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 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

2456730

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 830 ✭✭✭Born to Die


    Easy to say when you'll never physically have to deal with it.

    Some men are dealing with abortion everyday. Usually after the fact.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,960 ✭✭✭DarkJager


    Freely available abortion will become a form of contraception to the fcuking idiots that don't use contraception.

    Hysterical bull****. If it was ever legal it would be in absolutely necessary cases only. The pro life crowd would like you to believe that abortion would be as easy to book as a restaurant table.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 830 ✭✭✭Born to Die


    DarkJager wrote: »
    Hysterical bull****. If it was ever legal it would be in absolutely necessary cases only. The pro life crowd would like you to believe that abortion would be as easy to book as a restaurant table.

    I point you to the UK.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,145 ✭✭✭LETHAL LADY


    Sheeps wrote: »
    There are always exceptions and it's never black or white and this may be one of them along with some of the circumstances that it's legal at the minute to get an abortion. Threat to mothers life and no chance of survival, up to a certain stage of pregnancy etc.

    Sorry a bit confused about what you mean by legal, as far as I am aware and I could be wrong but the only form of termination in relation to no chance of survival is actually once the unborn baby has died and they are then allowed to perform a D&C.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,763 ✭✭✭Sheeps


    Sheeps wrote: »
    To hell with the woman's choice. It's not your body anymore. As soon as you become pregnant your body belongs to the baby as much as it belongs to you.

    I don't think this "pro choice" argument stands up in the same way I don't think it stands up if used to defend a mother who drinks and smoke when pregnant.

    To hell with your choice. I don't consider my opinion to be based on religious grounds in any way shape or form and I'm more "anti-choice" than I am "pro life".

    Well, what if the woman 'chose' to commit sucicide? Do you think this would be a better result than having the option of abortion available?
    Its never going to be a clear cut case of abortion or suicide because there are so many other variables missing from the little hypothetical example you've just made up there. In the event there is a legitimate threat to the mothers life certain options for abortions should become available, but it should be a last resort and reviewed on a case by case basis by some who's responsible for defending the baby's rights (judge or a doctor perhaps) as well as the mother.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,456 ✭✭✭✭Mr Benevolent


    The option should be available, regardless of moral objections. For instance, it's still illegal to terminate non-viable pregnancies (i.e, a foetus with a terminal abnormality) in Ireland. That's barbaric.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,763 ✭✭✭Sheeps


    Sheeps wrote: »
    There are always exceptions and it's never black or white and this may be one of them along with some of the circumstances that it's legal at the minute to get an abortion. Threat to mothers life and no chance of survival, up to a certain stage of pregnancy etc.

    Sorry a bit confused about what you mean by legal, as far as I am aware and I could be wrong but the only form of termination in relation to no chance of survival is actually once the unborn baby has died and they are then allowed to perform a D&C.
    Again, no two cases are the same. My point is that yes you are right I'm sure there are circumstances where abortion should be an option available to a mother where it is currently not, however I don't believe this decision should be left to the mother alone and my original point was that I'm more against the idea of "pro choice" than I am "pro life" or what ever the other side is labeled these days.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,296 ✭✭✭Frank Black


    Sheeps wrote: »
    Its never going to be a clear cut case of abortion or suicide because there are so many other variables missing from the little hypothetical example you've just made up there. In the event there is a legitimate threat to the mothers life certain options for abortions should become available, but it should be a last resort and reviewed on a case by case basis by some who's responsible for defending the baby's rights (judge or a doctor perhaps) as well as the mother.

    Yeah, we could hook them up to lie detectors I guess :rolleyes:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,763 ✭✭✭Sheeps


    Sheeps wrote: »
    Male, but this makes no difference. The point still remains.


    Easy to say when you'll never physically have to deal with it.
    Thats not an argument to my point.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,160 ✭✭✭Callan57


    I went through all this last time round in the '80, if the lunatic fringe are out of the traps again I'm going to have to emigrate.
    Nothing changes ... we're just a nation of hypocrites :eek:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,763 ✭✭✭Sheeps


    Sheeps wrote: »
    Its never going to be a clear cut case of abortion or suicide because there are so many other variables missing from the little hypothetical example you've just made up there. In the event there is a legitimate threat to the mothers life certain options for abortions should become available, but it should be a last resort and reviewed on a case by case basis by some who's responsible for defending the baby's rights (judge or a doctor perhaps) as well as the mother.

    Yeah, we could hook them up to lie detectors I guess :rolleyes:
    ...


  • Posts: 3,505 [Deleted User]


    Sheeps wrote: »
    In the event there is a legitimate threat to the mothers life certain options for abortions should become available, but it should be a last resort and reviewed on a case by case basis by some who's responsible for defending the baby's rights (judge or a doctor perhaps) as well as the mother.

    People will just keep going to the UK if that system is put in place.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 232 ✭✭LilyCricket


    People will just keep going to the UK if that system is put in place.

    Yes. I'd imagine a judge and doctor are going to look to the mother & their feelings first


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,145 ✭✭✭LETHAL LADY


    Sheeps wrote: »
    Again, no two cases are the same. My point is that yes you are right I'm sure there are circumstances where abortion should be an option available to a mother where it is currently not, however I don't believe this decision should be left to the mother alone and my original point was that I'm more against the idea of "pro choice" than I am "pro life" or what ever the other side is labeled these days.

    A family member was unfortunate enough to have a baby who would not and did not survive beyond birth at around 6 months, the babys condition was not confirmed to her until after 20 weeks even though there were early warning signs of something wrong. She was left deeply depressed and traumatised by having to continue through a pregnancy and labour without a happy outcome. If she had been aware of such an outcome earlier in the pregnancy are you insinuating that only a judge would be the right person to make the correct decision for her.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 232 ✭✭LilyCricket


    A family member was unfortunate enough to have a baby who would not and did not survive beyond birth at around 6 months, the babys condition was not confirmed to her until after 20 weeks even though there were early warning signs of something wrong. She was left deeply depressed and traumatised by having to continue through a pregnancy and labour without a happy outcome. If she had been aware of such an outcome earlier in the pregnancy are you insinuating that only a judge would be the right person to make the correct decision for her.


    Awful. My heart goes out to her


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,731 ✭✭✭Bullseye1


    As long as the tax payer doesn't pick up the tab.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 517 ✭✭✭Atlantis50


    What ever you think of abortion, people should have the freedom of choice IMO.

    Does freedom of choice supersede the right to life of the unborn?


  • Registered Users Posts: 851 ✭✭✭PrincessLola


    Sheeps wrote: »
    To hell with the woman's choice. It's not your body anymore. As soon as you become pregnant your body belongs to the baby as much as it belongs to you.

    I don't think this "pro choice" argument stands up in the same way I don't think it stands up if used to defend a mother who drinks and smoke when pregnant.

    To hell with your choice. I don't consider my opinion to be based on religious grounds in any way shape or form and I'm more "anti-choice" than I am "pro life".



    Personally I don't consider it a 'baby' at conception, potential baby sure, but not a baby. An acorn is not a tree, an egg is not a chicken, etc etc.

    Sorry, I just don't feel very sentimental about them that early:confused:

    Now let the raaage begin..


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 232 ✭✭LilyCricket


    [QUOTE=Bullseye1;7

    8248988]As long as the tax payer doesn't pick up the tab.[/QUOTE]

    I hope you're never unemployed, sick, or reach old age, mate


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 830 ✭✭✭Born to Die


    I hope you're never unemployed, sick, or reach old age, mate


    Why do you want him/her to die young?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    Does Ireland allow for the destruction of embryos in this country does anyone know? Is that covered under abortion legislation?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 232 ✭✭LilyCricket


    Why do you want him/her to die young?

    no?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 830 ✭✭✭Born to Die


    no?

    You posted that you hope he/she never reached old age!!


  • Registered Users Posts: 241 ✭✭Chain_reaction


    I'm all for abortion on demand.

    No pro-life rant is going to make me change my mind.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,960 ✭✭✭DarkJager


    Atlantis50 wrote: »
    Does freedom of choice supersede the right to life of the unborn?

    Yes, an actual adult life is more valuable than a "potential" life. Given that at most abortions the fetus is not even human form, you are trying to attribute human qualities to something that is not.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,145 ✭✭✭LETHAL LADY


    eviltwin wrote: »
    Does Ireland allow for the destruction of embryos in this country does anyone know? Is that covered under abortion legislation?

    I dont know tbh we probably send them to the UK as this is more acceptable somehow.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,763 ✭✭✭Sheeps


    Sheeps wrote: »
    Again, no two cases are the same. My point is that yes you are right I'm sure there are circumstances where abortion should be an option available to a mother where it is currently not, however I don't believe this decision should be left to the mother alone and my original point was that I'm more against the idea of "pro choice" than I am "pro life" or what ever the other side is labeled these days.

    A family member was unfortunate enough to have a baby who would not and did not survive beyond birth at around 6 months, the babys condition was not confirmed to her until after 20 weeks even though there were early warning signs of something wrong. She was left deeply depressed and traumatised by having to continue through a pregnancy and labour without a happy outcome. If she had been aware of such an outcome earlier in the pregnancy are you insinuating that only a judge would be the right person to make the correct decision for her.
    I'm saying that there should be a system in place where abortions are there for those who actuallg legitimately need them, and they are not available to those who don't. I suggested that the legitimacy of the effect on the mother should be decided with the Mother by a judge and/or doctor, or someone who can make an informed decission keeping in mind the child's rights who can allow the mother to go through with it if it is required.


  • Registered Users Posts: 277 ✭✭Blue_Seas


    Sheeps wrote: »
    I'm sure there are circumstances where abortion should be an option available to a mother where it is currently not, however I don't believe this decision should be left to the mother alone

    And I don't believe that someone who will not experience pregnancy should decide whether I can get an abortion or not.

    How about we get a room of women to decide on whether you should have a vasectomy or not?

    Bottom line is that a pregnant person should get to choose. If you're against abortion, don't get one, just like if you're against gay marriage you shouldn't get one. Don't deny the privilege to others.

    (Oh and your statement that women lose all rights as a person and simply become a "baby carrier" once pregnant was absolutely disgusting)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 750 ✭✭✭Mr.Biscuits




  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,731 ✭✭✭Bullseye1


    I hope you're never unemployed, sick, or reach old age, mate

    So do I. I'm all for choice (even though I don't believe it's right, I do believe people should have a choice). But why should the tax payer pick up the bill. If women are prepared to fly the UK and pay UK doctors for the service they should be willing to pay Irish Doctors too. Maybe their medical insurance will cover it.


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 232 ✭✭LilyCricket


    You posted that you hope he/she never reached old age!![/QUOTE

    Pedantic Pat, and that is that


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 517 ✭✭✭Atlantis50


    DarkJager wrote: »
    Yes, an actual adult life is more valuable than a "potential" life. Given that at most abortions the fetus is not even human form, you are trying to attribute human qualities to something that is not.

    In Irish law, life is recognised as having commenced when the embryo attaches to the uterus.

    A heartbeat can be detected at 6 to 8 weeks.

    What do you mean by 'potential life'?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 830 ✭✭✭Born to Die


    You posted that you hope he/she never reached old age!![/QUOTE

    Pedantic Pat, and that is that

    I thought it was fairly relevant considering the thread you started.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,962 ✭✭✭✭dark crystal


    Yes, it should be legally available, but I believe the time limit should be lowered from 24 weeks to 16 weeks.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 232 ✭✭LilyCricket


    Why do you want him/her to die young?

    what


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 517 ✭✭✭Atlantis50


    Yes, it should be legally available, but I believe the time limit should be lowered from 24 weeks to 16 weeks.

    Why 16 weeks?


  • Registered Users Posts: 277 ✭✭Blue_Seas


    As an aside: people can use the safet contraceptive methods possible and still end up with an unwanted pregnancy. Abortion isn't dragging a crying baby out and killing it - in most cases it's removing a cluster of cells. Cells like a tumour. It's not a human life to most people, and if that constitutes human life to you then you're going against the scientific community and simply don't go for a termination.

    Also if abortion is murder, is a twin absorbing the second fetus in utero murder? Is using contraception murder, too? Both abortion and contraception are stopping potential life so I guess anyone who uses contraception is going to hell!

    And under no other circumstances does one person have to give up their bodily resources, daily functions and give their nutrients to another life attached to it. A woman is not obliged to keep a baby when it isn't even a life yet. Personally, when a baby becomes an actual baby (not a clump of cells without consciousness) I wouldn't get one, but if someone else thinks they can go through with that then I won't stop them. That's not my place.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,731 ✭✭✭Bullseye1


    Atlantis50 wrote: »
    Why 16 weeks?

    Why would you need more time?


  • Registered Users Posts: 851 ✭✭✭PrincessLola


    Atlantis50 wrote: »
    In Irish law, life is recognised as having commenced when the embryo attaches to the uterus.

    A heartbeat can be detected at 6 to 8 weeks.

    What do you mean by 'potential life'?


    Pro-choicers always use the heartbeat claim to try and guilt women. But meh, lots of things have heartbeats.

    Its a potential life. I don't give a f*ck what a bunch of men writing the Irish law say otherwise.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 830 ✭✭✭Born to Die


    I hope you're never unemployed, sick, or reach old age, mate
    What?

    Who did you deduct that I want the poster to die young after reading that?

    I only read what you posted.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,194 ✭✭✭Corruptedmorals


    16 weeks is probably too low, seeing as the 20 week scan might pick up conditions not present at the 12 week one. But 24 is too high as babies can survive earlier. So maybe 21/22 weeks.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 232 ✭✭LilyCricket


    I only read what you posted.

    Yes, and?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 517 ✭✭✭Atlantis50


    Bullseye1 wrote: »
    Why would you need more time?

    I'm just wondering what's so special about 16 weeks. Is it just an arbitrary choice or is there some special characteristics gained by the fetus at 16 weeks?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    16 weeks is probably too low, seeing as the 20 week scan might pick up conditions not present at the 12 week one. But 24 is too high as babies can survive earlier. So maybe 21/22 weeks.

    Thats true, you might not find out until quite late that something is wrong and tbh the maternity system here is so underfunded where a woman used to get her first scan at 12 weeks many are now having to wait until the 20 wk to get even a first scan.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,731 ✭✭✭Bullseye1


    Don't know. Probably best to consult with a doctor.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 830 ✭✭✭Born to Die


    Yes, and?

    Why would you post that you hope another poster doesn't reach old age?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,763 ✭✭✭Sheeps


    Blue_Seas wrote: »
    Sheeps wrote: »
    I'm sure there are circumstances where abortion should be an option available to a mother where it is currently not, however I don't believe this decision should be left to the mother alone

    And I don't believe that someone who will not experience pregnancy should decide whether I can get an abortion or not.

    How about we get a room of women to decide on whether you should have a vasectomy or not?

    Bottom line is that a pregnant person should get to choose. If you're against abortion, don't get one, just like if you're against gay marriage you shouldn't get one. Don't deny the privilege to others.

    (Oh and your statement that women lose all rights as a person and simply become a "baby carrier" once pregnant was absolutely disgusting)
    Your argument is ridiculous. My comments about losing certain rights while pregnant were in relation to drinking and smoking while pregnant and women who do this should face the repercussions that anyone would for supplying a minor with tobacco or alcohol.

    This shouldn't be a problem for most decent pregnant women. Only people who drink and smoke while pregnant would be effected, what's the problem?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 517 ✭✭✭Atlantis50


    Blue_Seas wrote: »
    As an aside: people can use the safet contraceptive methods possible and still end up with an unwanted pregnancy. Abortion isn't dragging a crying baby out and killing it - in most cases it's removing a cluster of cells. Cells like a tumour. It's not a human life to most people, and if that constitutes human life to you then you're going against the scientific community and simply don't go for a termination.

    Also if abortion is murder, is a twin absorbing the second fetus in utero murder? Is using contraception murder, too? Both abortion and contraception are stopping potential life so I guess anyone who uses contraception is going to hell!

    And under no other circumstances does one person have to give up their bodily resources, daily functions and give their nutrients to another life attached to it. A woman is not obliged to keep a baby when it isn't even a life yet. Personally, when a baby becomes an actual baby (not a clump of cells without consciousness) I wouldn't get one, but if someone else thinks they can go through with that then I won't stop them. That's not my place.

    Would you consider a fetus with a beating heart as being merely a 'cluster of cells...like a tumour'?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,731 ✭✭✭Bullseye1


    If you had a friend and she had a miscarriage and was depressed about losing the "baby" in her mind would you say "sure it wasn't a life anyway, you will get over it"?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 232 ✭✭LilyCricket


    Why would you post that you hope another poster doesn't reach old age?

    It was a remark, not put out there for the likes of pedantic, sensitive souls, such as yourself, I am sorry

    Next time i post I'll include balloons & mention a rainbow :)


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement