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.

Woman uploads abortion video - goes viral

1…2627293132…52

Comments

  • #842
    eviltwin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    ryan101 wrote: »
    Funny that the first person to mention religion was you.
    Quite a few atheists are pro life and anti abortion.
    You don't have to be religious to know killing a defenseless human life is wrong. Biologically human life begins at conception.
    It's your claim is that it is not, so you'll have to prove that.

    So do you agree with the morning after pill?

    Do you think women who abuse their bodies during pregnancy and give birth to an unhealthy child should be done for child abuse?

    What about a woman who has a miscarriage due to excessive drinking or drug taking...is that manslaughter?


  • #843
    Freddie Dodge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 194 ✭✭Freddie Dodge


    If one were to go by this thread, one would believe that every pregnancy leads to disastrous consequences, that it absolutely destroys a womans body and mind, and that these poor women must be allowed to protect themselves from this terrible unnatural parasite which has invaded against her will and will ultimately destroy her unless she is allowed to kill it by any means necessary.

    The thought police have deemed that this deadly parasite may not be referred to as being alive, being human or being a baby as that might affect the sensibilities of those poor women, leading to their being unable to feel nothing about killing it.

    First accuse, then isolate, then de-humanise, then destroy without conscience. Thats how the manual goes.

    Pages and pages of the greatest horsesh1t I have ever read in my life.


    If you are for abortion on demand, at least have the integrity to own what you are doing and be ok with it. Then you might get some modicum of respect from those of us who don't agree with what you are doing.

    .


  • #844
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    ryan101 wrote: »
    Just when you thought it was not possible, people find a way of reaching a new low, as a child is killed and hoovered out.
    No, it was a tiny adult. Or maybe a tiny OAP.


  • #845
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Freddie Dodge wrote: »
    If one were to go by this thread, one would believe that every pregnancy leads to disastrous consequences, that it absolutely destroys a womans body and mind, and that these poor women must be allowed to protect themselves from this terrible unnatural parasite which has invaded against her will and will ultimately destroy her unless she is allowed to kill it by any means necessary.

    The thought police have deemed that this deadly parasite may not be referred to as being alive, being human or being a baby as that might affect the sensibilities of those poor women, leading to their being unable to feel nothing about killing it.

    First accuse, then isolate, then de-humanise, then destroy without conscience. Thats how the manual goes.

    Pages and pages of the greatest horsesh1t I have ever read in my life.


    If you are for abortion on demand, at least have the integrity to own what you are doing and be ok with it. Then you might get some modicum of respect from those of us who don't agree with what you are doing.

    .
    I hate to break this to you, but nobody gives two sh1ts about earning your respect.


  • #846
    ryan101
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,671 ✭✭✭ryan101


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    No, it was a tiny adult. Or maybe a tiny OAP.

    You forgot your line that it is a parasite


  • Advertisement
  • #847
    bodice ripper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,681 ✭✭✭bodice ripper


    ryan101 wrote: »
    Funny that the first person to mention religion was you.
    Quite a few atheists are pro life and anti abortion.
    You don't have to be religious to know killing a defenseless human life is wrong.
    Biologically human life begins at conception.
    It's your claim is that it is not, you'll have to prove that, and tell us when human life does begin ?

    My understanding is that the vast majority of fertilized embryos fail to implant. Shall we wait with sieves in the toilets of every woman of childbearing age?


  • #848
    eviltwin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    ryan101 wrote: »
    Funny that the first person to mention religion was you.
    Quite a few atheists are pro life and anti abortion.
    You don't have to be religious to know killing a defenseless human life is wrong.
    Biologically human life begins at conception.
    It's your claim is that it is not, you'll have to prove that, and tell us when human life does begin ?

    Abortion is still pretty much illegal here and we've already established that we can't really do much to stop Irish women travelling for abortions overseas...if you really do believe life begins at the moment of conception why are you not out protesting for changes in the IVF laws? Do you not care about the fate of the frozen embryos that are being destroyed here?


  • #849
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    ryan101 wrote: »
    You forgot your line that it is a parasite
    Aren't you the guy who's always getting his knickers in a twist about being misquoted?
    I said if the fetus was unwanted it could be considered a parasite. If you're religious you'd better bring this lying up at your next confession.


  • #850
    FISMA
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,616 ✭✭✭FISMA


    thomas anderson. wrote: »
    Her body, her choice.

    She also chose not to take the pill because she did not want to gain weight.

    Abortion IS her contraception.


  • #851
    Muise...
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,512 ✭✭✭Muise...


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    No, it was a tiny adult. Or maybe a tiny OAP.

    It was a tiny middle-aged fat man and it got clogged and made sh1t of the hoover. :mad:


  • Advertisement
  • #852
    Frito
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 769 ✭✭✭Frito


    Freddie Dodge wrote: »
    If one were to go by this thread, one would believe that every pregnancy leads to disastrous consequences, that it absolutely destroys a womans body and mind, and that these poor women must be allowed to protect themselves

    I'm not sure that every pregnancy is this maligned, just that the potential is there.

    And 'potential' is important to both sides of the debate, yes? An embryo has the potential to develop and be born, it also has the potential to cause harm by virtue of its gestation.


  • #853
    Wishiwasa Littlebitaller
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,337 ✭✭✭Wishiwasa Littlebitaller


    StudentDad wrote: »
    That decision is for an adult woman to make. It is her body, her life and ultimately her decision.

    No, her life is her life.

    Living, developing, growing human fetuses are not and never will be.

    Fetuses are not part of women's bodies.

    Fetuses have two copies of the human genome: one from the mother and from the father.

    Most importantly though: the growing and developing human fetus has unique genetic mutations which it doesn't inherit from either parent.

    If that is not independent life, then I don't know what is.


  • #854
    Freddie Dodge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 194 ✭✭Freddie Dodge


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    I hate to break this to you, but nobody gives two sh1ts about earning your respect.

    So dishonest debate moving of goalposts petty insults (which you're a dab hand at yourself) and obfuscation as has been the norm in this thread is a legitimate way of debating?

    If so, why debate at all?


  • #855
    Muise...
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,512 ✭✭✭Muise...


    Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »
    No, her life is her life.

    Living, developing, growing human fetuses are not and never will be.

    Fetuses are not part of women's bodies.

    Fetuses have two copies of the human genome: one from the mother and from the father.

    Most importantly though: the growing and developing human fetus has unique genetic mutations which it doesn't inherit from either parent.

    If that is not independent life, then I don't know what is.

    Independent life would be life that is not dependent on another, in which it lives.


  • #856
    Czarcasm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭Czarcasm


    eviltwin wrote: »
    no one can stop you killing someone but if you do you face the full rigors of the law, you most likely will be arrested, charged, go to court, have a custodial sentence, have a criminal record, not be able to do certain things after your release ie apply for certain jobs as a result........


    none of the above applies to a woman who has an abortion even if she has that abortion here in ireland.


    Unfortunately eviltwin, unless she has a State sanctioned abortion, a woman can face up to 14 years imprisonment, or a fine, or both -

    Destruction of unborn human life



    22. (1) It shall be an offence to intentionally destroy unborn human life.


    (2) A person who is guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on indictment to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years, or both.


    (3) A prosecution for an offence under this section may be brought only by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.


    Source: Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013

    for all the talk about the unborn having equal life value in the eyes of the law even the State recognises that they are not the same


    Unfortunately yet again, the State views both the woman and the unborn child as having equal status with regard to the right to life of both -

    3° The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.


    Source: Eighth Amendment of the Constitution Act 1983


    There is an ongoing campaign though to have this Amendment repealed, and Morag linked to the petition earlier in the thread -


    Campaign to repeal the 8th Amendment to the Irish Constitution


  • #857
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Freddie Dodge wrote: »
    So dishonest debate moving of goalposts petty insults (which you're a dab hand at yourself) and obfuscation as has been the norm in this thread is a legitimate way of debating?

    If so, why debate at all?
    Boo hoo. Hilarious crocodile tears routine.
    Again, why do you think anybody here has the slightest interest in doing X, Y or Z to "earn your respect"?


  • #858
    eviltwin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    Czarcasm wrote: »
    Unfortunately eviltwin, unless she has a State sanctioned abortion, a woman can face up to 14 years imprisonment, or a fine, or both -





    Source: Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013





    Unfortunately yet again, the State views both the woman and the unborn child as having equal status with regard to the right to life of both -





    Source: Eighth Amendment of the Constitution Act 1983


    There is an ongoing campaign though to have this Amendment repealed, and Morag linked to the petition earlier in the thread -


    Campaign to repeal the 8th Amendment to the Irish Constitution[/QUOTE]


    But not charged with murder which is interesting. And at the time that was included TD's said that it wasn't to prosecute women and that it was more to deal with anyone who might try and profit from providing illegal abortions here.


  • #859
    blackbaron
    Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 30 ✭blackbaron


    How many bytes do you guys intend to fill here before you realise that neither side is going to change the other side's opinion on the matter?


  • #860
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »
    No, her life is her life.

    Living, developing, growing human fetuses are not and never will be.

    Fetuses are not part of women's bodies.

    Fetuses have two copies of the human genome: one from the mother and from the father.

    Most importantly though: the growing and developing human fetus has unique genetic mutations which it doesn't inherit from either parent.

    If that is not independent life, then I don't know what is.
    So if the fetus is fully independent, what responsibility does the mother have for the fetus if she doesn't want it?


  • #861
    Grayson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,995 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    ryan101 wrote: »
    Biologically human life begins at conception.
    It's your claim is that it is not, you'll have to prove that, and tell us when human life does begin ?

    I'd say human life begins with sentience or the capability of sentience. When the creature is capable of learning. That's what makes a human being, not DNA. There is no precise moment for it. It occurs over time in the womb. I'd say by week 24 it's definitely there, but at week 4 it's not.

    If a person was in an accident and had the majority of their brain destroyed, there was no consciousness and no hope of it, we'd call them brain dead and switch off the machines that were keeping the body alive.
    Do you think that would be murder? Most people wouldn't.

    I don't think an embryo which has no brain or neural activity is a person. You might say, but it could develop it, but then we're into regression again.


  • Advertisement
  • #862
    StudentDad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,525 ✭✭✭StudentDad


    Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »
    No, her life is her life.

    Living, developing, growing human fetuses are not and never will be.

    Fetuses are not part of women's bodies.

    Fetuses have two copies of the human genome: one from the mother and from the father.

    Most importantly though: the growing and developing human fetus has unique genetic mutations which it doesn't inherit from either parent.

    If that is not independent life, then I don't know what is.

    I do not think anyone disputes that. What is in dispute as far as I can see is the desire amongst some individuals to impose their will upon another human adult. We have plenty of current examples of that attitude on this planet and none of it is acceptable. There are plenty of examples of such imposition in Ireland from the forced incarceration and forced labour of women etc etc.

    All stemming from the notion that one group of society has the right to impose it's beliefs on others.

    This issue really is another example of that. If a woman falls pregnant and chooses termination. That is her right as an individual, within the law (depending on the jurisdiction) and if another individual who has no connection with that woman on any level has a problem with that. Well as far as I'm concerned, that individual should mind his or her own business.

    SD


  • #863
    Wishiwasa Littlebitaller
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,337 ✭✭✭Wishiwasa Littlebitaller


    eviltwin wrote: »
    Most abortions are carried out during the first trimester.

    Can you quote where I said they're not? Cheers.

    I have already said I support first trimester abortions.
    eviltwin wrote: »
    The foetus doesn't get a say, its not capable of having a say.

    Neither are new-borns. Does that mean a woman should be able to kill them? According to your logic it does.
    Muise... wrote: »
    Independent life would be life that is not dependent on another, in which it lives.

    Ha.

    Babies in incubators are "dependent on another" to live (incubators don't function by osmosis you know) and so what you have said here, all be it inadvertently, is that children kept alive by incubators are not alive at all, not until they can live independent from incubation.

    I shall inform Holles St at once.

    From this day forward, all children that have relied on incubators to keep them alive will not have the day they were removed from the womb on their birth cert. Nopre, in future the date of birth for such children will b the first day they no longer required to be incubated as according to Muise:
    Independent life is life that is not dependent on another


  • #864
    Freddie Dodge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 194 ✭✭Freddie Dodge


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Boo hoo. Hilarious crocodile tears routine.
    Again, why do you think anybody here has the slightest interest in doing X, Y or Z to "earn your respect"?

    It wasn't specifically "my" respect, but rather what is commonly referred to as manners.

    Ok, if you are unwilling to even give lip service to any standard of debating above insults, then I have no interest in anything you have to contribute, which tbh wasn't anything else anyway.
    Try the thunderdome if thats all you're here for.


  • #865
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Freddie Dodge wrote: »
    It wasn't specifically "my" respect, but rather what is commonly referred to as manners.

    Ok, if you are unwilling to even give lip service to any standard of debating above insults, then I have no interest in anything you have to contribute, which tbh wasn't anything else anyway.
    Try the thunderdome if thats all you're here for.
    Same to you with bells on. If you feel you're not getting nuff rezpect then I'm afraid you're SOL here.


  • #866
    Freddie Dodge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 194 ✭✭Freddie Dodge


    Frito wrote: »
    I'm not sure that every pregnancy is this maligned, just that the potential is there.

    And 'potential' is important to both sides of the debate, yes? An embryo has the potential to develop and be born, it also has the potential to cause harm by virtue of its gestation.

    Ok, then enlighten us on the what this oft mentioned harm is and what percentage of the time this happens that justifies the expectant woman to end the pregnancy.


  • #867
    Muise...
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,512 ✭✭✭Muise...


    Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »
    Ha.

    Babies in incubators are "dependent on another" to live (incubators don't function by osmosis you know) and so what you have said here, all be it inadvertently, is that children kept alive by incubators are not alive at all, not until they can live independent from incubation.

    I shall inform Holles St at once.

    From this day forward, all children that have relied on incubators to keep them alive will not have the day they were removed from the womb on their birth cert. Nopre, in future the date of birth for such children will b the first day they no longer required to be incubated as according to Muise:

    Seriously? You cut off the end of my statement to twist what I actually said, and then proceed to argue with the stump like a Quixotic spa? Good man yourself.


  • #868
    osarusan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,926 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    Muise... wrote: »
    Seriously? You cut off the end of my statement to twist what I actually said, and then proceed to argue with the stump like a Quixotic spa? Good man yourself.

    While ranting about posters not debating properly.


  • #869
    Muise...
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,512 ✭✭✭Muise...


    osarusan wrote: »
    And then rant about posters not debating properly.

    could we call it an aborted argument? :p


  • #870
    Boombastic
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,496 ✭✭✭Boombastic


    Freddie Dodge wrote: »
    Ok, then enlighten us on the what this oft mentioned harm is and what percentage of the time this happens that justifies the expectant woman to end the pregnancy.
    ohh, you're not allowed to question figures and probability


  • Advertisement
  • #871
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »
    Can you quote where I said they're not? Cheers.

    I have already said I support first trimester abortions.



    Neither are new-borns. Does that mean a woman should be able to kill them? According to your logic it does.



    Ha.

    Babies in incubators are "dependent on another" to live (incubators don't function by osmosis you know) and so what you have said here, all be it inadvertently, is that children kept alive by incubators are not alive at all, not until they can live independent from incubation.

    I shall inform Holles St at once.

    From this day forward, all children that have relied on incubators to keep them alive will not have the day they were removed from the womb on their birth cert. Nopre, in future the date of birth for such children will b the first day they no longer required to be incubated as according to Muise:

    Women are the equivalent of machines? I better start giving my toaster holidays.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement