abortion

im always so glad to see another abortion thread

Here we go again...

greenpilot wrote: »

Cardinal wants a referendum on abortion. Would he loose? Would there be a backlash against the church?

No he won't, its not that The Irish are particularly conservative to remove the right to life of the unborn is always a tough.

the old and the religious will come out in force and it will be kept.

mango salsa wrote: »

They were defeated with divorce.

Yeah, but too many people in this country would say "I'd never have one myself, but I would support it" When push comes to shove though they'd vote against it because they wouldn't have one themselves. I think it would still lose in referendum, but I would vote for it to be allowed.

When you look at Jedward bouncing around the place it almost seems criminal that their mother didn't have the option of aborting them.

In fact, I think she should be allowed (possibly forced) to abort them now.

greenpilot wrote: »

Cardinal wants a referendum on abortion. Would he loose? Would there be a backlash against the church?

We already had one about 10 years ago which was passed in relation to abortions and the X Case.

Although what I experienced during a rare visit to Sunday Mass a few weeks ago made me sick. Now I understand the churches stance on abortion, but to actually have someone come up on the Alter during the service to actually promote prolife and their proposals is/was preety sickening. For two reasons mainly, the whole aguement is going to have religious undertones taking place in a church, secondly, the church would never allow a pro choice presentation on the alter meaning its a one sided debate.

Now whilst I dont believe in Abortion for the sake of it, I still think if there is a risk to the mother, or if the child is only going to live for a few minutes after birth, or in the event of rape, then the option should be there. These hospices that the group was recommending for such mothers/familes are a bit of joke my self, whilst they may care for thier physical needs, are they going to be able to provide the up to 9 months psychological care before birth, and how ever long it takes afterwards.

Further more, if the suggestion/arguement that life begins at conception rather than implantation, then be prepared for them trying to ban the morning after pill next.

Now if you do get pregnant, and decide you dont want it for lifestyle or financial reasons, well then maybe you should have taken the precautions, in that case then I dont think there should be an option for abortion.

Judging by the reaction that this group got during this presentation, if there are more people out there who feel the same then be prepared as well for a NO answer.

:mad:

PieForPi wrote: »

That's a fairly pathetic comment.

They're millionaires in their early 20s, are out living life... and what are you? Some hate filled keyboard warrior sitting alone on his Sunday afternoon begrudging others of their success simply because it doesn't align with your tastes. Crawl back under your rock like a good creature there.

Are you new to the "After Hours" forum? It was a typical tongue in cheek comment, the likes of which is made in nearly every thread. Not that I need to justify it to you.
And No, I'm not hate filled. I don't even begrudge them. I just don't like them and find them annoying. I don't SERIOUSLY think they should be aborted. :rolleyes:

PieForPi wrote: »

Yeah! You should be forced to carry a child you don't want and go through a painful labour to birth it, then be forced to face it every day even though you may not have the physical, emotional or financial means to support it, until a point where it can support itself.

Oh but wait, you've an obligation to it for its first 18 years.

So your one little mistake should be with you for the next 18 years, despite safe alternatives being available.

How f*cking Irish. Although, perhaps I should have left this post alone when it was made by someone who went to a Catholic mass and expected something other than preachy bullsh*te.

Did you read all of my post? Prehaps you should again. This group was proposing that even if there was a risk to the mother, or if the child had no chance of survival she should be forced to go through with it. In those cases, the choice of abortion should be there.

In relation to preventing pregnancy there are plenty of options, the pill, morning after, condoms, the coil, etc etc etc, if your not using one of these, then prehaps you should consider restrant.

And yes, I did expect preachy bullsh!t, but not for the alter to be used a political platform. It just shows there will never be a seperation of church and state, dispite what our constitution will lead us to belive.

smcgiff wrote:

Irish-stew,

A group attending mass - literally preaching to the converted - would not be representative of the populace as a whole. Thankfully.

You would like the think, although the dominance of the Irish Church is still pretty strong, and does not allow for an informed debate.

PieForPi wrote: »

And you expected what exactly?

Why should abortion be limited to those cases? Because it suits you?

Well I only usally go to church services for wedding, funerals, and Christmas, I'm not a particulary religious person in the sence of attending church, I have my morals, my beleifs, and my thoughts, but thats for another time. But I thought that the church, and I refer the place or building rather then the organisation was suppose to be for worship, self refelction and peace. Maybe your attending church services more than me or more than you let on, and have encountered such messeges.

Whose to say your arguement is not just to suit you? Cant people have there own opinion, is that not what debate is all about?

Sex is the most natural thing we do as post pubescent adults. It is our most basic instinct and drives much of the decisions we make in life, from the small every-minute decisions to large, life changing decisions. If anywhere in life mistakes should be tolerated, it should be with regards to such natural urges.

It still comes with responsibilty, my views on abortion have nothing todo with religion, if that was the case why would I have been been so disgusted at what I seen/heard?

Of course it'll be used as a political platform. Religion serves as a way of exerting power over people for a desired result. Of course it will be used and abused. It always has been and always will be.

This in particular is regarded as a Catholic country. Much of the canvassing by political entities is done outside churches.

Religion will dominate government here so long as the majority of the voters are religious. While we continue to turn out to vote in low numbers whose majority is comprised of old people, this will continue to be the case.

Get all the young people out voting and things will change, although each government refuses to accommodate this as they've already spent so much effort pandering to the elderly at a cost to the young.

Thankfully I still have my own mind, and use an informed choice. Which I used when this referendum was ran in relation to the X Case and voted in support of it. Unfortunatly our goverment, and every goverment in between have not had the balls to put the passed vote into legislation.

Scarinae wrote: »

Unfortunately no form of contraceptive is 100% effective, it is still possible to get pregnant while using any of these. You can't just assume that anyone with an unplanned pregnancy was being irresponsible and having unprotected sex.

Granted, but you would have to be pretty damn unlucky if both the condom was to spilt, and then for the morning after pill to fail.

At least you have taken every precaution to avoid it, rather than seeking an abortion just becuase you decided not to use either.

HavingCrack wrote: »

To be fair, do you really think many people use abortion as a method of birth control? Seriously do people think "yeah not bothered using the pill or condoms, we can just have an abortion sure"? How many people think like that in reality? A tiny, tiny amount I would hope.

No, because the option is not currently there. But if abortion was to be brought in and allowed in all cases then there is a risk it could be and abused.

If it was to be brought in for the condtions that I have argued then careful consideration would obviously have to be given.

The church basicly say that it is wrong to destroy a sole, as it never gets a chance at life (i think. I dont exatly keep tabs on this)

Lets presume for a min that the sole does indeed exist (not bringing in god here. Just the concept of the sole).

If the sole does indeed exist there has to be a point during pregancy that the sole enters the fetus. This has to be true if the sole exists.

Then the question has to be, at what point does this happen? There has to be a point for the church to have any stance on this issue or to debate there point with reason.

I think buddists believe it is at 40days or something
Doctor strassman believes that a DMT spike during pregancy could be the point at which what some call the sole in 'put' into the body.

From my own view of the churchs point of view if the 'sole' is not yet in the fetus then there is nothing there to kill. So there shouldn't be a problem

So should the focus (to keep church and older generation happy) not be to try and prove this scientificly?

That would make this debate alot easier
1) if before sole enters then abort away
2) if after and scientific proof of sole is found then have the debate
3) if after and no scientific proof is found then abort away


Dont think i believe anything above but trying to see it from churchs point of view.