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.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

Abortion debate thread

1…4243454748…59

Comments

  • #1322
    28064212
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,079 ✭✭✭✭28064212


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    If, however, the unborn is human then what are we to make of the 50 million abortions in the US alone since the 70's?
    If the unborn is human then what are we to make of the 50 million miscarriages in the US alone since the 70's? If there were 1 million infants dying in the US every year, there would be outrage. Yet there are that many foetuses dying, and it's rare to hear a word about it from the "pro-life" groups

    Boardsie Enhancement Suite - a browser extension to make using Boards on desktop a better experience (includes full-width display, keyboard shortcuts, dark mode, and more). Now available through your browser's extension store.

    Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/boardsie-enhancement-suite/

    Chrome/Edge/Opera: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/boardsie-enhancement-suit/bbgnmnfagihoohjkofdnofcfmkpdmmce



  • #1323
    Frito
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 769 ✭✭✭Frito


    lmaopml wrote: »
    Choice has become the new expression of 'freedom' - freedom to choose because I can.

    Yeah, that is generally what is meant by freedom.
    I'm not sure your rhetoric has the desired effect, you now appear anti-freedom instead of anti-choice.


  • #1324
    Frito
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 769 ✭✭✭Frito


    indy_man wrote: »
    Ms Best, 38, from Belfast, revealed she had one abortion at the age of 25 so she could focus on her career and a second at 30 - but only dealt with the after-effects two years ago after a recovery programme.

    Her story is not my story.
    Her mistakes are not my mistakes.
    Her future is not my future.


  • #1325
    FISMA
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,616 ✭✭✭FISMA


    Zombrex,
    Should a man be legally allowed to walk away from all custodial rights and responsibilities for a child that he has fathered?


  • #1326
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    FISMA wrote: »
    Zombrex,
    Should a man be legally allowed to walk away from all custodial rights and responsibilities for a child that he has fathered?

    If you think men can't and don't walk away then you are deluded.


  • Advertisement
  • #1327
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    28064212 wrote: »
    If the unborn is human then what are we to make of the 50 million miscarriages in the US alone since the 70's? If there were 1 million infants dying in the US every year, there would be outrage. Yet there are that many foetuses dying, and it's rare to hear a word about it from the "pro-life" groups
    Its the rather important moral and legal difference between dying of natural causes (at any age) and being deliberately killed that is the difference between spontaneous miscarriage and procured abortion.


  • #1328
    Nino Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,507 ✭✭✭Nino Brown


    28064212 wrote: »
    If the unborn is human then what are we to make of the 50 million miscarriages in the US alone since the 70's? If there were 1 million infants dying in the US every year, there would be outrage. Yet there are that many foetuses dying, and it's rare to hear a word about it from the "pro-life" groups

    Okay, we should ban miscarriages too, and disease, nobody likes disease, lets ban that too :rolleyes:


  • #1329
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Nino Brown wrote: »
    Okay, we should ban miscarriages too, and disease, nobody likes disease, lets ban that too :rolleyes:
    Miscarriages and disease aren't deliberate killing.
    Society criminally sanctions deliberate killing, except in very limited and morally justifiable situations, such as self-defense with no practical alternative, for example.


  • #1330
    28064212
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,079 ✭✭✭✭28064212


    J C wrote: »
    Its the rather important moral and legal difference between dying of natural causes (at any age) and being deliberately killed that is the difference between spontaneous miscarriage and procured abortion.
    Nino Brown wrote: »
    Okay, we should ban miscarriages too, and disease, nobody likes disease, lets ban that too :rolleyes:
    Funding for the prevention of heart disease: billions per year
    Funding for the prevention of cancer: billions per year
    Funding for the prevention of miscarraiges: ??
    Publicity accorded to miscarraiges by "pro-life" groups: zero

    As I said, if 1 million newborns died from natural causes every year in the US, there would be outrage. 1 million foetuses do die from natural causes every year in the US and not a word.

    Boardsie Enhancement Suite - a browser extension to make using Boards on desktop a better experience (includes full-width display, keyboard shortcuts, dark mode, and more). Now available through your browser's extension store.

    Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/boardsie-enhancement-suite/

    Chrome/Edge/Opera: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/boardsie-enhancement-suit/bbgnmnfagihoohjkofdnofcfmkpdmmce



  • #1331
    Nino Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,507 ✭✭✭Nino Brown


    28064212 wrote: »
    Funding for the prevention of heart disease: billions per year
    Funding for the prevention of cancer: billions per year
    Funding for the prevention of miscarraiges: ??
    Publicity accorded to miscarraiges by "pro-life" groups: zero

    As I said, if 1 million newborns died from natural causes every year in the US, there would be outrage. 1 million foetuses do die from natural causes every year in the US and not a word.

    That's a ridiculous argument, there's a huge difference between death by natural causes, and purposefully taking a life. Millions of old people also die every year, do you think the pro life crowd should be worried about that too?
    How would you feel if people were killing old people, because they can be inconvenient and often need someone to care for them?


  • Advertisement
  • #1332
    28064212
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,079 ✭✭✭✭28064212


    Nino Brown wrote: »
    That's a ridiculous argument, there's a huge difference between death by natural causes, and purposefully taking a life.
    I'm specifically talking about death by natural causes. If there were one million infants dying of natural causes every year in the US, there would be outrage. Yet there are one million foetuses dying of natural causes every year in the US. The "pro-life" crowd claim there's no difference between an infant and a foetus, yet make no mention of the tragedy of miscarriages

    Boardsie Enhancement Suite - a browser extension to make using Boards on desktop a better experience (includes full-width display, keyboard shortcuts, dark mode, and more). Now available through your browser's extension store.

    Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/boardsie-enhancement-suite/

    Chrome/Edge/Opera: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/boardsie-enhancement-suit/bbgnmnfagihoohjkofdnofcfmkpdmmce



  • #1333
    Nino Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,507 ✭✭✭Nino Brown


    28064212 wrote: »
    I'm specifically talking about death by natural causes. If there were one million infants dying of natural causes every year in the US, there would be outrage. Yet there are one million foetuses dying of natural causes every year in the US. The "pro-life" crowd claim there's no difference between an infant and a foetus, yet make no mention of the tragedy of miscarriages

    Because nobody is killing the ones dying of natural causes. You can't ban natural causes, there's no moral issue with death by natural causes. When nature is allowed to run it's course, women will miscarry, it's a fact of life. But abortion is not natural, it is not a fact of life, it's the taking of one life (that would naturally survive) by another. That's a huge difference.


  • #1334
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Cancer is natural yet we do everything we can to prevent people dying from that. It kills less than 10 million people per year. Spontaneous abortions which you seem to hold a really fatalistic opinion kill over 40 times that. Shouldn't we at least be researching ways into preventing the deaths of so many embryos?

    Also as this is the Christianity forum what do you think to happens to 2 week old embryos that don't make it? Do they go to heaven or hell or somewhere else?


  • #1335
    Nino Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,507 ✭✭✭Nino Brown


    Jernal wrote: »
    Cancer is natural yet we do everything we can to prevent people dying from that. It kills less than 10 million people per year. Spontaneous abortions which you seem to hold a really fatalistic opinion kill over 40 times that. Shouldn't we at least be researching ways into preventing the deaths of so many embryos?

    Also as this is the Christianity forum what do you think to happens to 2 week old embryos that don't make it? Do they go to heaven or hell or somewhere else?

    I'm sure there's research to prevent miscarriages too, but there's not much point in protesting to make cancer and miscarraiges illegal though is there, so why should any group like pro life be concerned by them.
    I'm Atheist, so I think the same things happens to the foetus as any of the rest of us....nothing, we just die, game over.


  • #1336
    28064212
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,079 ✭✭✭✭28064212


    Nino Brown wrote: »
    Because nobody is killing the ones dying of natural causes. You can't ban natural causes, there's no moral issue with death by natural causes. When nature is allowed to run it's course, women will miscarry, it's a fact of life. But abortion is not natural, it is not a fact of life, it's the taking of one life (that would naturally survive) by another. That's a huge difference.
    Never mentioned anything about abortion. I want to know why the "pro-life" crowd aren't calling for every penny to be invested in preventing miscarriages. If they were truly considered to be the same as infants, then miscarriages are a bigger killer than cancer, heart disease, vehicle accidents and gun crime. And yet the self-proclaimed pro-life groups never mention it, despite going on and on about how foetuses are the same as infants and how every life is precious. Why is this?

    Boardsie Enhancement Suite - a browser extension to make using Boards on desktop a better experience (includes full-width display, keyboard shortcuts, dark mode, and more). Now available through your browser's extension store.

    Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/boardsie-enhancement-suite/

    Chrome/Edge/Opera: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/boardsie-enhancement-suit/bbgnmnfagihoohjkofdnofcfmkpdmmce



  • #1337
    SuperInfinity
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,449 ✭✭✭SuperInfinity


    28064212 wrote: »
    Never mentioned anything about abortion. I want to know why the "pro-life" crowd aren't calling for every penny to be invested in preventing miscarriages. If they were truly considered to be the same as infants, then miscarriages are a bigger killer than cancer, heart disease, vehicle accidents and gun crime. And yet the self-proclaimed pro-life groups never mention it, despite going on and on about how foetuses are the same as infants and how every life is precious. Why is this?

    They don't need to spend any money at all, not to mind "every penny", on preventing miscarriages to hold a morally consistent position.

    Everything possible is already done to prevent miscarriage. If it wasn't, then I would expect them to spend more money on it and try to highlight the issue more.


  • #1338
    28064212
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,079 ✭✭✭✭28064212


    SuperInfinity wrote: »
    Everything possible is already done to prevent miscarriage.
    That's simply not true. When it comes to miscarriages, the loss of a foetus is not considered anything remotely close to the loss of an infant. The only time when they are considered the same is the topic of abortion

    Boardsie Enhancement Suite - a browser extension to make using Boards on desktop a better experience (includes full-width display, keyboard shortcuts, dark mode, and more). Now available through your browser's extension store.

    Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/boardsie-enhancement-suite/

    Chrome/Edge/Opera: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/boardsie-enhancement-suit/bbgnmnfagihoohjkofdnofcfmkpdmmce



  • #1339
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    28064212 wrote: »
    That's simply not true. When it comes to miscarriages, the loss of a foetus is not considered anything remotely close to the loss of an infant. The only time when they are considered the same is the topic of abortion
    This is a complete 'red herring' ... of course everything possible is done to prevent miscarriage ... but sadly, they can and do occur on a significant scale.
    What we are talking about with abortion is the deliberate induction of a miscarriage as distinct from it's natural or accidental occurrence.

    I can assure you that a much loved child lost through miscarriage is a very traumatic and sad situation for both parents.
    I accept that the loss of a born child is often felt more acutely, because the parents and other family members have come to know the child personally - but your argument is akin to saying that somebody I hardly know can be killed with impunity, just because I hardly know him.
    If this principle were to take hold, no jury would ever convict anybody of deliberate killing ... because they didn't know the victim!!!


  • #1340
    drkpower
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭drkpower


    And why do you not favour and propose criminal sanction for maternal behaviour that causes injury to a foetus, just as you would for maternal or paternal behaviour that would injure a child?


  • #1341
    lmaopml
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,080 ✭✭✭lmaopml


    drkpower wrote: »
    And why do you not favour and propose criminal sanction for maternal behaviour that causes injury to a foetus, just as you would for maternal or paternal behaviour that would injure a child?

    Well, most people Atheist or Christian do in fact 'favour' and propose that it's criminal to behave in such a way that causes harm to a developing human -

    The same way as flowers are not permitted in a ward where patients could be effected by their presence....

    However, Christ says that all humans are of value and nobody should choose to be destructive whether they are the father or the mother - whereas there is another way of thinking that seems to say, if you place a 'value' on this human you shouldn't do A, B, and C - but if you don't well, that's ok - just say so and dispose.

    That is our 'rational' as it stands, that we love so much, but are rather cowardly about, except when it comes to the might of 'choice' and because we actually 'devoloped' enough to say that it should be a 'human' right to say some are not.


  • Advertisement
  • #1342
    drkpower
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭drkpower


    lmaopml wrote: »
    Well, most people Atheist or Christian do in fact 'favour' and propose that it's criminal to behave in such a way that causes harm to a developing human -.

    Really?

    Criminalise pregnant mothers for excessive alcohol intake or even for malnourishing themselves?


  • #1343
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    drkpower wrote: »
    Really?

    Criminalise pregnant mothers for excessive alcohol intake or even for malnourishing themselves?
    Such self-abuse would be of concern to doctors as well as their families and friends ... but caring for such people is the obvious way to go, rather than criminalising them.

    Indeed caring for and loving all pregnant mothers is vastly more important in reducing abortion than all of the legislation that has ever been written or can ever be written.

    The primary focus of most abortion legislation is on the people performing abortions and not on the women having them.


  • #1344
    lmaopml
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,080 ✭✭✭lmaopml


    drkpower wrote: »
    Really?

    Criminalise pregnant mothers for excessive alcohol intake or even for malnourishing themselves?

    Yes, I think you lost the point there drkpower!

    The idea that those who propose that 'smoking' during pregnancy etc. should be discouraged because it contributes to health implications of the development of the tiny human - but not so much if the human is not really wanted - so 'wanted' is what counts and not 'human'.

    Standards etc. are obviously relative.


  • #1345
    drkpower
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭drkpower


    J C wrote: »
    Such self-abuse would be of concern to doctors as well as their families and friends ... but caring for such people is the obvious way to go, rather than criminalising them.

    Indeed caring for and loving all pregnant mothers is vastly more important in reducing abortion than all of the legislation that has ever been written or can ever be written.

    Is caring for women who force their children to drink alcohol the answer? Or would you also criminalise them?


  • #1346
    drkpower
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭drkpower


    lmaopml wrote: »
    Yes, I think you lost the point there drkpower!

    The idea that those who propose that 'smoking' during pregnancy etc. should be discouraged because it contributes to health implications of the development of the tiny human - but not so much if the human is not really wanted - so 'wanted' is what counts and not 'human'.

    You talk of discouragement. Which is fine. But presumably you would advocate that a mother who provides alcohols or cigarettes to their newborn should be criminalised? Or do you not?


  • #1347
    Obliq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,371 ✭✭✭Obliq


    lmaopml wrote: »
    - so 'wanted' is what counts and not 'human'.

    #By god, I think she's got it. :pac: :eek:


    ('Scuse me, drive by comment - off to bed really, so night night all!)


  • #1348
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    wrote:
    Originally Posted by lmaopml
    - so 'wanted' is what counts and not 'human'.

    Obliq
    #By god, I think she's got it. :pac: :eek:
    ... so remind me again, what are you saying should happen to people who aren't 'wanted'?

    ... I'd like to know, so that I'll know what to do, when I next find a Traffic Warden putting a ticket on my car.:):pac:


  • #1349
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    drkpower wrote: »
    You talk of discouragement. Which is fine. But presumably you would advocate that a mother who provides alcohols or cigarettes to their newborn should be criminalised? Or do you not?
    Loving care is the answer.
    We have enough real criminals ... without extending the definition to include mothers who drink and smoke.
    BTW, what do you advocate?


  • #1350
    lmaopml
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,080 ✭✭✭lmaopml


    drkpower wrote: »
    Is caring for women who force their children to drink alcohol the answer? Or would you also criminalise them?

    Of course I think it's daft to put another human at risk when they are dependent on your choice as regards their health -

    I don't get the idea that one would advocate the notion that if you 'terminate' them than well it's really just the idea that all other 'addictions' whether it's something that is detrimental to the health of another or indeed whether it's detrimental to the 'health' of somebody who never asked to be born - but yet suffers simply because they are 'not' human, when in fact they are human, just dependant.

    I find the whole thinking on this rather hypocritical, when one doesn't even begin to know how to acknowledge a valuable life in the first place, other than semantics - and they just don't sound grounded at all in any kind of way - they are what they are. 'Reasons' to undermine because.....

    ...and I've seen that in my lifetime with full grown humans to not realise that it's a house built on sand - especially when every single human right cause is especially built on being 'human' no matter at what stage of development, two, three, six months, one month, two years...


  • Advertisement
  • #1351
    FISMA
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,616 ✭✭✭FISMA


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    If you think men can't and don't walk away then you are deluded.

    The question posed Bannasidhe was one of legality, not of opinion, or otherwise.


Advertisement