Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.

Abortion debate thread

1…3132343637…59

Comments

  • #992
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    OK Zombrex. I get you now. Apologies for my misunderstanding.

    So is it fair to say that you would agree with the following:

    a) The unborn is human
    b) It has a right to life
    c) However, it does not have the right to use someone else's body to sustain that life


  • #993
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    robp wrote: »
    Liberty is not equal to bodily integrity or bodily autonomy

    I don't know what you mean here equal. Bodily integrity is a form of privacy which is a form of liberty.

    Liberty is a huge subject that incorporates privacy and agency.
    Anyway back to the topic in hand. A right to bodily integrity does not yield the right to abortion.
    Link

    That is not what the ruling said.

    It said it would not require Ireland to comply with the majority judgement in the European Union that privacy permits abortion because that was not the position in Ireland and this was within the margins of difference permitted between EU counties when it comes to the interpretation of EU law.


  • #994
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    OK Zombrex. I get you now. Apologies for my misunderstanding.

    So is it fair to say that you would agree with the following:

    a) The unborn is human
    b) It has a right to life
    c) However, it does not have the right to use someone else's body to sustain that life

    Well my view would be that the foetus does not have right to life until it has developed a brain with active higher brain function (about 24 weeks), but for the purposes of this discuss yes that is the correct.


  • #995
    robp
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,933 ✭✭✭robp


    Zombrex wrote: »
    I don't know what you mean here equal. Bodily integrity is a form of privacy which is a form of liberty.

    Liberty is a huge subject that incorporates privacy and agency.



    That is not what the ruling said.

    It said it would not require Ireland to comply with the majority judgement in the European Union that privacy permits abortion because that was not the position in Ireland and this was within the margins of difference permitted between EU counties when it comes to the interpretation of EU law.
    Actually it is exactly what the court said
    European Convention on
    Human Rights did not confer a human right to abortion,
    ruling that "Article 8 cannot, accordingly, be interpreted
    as conferring a right to abortion”. (§ 214 of the ruling)


  • #996
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    robp wrote: »
    Actually it is exactly what the court said
    European Convention on
    Human Rights did not confer a human right to abortion,
    ruling that "Article 8 cannot, accordingly, be interpreted
    as conferring a right to abortion”. (§ 214 of the ruling)


    I'd question the legitimacy of the source you took that snippet from.
    "Article 8 cannot, accordingly, be interpreted
    as conferring a right to abortion”.

    You left out the "while" in your quotation there.

    So now we have.
    "While 'Article 8 cannot, accordingly, be interpreted
    as conferring a right to abortion', the Court finds "
    Changes the complete meaning of the quote.

    It's also followed up with an almost complete contradiction of what you claim.
    the Court finds that the prohibition in Ireland of abortion where sought for reasons of health and/or well-being about which the first and second applicants complained, and the third applicant’s alleged inability to establish her qualification for a lawful abortion in Ireland, come within the scope of their right to respect for their private lives and accordingly Article 8.

    You, my friend, were a victim of a quote mine.


  • Advertisement
  • #997
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    robp wrote: »
    Actually it is exactly what the court said

    And now read why it says it can't....


  • #998
    Morbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    robp wrote: »
    That is a false argument. You could same the same about any number of restricted items and practices in Ireland. For examples Irish insolvency laws. Irish bankrupt businesspeople are exported to the UK due to more relaxed rules. At the end of the day the rate of abortion by Irish women is well below our peers even when you factor in abortion pills taken in Ireland. Abortion by request is illegal in 3 out of 4 countries in the world.

    It is not a false argument. It would be a false argument if I was saying we should legalise abortions because women will simply get abortions elsewhere anyway. Instead, I am saying the reason Ireland has been able to maintain its ban on abortion - the reason there has not been a greater push for abortion rights - is because thousands of women each year travel to the Britain for abortions. It permits an equilibrium, where otherwise there would be pressure for change in legislation. This was a response to your claim that the bodily integrity argument has "failed", when in reality it has brought about abortion rights throughout the western hemisphere.

    And while it might be true that 3 of 4 countries ban abortion on demand, abortion is freely available throughout the western world, as the western world understands a woman's right to bodily integrity.


  • #999
    robp
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,933 ✭✭✭robp


    Jernal wrote: »
    I'd question the legitimacy of the source you took that snippet from.

    You left out the "while" in your quotation there.

    So now we have.

    Changes the complete meaning of the quote.

    It's also followed up with an almost complete contradiction of what you claim.

    You, my friend, were a victim of a quote mine.

    A complete contradiction? Read it again. The rest of the quote basically explains how in the court's view applicant C in respect of Article 8 had a right to know her lawful position regards abortion access. It says absolutely nothing whatsoever about whether the Irish people have a right to abortion (although this topic is discussed later in the ruling). There is no in clarity there. The ruling was crystal clear in that respect. The quote was from no other then the ECHR website.
    Morbert wrote: »
    It is not a false argument. It would be a false argument if I was saying we should legalise abortions because women will simply get abortions elsewhere anyway. Instead, I am saying the reason Ireland has been able to maintain its ban on abortion - the reason there has not been a greater push for abortion rights - is because thousands of women each year travel to the Britain for abortions. It permits an equilibrium, where otherwise there would be pressure for change in legislation. This was a response to your claim that the bodily integrity argument has "failed", when in reality it has brought about abortion rights throughout the western hemisphere.
    Well we could repeat that argument with Irish bankruptcy laws, nuclear energy importation or Ireland's lack of an army. Ireland may appear to be exporting a problem but it is actually is taking a conscientious defined stance. That maybe your view of what bodily integrity involves but it is not the view of the ECHR and bodily integrity was certainly not the basis for abortion legalisation in the countries where it is available.


  • #1000
    Morbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    robp wrote: »
    Well we could repeat that argument with Irish bankruptcy laws, nuclear energy importation or Ireland's lack of an army. Ireland may appear to be exporting a problem but it is actually is taking a conscientious defined stance. That maybe your view of what bodily integrity involves but it is not the view of the ECHR and bodily integrity was certainly not the basis for abortion legalisation in the countries where it is available.

    Yes, you could indeed make the same statement: I.e. Ireland takes a conscientious defined stance, while simultaneously taking advantage of allies/neighbours who do not take such a stance, thereby negating much of the social impacts. In other words, the reason the morning after pill is available in Ireland is because it would be very difficult and expensive to fly to the U.K. within a few hours notice.

    And bodily integrity was absolutely the basis for abortion legalisation in the countries where it is available. What else would the basis be?


  • #1001
    FISMA
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,616 ✭✭✭FISMA


    Jernal wrote: »
    It's a little disingenuous to ask where are all the "Women's right crowd" when pretty much all of them condemn what this guy did just as much as you do.

    Have a you a few links Jernal? From NOW or, perhaps, Planned Parenthood?

    More specifically, please do not link me to a few lines released on their website. Rather, would you please provide a few links, of representatives for both, condemning Kermit Gosnell in specific circumstances, say in national media. They were requested to do so by some national media outlets.

    You are missing my point.

    After much delay, the American national media has finally picked up on this story. During the early days, the liberal media all but dropped the story. Only one national and local news organization resurrected the story.

    True, there was some lip service done by the national media, usually during the off hours and as an aside. Correct me if I am wrong, but no leading stories.

    The point is, that the coverage given to this issue pales in comparison to that for others.

    Why is that?

    • Kermit Gosnell is in fact, a mass murdered. You do not cut the spines of the dead.
    • Kermit Gosnell, through his negligence, killed a woman.
    • Kermit Gosnell forced an abortion on a woman who decided to not have an abortion.

    So where is the outrage? Have you a link to anyone like PP or NOW that discusses and condemns any of the three above points?

    Please advise as I have not seen any and would appreciate the effort.


  • Advertisement
  • #1002
    JimiTime
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    This video is disturbing! Its not graphic, its just an insight into the mentality of abortion culture. Interesting too how they employ language to deny to themselves the murderousness they are indulging in.



  • #1003
    lazygal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    JimiTime wrote: »
    This video is disturbing! Its not graphic, its just an insight into the mentality of abortion culture. Interesting too how they employ language to deny to themselves the murderousness they are indulging in.


    The antichoice side never use language to deny to themselves the lies they spout.


  • #1004
    JimiTime
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    lazygal wrote: »
    The antichoice side never use language to deny to themselves the lies they spout.

    Or to give them a more definitive title, The 'anti-it should be legal to have the choice to kill unborn children' side. Anyway, In the face of this disgusting carry on as shown in the video. The self delusion etc. You post what you did above. Sad, as in truly sad:(
    What a scary world we face if this is becomes the majority viewpoint.
    How enlightened the liberalista is ey! Those stupid conservatives who believe there's a moral repugnancy to killing defenceless developing human beings. Thank goodness for the enlightened liberalista, saving the world from their madness ey.


  • #1005
    robp
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,933 ✭✭✭robp


    Planned Parenthood official endorses post birth abortion.

    Florida legislators considering a bill to require abortionists to provide medical care to an infant who survives an abortion were shocked during a committee hearing this week when a Planned Parenthood official endorsed a right to post-birth abortion.

    Alisa LaPolt Snow, the lobbyist representing the Florida Alliance of Planned Parenthood Affiliates, testified that her organization believes the decision to kill an infant who survives a failed abortion should be left up to the woman seeking an abortion and her abortion doctor...
    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/video-planned-parenthood-official-argues-right-post-birth-abortion_712198.html

    There guys are there own worst enemy.

    Morbert wrote: »
    Yes, you could indeed make the same statement: I.e. Ireland takes a conscientious defined stance, while simultaneously taking advantage of allies/neighbours who do not take such a stance, thereby negating much of the social impacts. In other words, the reason the morning after pill is available in Ireland is because it would be very difficult and expensive to fly to the U.K. within a few hours notice.

    And bodily integrity was absolutely the basis for abortion legalisation in the countries where it is available. What else would the basis be?

    The reason varies from state to state. Sometimes from a misguided approach to maternal health eg UK, sometimes partially in a effort to reduce single mothers eg Israel. As bodily integrity is defined in the EU's fundamental rights anyone would be extremely hardpressed to find a case for the right to abortion.


  • #1006
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    robp wrote: »
    Planned Parenthood official endorses post birth abortion.



    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/video-planned-parenthood-official-argues-right-post-birth-abortion_712198.html

    There guys are there own worst enemy.

    I'm not a particular fan of Planned Parenthood, but they didn't "endorce post birth abortion"

    The Planned Parenthood representative was discussing a law that would require the abortion doctor to call for emergency medical attention for foetus that were still alive after the abortion.

    Sounds reasonable, who would object to that, right? Well the issue that is not reported in any of the anti-abortion websites is that all this is taking place in a state where abortions after 24 weeks are illegal anyway.

    The odds of a foetus surviving or being viable if they are aborted before 24 weeks are tiny. But this law would require doctors to call for medical attention if the foetus is alive at the time, irrespective of whether the doctor believes the foetus is viable.

    Now if you are having a heart attack, or have just been in a car crash, or any other reason that you need urgent medical attention, would you be happy that the ambulance that is supposed to be on its way to you was actually tracing out to an abortion clinic in order to "save" a 18 week old foetus that probably has about 3 minutes of life no matter what they do anyway

    This is why the Planned Parenthood representative said the decision should be left up to the mother and the doctor. If the doctor assess that the foetus is alive and viable then under medical practice he is required to call for emergency medical attention anyway.

    If the doctor decides the foetus is not viable but the mother for some reason desperately wants him to try and save it anyway, he can also call for emergency medical care.

    But when the foetus isn't viable what is the purpose of having a law that requires that resources are wasted attempting to save a foetus that is not savable at the expense of other Flordians who may require medical attention much more urgently than a 18 week old clump of cells.

    Spinning this as Planned Parenthood (which are a rather unsaviourable organization, lets be honest) as supporting or calling for infanticide is very disingenious of the anti-abortion side.

    But then I suppose when you have already lost the argument you get desperate to paint your opponents in the worst possible light.


  • #1007
    Gumbi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,682 ✭✭✭Gumbi


    Not only that, I've read statistics that show, among other things, that surviving foetuses born in or around 24 weeks are more likely to have mental difficulties etc etc I can provide a link if necessary.


  • #1008
    lmaopml
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,080 ✭✭✭lmaopml


    Gumbi wrote: »
    Not only that, I've read statistics that show, among other things, that surviving foetuses born in or around 24 weeks are more likely to have mental difficulties etc etc I can provide a link if necessary.


    So what are you saying here Gumbi, are you saying that my little one who was a premmy and has problems is not human?

    Are you implying that I should have had 'mercy' on him and he shouldn't be the magnificent smile that lights up my morning and evenings?


  • #1009
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    lmaopml wrote: »
    So what are you saying here Gumbi, are you saying that my little one who was a premmy and has problems is not human?

    No, he is saying that he wouldn't choose to bring a child who is mentally disabled into this world.

    Would you?

    Let me ask you this, do you think it is best that children are born inside a marriage? If you do, how worked up do you get about all the theoretical children you didn't have before you were married because you decided not to have them because you felt the circumstances were right?


  • #1010
    lmaopml
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,080 ✭✭✭lmaopml


    Zombrex wrote: »
    No, he is saying that he wouldn't choose to bring a child who is mentally disabled into this world.

    Would you?

    Yes, I did!

    I did bring that child into the world? He's the bees knees and spiders ankles, he's more honest and lovely than I can even begin to explain. He reminds me more and more every single day what it is to be compassionate and to be human and how to really 'love' properly...


    There are plenty of people who bring a child into the world and love them very very dearly even if they are not perfect in every single way, designed and meant to be mini desires of their parents, it doesn't work that way.

    It seems that the new 'vogue' is that this is a 'selfish' thing? I'm selfish for having my child?

    You have no idea the absolute joy of a child with special needs - you should get to know them, perhaps it might break that stone heart. They are not 'less' than another - they are super special, and have a whole lot to teach, should one get to know them, or even be interested in doing so.

    Incredible.


  • #1011
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    lmaopml wrote: »
    Yes, I did!

    I did bring that child into the world? He's the bees knees and spiders ankles, he's more honest and lovely than I can even begin to explain. He reminds me more and more every single day what it is to be compassionate and to be human and how to really 'love' properly...


    There are plenty of people who bring a child into the world and love them very very dearly even if they are not perfect in every single way, designed and meant to be mini desires of their parents, it doesn't work that way.

    It seems that the new 'vogue' is that this is a 'selfish' thing? I'm selfish for having my child?

    You have no idea the absolute joy of a child with special needs - you should get to know them, perhaps it might break that stone heart. They are not 'less' than another - they are super special, and have a whole lot to teach, should one get to know them, or even be interested in doing so.

    Incredible.
    You're an amazing person, lmaopml ... and so is your very very special child.


  • Advertisement
  • #1012
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Thanks for that lmaopml


  • #1013
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    lmaopml wrote: »
    Yes, I did!

    I did bring that child into the world? He's the bees knees and spiders ankles, he's more honest and lovely than I can even begin to explain. He reminds me more and more every single day what it is to be compassionate and to be human and how to really 'love' properly...

    But why would you want your child to be disabled?
    There are plenty of people who bring a child into the world and love them very very dearly even if they are not perfect in every single way, designed and meant to be mini desires of their parents, it doesn't work that way.

    It seems that the new 'vogue' is that this is a 'selfish' thing? I'm selfish for having my child?

    It's selfish if the person puts their want for a child over the child's actual life or quality of life.

    For example look at these 16 year olds who are having babies because they have watched Teen Mom on MTV and think having a child is cool and a way to produce someone who will love them and a way to make them feel special.

    Not a lot of thought is given to what the quality of life will be like for the child, being brought into a family with a very young parent, often in a very poor situation to have a child.

    Or take these 50 year olds who decide to adopt a child because they focused on their career but now feel the are owed children. While medical care advances each year there is still strong odds that they will be dead, or at least ill, before their children are out of their teenage years.

    Nonexistent children don't feel anything, no one cries for the child they didn't have when they were 21 and decided the sensible thing to do was use a condom because now wasn't the time to have a child.

    I don't get why someone, if they knew that having a child now would mean the child was disabled would continue, any more that I would understand hy someone would have a child after finding out they are terminally ill, or even just that they were being made unemployed or losing their house.

    You should choose, with in reason, what is best for the future child.
    They are not 'less' than another - they are super special, and have a whole lot to teach, should one get to know them, or even be interested in doing so.

    Incredible.

    Neither is a child born to a 16 year old girl who has just dropped out of school "less" than any other. But why would you choose that as the child you are going to have.

    You can say all you like that that child will be loved. But that child will also probably spend a lot of time hungry, stresses, gripped in poverty etc. Again why choose that for your child?

    If the 16 year had said No now is not the time to have a baby, I'm going to get my education, wait until I'm in a stable relationship, wait until I'm settled and have travelled so I'm not full of regrets and can dedicate myself to my child etc etc would you be complaining that she doesn't love this theoreticall baby she could have had aged 16 or that this child is considered "less" of a child or an unwanted child, because she decided that wasn't the child to have?


  • #1014
    lazygal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    lmaopml wrote: »
    Yes, I did!

    I did bring that child into the world? He's the bees knees and spiders ankles, he's more honest and lovely than I can even begin to explain. He reminds me more and more every single day what it is to be compassionate and to be human and how to really 'love' properly...


    There are plenty of people who bring a child into the world and love them very very dearly even if they are not perfect in every single way, designed and meant to be mini desires of their parents, it doesn't work that way.

    It seems that the new 'vogue' is that this is a 'selfish' thing? I'm selfish for having my child?

    You have no idea the absolute joy of a child with special needs - you should get to know them, perhaps it might break that stone heart. They are not 'less' than another - they are super special, and have a whole lot to teach, should one get to know them, or even be interested in doing so.

    Incredible.
    You wanted to bring your child into the world. Good for you. You do know not everyone is like you, though?

    There's circumstances in which termination would be the right choice for me, my family and my life. I know myself well enough to know my limitations as a parent and I know I'd resent bringing a child into the world knowing he or she would require so much of my time, energy and emotion due to a disability from birth that my other children would suffer. There's been an illness in my family which meant I was often left with relatives or on my own while the 'needier' sibling had to be cared for. It wasn't all sunshine and roses and 'super special' times, it was damn hard work, and emotionally draining and affected the entirely family dynamic.

    So good for you, making the right choice you have no regrets about. But don't dare make out like you're somehow 'better' than a couple who decides their existing children deserve their full attention and know they can't deal with a severely disabled child for life, and make different choices. Every single parent is just muddling along, trying to do the right thing 99.99% of the time.


  • #1015
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    lazygal wrote: »
    You wanted to bring your child into the world. Good for you. You do know not everyone is like you, though?

    There's circumstances in which termination would be the right choice for me, my family and my life. I know myself well enough to know my limitations as a parent and I know I'd resent bringing a child into the world knowing he or she would require so much of my time, energy and emotion due to a disability from birth that my other children would suffer. There's been an illness in my family which meant I was often left with relatives or on my own while the 'needier' sibling had to be cared for. It wasn't all sunshine and roses and 'super special' times, it was damn hard work, and emotionally draining and affected the entirely family dynamic.
    Having a child with special needs can be a challenge ... but killing such children cannot be morally justified.
    lazygal wrote: »
    So good for you, making the right choice you have no regrets about. But don't dare make out like you're somehow 'better' than a couple who decides their existing children deserve their full attention and know they can't deal with a severely disabled child for life, and make different choices. Every single parent is just muddling along, trying to do the right thing 99.99% of the time.
    Some children can become disabled after birth ... and the same 'coping issues' can arise. The solution is care - and not death.
    Society also needs to do more than making pious platitudes - and it needs to provide more assistance to the families of children with special needs


  • #1016
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Zombrex wrote: »
    But why would you want your child to be disabled?



    It's selfish if the person puts their want for a child over the child's actual life or quality of life.

    For example look at these 16 year olds who are having babies because they have watched Teen Mom on MTV and think having a child is cool and a way to produce someone who will love them and a way to make them feel special.

    Not a lot of thought is given to what the quality of life will be like for the child, being brought into a family with a very young parent, often in a very poor situation to have a child.

    Or take these 50 year olds who decide to adopt a child because they focused on their career but now feel the are owed children. While medical care advances each year there is still strong odds that they will be dead, or at least ill, before their children are out of their teenage years.

    Nonexistent children don't feel anything, no one cries for the child they didn't have when they were 21 and decided the sensible thing to do was use a condom because now wasn't the time to have a child.

    I don't get why someone, if they knew that having a child now would mean the child was disabled would continue, any more that I would understand hy someone would have a child after finding out they are terminally ill, or even just that they were being made unemployed or losing their house.

    You should choose, with in reason, what is best for the future child.



    Neither is a child born to a 16 year old girl who has just dropped out of school "less" than any other. But why would you choose that as the child you are going to have.

    You can say all you like that that child will be loved. But that child will also probably spend a lot of time hungry, stresses, gripped in poverty etc. Again why choose that for your child?

    If the 16 year had said No now is not the time to have a baby, I'm going to get my education, wait until I'm in a stable relationship, wait until I'm settled and have travelled so I'm not full of regrets and can dedicate myself to my child etc etc would you be complaining that she doesn't love this theoreticall baby she could have had aged 16 or that this child is considered "less" of a child or an unwanted child, because she decided that wasn't the child to have?
    All you say justifies people being more responsible about not becoming pregnant, including the use of effective contraception ... but once somebody is pregnant - we are talking about an new Human Life ... and killing it just because it mightn't have the best start in life or its parents might die when it is in its twenties is a rather drastic morally unjustified solution to a problem that might never actually be an issue.
    If I was given a choice between death and being reared by a young mother or an elderly parent, who might die when I was 20 ... I'd choose life every time ... and I suspect that all rational people would do the same.


  • #1017
    lazygal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    J C wrote: »
    Having a child with special needs can be a challenge ... but killing such children cannot be morally justified.

    Some children can become disabled after birth ... and the same 'coping issues' can arise. The solution is care - and not death.
    Society also needs to do more than making pious platitudes - and it needs to provide more assistance to the families of children with special needs

    You're not killing a child, you're aborting/terminating a foetus.


    And its an entirely different proposition raising the children who are here already, no matter what happens, to deciding you don't want to start out with a child that may require permanent care, to the possible detriment of your existing children.

    How many children with special needs have you helped? Its all very welling requiring women to give birth to 'special needs' children, whatever that means, but no matter what the parents are left with the burden of care, be it physical, emotional or financial.


  • #1018
    eviltwin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    lmaopml wrote: »
    Yes, I did!

    I did bring that child into the world? He's the bees knees and spiders ankles, he's more honest and lovely than I can even begin to explain. He reminds me more and more every single day what it is to be compassionate and to be human and how to really 'love' properly...


    There are plenty of people who bring a child into the world and love them very very dearly even if they are not perfect in every single way, designed and meant to be mini desires of their parents, it doesn't work that way.

    It seems that the new 'vogue' is that this is a 'selfish' thing? I'm selfish for having my child?

    You have no idea the absolute joy of a child with special needs - you should get to know them, perhaps it might break that stone heart. They are not 'less' than another - they are super special, and have a whole lot to teach, should one get to know them, or even be interested in doing so.

    Incredible.


    I have a SN child too. We are "lucky" in that our daughters condition is a mental one and she is mild so she will be able to work and live a normal life but even so its hard. I don't know how the average person with little money or support manages when those needs are severe.

    I wouldn't change my girl for the world but I have to be honest its not easy. I have limited time to myself, with my husband, with our son, we cannot do the things most families take for granted, everything has to be tailored around my daughter's condition. The supports we could call on are practically non existant, we are trying to get by on an average income so private care isn't an option so our life is one long round of waiting lists, fights, struggles to get even the smallest bit of help.....its tiring, its frustrating, its soul destroying.

    I don't know how people with children with severe needs cope. Its a huge sacrifice not just for the parent but for the rest of the family and while the rewards are great its not without its down side. Its not something any parent wants for their child and his or her siblings. If I could make my daughter's mental condition go away tomorrow I would, not just for me but for her and her brother who at 4 yrs of age is getting used to the fact that he often has to come second.

    Thats the reality and all the good moments don't take away from how hard it can be.

    I have nothing but total admiration for people who have a baby knowing their child will never be able to care from themselves but I don't think its right to judge anyone who feels its too much for them and takes a different path. Maybe not everyone is as strong as you, as supported as you, as confident in their abilities as you. Someone making that decision isn't saying your child or mine shouldn't have been born or that people who continue with pregnancies have made the wrong choices or that those children aren't as important to society.

    I would have expected a little bit more empathy from you tbh.


  • #1019
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Would you think that parents should be allowed to end the life of their newborn or toddler if the pressures of raising that child became too much?


  • #1020
    lazygal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    Would you think that parents should be allowed to end the life of their newborn or toddler if the pressures of raising that child became too much?

    No. But should the entire burden of care lie on a woman who never wanted such a child in the first place?


  • Advertisement
  • #1021
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    If the unborn is human then killing them for personal convenience is not - or should not - be a compelling argument.


Advertisement