Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

ABORTION POLL....I know..lets prove we can keep it civilized to the mods

Options
24567…14

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Whatsernamex33
    Closed Accounts Posts: 843 ✭✭✭Whatsernamex33


    It's a woman's body, she should decide whether or not she wants the baby. Alot of the time it's unplanned and she/both parents might not be financially stable to raise a child at that time. Adoption is an option, but the woman has to go through nine months of pregnancy, different symptoms etc., for a child she has no intention of raising herself.
    So yep, I would say legalise it. As I said, it's a woman's body. Why should the parents have to suffer the next 18 years after, financially or whatever, for a small mistake that's easily fixed...


  • Options
    #33
    c_man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,436 ✭✭✭c_man


    akura wrote: »
    ABORT THREAD

    Only if it's less than 12 posts.


  • Options
    #34
    recyclebin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,578 ✭✭✭recyclebin


    I just had a look at what a baby looks like at 12 weeks (babycenter.com) and I would never like to see abortion allowed at this point. In fact anything above 5-6 weeks and it would make me very uncomfortable.

    The only lawful abortion I would understand is for medical reasons where opinions of two other doctors is taken into account.


  • Options
    #35
    poeticseraphim
    Closed Accounts Posts: 930 ✭✭✭poeticseraphim


    GalwayGuy2 wrote: »
    Legalize it for any case up to week twelve.

    I agree.

    After week 12 only in the case where her life is at risk as in Savitas case in week 17.


  • Options
    #36
    Ghost Buster
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,172 ✭✭✭Ghost Buster


    FionnMcCool87 wrote: »
    But he has to read it to see if it interests him.
    And if it does not interest you but is obviously of interest to others then just leave the thread rather than this usual shoite of 'Oh here we go again, close the thread etc etc'


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    3ndahalfof6
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,184 ✭✭✭3ndahalfof6


    Whatsernamex33 wrote: »
    It's a woman's body, she should decide whether or not she wants the baby. Alot of the time it's unplanned and she/both parents might not be financially stable to raise a child at that time. Adoption is an option, but the woman has to go through nine months of pregnancy, different symptoms etc., for a child she has no intention of raising herself.
    So yep, I would say legalise it. As I said, it's a woman's body. Why should the parents have to suffer the next 18 years after, financially or whatever, for a small mistake that's easily fixed...

    It is not what she decides, it is how she came to her decision, pressure from people around her might lead to an abortion, but for her it could be a life time of regret,

    to me it seems dogs (pups) get a better deal, we can put them in a shelter and hope someone comes along who love how they look or act,

    small mistake? I am guessing when you pinch yourself you do not feel it.


  • Options
    #38
    squod
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,702 ✭✭✭squod


    Whatsernamex33 wrote: »
    So yep, I would say legalise it. As I said, it's a woman's body. Why should the parents have to suffer the next 18 years after, financially or whatever, for a small mistake that's easily fixed...

    This isn't a hole in a pipe or a dent in a car. It's a human life.


  • Options
    #39
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    poeticseraphim wrote: »
    Ok

    I want a picture of what peoples opinions are on legalizing abortion in the early trimester at the bequest of the woman.

    This covers fetal abnormalities, rape , incest , where the 'woman' is under 15, where it is dangerous to her life , where it is dangerous to her health (distinct from her life) , where it is dangerous to her mental health.

    It also covers her own choice.....up to 12 weeks...that is at her bequest she could have an abortion on demand up to twelve weeks .

    This by the way would not even have covered Savita at 17 weeks.

    After week 12 it would be taken on a case by case basis .

    I'm pro-life. Being pro-life means saving lives. If it is the case that the mothers life is at risk and she is likely to die, then the logical conclusion while being pro-life is to intervene and to save her, and if possible the child.

    This is the only circumstance where I would support this.


  • Options
    #40
    Syllabus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 573 ✭✭✭Syllabus


    it should be legal up to 20/22 weeks imo. the 20 week scan is the first time anomalies can be detected - ie downs

    now fair play to anyone with a downs child but its not something i want for me or my child thanks very much. nor would i want a child with spina bifita or any condition thats going to shorten their life or impeed it in any way. and from a selfish pov, i dont want the rest of my life affected either.

    that all said, im sure if i had a child with a condition mentioned id love it to bits however if i had a choice i wounldnt choose it.





    imo


  • Options
    #41
    poeticseraphim
    Closed Accounts Posts: 930 ✭✭✭poeticseraphim


    recyclebin wrote: »
    I just had a look at what a baby looks like at 12 weeks (babycenter.com) and I would never like to see abortion allowed at this point. In fact anything above 5-6 weeks and it would make me very uncomfortable.

    The only lawful abortion I would understand is for medical reasons where opinions of two other doctors is taken into account.
    Well looking at a BABY at 12 weeks no doubt would ..what about a fetus though???
    Would you support abortion by choice at 6 weeks??

    In fetal development, most major organs exist in rudimentary form by about 8 to 9 weeks. It takes several months for these organs to grow in size, complexity, and organization to the point they can function. For example, the myelin sheath—the insulating cover on nerve pathways that is required for efficient conduction of pain signals—does not begin forming around nervous system cells (neurons) in the spinal cord until about 24 weeks, and not till after birth in most of the cerebral cortex.

    Sporadic brain waves are detected at 21 weeks and regular genuine real brain waves begin at 28 weeks.

    Which is long after 12 weeks.

    At 13 weeks gestation, the brain stem and thalamus are not functional, anyway. Working connections between the thalamus and the higher cortex do not begin to form until about 20 to 26 weeks, with significant development of neuronal activity continuing after birth.

    Bear in mind we are talking 12 weeks still here.

    And in the US most abortions (88%) take place in that time....


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Promac
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,407 ✭✭✭Promac


    Syllabus wrote: »
    it should be legal up to 20/22 weeks imo. the 20 week scan is the first time anomalies can be detected - ie downs

    now fair play to anyone with a downs child but its not something i want for me or my child thanks very much. nor would i want a child with spina bifita or any condition thats going to shorten their life or impeed it in any way. and from a selfish pov, i dont want the rest of my life affected either.

    that all said, im sure if i had a child with a condition mentioned id love it to bits however if i had a choice i wounldnt choose it.


    imo

    Sure what if you don't like what they look like - god forbid you had to go through life with an ugly child? They might even be ginger! Or a protestant!

    A baby at 22 weeks is a fully viable human being. I have a nephew that was born at 23. By your reasoning we could just kill any downs kid we see cause like, who wants 'em eh?

    I'm pro-choice but anti-murder.


  • Options
    #43
    3ndahalfof6
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,184 ✭✭✭3ndahalfof6


    poeticseraphim wrote: »
    Well looking at a BABY at 12 weeks no doubt would ..what about a fetus though???
    Would you support abortion by choice at 6 weeks??

    In fetal development, most major organs exist in rudimentary form by about 8 to 9 weeks. It takes several months for these organs to grow in size, complexity, and organization to the point they can function. For example, the myelin sheath—the insulating cover on nerve pathways that is required for efficient conduction of pain signals—does not begin forming around nervous system cells (neurons) in the spinal cord until about 24 weeks, and not till after birth in most of the cerebral cortex.

    Sporadic brain waves are detected at 21 weeks and regular genuine real brain waves begin at 28 weeks.

    Which is long after 12 weeks.

    At 13 weeks gestation, the brain stem and thalamus are not functional, anyway. Working connections between the thalamus and the higher cortex do not begin to form until about 20 to 26 weeks, with significant development of neuronal activity continuing after birth.

    Bear in mind we are talking 12 weeks still here.

    And in the US most abortions (88%) take place in that time....

    OK lets not give them the chance to make these connections, just in case.


  • Options
    #44
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    poeticseraphim wrote: »
    Well looking at a BABY at 12 weeks no doubt would ..what about a fetus though???
    Would you support abortion by choice at 6 weeks??

    In fetal development, most major organs exist in rudimentary form by about 8 to 9 weeks. It takes several months for these organs to grow in size, complexity, and organization to the point they can function. For example, the myelin sheath—the insulating cover on nerve pathways that is required for efficient conduction of pain signals—does not begin forming around nervous system cells (neurons) in the spinal cord until about 24 weeks, and not till after birth in most of the cerebral cortex.

    Sporadic brain waves are detected at 21 weeks and regular genuine real brain waves begin at 28 weeks.

    Which is long after 12 weeks.

    At 13 weeks gestation, the brain stem and thalamus are not functional, anyway. Working connections between the thalamus and the higher cortex do not begin to form until about 20 to 26 weeks, with significant development of neuronal activity continuing after birth.

    Bear in mind we are talking 12 weeks still here.

    And in the US most abortions (88%) take place in that time....

    Are we discussing abortion as a choice or abortion as a medical necessity? I feel that you could be blurring the boundaries here. The OP says as a medical necessity, not as a choice. I feel if I vote yes in the poll now that my opinion may be misconstrued.

    I feel the former is deeply wrong, the latter is saving a life.


  • Options
    #45
    poeticseraphim
    Closed Accounts Posts: 930 ✭✭✭poeticseraphim


    Nimrod 7 wrote: »
    As a previous poster said, your vague choices for voting make it look like it's a simple yes or no topic - it isn't.
    I want it to be FULLY available to the mother if her life was at risk in anyway, BY CONSTITUTION. Not the confusion we have right now which recently claimed the life of an innocent mother. It shouldn't be fully legalised and eventually used as contraception

    Which way do I vote?

    I understand your point.

    And thank you for making it.

    But any referendum will ask for a yes or no answer too.

    That is the issue of making the state responsible for certain aspects of our lives.

    These complex issues will be reduced to yes or no questions which as Savitas case shows is complicated.

    Which is why i see giving women a choice is the option....it is not yes or no then....she will take things into consideration.

    I believe most women intend to honor their bodies by doing the best they can and to try to be responsible.

    You are right it is not a yes or no question....which is why we should leave it to the individual ...there is probably no universally right or wrong answer.

    But then you have to accept their is no yes or no answer....and then the only way is to leave it to women themselves and trust them and relieve yourself of the responsibility that is not really yours or the states.

    It is true...the state cannot seem to decide...maybe because it is not meant to..women are.


  • Options
    #46
    poeticseraphim
    Closed Accounts Posts: 930 ✭✭✭poeticseraphim


    philologos wrote: »
    Are we discussing abortion as a choice or abortion as a medical necessity? I feel that you could be blurring the boundaries here. The OP says as a medical necessity, not as a choice. I feel if I vote yes in the poll now that my opinion may be misconstrued.

    I feel the former is deeply wrong, the latter is saving a life.


    No the OP is clear abortion for cases of rape incest medical necessity AND BY CHOICE...up to week twelve.
    Or no to abortion.
    Vote as you see fit to.


  • Options
    #47
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    poeticseraphim wrote: »
    No the OP is clear abortion for cases of rape incest medical necessity AND BY CHOICE...up to week twelve.
    Or no to abortion.
    Vote as you see fit to.

    Absolutely no to choice.
    Absolutely yes to medical necessity.

    Your poll leaves me in a difficult position.


  • Options
    #48
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    poeticseraphim wrote: »
    I understand your point.

    And thank you for making it.

    But any referendum will ask for a yes or no answer too.

    That is the issue of making the state responsible for certain aspects of our lives.

    These complex issues will be reduced to yes or no questions which as Savitas case shows is complicated.

    Which is why i see giving women a choice is the option....it is not yes or no then....she will take things into consideration.

    I believe most women intend to honor their bodies by doing the best they can and to try to be responsible.

    You are right it is not a yes or no question....which is why we should leave it to the individual ...there is probably no universally right or wrong answer.

    But then you have to accept their is no yes or no answer....and then the only way is to leave it to women themselves and trust them and relieve yourself of the responsibility that is not really yours or the states.

    It is true...the state cannot seem to decide...maybe because it is not meant to..women are.

    This is a little disingenuous.

    It depends on what the referendum is on.

    Will it be on abortion as a choice?
    Or abortion as a medical necessity only?

    I will never support the former, I will always support the latter.


  • Options
    #49
    Promac
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,407 ✭✭✭Promac


    poeticseraphim wrote: »

    It is true...the state cannot seem to decide...maybe because it is not meant to..women are.

    What makes women such experts? Is the father allowed a say? It's far too common to ignore the man's role and rights in this situation.

    I agree with early-term abortions when it's clear and obvious that the foetus is undeveloped. I don't agree at all with people like Syllabus who'll abort their own kid at 22 weeks for such selfish reasons. It's common these days for kids to survive being born in the mid-20s.

    I recently had to deal with the possibility of a down's syndrome kid (nuchal thickening in the scans) and having gone through all the discussions I can't imagine what kind of person would go for an abortion at that stage. You'd have to be a seriously selfish and cold b4stard.


  • Options
    #50
    poeticseraphim
    Closed Accounts Posts: 930 ✭✭✭poeticseraphim


    The reason we need to trust a woman's choice is because we see medical necessity is never clear from Savitas case.

    And i think up to 12 weeks the choice should be a woman's NOT ANOTHER PERSONS SUCH AS A DOCTOR

    If she wants to continue a dangerous pregnancy. That is her choice.

    I am tired of hearing women tell me how they went through a miscarraige at home giving 'birth' because the hospital does not aid women already going through miscarriage because their lives are not at risk. It is not necessary.

    Yet if that is her choice i support it.

    It is highly personnal...the reason it gets so heated is because it is so personnal...so lets not force women into situations they don't want to be in.

    The state should let women choose up to 12 weeks.



    I can't believe we even let the state decide this it seems so odd in society. But there you go.....it wants to dominate my body....


  • Options
    #51
    Syllabus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 573 ✭✭✭Syllabus


    Promac wrote: »
    Sure what if you don't like what they look like - god forbid you had to go through life with an ugly child? They might even be ginger! Or a protestant!......................

    thats just stupid

    i gave my personal opinion. by that very definition it will not be your opinion.

    btw, once the egg is fertilised its is alive. just because the fetus looking more like a baby makes you queasy does not change the end result.

    you are a hypocrite.

    im being honest.

    Promac wrote: »
    ......................................By your reasoning we could just kill any downs kid we see cause like, who wants 'em eh?



    I'm pro-choice but anti-murder.

    No. by my reasoning there would be no kids walking around(or not as the case may be) with these debilitating, life threathening, life shortening issues.




    imo


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    UCDVet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,894 ✭✭✭UCDVet


    More abortions make for a better society. I really wish they were presented in a better light.


  • Options
    #53
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    poeticseraphim wrote: »
    The reason we need to trust a woman's choice is because we see medical necessity is never clear from Savitas case.

    I don't think we need choice, because it will lead to human life being destroyed without good justification. Medical experts are the best ones to be able to conclude this. Yes, they sometimes make mistakes, but they are the ones who know what is best in these situations.

    I'm opposed to the gratuitous destruction of life. By the by, this also affects many women, and you'll find quite a few videos on youtube of abortion survivors giving their testimonies.
    poeticseraphim wrote: »
    And i think up to 12 weeks the choice should be a woman's NOT ANOTHER PERSONS SUCH AS A DOCTOR

    Even if a mother wants to abort because she wants a boy rather than a girl?
    poeticseraphim wrote: »
    If she wants to continue a dangerous pregnancy. That is her choice.

    I would hope that most doctors would intervene if the patient was going to die.
    poeticseraphim wrote: »
    I am tired of hearing women tell me how they went through a miscarraige at home giving 'birth' because the hospital does not aid women already going through miscarriage because their lives are not at risk. It is not necessary.

    ??
    poeticseraphim wrote: »
    Yet if that is her choice i support it.

    I'll find the answer to your question about wanting a boy rather than a girl to be interesting then.
    poeticseraphim wrote: »
    It is highly personnal...the reason it gets so heated is because it is so personnal...so lets not force women into situations they don't want to be in.

    The reason why it gets heated is because it is a human rights issue, and one where there is a conflict.
    poeticseraphim wrote: »
    The state should let women choose up to 12 weeks.

    Why?
    poeticseraphim wrote: »
    I can't believe we even let the state decide this it seems so odd in society. But there you go.....it wants to dominate my body....

    People decided it by public vote as far as I can tell in Ireland.


  • Options
    #54
    poeticseraphim
    Closed Accounts Posts: 930 ✭✭✭poeticseraphim


    philologos wrote: »
    Absolutely no to choice.
    Absolutely yes to medical necessity.

    Your poll leaves me in a difficult position.

    Medical necessity is a choice.

    I might choose to sacrifice my life so that my child might live.

    I might sacrifice my health to have a baby..women do

    I might choose not to ..i might choose to end a pregnancy because of medical necessity.l

    You make it seem like you are going to force women to have abortions if there are medical complications.

    Some women ...even pro-choice women...would rather choose the life of their child...that is to be respected

    Some women would choose to end the pregnancy...that is to be respected.

    To pretend it is not a choice is incorrect...to pretend it is the same choice as abortion without medical danger is not accurate either

    But they are both choices.


  • Options
    #55
    Promac
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,407 ✭✭✭Promac


    Syllabus wrote: »

    No. by my reasoning there would be no kids walking around(or not as the case may be) with these debilitating, life threathening, life shortening issues.

    imo

    By your reasoning there's no difference between the ones walking around and the ones at 22 weeks. At that stage of development there's no difference killing one or the other.

    Your "opinion" reeks of cherry-picking arguments to suit your own selfishness.


  • Options
    #56
    poeticseraphim
    Closed Accounts Posts: 930 ✭✭✭poeticseraphim


    philologos wrote: »
    I don't think we need choice, because it will lead to human life being destroyed without good justification. Medical experts are the best ones to be able to conclude this. Yes, they sometimes make mistakes, but they are the ones who know what is best in these situations.

    I'm opposed to the gratuitous destruction of life. By the by, this also affects many women, and you'll find quite a few videos on youtube of abortion survivors giving their testimonies.



    Even if a mother wants to abort because she wants a boy rather than a girl?



    I would hope that most doctors would intervene if the patient was going to die.



    ??



    I'll find the answer to your question about wanting a boy rather than a girl to be interesting then.



    The reason why it gets heated is because it is a human rights issue, and one where there is a conflict.



    Why?



    People decided it by public vote as far as I can tell in Ireland.

    So you would allow a Doctors to FORCE an abortion on a woman if her life was at risk ...even if she chose not to have one?

    I cannot support that...and as I woman it would worry me.

    Whatever reasons are i support the choice up to 12 weeks it would be impossible to regulate.

    The legislation is not decided by public vote....but by the state..bt public vote decided to say yes to abortion in cases such as the X case YEARS AGO....the State has refused so far or is incapable of legislating for it ....it has been blocked by a list of TD's whose names are available for those interested.

    They have blocked by vote any legislation on the ref that was supported years ago by the people.

    So yeah the state is shoving it's nose in.


  • Options
    #57
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    poeticseraphim wrote: »
    Medical necessity is a choice.

    No it isn't. Medical professionals know or at least can estimate on a reasonable basis when someone is likely to die as a result of pregnancy.
    poeticseraphim wrote: »
    I might choose to sacrifice my life so that my child might live.

    If there is a case where it is absolutely certain that if you die, the child will die then that would be a futile decision because you can't bring it about even if you die.
    poeticseraphim wrote: »
    I might choose not to ..i might choose to end a pregnancy because of medical necessity.

    More than likely a doctor will decide this.
    poeticseraphim wrote: »
    You make it seem like you are going to force women to have abortions if there are medical complications.

    If the woman is going to die, then yes, I advocate the doctor taking the best interests of the woman to heart.
    poeticseraphim wrote: »
    Some women ...even pro-choice women...would rather choose the life of their child...that is to be respected

    See what I've said above. In many cases if the mother dies, the child dies.
    poeticseraphim wrote: »
    Some women would choose to end the pregnancy...that is to be respected.

    If someone is going to die, I don't believe it is a matter of choice. If someone is drowning and they claim that they don't want you to save them, should you just let them drown? Or is there an ethical responsibility on your part to save them?
    poeticseraphim wrote: »
    To pretend it is not a choice is incorrect...to pretend it is the same choice as abortion without medical danger is not accurate either

    But they are both choices.

    They really aren't though.


  • Options
    #58
    poeticseraphim
    Closed Accounts Posts: 930 ✭✭✭poeticseraphim


    UCDVet wrote: »
    More abortions make for a better society. I really wish they were presented in a better light.

    Abortionists are Doctors ...they do humane work....it is seen ...this just draws out extremists.


  • Options
    #59
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    poeticseraphim wrote: »
    So you would allow a Doctors to FORCE an abortion on a woman if her life was at risk ...even if she chose not to have one?

    I think doctors should do what is best to save lives.
    poeticseraphim wrote: »
    I cannot support that...and as I woman it would worry me.

    You don't have to constantly mention that you are a woman?
    poeticseraphim wrote: »
    Whatever reasons are i support the choice up to 12 weeks it would be impossible to regulate.

    So you're seriously telling me that you'd be OK to allow people to have abortions depending on the gender of the child?
    poeticseraphim wrote: »
    The legislation is not decided by public vote....but by the state..bt public vote decided to say yes to abortion in cases such as the X case YEARS AGO....the State has refused so far or is incapable of legislating for it ....it has been blocked by a list of TD's whose names are available for those interested.

    Yes it was. Read up on the 1983 Pro-Life amendment. 66% of people supported it then.
    poeticseraphim wrote: »
    So yeah the state is shoving it's nose in.

    Read up on the modern history on this.


  • Options
    #60
    Real Life
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 942 ✭✭✭Real Life


    the results of this poll make me happy


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    3ndahalfof6
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,184 ✭✭✭3ndahalfof6


    UCDVet wrote: »
    More abortions make for a better society. I really wish they were presented in a better light.


    How do you work this one, every third pregnancy that visits the doctor,

    sorry love, even though you want to have this child and start a family you are third on the list, we must abort, it will be better for society, you will see the rewards soon.


Advertisement
Advertisement