the fetus has reached quickening or viability.
    Unlawful abortion may be considered "feticide", even if the pregnant woman consents to the abortion.[8]


    In English law, "child destruction" is the crime of killing a child "capable of being born alive", before it has "a separate existence".[9] The crime was introduced by the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, to address a lacuna in the law:[9] infanticide did not apply to fetuses, and "procurement of a miscarriage" (criminal abortion under the Offences against the Person Act 1861) applied only to unviable fetuses.I][URL="http://www.boards.ie/wiki/Wikipedia:Disputed_statement"][COLOR=#002bb8]dubious[/COLOR][/URL] – [URL="http://www.boards.ie/wiki/Talk:Feticide#Dubious"][COLOR=#002bb8]discuss[/COLOR][/URL][/I The Crimes Act 1958 defined "capable of being born alive" as 28 weeks' gestation, later reduced to 24 weeks.[9] The 1990 Amendment to the Abortion Act 1967 means a medical practitioner cannot be guilty of the crime.[9] The charge of child destruction is rare.[10] A woman who had an unsafe abortion while 7½ months pregnant was given a suspended sentence of 12 months in 2007;[11] the Crown Prosecution Service was unaware of any similar conviction.[10]


  • #126
    Boston
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,163 ✭✭✭✭Boston


    Don't copy and paste wiki articles.


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    cynder
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,128 ✭✭✭cynder


    Just stating the fact that a fetus has human rights!


  • #128
    Ginja Ninja
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,532 ✭✭✭Ginja Ninja


    grindelwald wrote: »
    Just stating the fact that a fetus has human rights!
    and a lot of people agree with you.

    a FOETUS has human rights.

    an EMBRYO doesn't.IMO at least


  • #129
    hitlersson666
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,544 ✭✭✭hitlersson666


    but when is the line between embryo and fetus crossed?


  • #130
    Ginja Ninja
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,532 ✭✭✭Ginja Ninja


    hitlersson666 wrote: »
    but when is the line between embryo and fetus crossed?
    general concensus is 8 weeks,when the Placenta is a fully developed "person" it has all the organs /systems it will have when it's born,it just needs to fill out nad grow from there on in[at this stage it's about 2" in length] it would look definitely humanoid if you saw it,not just a cell/fleshy lump like it's been up to this point


  • #131
    Fad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,231 ✭✭✭Fad


    Basically, if it looks like a sea monkey, it means as much as a sea monkey to me........


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    Fad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,231 ✭✭✭Fad


    hitlersson666 wrote: »
    You can get a abortion at 20 weeks!! Babies have been born at 20 weeks and survived!!1 This shows that there more than a bunch of cells but a living person!!
    Imo its fuked up and sick!! 4 weeks is one thing but to practially kill your unborn child who can see and hear is just wrong!

    Babies have been born at 20 weeks, but not naturally, incredible lengths had to be gone to to keep these things alive.

    It's not nearly as simple as you imply.

    Please stop being so emotive........


  • #133
    hitlersson666
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,544 ✭✭✭hitlersson666


    Stop calling them things!!!!!!! ffs have some feeling!


  • #134
    Fad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,231 ✭✭✭Fad


    hitlersson666 wrote: »
    Stop calling them things!!!!!!! ffs have some feeling!

    I hope you're taking the piss now.

    I'm a nihilist. Feeling? Pssssssh!


  • #135
    Ginja Ninja
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,532 ✭✭✭Ginja Ninja


    Fad wrote: »
    Basically, if it looks like a sea monkey, it means as much as a sea monkey to me........
    wow,you're a bit of a bastard[and this coming from me] a bit of tact man.

    hitlersson666: the attention people pay to you rposts scales inversely with the amount of exclamation marks you use.

    and tbh they are things,until it can be born naturally,it's not a person IMO and they don't have "feelings" or nerves for that matter for at least a few months more


  • #136
    Fad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,231 ✭✭✭Fad


    Ginja Ninja wrote: »
    wow,you're a bit of a bastard[and this coming from me] a bit of tact man.

    You havent picked up on that? :P (ffs you've met me!)


  • #137
    hitlersson666
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,544 ✭✭✭hitlersson666


    Sorry but there not ''sea monkies''


  • #138
    Ginja Ninja
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,532 ✭✭✭Ginja Ninja


    Fad wrote: »
    You havent picked up on that? :P (ffs you've met me!)
    oh,I know I'm not THAT different.Bu twhen you've people dealing with/feeling strongly about sensitive issues like this a bit of subtlety goes a long way.I'm all for speaking your mind,but I'm not for making heartless comments to people who actually believe in this stuff.

    don't worry I'll be back making racist/tactless jokes in no time,but for now......take it easy on the baby-slaughter talk

    kthxbai


  • #139
    Fad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,231 ✭✭✭Fad


    hitlersson666 wrote: »
    Sorry but there not ''sea monkies''

    No, no they are not. I am not implying that they are. My point is they dont resemble a human in any capacity, they couldnt survive even with endless medical intervention. I dont think (If I somehow got cursed with a womb) I would have much of a problem terminating the pregnancy now.


  • #140
    Ginja Ninja
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,532 ✭✭✭Ginja Ninja


    Fad wrote: »
    I would have much of a problem terminating the pregnancy now.
    .......must .....not....link ....."stephen lynch a song for the ladie"


  • #141
    Joey the lips
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,262 ✭✭✭✭Joey the lips


    hitlersson666 wrote: »
    So fellow c&h's what's your view's

    Mine are that its wrong unless it's for the health of the mother or rape!
    If someone is stupid enough to have unprotected sex and they get pregnant that it's there responsibility

    My opinion exactly....


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    SligoBrewer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,632 ✭✭✭SligoBrewer


    hitlersson666 wrote: »
    Sorry but there not ''sea monkies''

    What annoys me is that you started this thread, asking for people's views, and then you force your views on other people.


  • #143
    hitlersson666
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,544 ✭✭✭hitlersson666


    Im not but its kinda offence and well abusive! each to there own!


  • #144
    Fad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,231 ✭✭✭Fad


    hitlersson666 wrote: »
    Im not but its kinda offence and well abusive! each to there own!

    I cannot understand how it's abusive. :confused:

    I makes me physically sick to agree with Sligobrewer*, but he's right.

    I listened to you, I disregarded your opinions, now disregard mine, (because I've thought it through for the last 4 years and there isnt a HOPE that you will change my mind.........)

    *(Love you Chris! :P)


  • #145
    Jay P
    Registered Users Posts: 4,944 ✭✭✭Jay P


    hitlersson666 wrote: »
    You can get a abortion at 20 weeks!! Babies have been born at 20 weeks and survived!!1 This shows that there more than a bunch of cells but a living person!!
    Imo its fuked up and sick!! 4 weeks is one thing but to practially kill your unborn child who can see and hear is just wrong!

    And how healthy did these babies turn out to be? As Fad said, it takes massive amounts of medical intervention just to make them live.
    hitlersson666 wrote: »
    Stop calling them things!!!!!!! ffs have some feeling!

    You say this like they have some form of advanced thought processes, which they certainly don't. They can feel in the same way that if I pinch you, you will feel it. They don't have emotions.



    Anyway.
    I'm pro-choice, I believe I'm quite liberal about most things. Though it has to be said, my stance on abortion has been rattled a bit since I read the actual procedures. They are quite scary and sickening.

    The choice bit is the most important part. I don't fully agree with abortions. In cases of rape and where the mother is in danger, then yes, I definitely think an abortion is a serious option. But other than that, I don't agree with it. Having a child is not necessarily the end of your life. The baby can be put up for adoption, and shockingly, the baby can also be kept.

    It might seem like my post doesn't make sense, but it makes sense in my head...


  • #146
    Fad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,231 ✭✭✭Fad


    Jay P wrote: »
    Though it has to be said, my stance on abortion has been rattled a bit since I read the actual procedures. They are quite scary and sickening.

    I'm not denying for a second that those procedures are kinda horrible, but they're also conveniently horrific examples. The quote that HS666 used was horribly sensationalist, brummytom's one from the NHS is much more fair (here) (I fail to see how that's sickening as he points out, but anyway......)


  • #147
    KnifeWRENCH
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,148 ✭✭✭✭KnifeWRENCH


    Ginja Ninja wrote: »
    I'm all for a cheap laugh and lifting the tone of a thread,but less of that thanks.This is a topic that could effect people who post here.
    Ginja Ninja wrote: »
    see previous post for a response to this

    Appreciate what you're trying to say here, but please don't backseat-mod. Report any posts you have a problem with.
    Ginja Ninja wrote: »
    wow,you're a bit of a bastard[and this coming from me] a bit of tact man.

    And less of that aswell. (I know you're messing and so does Fad, which is why you're escaping without an infraction. But less of the abuse, serious or otherwise.)


  • #148
    Jay P
    Registered Users Posts: 4,944 ✭✭✭Jay P


    Fad wrote: »
    I'm not denying for a second that those procedures are kinda horrible, but they're also conveniently horrific examples. The quote that HS666 used was horribly sensationalist, brummytom's one from the NHS is much more fair (here) (I fail to see how that's sickening as he points out, but anyway......)

    Yes, I know what you mean, it certainly is not as needlessly graphic. That said, I honestly can't say I like the NHS example very much either.


  • #149
    Novella
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,713 ✭✭✭✭Novella


    I've posted about abortion on Boards before, and the way I see it, the debate can go on and on, round and round, for pretty much ever. Right, wrong, who are any of us to say?

    It's so easy to sit in front of your computer and condemn others for not having the same views as you. It's easy to say that abortion is wrong. It's not easy to get pregnant at sixteen. It's not easy to find out that you're pregnant as the result of a rape. It's not easy to find out that you have cancer when you are pregnant and the only way to save your life is to end that of your child.

    People say that it's not ok to justify abortion with excuses. Sometimes though, life isn't so simple that the truth can be faced. Sometimes people have to do what they have to do and sometimes excuses aren't just that, they're chapters from peoples life stories.


  • #150
    Ultravid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 436 ✭✭Ultravid


    It is interesting that the 'pro-choice' side use the words of Jesus Christ to attempt to justify their position: 'This is my body'. Whilst the Divine Lord was crucified, shed His blood and died, giving His life for the life of the world, the woman who chooses abortion sheds the blood of her child, for her own life, her own convenience. One is an act of selfless, sacrificial love, the other a purely selfish act.


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    Pygmalion
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,082 ✭✭✭Pygmalion


    Ultravid wrote: »
    It is interesting that the 'pro-choice' side use the words of Jesus Christ to attempt to justify their position: 'This is my body'. Whilst the Divine Lord was crucified, shed His blood and died, giving His life for the life of the world, the woman who chooses abortion sheds the blood of her child, for her own life, her own convenience. One is an act of selfless, sacrificial love, the other a purely selfish act.

    Never thought of it that way.
    But tbh I'd say those in favour of abortion are generally not big into Jesus/Christianity.

    And no, I'm not saying that's a bad thing, I don't believe in a god myself.


Advertisement