Sponge25 wrote: » Knowing me I could be your dad! haha just kidding.
gozunda wrote: » cynder wrote: » By that then murderers should be given counseling in prison for the heinous Crimes they committed. So you rate anyone who seeks a termination no matter what the cause whether it be rape, incest, mental health etc as a "Murderer"? Cynder - your posts would appear to lack empathy with anyone who is not of your mindset. I note you have detailed about your father beating up your mother - I am not a qualified professional but is it a possible influence in your apparent lack of empathy towards others? I also note you say you (quite rightly) love your children but then direct hatred towards those who does not share similar outlooks by calling them murders/killers even where they chose a termination in a jurisdiction where this procedure is legal. I am aware that many of the pro-lifers on here are christans - I am unsure whether you are not but a useful one for those that are, is:Do not judge so that you will not be judged” Matthew 7:1 which brings me to your next point: cynder wrote: » If a woman is raped she would need counseling anyway, as would a woman who escapes a violent relationship, as would someone who wants kid, but can't get pregnant because it could kill her. These women should be in counseling, You picked the 3 that I could understand however you didn't pick the woman who uses it as a contraceptive . Funny that! How exactly do you know the number of women and the real reasons they seek a termination? Yes there are those whose own contraception has failed and due to other issues (which are not ours to speculate about) who then seek a termination. The ridiculous idea that an average woman could afford regular termination / abortion facilities as a means of contraception is risible. Just because someone is raped etc does not mean they are recieving counseling - even though they should. The rape and the decision to undergo a termination is not one and the same thing. The change in hormones in a womans body alone can result in huge emotional changes. The saying I like and I believe you would be wise to ponder on is as follows: Pity is best taught by fellowship in woe - Samual Taylor Coleridge . You may well love your kids but in all honesty I wouldn't wish you as a friend or neighbour with the lack of empathy towards others displayed in your posts.
cynder wrote: » By that then murderers should be given counseling in prison for the heinous Crimes they committed.
cynder wrote: » If a woman is raped she would need counseling anyway, as would a woman who escapes a violent relationship, as would someone who wants kid, but can't get pregnant because it could kill her. These women should be in counseling, You picked the 3 that I could understand however you didn't pick the woman who uses it as a contraceptive . Funny that!
Pity is best taught by fellowship in woe - Samual Taylor Coleridge
Tipsygypsy wrote: » cynder wrote: » Original hospital was limerick, she think got transfered but I'm not 100% sure where, it's hard enough to know your babies going to die without getting into the nitty gritty, she had the baby in limerick. Buried her at home. She went on to have another healthy baby. Whatever hospital offered her an abortion would have been breaking the law as it stands in Ireland in doing so. This is why so many women whose babies have fatal fetal abnormalities HAVE to travel to England for treatment. I have heard many many stories like this and never ever heard of anyone being offered an abortion in Ireland. THe hospitals and OBs are all afraid to do so because they could very well face prosecution. THis is why I would like to know where she was offered it.
cynder wrote: » Original hospital was limerick, she think got transfered but I'm not 100% sure where, it's hard enough to know your babies going to die without getting into the nitty gritty, she had the baby in limerick. Buried her at home. She went on to have another healthy baby.
Sponge25 wrote: » It doesn't matter if they use contraception, if you're not prepared to have a baby don't have sex. That's like putting one round in a revolver, shooting yourself in the head and complaining because ya put a gun to your head and pulled the trigger!
MOR66 wrote: » It should be optional, but i doubht anything will be implicated in the near future. I am pro-life but in certain situations such as a trauma (rape) or health risks to mother or baby, i can see it being justifiable.I watched a programme on rte awhile ago about Irish woman traveling to england for abortions and they were all traumtised by the experience.I think it's appauling free councelling isnt provided. I think it's rare for abortion to be used as a form of contraception,considering it's not cheap.And most people who are sluts are young girls 16 and under who sleep with guys and dont give a crap about anything!! So i think its preety rare.
cynder wrote: » Never been baptized never, will be.
cynder wrote: » Just because I hate abortion doesn't make me a bad friend or neighbor. You judge me for my opinion. It's not like I go round stopping people, I pointed out my opinion on boards, I won't ever change it.
cynder wrote: » But I also wont physically stop anyone, if they have made up their mind and do it fine, but I dont be a shoulder to cry on.
cynder wrote: » Tbh I doubt that would ever happen as my close friends would also be anti abortion... Other than the abortion issue I'm a good neighbor and friend. I certainly wouldn't avoid someone who had an abortion, if they told me I would tell them straight I dont agree with it and leave it at that.
cynder wrote: » For the record I'm not pro life, I agree with euthanasia, assisted suicide and with the death sentence in certain circumstances...The only people I lack empathy for are people who seek abortion, ( not those who have been raped seeking abortion) and most people who kill their kids and most serial killers.
cynder wrote: » Ps you seem to be judging me....
gozunda wrote: » cynder wrote: » Never been baptized never, will be. Not so much being anything to do with actual religion more the sentiment contained in that expression "Who are we to judge"? cynder wrote: » Just because I hate abortion doesn't make me a bad friend or neighbor. You judge me for my opinion. It's not like I go round stopping people, I pointed out my opinion on boards, I won't ever change it. Having an opinion is good but publically assigning moralistic statements like they are murderers and killers is blatently not. Do you not think that someone who has had to have a termination (reason unknown and unknowable to you or me- whether rape or otherwise) coming on here and reading that they are being lambasted as a murderer is somehow not going to have a huge psycholoical effect on them? And then to hold that they should not be provided with counselling? Empathy is an important element of our society even in the face of adversity... cynder wrote: » But I also wont physically stop anyone, if they have made up their mind and do it fine, but I dont be a shoulder to cry on. See above.... cynder wrote: » Tbh I doubt that would ever happen as my close friends would also be anti abortion... Other than the abortion issue I'm a good neighbor and friend. I certainly wouldn't avoid someone who had an abortion, if they told me I would tell them straight I dont agree with it and leave it at that. I have firends who would hold many oopposing ideas and opinions to me as I belive life is richer becasuse of it...If a friend in need came looking for help I would do my best to help them no matter what my opinions are... cynder wrote: » For the record I'm not pro life, I agree with euthanasia, assisted suicide and with the death sentence in certain circumstances...The only people I lack empathy for are people who seek abortion, ( not those who have been raped seeking abortion) and most people who kill their kids and most serial killers. You do not know who was raped, drugged, was a victim of incest or someone whose own conraception failed - no one knows but them the real reasons therefore we cannot sit in judgement.. cynder wrote: » Ps you seem to be judging me.... Your posts have displayed a remarkable lack of empathy imo so I am giving you my opinion based on what you have actually said...
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » ^ Killing sheep, cows or pigs for food is also "taking a life". Those animals are no more or less alive than any human life. So grounding your moral opinion of abortion behind the rhetoric of "It is taking a life" fails to stand up to much moral or philosophical rigor. It sounds nice on the surface and looks good on paper but as soon as you start to unpack it there is very little there but the arbitrary assignment of moral concern to a rather random point. The issue however is whether the fetus or zygote are "alive" in the sense of moral concern. Not just alive in the biological sense. As I said the biological sense alone is not enough to ground the discussion given we do not have the same moral concerns for other life on the planet as we do human life. At the end of the day the entire Abortion debate is about a simple question: At any given stage in the development is the developing fetus worthy of the assignment of "Human Rights". I fail to be convinced that it is and certainly arguments that it is biologically alive or taxonomically human fail to ground the discussion in the way people who produce those facts hope it should.
cynder wrote: » I believe the unborn should have the right to live, i cant produce any facts, its a personal belife, i dont wish to change anyones mind, its my view.
cynder wrote: » You cant give me any facts that says the unborn has no right to life, its not a parasite or an alien life form. The terms bunch of cells means nothing to me, its a life, it should be given a chance.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » That is all well and good. We will vote differently in the voting booth when it comes to it. It is worth pointing out though that this is a discussion and debating forum so do not be surprised if people unpack your opinions and show where they are lacking in any intellectual or philosophical rigor. In fact if you are unwilling to defend your views through discourse then perhaps you would be better off saying nothing at all and not posting? When you post your opinions, people like myself debunk them, and you reply with a cop out then it simply represents your side of the argument badly, makes it look weak, and plays into the hands of people like myself better than if you gave me your password and let me write your posts for you. Again however it is no more a "life" than a cow is. Do you afford the same moral protection to all life? Are you completely vegetarian not eating any meat or fish? If not then clearly your opinion on morality is grounded in MUCH more than "It is a life" despite your protestations to the contrary. As such, perhaps you are not being altogether honest with yourself in that you have just arbitrarily selected a position and then walled it off from the rest of your intellect lest it not stand up to observation.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » this is a discussion and debating forum so do not be surprised if people unpack your opinions and show where they are lacking in any intellectual or philosophical rigor.
In fact if you are unwilling to defend your views through discourse then perhaps you would be better off saying nothing at all and not posting?
Again however it is no more a "life" than a cow is.
Zulu wrote: » That's nice, feel free to do this at any point. Why would you seek to silence someones opinion? ...other than being simply rude, of course. So you either value animal life on a parity with human life (similarly to vegans) or you have an equal lack of respect for human life as you do animals? That's fine. But the rest of society doesn't tend to agree with that position. Most of us value human life above other life. Sadly, your attempts to discredit the poster by claiming they are hypocritical with respect to "life" (animal v human) doesn't hold up. This "ace in the hole" probably works logical miracles to those who think like you, but the rest of us don't think like you. The rest of us value human life above other life and see through it.
Malari wrote: » And some of us value a pregnant woman's life above the life of an unwanted foetus.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » So you base your morality not just on the actions of school kids, but the IMAGINED actions of school kids that you have not tried or tested out or actually checked into? This does explain a lot. We agree on one thing though, your view IS simple and simplistic. All you are showing is that because children subjectively like frogs, they do not want there to be more frogs. This is hardly a philosophically rigorous arguments against abortion. Especially since you and I both know that most of those kids would happily leave the class room and go off and eat a lamb burger created by cutting down the life of a little lamb in the prime of it's life. They will cry while watching Bambi then enjoy a good venison.
Zulu wrote: » That's nice, feel free to do this at any point.
Zulu wrote: » Why would you seek to silence someones opinion? ...other than being simply rude, of course.
Zulu wrote: » So you either value animal life on a parity with human life (similarly to vegans) or you have an equal lack of respect for human life as you do animals?
Zulu wrote: » Sadly, your attempts to discredit the poster by claiming they are hypocritical with respect to "life" (animal v human) doesn't hold up.
Zulu wrote: » I understand that. Is there a reason you've deliberately avoided my salient point?
cynder wrote: » That they would go off and eat a nice burger, lamb? venison? veal? But still you wont find the above in my house.
cynder wrote: » Down to abortion though, it feels wrong
Khannie wrote: » That's really nothing to do with anything to be fair. We already have legal precedence that the life of the mother takes priority and either it will be legislated for or a referendum to alter the constitution that a majority agree on will come to pass. It's really got nothing to do with the abortion debate. We don't leave mothers to die while an ectopic pregnancy fires ahead.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Your not seeing it or not understanding it is not synonymous with me not having done it.
Not aware that I was doing any such thing so lets not put words in my mouth.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: perhaps you would be better off saying nothing at all and not posting
I was however giving him a gentlemanly heads up... ...makes it look weak, unsubstantiated and useless.
I thought it polite... ...making the position look weak, unsubstantiated and useless.
Malari wrote: » What point?
Malari wrote: » I mean the woman's rights. The right to choose whether or not to continue the pregnancy.
gozunda wrote: » You do not know who was raped, drugged, was a victim of incest or someone whose own conraception failed - no one knows but them the real reasons therefore we cannot sit in judgement..
Zulu wrote: » But that wasn't what you said, is it.
Zulu wrote: » ...that we value human life above other animal life. Really, you didn't get that?
