Abortion

up for anything · 06-09-2012 12:18AM

oranbhoy67 wrote: »

because if they weren`t then there would be no pregnancy , therefore no boasting of booking the trip to "en ger land "

If they weren't using contraception then there would be no pregnancy - that doesn't make sense.

Sponge25 wrote: »

It doesn't matter, they still had sex. If you can't take responsibility for that, you're not mature enough to have sex!

If it were up to me and i'm and understanding man, it would be a punishable offense! (In all countries)

An understanding man?

How would you punish it? By stoning the couple or maybe just the woman?

tomtherobot · 06-09-2012 12:18AM

gosuckonalemon wrote: »

I wish people would stop using the phrase "unborn child". A child refers to a human being, a foetus may be a living thing in the cellular sense of the word, but it is not a child.

Next time i hear of somebody grieving a lost pregnancy or stillborn child i'll just tell them to quite their whinging, it's only a foetus.

If it's just a group of cell's, why the need for counseling if it's 'disposed of'.

I hate when people use the term foetus. It's just used to dehumanize the child to make it easier to kill.

oranbhoy67 · 06-09-2012 12:20AM

Madam_X wrote: »

Yes, contraception used by both is "close" but not 100% safe.

After a certain point, a fully formed baby is there though - that's why I really dislike the idea of late-term abortion, but I know a woman who has one does so under desperate circumstances.

but you dont know that

you are now jumping to conclusions

too many women are using abortion as just another form of contraception

btw just to be clear i i would support abortion in the case of rape & in extreme danger to the mother

up for anything · 06-09-2012 12:21AM

tomtherobot wrote: »

Next time i hear of somebody grieving a lost pregnancy or stillborn child i'll just tell them to quite their whinging, it's only a foetus.

If it's just a group of cell's, why the need for counseling if it's 'disposed of'.

I hate when people use the term foetus. It's just used to dehumanize the child to make it easier to kill.

I would see it as grieving for the loss of a potential life. For some people the loss of that potential is a happy thing.

oranbhoy67 · 06-09-2012 12:24AM

up for anything wrote: »

I would see it as grieving for the loss of a potential life. For some people the loss of that potential is a happy thing.

and therin lies the problem

Madam_X · 06-09-2012 12:26AM

If many women are just using abortion as a form of contraception, that's one hell of a body and emotional trauma, as well as financial expense - to be doing so often, especially women in Ireland. Who do you know that uses it as a form of contraception?

tomtherobot · 06-09-2012 12:27AM

up for anything wrote: »

I would see it as grieving for the loss of a potential life. For some people the loss of that potential is a happy thing.

But contraception is the loss of potential life, we don't grieve that? Havin a **** could be the loss of potential life, do you grieve if you have a ****?

partyatmygaff · 06-09-2012 12:28AM

gosuckonalemon wrote: »

I wish people would stop using the phrase "unborn child". A child refers to a human being, a foetus may be a living thing in the cellular sense of the word, but it is not a child.

What you wish and what people do are two completely different things. People say "unborn child" as that's a perfectly accurate description. It is both a child and unborn. You can wish what you want but it won't happen.

As for "living thing in the cellular sense of the word", all life is cellular. From a materialistic point of view, you're a very large and very organised group of cells with a few exceptions such as your hair and nails.

In another decade or so abortion, thankfully, will be legal in Ireland.

The funny thing about people who predict the future is they're almost always wrong. It's best not to speculate.

In the same way the Catholic Church will be a shadow of it's former self.

What does the Catholic Church have to do with this debate? It's not a religious debate.

We just need for the older, less informed/enlightened generations to pass on.

How utterly disrespectful and offensive. When you're old, just hope that your views aren't trashed while you get labelled as less "enlightened". While we're on it, isn't it just brilliant how we all think only our views are enlightened while the opposing views are dull and backward? It's an incredibly foolish way to think on something so far from being clear cut and easy to moralise on.

Madam_X · 06-09-2012 12:34AM

partyatmygaff wrote: »

something so far from being clear cut and easy to moralise on.

Aye.

oranbhoy67 · 06-09-2012 12:36AM

Madam_X wrote: »

If many women are just using abortion as a form of contraception, that's one hell of a body and emotional trauma, as well as financial expense - to be doing so often, especially women in Ireland. Who do you know that uses it as a form of contraception?

well anyone to me that has an abortion multiple times

I dont know anyone personally & if i did i wouldnt be telling about it on here

but i know for a fact it happens.. maybe not as much here in Ireland as like you say for Financial reasons but in places like the UK where it is readily available & in most cases free.

I remember reading an interview with the actress Barbara Windsor where she basically boasted of having 5 abortions... now 1.. ok maybe it was a slip up.. and 2 is pushing it .. but 5 thats just nuts !!!! and im very much sure she is not alone in acting like this!

and her reason for this?? "I don't have any regrets about not having kids," she insists, "I've just never had those maternal feelings. I am a nurturer by nature, but I nurture adults: my friends, the people I work with. I don't want to nurture children."

Well Barbara you should have used Contraception then or refrained altogether!!

Madam_X · 06-09-2012 12:37AM

Doesnt seem like far to many.

oranbhoy67 · 06-09-2012 12:41AM

Madam_X wrote: »

Doesnt seem like far to many.

so you think having 5 abortions is fine???

oranbhoy67 · 06-09-2012 12:43AM

Again from over the water a famous columnist basically boasts about her 5 abortions and likens them to having your "tonsils or appendix removed"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2002/may/25/weekend.julieburchill

Madam_X · 06-09-2012 12:48AM

oranbhoy67 wrote: »

so you think having 5 abortions is fine???

No, obviously. What I meant was: you claimed far too many women have abortions as a form of contraception, yet you backed it up with two examples and said otherwise you know this for a fact (but you dont) and you're sure many other women feel the same way as she does, yet you've nothing to base this high number on. I'm sure some do, but it doesn't seem feasible that very high numbers of women are so blasé. I don't agree with Barbra Windsors attitude either btw. And I think Julie burchill is a cuntt.

tomtherobot · 06-09-2012 12:50AM

Madam_X wrote: »

No, obviously. What I meant was: you claimed far too many women have abortions as a form of contraception, yet you backed it up with one example and said otherwise you know this for a fact and you're sure other women feel the same way as she does. I'm sure some do, but it doesn't seek feasible that very high numbers of women are so blasé. I don't agree with her attitude either btw.

So did the 200,000 Irish women who traveled to the UK for abortion do so for medical emergency. I never knew pregnancy was so life threatening?

oranbhoy67 · 06-09-2012 12:52AM

Madam_X wrote: »

No, obviously. What I meant was: you claimed far too many women have abortions as a form of contraception, yet you backed it up with two examples and said otherwise you know this for a fact and you're sure other women feel the same way as she does. I'm sure some do, but it doesn't seek feasible that very high numbers of women are so blasé. I don't agree with her attitude either btw. And I think Julie burchill is a cuntt.

ok sorry i misread you

well like you say i have noted 2 famous people who i found after a quick search.. so i wonder how many "normal" people do the same .

anyway to me 2 people killing 10 children between them is 2 people too many
as all life is sacred, to me . not for religious reasons but just for my own personal morals.

jimmycrackcorm · 06-09-2012 12:53AM

charlietheminxx wrote: »

Because there aren't enough abortions threads right now....

Only because there aren't enough traveller threads atmosphere.

Madam_X · 06-09-2012 12:59AM

tomtherobot wrote: »

So did the 200,000 Irish women who traveled to the UK for abortion do so for medical emergency. I never knew pregnancy was so life threatening?

Well you know that it's not a case of each woman going "Oops, knocked up - off I go for an abortion" (which would be cavalierly treating it as a mere form of contraception) and that there's mostly far more to each case.

Maximus Alexander · 06-09-2012 01:00AM

The Great Chinholio wrote: »

Or heres a better idea. Stay the fuck out of other peoples business and let them to their own choices instead of claiming propaganda when youre full of it yourself.

Nonsense post.

If someone smothered their six month old baby would you suggest that we "Stay the fuck out of other peoples business and let them to their own choices"?

For some people, abortion is no different.

Fromthetrees · 06-09-2012 01:02AM

tomtherobot wrote: »

And do you think the state should pay for counseling for you? I mean it was your decision and not a medical emergancy?

The state should pay for any person who needs counselling in this state regardless of the psychological need, less suicide and all that would be my reasons.
Abortion is a horrible and scary thing, I hate the idea of it, and I did right up until that came up and knocked on my door, and before I even answered I changed my 'idea' to reality.

dark crystal · 06-09-2012 01:06AM

oranbhoy67 wrote: »

Again from over the water a famous columnist basically boasts about her 5 abortions and likens them to having your "tonsils or appendix removed"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2002/may/25/weekend.julieburchill

In fairness, Burchill's a terrible mother - she happily admits to abandoning her two young sons after she split from their dads. She's also made an art out of attention whoring.

There's really no excuse for 5 abortions in this day and age, when contraception is freely available. Anyone can make a mistake, but at some stage you need to grow the fuck up, take some personal responsibilty and protect yourself.

mariano rivera · 06-09-2012 01:11AM

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.....

I read the first few lines of this. Abortion thread blah blah de blah

However, I would like to add this

Ray Darcy is a bollix

Smidge · 06-09-2012 01:13AM

Actor wrote: »

You forgot about the intent part. The intent with ectopic pregnancies in Ireland is to save both lives if possible. The intent of "abortion" is to kill unborn life for the benefit of the mother's individual circumstances.

An ectopic pregnancy is never viable.
The mother risks certain death if untreated.

This is however, a pregnancy with a foetus.

Can anyone honestly say they would not support termination in this case(as some posters have made reference to being that there is never a medical reason)?

Turtwig · 06-09-2012 01:19AM

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Nonsense post.

If someone smothered their six month old baby would you suggest that we "Stay the fuck out of other peoples business and let them to their own choices"?

For some people, abortion is no different.

False dichotomy.
Attach the baby to someone and make it dependant on that someone for survival but also affecting the quality of life of that someone.

What you talked about is an entity that is free of the mother's body. You are most certainly not comparing like for like. To use the most extreme case analogy. Suppose a six month old baby was dehumanised to be the equivalent of a clump of inanimate dust. That still wouldn't mean that somebody is allowed to do whatever they want to it. I mean, a painting by Caravaggio is exactly the equivalent of dust but you can't do what you like with that. Morals and ethics still apply but the key thing here is that there's no sharing or trading of values to be discussed between another party. Attach the Caravaggio to the somebody and you're back in similar territory. Which is basically how one end of the spectrum see it. The other group simply replace the Caravaggio with a live human being.

up for anything · 06-09-2012 01:21AM

oranbhoy67 wrote: »

and therin lies the problem

What problem?

tomtherobot wrote: »

But contraception is the loss of potential life, we don't grieve that? Havin a **** could be the loss of potential life, do you grieve if you have a ****?

Speak for yourself. Lots of people grieve having to use contraception. I did myself until I was in a position to get pregnant. However, I didn't grieve the loss of potential life from the abortion I had years before that. It is possible without being hypocritical to feel opposing feelings at different times of your life.

Having a ****, as you so eloquently put it, is the loss of potential life but I don't know many who cry about it or dwell on it afterwards, although I am sure there are some who do. I don't because no loss of potential life results from my masturbating.

Periods got the nickname the curse because it was a curse if it arrived and a curse if it didn't.

Maximus Alexander · 06-09-2012 01:23AM

mishkalucy wrote: »

An ectopic pregnancy is never viable.
The mother risks certain death if untreated.

This is however, a pregnancy with a foetus.

Can anyone honestly say they would not support termination in this case(as some posters have made reference to being that there is never a medical reason)?

I see this argument come up regularly amongst those in favour of abortion. Along with rape pregnancies.

I'm strongly opposed to abortion if it is introduced in any way that would allow it to be used as a contraceptive. It should never be available as a way to escape from your bad decisions.

However, of course the mother's life is more important than that of her embryo. Absolutely, if the mother's life is at risk should she proceed with the pregnancy, or if the psychological trauma of carrying a baby to term would be too great as a result of a rape, then abortion should be an option.

The main issue I have have, is how do you legislate for one, without allowing the other? If someone can show me that legislation, I'll vote in favour of it.

Personally, and I know this sounds a bit self righteous, I can't see how anyone can disagree with my viewpoint on this issue. I think it's pretty fair and rational. Normally in arguments I can at least understand other perspectives, even if I don't agree. But not on this, for whatever reason.

Smidge · 06-09-2012 01:26AM

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

I see this argument come up regularly amongst those in favour of abortion. Along with rape pregnancies.

I'm strongly opposed to abortion if it is introduced in any way that would allow it to be used as a contraceptive. It should never be available as a way to escape from your bad decisions.

However, of course the mother's life is more important than that of her embryo. Absolutely, if the mother's life is at risk should she proceed with the pregnancy, or if the psychological trauma of carrying a baby to term would be too great as a result of a rape, then abortion should be an option.

The main issue I have have, is how do you legislate for one, without allowing the other? If someone can show me that legislation, I'll vote in favour of it.

Personally, and I know this sounds a bit self righteous, I can't see how anyone can disagree with my viewpoint on this issue. I think it's pretty fair and rational. Normally in arguments I can at least understand other perspectives, even if I don't agree. But not on this, for whatever reason.

I think I can disagree with this pretty safely

Maximus Alexander · 06-09-2012 01:29AM

mishkalucy wrote: »

I think I can disagree with this pretty safely

I think you read the "should" and "she" backwards.

up for anything · 06-09-2012 01:29AM

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

It should never be available as a way to escape from your bad decisions.

Ah yes, allow the pregnancy to continue to full term and bring a baby into the world to live with your bad decisions.

Madam_X · 06-09-2012 01:29AM

tomtherobot wrote: »

How can you say it's a painful decision but there's still no wrong in it. It's only painful if there is suffering involved.

There is. Just because a person chooses to do something, doesn't mean they don't suffer at the same time. Pretty obvious.

Abortion

Comments