Abortion

Neewbie_noob · 05-09-2012 05:15PM

If abortion on demand is brought out I hope to God our tax payers' money doesn't go towards it. Why should someone who doesn't believe in abortion be funding it through their tax??

humanji · 05-09-2012 05:15PM

Gurgle wrote: »

So you're pro legalizing abortion and providing clinics to carry out abortions on demand. But you wouldn't have one yourself.

In what way is that position not pro-abortion?

I think its a fundamental human right to be allowed to end a bad marriage.
But I don't want a divorce myself, so I'm anti-divorce.
:rolleyes:

I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm pro-choice, but would not choose to have an abortion myself.

humanji · 05-09-2012 05:16PM

Neewbie_noob wrote: »

If abortion on demand is brought out I hope to God our tax payers' money doesn't go towards it. Why should someone who doesn't believe in abortion be funding it through their tax??

They wouldn't, and it's highly unlikely that universal abortion on demand would be allowed in this country. All of this is hypothetical and will be for quite some time.

Dangerous Man · 05-09-2012 05:22PM

Neewbie_noob wrote: »

If abortion on demand is brought out I hope to God our tax payers' money doesn't go towards it. Why should someone who doesn't believe in abortion be funding it through their tax??

Because that's how democracy works. It's really basic stuff to be honest.

tomtherobot · 05-09-2012 05:24PM

humanji wrote: »

I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm pro-choice, but would not choose to have an abortion myself.

Again, i chose not to abuse kids, but if somebody else wants to fine. We call all see that for all intents and purposes this stance would be pro-pedophilia.

I just want to reiterate and clarify that i would not consider the decision to chose a child most likely to die over a mother most likely to live as abortion. This is a tough medical decision and shouldn't be hijacked by the abortion as convenience brigade.

Stark · 05-09-2012 05:28PM

tomtherobot wrote: »

I just want to reiterate and clarify that i would not consider the decision to chose a child most likely to die over a mother most likely to live as abortion. This is a tough medical decision and shouldn't be hijacked by the abortion as convenience brigade.

Which is the only scenario that the legislation being drawn up will deal with. Anything more is expressly forbidden by the Constitution. It's only the nut cases who would prefer the mother to die in a threat to life scenario or be sent to England where she'll be "out of sight, out of mind" who have anything to worry about.

Skylinehead · 05-09-2012 05:29PM

tomtherobot wrote: »

I stand to be corrected, where is it commonly not a convenience?

Also just to keep this on track, why are we funding abortion counseling? I still haven't heard a valid argument for this? If you're saying abortion isn't killing that's fine, i don't agree, but yes the argument's been done. But how can you then justify state funding of abortion counseling?

You've heard plenty of arguments, you just chose to ignore them. There's counselling available (and used) for transplants such as kidney removal, that's not killing anybody.

cat87 · 05-09-2012 05:33PM

I'm sorry but it's typical that a man started this thread, a woman should have a choice, it's her body. I'm not pro or against abortion, but I think in certain cases there should be abortion like if the girl was raped or if her life was in danger or even if the girl was very young and not able to care for the baby properly.

tomtherobot · 05-09-2012 05:39PM

Stark wrote: »

Which is the only scenario that the legislation being drawn up will deal with. Anything more is expressly forbidden by the Constitution. It's only the nut cases who would prefer the mother to die in a threat to life scenario or be sent to England where she'll be "out of sight, out of mind" who have anything to worry about.

TBH i think it's unfair on people who have to deal with these horrible and rare situations to even call it abortion. They shouldn't be lumped in with the people who chose killing an unborn baby as a lifestyle choice.

And i can't see why the taxpayer should be paying for their counseling. The only argument i'm seeing is because it might cost us less in the long run but i don't buy this and surely the pro-abortionists can come up with something better.

I'm just seeing an argument that for pro-abortionists, abortion is somehow more difficult and complicated than contraception but no-one will explain how. I don't buy the comparison to major surgery or organ transplant because abortion isn't even an overnight procedure in most cases than i'm aware.

tomtherobot · 05-09-2012 05:42PM

cat87 wrote: »

I'm sorry but it's typical that a man started this thread, a woman should have a choice, it's her body. I'm not pro or against abortion, but I think in certain cases there should be abortion like if the girl was raped or if her life was in danger or even if the girl was very young and not able to care for the baby properly.

Why is it typical that a man started this thread and what makes you think i'm a man?

If you're going down the it's the woman's choice route, why would men have to pay child support? They don't even have if the child lives or not.

Morag · 05-09-2012 05:45PM

tomtherobot wrote: »

But if it's not killing, why is it a mental health problem?

Just because a woman has an abortion and she feels that it was the right thing for her to do that doesn't mean she won't have regrets and wish that her circumstances hadn't of been different and the fluctuation of hormones can result in depressed state same as a woman who has had a miscarriage.

Are you anti post miscarriage counseling?

Morag · 05-09-2012 05:46PM

tomtherobot wrote: »

Why is it typical that a man started this thread and what makes you think i'm a man?

If you're going down the it's the woman's choice route, why would men have to pay child support? They don't even have if the child lives or not.

The termination of parental rights is a separate issue and should be legislated for.

tomtherobot · 05-09-2012 06:01PM

Sharrow wrote: »

Just because a woman has an abortion and she feels that it was the right thing for her to do that doesn't mean she won't have regrets and wish that her circumstances hadn't of been different and the fluctuation of hormones can result in depressed state same as a woman who has had a miscarriage.

Are you anti post miscarriage counseling?

Of course im not post-miscarriage counseling but if we're not talking about loss of baby hormone related counseling we're talking about specific post-abortion counseling.

Why would the woman have regrets and wished her circumstances were different if there is nothing wrong with abortion? Why do we need specific post-abortion counseling if abortion is nothing more than contraception and why should it be publicly funded? I just can't equate pro-abortion with also demanding publicly funded counseling.

If you've decided to kill your unborn child and need counseling to deal with the guilt i can understand why you would need this but why should i be paying for it?

Morag · 05-09-2012 06:06PM

Ever choose to do the right thing and regret you had to choose at all?
No one said it's the same as contraception, other then you.

We all pay taxes for things we don't agree with I don't agree with chaplains in school that's just how life is.

cat87 · 05-09-2012 06:07PM

tomtherobot wrote: »

Why is it typical that a man started this thread and what makes you think i'm a man?

If you're going down the it's the woman's choice route, why would men have to pay child support? They don't even have if the child lives or not.

If a woman's life is in danger who would you say has more of a right to live the woman or the unborn baby?

tomtherobot · 05-09-2012 06:10PM

Sharrow wrote: »

Ever choose to do the right thing and regret you had to choose at all?
No one said it's the same as contraception, other then you.

But what is it if it's not contraception? All's i'm hearing is it's complicated or it's a difficult choice, explain?

If it's not killing and it's not contraception what is it? And please don't bring in these extreme medical emergencies that's very unfair on those people.

cursai · 05-09-2012 06:16PM

tomtherobot wrote: »

Now, normally i stay away from abortion debates because i find they're full of nazi fembots or holy joe types but this morning, i found the country's favorite moral crusader aka Ray D'arcy, preaching on about the rights of women who've had abortions. This led me to the conclusion that there's a general consensus these days that abortion is now acceptable to the majority (ok not just this alone), but if this is the case, i think it raises two issues going foWwwrward (as they say)

Firstly, maintenance payments for children? How can a society, or individual, who supports a woman's exclusive right to chose to have an abortion at the same time come to fathers with the paw out looking for money to support children. If a father has no choice whether the child is alive or not how can he be demanded to support that child? Makes no sense whatsoever to me.

Secondly, the Ray D'arcy show this morning was talking about counseling for women after abortion. Seemingly the HSE already pays for this. I can't understand how state support for counseling for women who've had abortions is justified. On one side of the debate, pro abortionists say it's a procedure to remove a physical growth which isn't alive. If that's the case why the need for counseling? On the other side, anti-abortionists say it's murder, so why would the state be counseling murderers? Did I miss something, do we not still have old folk being left to rot on trolleys, surely the HSE has greater priorities now than counseling women who've chose to have an abortion.

As you may have guessed, i'm anti-abortion. I'm not religious I just believe that an unborn child is alive. Why else would people mourn the loss of unborn or stillborn children? Or require counseling after 'terminating' one? Given that i believe that an unborn child is alive I think killing one is wrong and cannot be justified above the social or material needs of the parent(s). No more or less than i think it would be ok to kill your elderly parents just because they don't suit where you are in you're life right now.....

You do in fact have valid points. And they WILL be detailed by nazis, crusaders and holy joes.

tomtherobot · 05-09-2012 06:17PM

cat87 wrote: »

If a woman's life is in danger who would you say has more of a right to live the woman or the unborn baby?

Just because somebodies life might be at risk doesn't give me the right to start killing.

For all i know there might be some pro-abortion nut jobs out there now trying to track me down and kill me. Doesn't give me the right to start killing pro-abortionists. If it is clear that a baby has little chance of survival and a great chance of killing the mother then of course the baby should die.

The same ethics that apply to choosing one life over another in other medical emergencies should be applied. This doesn't explain why in non-medical emergency cases i should have to pay for post-abortion counseling and again i think it's unfair to link these medical emergences to lifestyle choice abortions.

Dangerous Man · 05-09-2012 06:18PM

cat87 wrote: »

I'm sorry but it's typical that a man started this thread, a woman should have a choice, it's her body. I'm not pro or against abortion, but I think in certain cases there should be abortion like if the girl was raped or if her life was in danger or even if the girl was very young and not able to care for the baby properly.

Any more cliches you'd like to wheel out while you're at it?

Irishchick · 05-09-2012 06:19PM

Abortion is never medically necessary and to say it is is just a down right lie!

No medical illness is cured by abortion.

If a pregnant woman becomes pregnant the doctor will treat the mother and do his/her best to save the unborn child. Sometimes they are successful, and sometimes they are not. Then procedure's such as a D&C need to performed to remove the dead unborn child.

This is widely performed in this country and is not an abortion.

Read this article, and don't just rule it out because its on a youth defence website. Its a very interesting article.

http://www.youthdefence.ie/latest-news/leading-irish-cancer-specialist-abortion-not-necessary-to-save-mom/

So that's cancer ruled out.

As for pre-eclampsia and ectopic pregnancies again the doctors will do all they can to save both but will intervene if the mother's life is in danger.

Again this is a medical treatment, not an abortion. Pro choice groups dont mention this though as it destroys their whole campaign as they know alot of women don't realise these facts.

Professor emeritus (amoug other OB GYN's) have been quoted saying that there is no risk to the mother that can be avoided by abortion.

Dangerous Man · 05-09-2012 06:22PM

cat87 wrote: »

If a woman's life is in danger who would you say has more of a right to live the woman or the unborn baby?

How about you STOP drudging up these tired, hackneyed arguments and actually engage with what the pro-life side are saying?

It's not about rape and it's not about women's lives 'in danger.' It's about abortion on demand, for any reason. THAT'S what this is about.

The problem with pro-abortion people is that they don't want to discuss that. They'd rather cite the possibility of extreme cases such as rape and a foetus posing a risk to the mother's life. Sorry, but that's not a legitimate basis for abortion on demand.

Chuck Stone · 05-09-2012 06:22PM

tomtherobot wrote: »

If you've decided to kill your unborn child and need counseling to deal with the guilt i can understand why you would need this but why should i be paying for it?

Why should people pay for a judicial system that doesn't allow women to have the choice?

You can turn just about every 'concern' you have on its head.

LizT · 05-09-2012 06:23PM

Dangerous Man wrote: »

How about you STOP drudging up these tired, hackneyed arguments and actually engage with what the pro-life side are saying?

It's not about rape and it's not about women's lives 'in danger.' It's about abortion on demand, for any reason. THAT'S what this is about.

The problem with pro-abortion people is that they don't want to discuss that. They'd rather cite the possibility of extreme cases such as rape and a foetus posing a risk to the mother's life. Sorry, but that's not a legitimate basis for abortion on demand.

Why not? What qualifies you to say what's a legitimate basis for any woman to get an abortion?

Feeona · 05-09-2012 06:24PM

tomtherobot wrote: »

I didn't dismiss you're opinions by any chance?

There's really no point in starting a discussion if you're going to dismiss other peoples' opinions.

Dangerous Man · 05-09-2012 06:28PM

LizT wrote: »

Why not? What qualifies you to say what's a legitimate basis for any woman to get an abortion?

You've misconstrued what I said. I'll make it clearer for you.

The pro-abortion side continually cite extreme cases such as rape as being a legitimate reason for legislating for abortion on demand.

Nudderwords, if this tactic was successful, a law would come into force because of particular reasons (pregnancy being a danger to the mother, which is nonsense, and say, rape) and would be used to facilitate abortions for anybody who wants them for any reason.

tomtherobot · 05-09-2012 06:28PM

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Why should people pay for a judicial system that doesn't allow women to have the choice?

You can turn just about every 'concern' you have on its head.

Well that's true of any argument where cost is brought into it. Why should we pay for anything we don't agree with?

The issue here is that the pro-abortion side is demanding post-abortion counseling and I just can't see how they equate one to the other. I can see why it's justified to pay for drugs counseling etc but these come with some acknowledgement that the initial act is harmful.

You won't have someone pro-drugs come out and say that drugs are harmless but at the same time tell us we need publicly funded drugs counseling, doesn't add up.

eviltwin · 05-09-2012 06:30PM

One day Tom you might find yourself in a situation where a woman you impregnate decides to abort your baby. You might not want that to happen but if it does you might be glad of post abortion counselling.

Plenty of women who have abortions do so under pressure from family, partners or society. Sometimes they end up regretting it and once its happened no amount of making her feel bad is going to change that. Why not just allow those people who want it to have it.

Post abortion counselling isn't free long term, you only get a few sessions and then if you feel you need more you have to pay or get it from one of the many volunteer services. Stopping it isn't going to make much of a saving for the HSE.

cassi · 05-09-2012 06:32PM

The thread title is a load I crap. No one Is saying that abortion is ok! But thankfully many people are past the age old caveman mindset that ALL women that have abortions are sluts that are looking for a way out.

There are a barrel load of reasons that women choose abortion. Not all of them the easy way out as the op seems believe.

And equating pro choice to thinking its okay to kiddy fiddle is just embarrassing as a counter argument. Perhaps if pro lifers could actually make debates without resorting to pettiness or god or killing then these debates may actually go somewhere!!

tomtherobot · 05-09-2012 06:33PM

Feeona wrote: »

There's really no point in starting a discussion if you're going to dismiss other peoples' opinions.

I'm sorry if i've offended any holy joe's or nazi fembots. Please let us hear what u got to say.....

eviltwin · 05-09-2012 06:33PM

tomtherobot wrote: »

Well that's true of any argument where cost is brought into it. Why should we pay for anything we don't agree with?

The issue here is that the pro-abortion side is demanding post-abortion counseling and I just can't see how they equate one to the other. I can see why it's justified to pay for drugs counseling etc but these come with some acknowledgement that the initial act is harmful.

You won't have someone pro-drugs come out and say that drugs are harmless but at the same time tell us we need publicly funded drugs counseling, doesn't add up.

One of the only face to face support group for women and men post abortion was set up by a pro-life campaigner, some of the couselling is offered by pro-life groups.

You can be pro-life and still believe that we can look after people who need suppoort.

What do you think we should do with a woman who is so depressed after her abortion that she is close to a breakdown?

Abortion

Comments