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…3334363839…59

Comments

  • #1052
    nowanathiest
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 85 ✭✭nowanathiest


    matTNT wrote: »
    We are not free people, I can tell that woman not to murder, not to rape and not to steal.

    Do not labour under the illusion that every decision we make is ours, some decisions like your choice to end your life, or the life/baby/embryo inside you.

    Don't turn this into this is a "women's issue" it's not. That's Misandry in my book.

    This is TOTALLY a woman's issue, unless something major about pregnancy and childbirth has escaped my notice recently. You have no right to tell/order any woman what to do with her body.

    You have inadverdently highlighted the nub of the current abortion debate.......that there are organisations and individuals who are going to extreme lengths to exert control over Irish women.........quite sinister manouverings indeed.


  • #1053
    matTNT
    Closed Accounts Posts: 351 ✭✭matTNT


    nowanathiest wrote: »
    You have inadverdently highlighted the nub of the current abortion debate.......that there are organisations and individuals who are going to extreme lengths to exert control over Irish women.........quite sinister manouverings indeed.


    Which organisations might these be?


  • #1054
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    nowanathiest wrote: »
    This is TOTALLY a woman's issue, unless something major about pregnancy and childbirth has escaped my notice recently. You have no right to tell/order any woman what to do with her body.
    It isn't totally a womens issue ... men are also involved ... in triggering these pregnancies, at the very least ... and they also have a moral obligation to help and support any woman that they have made pregnant.

    Society also has a legitimate concern for the lives and welfare of both the woman and her unborn child.
    Society has every right to tell/order all kinds of people to do all kinds of things with their bodies, when the good of the person themselves or other persons demands this. That is what the rule of law is all about.
    Society has every right to 'order' me not to place my body in the driving set of a car, if I'm drunk ... and it has every right to 'order' me to lift my foot off the accelerator, if I'm breaking a speed limit ... and many other things too numerous to mention.

    Society has every right to 'order' me to protect the welfare and lives of my children ... even when substantial expenditure, inconvenience and sleepless nights may be required.


  • #1055
    newmug
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,571 ✭✭✭newmug


    So....................... Did anyone go to Knock today? I did. I prayed for all the people who agree with abortion, and those who have carried it out. May God forgive you, and may your child forgive you too.


  • #1056
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    When the Pland Parenthood (PP) lobbyist, Alisa LaPolt Snow, was asked a direct question she gave a rather straightforward answer. In cases of a failed abortions the decision on the fate of the child, she contended, rests with "the woman, the family and the physician". The rather obvious point being made by LaPolt Snow is that that the baby should not have an automatic right to life just because it has change geographical location from inside the womb to outside.

    You don't find it ironic that you say she was asked a direct question but then you ignore her answer?

    The "rather obvious point" being made was that in the case of a pre-24 week old aborted fetus some how surviving the abortion procedure the decision whether or not to call for emergency medical attention should be left up to the doctor and the mother there at the time.

    It is routine that doctors and relatives discuss actions to take in the case of an essentially terminally ill child. I don't see how this is any different. Imagine if a law was being proposed that said that children must be legally required to be rushed to an emergency room no matter what the assessment of the doctor or the parents was as to whether the child would have any chance of surviving?

    Family friends had a child dying of cancer a few years ago. He died relatively peacefully in his bed at home, not in an emergency room with doctors standing around watching him because they were compelled by a law to rush him to the emergency room even they all knew that he was terminal and had only a few days to live (in the case of abortions it can be only a few minutes)

    The whole anti-abortion argument rests on the myth that across the country abortions are going wrong and perfectly healthy viable babies are being born who are then left to die.

    While this may happen (in the same way non-terminal children may be left without health care), it is extremely rare and it should be obvious why Planned Parenthood object to this law, they same as you would probably object to a law that required terminally ill children to be rushed into hospital no matter what.
    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    Now it is possible that she is an extraordinarily bad communicator and we should actually reinterpret her words to mean something like "doctors should protect the life of the born at all costs".

    How about you just interpret her words as she said them, instead of interpreting them as a sneaky way of advocating infanticide?

    And while you are at it maybe explain how you would tell the family of a man dying of a heart attack that the next available ambulance is actually on its way out to a Planned Parenthood clinic to "rescure" a 10 week old foetus because the doctor was compelled by this law to call for it, even though the doctor knows the foetus will die within a few minutes of being outside of the woman's body.
    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    Part of the problem is that PP, the largest abortion provider in the US, has in the past admitted that they induce labour in women with babies aged 22+ weeks and that these babies die after birth. This is what happens in abortion clinics (at least some of them) and the words of LaPolt Snow should therefore be taken at face value. If this is not the promotion and practice of infanticide - defined as the killing of a newborn within a certain time frame of birth - then I don't know what is.

    The death of the foetus because it is no longer in the woman's body is not infanticide, any more than me not giving you my kidney when you are dying of renal failure is me murdering you.

    This has already been discussed, I'm not sure what parts are still not clear to you?
    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    According to Wikipedia the survival rates for babies born between 22 and 23 weeks can be anything from as low as 0% all the way up to 35%. I would imagine that that the odds of survival in babies that have survived abortion attempts are lower because of the physical trauma involved in the procedure. Now that those admittedly aren't great odds, but I personally wouldn't call them "tiny".

    Yes but not every abortion takes place at the 23 week Fanny. This law applies to all foetus' aborted. The vast vast vast majority of abortions carried out by Planned Parenthood take place in the first trimester, but this law would apply to them as well.

    Again are you going to explain to a person in a car accident, or having a heart attack, that his ambulance is actually on its way to an abortion clinic to "save" a 10 week foetus?

    Or oh I don't know, maybe leave it up to the doctor who is compelled by medical code of conduct anyway to decide if it is necessary to call for emergency medical care.
    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    1) It's not a case of wasting resources. Medical staff are there to care for their patient whether this patient is expected to die in 5 minutes or make a full recovery. That is it. It is not a waste of resources.

    It is a waste of resources. Doctors make these sort of decisions all the time, if a doctor arrives at a car accident and can only transport one patient they don't pick the guy who they know is going to bleed out in 30 seconds.

    What is the point of requiring a doctor by law to call for emergency medical attention for a foetus the doctor knows cannot survive?


  • Advertisement
  • #1057
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    newmug wrote: »
    So....................... Did anyone go to Knock today? I did. I prayed for all the people who agree with abortion, and those who have carried it out. May God forgive you, and may your child forgive you too.
    God will indeed forgive them ... if they repent and believe on Jesus Christ.
    Norma McCorvey (Jane Roe) is the woman at the centre of 'Roe v Wade' the US Supreme Court case that introduced abortion on demand in America in 1973 resulting in untold millions of abortions in the 40 years since then.
    She has since become a Christian ... and now works tirelessly as a pro-life advocate.





  • #1058
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    matTNT wrote: »
    I don't think in this debate that one side is uncaring.

    Both sides care. Pro life sides with the right of the child/foetus to life. While pro choice sides with the right of the mother to choose.

    Personally I have expressed the opinion that abortion is OK when the mother's life is at risk, or if she has been raped etc.
    Now it's another issue when it's stupidity, I believe if the mother doesn't want it it's her responsibility as a person who took the decision to have unprotected sex that she should bare the child and give it up for adoption.

    However I know common sense often gets thrown out the window in such debates. :rolleyes:

    Why is rape a good reason to have an abortion but, say oh I don't know the mother assessing herself that now is a terrible time for her to have a child, not a good reason?

    Why is a women who is wealth, with a stable family and the resources to provide the child everything they need allowed to decide that this situation is not the right circumstance to bring a child into the world, but a 16 year old girl from a family below the poverty line, who is doing poorly in education and has limited future options, not allowed decide that her current life is not the right environment to bring a child into?

    I find it deeply ironic that this thread is supposedly all about the child, but people seem perfectly happy to screw the child's life up just to teach the woman a less about "responsibility" (ie stop being a slut).


  • #1059
    newmug
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,571 ✭✭✭newmug


    ^^^^ The sad thing is JC, I'm sure many of them believe in Jesus anyway! They believe he existed as a man, they believe the supernatural exists and that Jesus is there waiting for them. But they also believe that their point of view on abortion is correct, they see no wrong in what they're doing, and so will not repent! Alas for them, they'll get some shock when they finally meet the Lord!


  • #1060
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    matTNT wrote: »
    Don't turn this into this is a "women's issue" it's not. That's Misandry in my book.

    Telling women they don't have control over their own bodies because they were "stupid" to get pregnant makes this a woman's issue.


  • #1061
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    newmug wrote: »
    ^^^^ The sad thing is JC, I'm sure many of them believe in Jesus anyway! They believe he existed as a man, they believe the supernatural exists and that Jesus is there waiting for them. But they also believe that their point of view on abortion is correct, they see no wrong in what they're doing, and so will not repent! Alas for them, they'll get some shock when they finally meet the Lord!
    ... but they aren't Saved ... and hopefully they one day will be Saved ... this is how Norma McCorvey was Saved ... through the loving concern of young girl ... literally out of the mouth of an eight year old baby ... who herself was nearly aborted ... and who melted Norma's heart.



  • Advertisement
  • #1062
    newmug
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,571 ✭✭✭newmug


    J C wrote: »
    ... but they aren't Saved ... this is how Norma McCorvey was Saved ... through the loving concern of an eight year old girl ... literally out of the mouth of a baby...

    I know they're not saved! That's what I mean, they'll get some shock when they think that they'll be fine by just believing in the existence of Jesus, but instead they go to hell for supporting abortion! Belief alone is only the first step, your actions in life go some way towards determining your final location too!


  • #1063
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    newmug wrote: »
    I know they're not saved! That's what I mean, they'll get some shock when they think that they'll be fine by just believing in the existence of Jesus, but instead they go to hell for supporting abortion! Belief alone is only the first step, your actions in life go some way towards determining your final location too!
    Jesus came to save sinners ... and people will not go to Hell for supporting abortion ... but they will suffer eternal perdition if they aren't Saved.

    If the woman responsible for the ushering in of abortion on demand in the USA can be Saved ... anybody can be Saved.

    You only have to look at Norma and listen to her to see a woman filled with the eloquence and wisdom of God Himself via His Holy Spirit indwelling her.
    Here is the amazing story of the young girl who was protected by God's providence from being aborted, eight years before, so that she could bring the message of Salvation to Norma McCorvey. Praise be to Jesus Christ

    Mt 18:10-14
    10 “See that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven.

    12 “What do you think? If a man owns a hundred sheep, and one of them wanders away, will he not leave the ninety-nine on the hills and go to look for the one that wandered off? 13 And if he finds it, truly I tell you, he is happier about that one sheep than about the ninety-nine that did not wander off. 14 In the same way your Father in heaven is not willing that any of these little ones should perish.



  • #1064
    matTNT
    Closed Accounts Posts: 351 ✭✭matTNT


    newmug wrote: »
    I know they're not saved! That's what I mean, they'll get some shock when they think that they'll be fine by just believing in the existence of Jesus, but instead they go to hell for supporting abortion! Belief alone is only the first step, your actions in life go some way towards determining your final location too!

    The bible says life doesn't begin to first breath, therefore abortion is not wrong because you can't kill something that's not alive, that's the point of view of the bible. Stop deluding yourselves people.

    The bible also says:

    Any person who curseth his father or mother must be killed
    ~Leviticus 20:9

    If a man has sex with a woman on her period, they are both to be cut off from their people
    ~Leviticus 20:18

    People who have flat noses, or are blind or lame, cannot go to an altar of God
    ~Leviticus 21:17-18

    Anyone who dreams or prophesizes anything that is against God, or anyone who tries to turn you from God, is to be put to death
    ~Deuteronomy 13:5
    (The funny thing about this is that it goes against one of the ten commandments..."thou shalt not kill")

    The eating of fat is prohibited forever
    ~Leviticus 3:17

    Entrance into the assembly of the Lord was granted only to those with complete testicles
    ~Deuteronomy 23:1

    Stubborn children were to be stoned, and the stoning was to be instigated by their parents
    ~Deuteronomy 21:18-21

    False prophets are to be killed by their own parents
    ~Zechariah 13:3

    If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property
    ~Exodus 21:20-21

    If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives
    ~Deuteronomy 22:28-29

    If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters - yes, even his own life - he cannot be my disciple
    ~Luke 14:26

    Look I believe in God, I also happen to be Pro Life but this sort of sh*t rightly p*sses me off.


  • #1065
    nowanathiest
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 85 ✭✭nowanathiest


    J C wrote: »
    It isn't totally a womens issue ... men are also involved ... in triggering these pregnancies, at the very least ... and they also have a moral obligation to help and support any woman that they have made pregnant.

    Society also has a legitimate concern for the lives and welfare of both the woman and her unborn child.
    Society has every right to tell/order all kinds of people to do all kinds of things with their bodies, when the good of the person themselves or other persons demands this. That is what the rule of law is all about.
    Society has every right to 'order' me not to place my body in the driving set of a car, if I'm drunk ... and it has every right to 'order' me to lift my foot off the accelerator, if I'm breaking a speed limit ... and many other things too numerous to mention.


    Society has every right to 'order' me to protect the welfare and lives of my children ... even when substantial expenditure, inconvenience and sleepless nights may be required.

    and thankfully the state finally implemented access to contraception (not so many years ago when women's groups forced them to) or people like you would still be berating women for wanting this too.

    This thread seems to have been started with an agenda - a pro-life agenda. The various people on here have plucked one sided comments/experiences regarding the concequences of abortion from the net without attempting to offer any balanced positive comments/experiences. Hence, this is not an argument but a dictatorial rant........to then compound it with offering graphic details of abortion procedures borders on the hysterical.

    I don't think any ladies have started threads describing graphic testicular operations or vasectomy's - they would not be so rude or unkind. To further compound it with pompous pontifications about how a woman might feel emotionally after an abortion is arrogant in the extreme.

    So let me attempt to redress this balance - many years ago I had an abortion for various reasons, which are no one's business but my own. I have never regretted this decision, it was the right decision at the right time, but I did resent having to leave my own country to find the medical services and support that I needed elsewhere. My experience was of kindness and compassion - quite the opposite of what I would have found here.......and no self-important man sitting comfortably on his bar stool or pulpit will tell me how I should or should not live my life.


  • #1066
    Benny_Cake
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,105 ✭✭✭Benny_Cake


    Mod note: I've taken the liberty of applying a more generic title to this thread as the previous one was causing confusion (Boards policy precludes the designation of threads as Christian-only) - although posters are asked to take the name of this forum into account when posting here. This isn't a megathread (yet) as I'd prefer not to create another one, however, if the forum becomes completely dominated by threads being opened on this issue, that may change.


  • #1067
    Benny_Cake
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,105 ✭✭✭Benny_Cake


    nowanathiest wrote: »
    never has the saying "I'm alright Jack" resonated so loudly as on this thread.........perhaps it should be renamed "a pro-life thread - for those who are indifferent, uncaring and downright misogynistic.........
    nowanathiest wrote: »
    This thread seems to have been started with an agenda - a pro-life agenda. The various people on here have plucked one sided comments/experiences regarding the concequences of abortion from the net without attempting to offer any balanced positive comments/experiences. Hence, this is not an argument but a dictatorial rant........to then compound it with offering graphic details of abortion procedures borders on the hysterical.

    Please tone down the rhetoric. There have probably been as many pro-choice posters on this thread as pro-life ones. If you have an issue with misogynistic posts / dictatorial rants, then report them.


  • #1068
    newmug
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,571 ✭✭✭newmug


    matTNT wrote: »
    The bible says life doesn't begin to first breath............. Look I believe in God, I also happen to be Pro Life but this sort of sh*t rightly p*sses me off.


    I was going to say that this is a CHRISTIAN thread, therefore expect a Christian slant on it, but I see Benny Cake has covered that - you are in the Christian forum, so if you want to discuss abortion without a religious theme, go to the threads in A&A or AH.


    BTW you are a perfect example of what I was referring to a few posts above, you believe in the existence of God, but you are at odds with his teachings, and you don't see anything wrong with that. Check yourself lad! At least you are pro-life, there's some hope for you!


  • #1069
    matTNT
    Closed Accounts Posts: 351 ✭✭matTNT


    newmug wrote: »
    I was going to say that this is a CHRISTIAN thread, therefore expect a Christian slant on it, but I see Benny Cake has covered that - you are in the Christian forum, so if you want to discuss abortion without a religious theme, go to the threads in A&A or AH.


    BTW you are a perfect example of what I was referring to a few posts above, you believe in the existence of God, but you are at odds with his teachings, and you don't see anything wrong with that. Check yourself lad! At least you are pro-life, there's some hope for you!

    Have I not just proved you wrong though, I have said that it says in the bible that Life does not begin to first breath! Respond to this!


  • #1070
    newmug
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,571 ✭✭✭newmug


    matTNT wrote: »
    Have I not just proved you wrong though, I have said that it says in the bible that Life does not begin to first breath! Respond to this!


    It also says THOU SHALT NOT KILL! You are purposely taking the "life does not begin" quote out of context. You know that the gist of the Bible is to love God and one another, so aborting foetus's doesn't wash. And if you really want to be pedantic about it, the mother breathes on behalf of the foetus, her oxygen is fed through the placenta to allow the foetus to grow.


  • #1071
    matTNT
    Closed Accounts Posts: 351 ✭✭matTNT


    newmug wrote: »
    It also says THOU SHALT NOT KILL! You are purposely taking the "life does not begin" quote out of context. You know that the gist of the Bible is to love God and one another, so aborting foetus's doesn't wash. And if you really want to be pedantic about it, the mother breathes on behalf of the foetus, her oxygen is fed through the placenta to allow the foetus to grow.

    Just entertain what I'm saying for a second, that child doesn't breath until it's out of the womb, the bible clearly states that it has to breath to be alive, therefore you can't use the thou shalt not kill argument is null and void.

    All I'm saying is that the bible doesn't mention abortion once, it gives no guidelines and according to the bible you're wrong.


  • Advertisement
  • #1072
    newmug
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,571 ✭✭✭newmug


    matTNT wrote: »
    All I'm saying is that the bible doesn't mention abortion once, it gives no guidelines and according to the bible you're wrong.


    How am I wrong? I know it doesn't specifically mention abortion in the Bible, but they didn't have it back then. Taking the entire Bible in context, you can come to the conclusion that loving your baby is the right thing to do, not killing it! You have a very strange interpretation of the Bible if you think abortion is ok.


  • #1073
    matTNT
    Closed Accounts Posts: 351 ✭✭matTNT


    newmug wrote: »
    How am I wrong? I know it doesn't specifically mention abortion in the Bible, but they didn't have it back then. Taking the entire Bible in context, you can come to the conclusion that loving your baby is the right thing to do, not killing it! You have a very strange interpretation of the Bible if you think abortion is ok.

    But I'm trying to prove that it is not killing. Please don't use such emotive terms. We have established that the foetus is not alive (as defined by the bible) therefore it is not killing/murder/man slaughter that's all I'm saying.


  • #1074
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    matTNT wrote: »
    The bible says life doesn't begin to first breath, therefore abortion is not wrong because you can't kill something that's not alive, that's the point of view of the bible. Stop deluding yourselves people.
    Unborn children are objectively alive ... fact.
    The Bible also makes it clear that we are a person from the moment of fertilisation and precious in the eyes of the Lord - for example
    Jeremiah 1:4-5 ESV
    Now the word of the Lord came to me, saying, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”
    Science also objectively demonstrates that a new Human Being with full genetic autonomy is created at the moment of fertilisation. Yet another example where modern science has only caught up with the Bible over the last 100 years.
    matTNT wrote: »
    The bible also says:

    Any person who curseth his father or mother must be killed
    ~Leviticus 20:9

    If a man has sex with a woman on her period, they are both to be cut off from their people
    ~Leviticus 20:18....
    These are the Jewish Laws of the Old Testament and, like all law, they are an imperfect attempt to match the ideal to the current reality. Judged from a 21st century perspective, they are indeed far from either ideal or perfect ... but they are positively enlightened in comparison with the general savagery that dominated the Ancient World - just think of Ancient Rome where people were fed to Lions for public entertainment!!

    In Matthew 19, the Pharises posed a similar question to Jesus in relation to the Divine (and therefore supposedly perfect) nature of the Mosaic Law ... and this was the answer Jesus gave:-

    Mt 19:7-9
    7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”

    8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

    In other words, the Mosaic Law was far from perfect ... because of the hardness of heart AKA downright evil of many of its recipients. A case of a desperate situation requiring a desperate remedy.
    This is off-topic for this thread - I suggest opening another thread, if you wish to discuss it further.
    matTNT wrote: »
    Look I believe in God, I also happen to be Pro Life but this sort of sh*t rightly p*sses me off.
    Abortion is an emotive issue with deeply held opinions on both sides ... the debate has been recently proceeding with respect on both sides - could we all please keep it that way.


  • #1075
    PlainP
    Closed Accounts Posts: 714 ✭✭✭PlainP


    newmug wrote: »
    How am I wrong? I know it doesn't specifically mention abortion in the Bible, but they didn't have it back then. Taking the entire Bible in context, you can come to the conclusion that loving your baby is the right thing to do, not killing it! You have a very strange interpretation of the Bible if you think abortion is ok.

    What do you mean they didn't have it back then??????

    Abortion has been around since women were able to conceive. Do you really really think this is a modern thing.


  • #1076
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    nowanathiest wrote: »
    and thankfully the state finally implemented access to contraception (not so many years ago when women's groups forced them to) or people like you would still be berating women for wanting this too.
    You're making an unfounded (and untrue) assumption that all pro-life people are anti-contraception. Could I remind you that most churches (with the notable exception of Roman Catholocism) approve artificial contraception as morally licit. In the case of Roman Catholocism, the signals emerging from the Vatican during the 1960's were indicating that, at the very least, condoms and possibly even the Pill would be authorised for Roman Catholics ... and then, for whatever reason, everything changed ... and Humanae Vitae was issued ... but the majority of lay Catholics, voted with their feet anyway and promptly started using contraception on a widespread scale, in common with other Christians.

    nowanathiest wrote: »
    This thread seems to have been started with an agenda - a pro-life agenda. The various people on here have plucked one sided comments/experiences regarding the concequences of abortion from the net without attempting to offer any balanced positive comments/experiences. Hence, this is not an argument but a dictatorial rant........to then compound it with offering graphic details of abortion procedures borders on the hysterical.
    Both the pro-abortion and pro-life agendas have been freely ventilated on this thread - and that is how it should be.
    nowanathiest wrote: »
    I don't think any ladies have started threads describing graphic testicular operations or vasectomy's - they would not be so rude or unkind.
    They're welcome to do so, as far as I am concerned. Indeed, if I was thinking about a vasectomy myself, I'd want to see exactly what would happen, and what the after effects might be ... before I would go for it myself. Its called making an informed decision.
    nowanathiest wrote: »
    To further compound it with pompous pontifications about how a woman might feel emotionally after an abortion is arrogant in the extreme.
    Women themselves have told us how they feel after an abortion ... and the equivalent of post-natal depression compounded by feelings of guilt and loss is sometimes the result.
    This fact shouldn't be 'swept under the carpet' ... and any woman suffering from post-abortion trauma should be helped and cared for with loving compassion - and she should not be told that her hurt is some kind of 'pompus pontification' on her part. People are sometimes their own harshest judge ... but just like Jesus said to the woman caught in adultery and crying at His feet in shame ... I say that we are all sinners and if people repent, we can all be Saved ... to join all our unborn children for eternity in Heaven some day.
    nowanathiest wrote: »
    So let me attempt to redress this balance - many years ago I had an abortion for various reasons, which are no one's business but my own.
    When Human Life is taken, that can become the business of other people.
    nowanathiest wrote: »
    I have never regretted this decision, it was the right decision at the right time, but I did resent having to leave my own country to find the medical services and support that I needed elsewhere.
    I accept that you never regretted your decision ... but that isn't the experience of every woman - and this fact also needs to be highlighted.
    nowanathiest wrote: »
    My experience was of kindness and compassion - quite the opposite of what I would have found here.
    There are compassionate and not so compassionate people on both sides of this issue - like I have said already, neither side has a monopoly on care.
    The one uncomfortable fact in all of this however, is that unborn children are killed in abortion and this cannot be described as care (in any meaningful sense of the word) for these unborn children.
    It may be necessary, and indeed morally justified, to kill unborn children, when the mothers life is in direct and serious danger ... but we must remember that innocent Human life is being ended in these situations ... and that is never an easy thing for anybody involved.
    nowanathiest wrote: »
    ... and no self-important man sitting comfortably on his bar stool or pulpit will tell me how I should or should not live my life.
    There are many self-important, and not so self-important men and women telling me how to live my life in all of the areas where law is increasingly impinging on my fredom of action. The protection of Human life before and after birth is just one of these areas.


  • #1077
    nowanathiest
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 85 ✭✭nowanathiest


    matTNT wrote: »
    I don't think in this debate that one side is uncaring.

    Both sides care. Pro life sides with the right of the child/foetus to life. While pro choice sides with the right of the mother to choose.

    Personally I have expressed the opinion that abortion is OK when the mother's life is at risk, or if she has been raped etc.
    Now it's another issue when it's stupidity, I believe if the mother doesn't want it it's her responsibility as a person who took the decision to have unprotected sex that she should bare the child and give it up for adoption.

    However I know common sense often gets thrown out the window in such debates. :rolleyes:

    Over the last few months, I have heard many people wonder how the Magdalene Laundries could have been created/tolerated. Here in all of it's unfettered glory is the mentality that allowed it to happen.

    In 2013, this gentleman decrees that a stupid woman with an unwanted pregnancy should be forced to bear the child and give it up for adoption......just like the good old days eh??

    Please now convince me that anything much has changed in Ireland over the last 30 years.


  • #1078
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    nowanathiest wrote: »
    Over the last few months, I have heard many people wonder how the Magdalene Laundries could have been created/tolerated. Here in all of it's unfettered glory is the mentality that allowed it to happen.
    This is a separate issue deserving of a separate thread.
    nowanathiest wrote: »
    In 2013, this gentleman decrees that a stupid woman with an unwanted pregnancy should be forced to bear the child and give it up for adoption......just like the good old days eh??

    Please now convince me that anything much has changed in Ireland over the last 30 years.
    Ireland has changed totally, and not always for the better, over the last 30 years. The laundries have thankfully closed and we have advanced as a society in our respect for women who choose to have a child in less than ideal circumstances, rather than aborting it ... but we have separate drugs and suicide epidemics amongst our young and not so young people that are at very worrying proportions - and we have older people living in fear and isolation that was unknown in Ireland, when I was a young person.

    matTNT didn't say that a stupid woman should be forced to bear a child ... he said that when an unwanted pregnancy results from stupidity (presumably on the part of both the man and woman) by not having protected sex, that such situations cannot be considered 'hard cases' like where the mother's life is at risk. He is correct in this, although I wouldn't have used the word 'stupidity' ... 'carelessness' would be a more appropriate descriptor.
    Unplanned pregnancies aren't an exclusively femininst issue ... there are men involved also ... and some men need to start behaving as gentlemen, in every sense of that word.

    Where a woman (or indeed a man) is unable to cope with rearing a child, the option of adoption or fosterage is obviously much better for the child than aborting it.


  • #1079
    lazygal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    J C wrote: »
    This is a separate issue deserving of a separate thread.

    Ireland has changed totally, and not always for the better, over the last 30 years. We have closed the Laundries ... but we have a suicide epidemic amongst our young and not so young people that is at very worrying proportions.

    matTNT didn't say that a stupid woman should be forced to bear a child ... he that when the pregnancy results from stupidity (presumably on the part of both the man and woman) by not having protected sex, that such situations cannot be considered 'hard cases' like where the mother's life is at risk.
    Unplanned pregnancies aren't an exclusively femininst issue ... there are men involved here ... and some need to start behaving as gentlemen, in every sense of that word.


    There's always been a high suicide rate in Ireland, but like other socially sticky issues the shame the church cast on it as a cause of death meant it was often covered up. Having researched our family history on both sides there's family members who died by suicide in 1915 (because his father wouldn't allow him to take up a college scholarship), 1930s (two suicides, likely as a result of manic depression), 1960s (again depressions was a likely factor) and that's only the ones we have oral histories for - but all were recorded as 'other' causes of death because a christian burial would have been denied otherwise.

    What's the connection between closing the slave labour laundries and suicide anyway? Is there some link between forcing women to launder clothes in religious based institutions and suicide prevention? Was it done to further a prolife agenda?


  • #1080
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    lazygal wrote: »
    There's always been a high suicide rate in Ireland, but like other socially sticky issues the shame the church cast on it as a cause of death meant it was often covered up. Having researched our family history on both sides there's family members who died by suicide in 1915 (because his father wouldn't allow him to take up a college scholarship), 1930s (two suicides, likely as a result of manic depression), 1960s (again depressions was a likely factor) and that's only the ones we have oral histories for - but all were recorded as 'other' causes of death because a christian burial would have been denied otherwise.
    Suicide has always been with us, and the recording undoubtedly under-estimated it in the past, for the reasons you say. However, it is now rising at an alarming and real rate.
    lazygal wrote: »
    What's the connection between closing the slave labour laundries and suicide anyway? Is there some link between forcing women to launder clothes in religious based institutions and suicide prevention? Was it done to further a prolife agenda?
    There is no connection between the closure of the Laundries and suicide ... I was merely pointing out that progress hasn't been a 'one-way street' in Ireland ... and there are issues going in the wrong direction as well as ones going in the right direction.

    Labour laundries are just that, a form of cheap labour ... they certainly don't progress any pro-life issues. Being pro-life is being pro-Human life in all its glory and potential, for both the mother and her child ... before and after birth.


  • Advertisement
  • #1081
    Qualitymark
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,824 ✭✭✭Qualitymark


    One group of people that have on-the-ground experience of pro-life is The Farm in Tennessee. Very poor people, this huge commune made their living by delivering babies, among other trades.

    In the first edition of their book Spiritual Midwifery, they issued an invitation: if you were pregnant and couldn't keep the baby, don't have an abortion; have the baby, leave it with them, and you could come back and get the baby when you were able to.

    They removed the invitation later. They had been flooded with unwanted babies. No one ever came back.


Advertisement