up for anything wrote: » How do you know that they weren't? Stop jumping to conclusions. :rolleyes:
Sponge25 wrote: » I strongly feel that if you don't want a baby don't get pregnant! Life isn't something you mess with, you don't put yourself in a circumstance that MAY create life if you don't want that. Under any circumstances. Abortion for rape victims is OK IMO I have no respect for people who have or support abortion and so called "womans rights" PS. If the male doesn't want his child aborted, does he have any rights?
Madam_X wrote: » Contraception isn't 100% effective - and who "boasts" about going on such a trip?
oranbhoy67 wrote: » because if they weren`t then there would be no pregnancy , therefore no boasting of booking the trip to "en ger land "
Fromthetrees wrote: » Didn't read all the thread, but, I agreed fully with the OP, right up until after the mother of my child missed a ('thing') about 5 months after our first and ONLY child was born. That's it. Had the trip to engerland planned before I even said 'ahh, hmm, test kit, now.'
tempura wrote: » Do you know what, I am sick to the eyeballs with abortion threads. They always seem to be started by someone who has never been pregnant, not a parent, never even been close to a situation that might result in the creation of a baby...............seriously, blah, blah, blah , blah , come back when you've had some real life experience and stopped posting soundbytes heard from every other anti abortion, keyboard warrior who seems to have such a strong moralistic opinion on the subject ! Signed Mother of two and abortion survivor (or child murderer if you prefer ).
goodie2shoes wrote: » no of course not, but i shouldn't be prevented from expressing them either because it might be considered upsetting or inconvenient to others.
Augmerson wrote: » What we really need is a way to extract the foetus from those who don't want them and put them into people who do want them, like people who have trouble conceiving or my mate David. He is always harping on about wanting to have a baby. Everybody wins that way. Nobody has a growth inside them, nobody is a killer, and somebody gets a baby.
oranbhoy67 wrote: » from now on use contraception please if you cant deal with the aftermath
tomtherobot wrote: » Now, normally i stay away from abortion debates because i find they're full of extremist 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 forward (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.....
krudler wrote: » as far as retarded analogies go, thats pretty up there.
tomtherobot wrote: » Yeah i don't buy this stuff either that women should have more, or all, of the say when it comes to abortion. Let's say a man is walking home one night. He see's one woman killing another. By this thinking he shouldn't intervene. I mean who is he to be telling women what to do with their bodies.....
efb wrote: » Do you believe you should be allowed to impose your will and morals on others?
seamus wrote: » yet show very little humanity for those who actually are alive.
goodie2shoes wrote: » btw i am not religious. my views are purely based on what i believe to be the correct, moral thing to do.
seamus wrote: » Why can't we do both? Do counselling services occupy beds in hospitals? Nope. If someone requires assistance in the form of counselling, is there ever any justification for turning around and saying, "Fnck you, you made your bed now lie in it"? Tell you what, from now on everyone who presents at A&E will be assessed as to whether it was their own fault or a genuine accident. Heart attack? Tough ****, you're fat, it's your fault, go home. Overdose? Haha, you're joking right, get out of my hospital.Always puzzles me how so many people claim to oppose abortion on the basis of life, yet show very little humanity for those who actually are alive.[/QUOTE] Reply of the day IMO, this thread should close.