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…2728303233…52

Comments

  • #872
    Grayson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,993 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »
    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:



    Go back about 30 pages and there was an argument about independant Vs Distinct.

    You know what he (or she, now I think of it I have no idea what gender Muise is) was getting at. Premature babies can be born and need incubators, but at 4 weeks, incubators are no good.

    I think that kind of determination is based on our current technology. It may be possible in 100 years for a scientist to take a 4 week embryo and chuck it in an artificial incubator. That doesn't make the embryo a human being, it just means that tools are available that can grow humans.


  • #873
    Czarcasm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭Czarcasm


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

    I have already said I support first trimester abortions.


    That's cold comfort to a woman who finds out she missed your arbitrary deadline by a day and now must continue the pregnancy. I don't think you realise how many women discover they are unexpectedly pregnant until their second trimester.

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


    How about we just stick to discussing pregnancy for now, rather than discussing what happens after you would force a woman to give birth to a child she never wanted? That's a separate argument entirely.

    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:


    Don't be daft, I think you know well that Muise is saying that the unborn child is not an independent entity while it is dependent on the woman for it's nutrition, growth and development. If it were an independent entity, it would be a fully formed human being from conception, but that would crush a woman's vital organs and kill her.


  • #874
    Snake
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,844 ✭✭✭Snake


    Boombastic wrote: »
    define what a psychopath is

    A psychopath is someone who does not feel emotion.


  • #875
    Czarcasm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭Czarcasm


    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.


    Have you ever been in a delivery room in a hospital when a woman was giving birth? "Passing a football through your back passage" is often how it's described for a man's point of view. That doesn't even come close. That's just a delivery where everything goes as expected, after enduring a couple of hours labour. There are numerous risks involved, and that's just the physical effects of the immediate aftermath of giving birth.

    During the pregnancy women can suffer violent sickness (whoever the fcuk came up with "morning sickness" was clearly not aware that it can happen morning, noon, and night!), as well as other conditions, risks and possible infections.

    Then there's the psychological aspect of the pregnancy, and if you don't want to be pregnant, and you're told you have no choice in the matter, the next couple of weeks are mental torture, not to mention the psychological trauma of being forced to give birth, and the mental prison you find yourself locked into after being forced to give birth against your will to a child you never wanted. That can have a detrimental effect on a woman's mental health that she may never come to terms with.

    Those reasons probably aren't enough justification for you, but they're justification enough for a woman who does not want to be pregnant.


  • #876
    Wishiwasa Littlebitaller
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,337 ✭✭✭Wishiwasa Littlebitaller


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

    Your "jokes" are not funny and are just based on strawmanning someone's point.

    Human's can't give birth to an grown man, let alone an elderly one but they can give birth to a child and so the "joke" makes little or no sense when made in an attempt to show how the use of the word child was inappropriate. Thanking each other's posts en masse won't makes it so.
    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    So if the fetus is fully independent, what responsibility does the mother have for the fetus if she doesn't want it?

    The responsibility to keep it safe from harm.
    StudentDad wrote: »
    I do not think anyone disputes that.

    You did. With your comment about it being a woman's body and so her choice. That comment disputes all of that as it denies that fetuses are independent entities. If you said: it's within her body and so her choice, I would have no truck with it.
    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.

    That has nothing to do with the debate on abortion and only being dragged in to play the pity card.
    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.

    I didn't cut off any of your statement. I quoted you in entirety.

    You are referring to the last line and that was not a quote, that was pointing out what you essentially said. I have just edited it now so it is a direct quote and it makes no difference, you still implied that incubated babies are not independently alive. Your whining because I didn't include "in which it lives" but if I had included that again, it wouldn't have mattered, as babies are living "within" incubators also.
    shruikan2553 wrote: »
    Women are the equivalent of machines? I better start giving my toaster holidays.

    Yawn. More unfunny jokes that fail to retort points made.

    Incubators are designed to function as a womb. Sorry if this is news to you.
    Grayson wrote: »
    Go back about 30 pages and there was an argument about independant Vs Distinct.

    I know. I took part in it. What, did you think you all won that debate because you thanked each other's posts so much?
    It may be possible in 100 years for a scientist to take a 4 week embryo and chuck it in an artificial incubator. That doesn't make the embryo a human being, it just means that tools are available that can grow humans.

    There is a world of difference between a four week old embryo and and 22 week old developing fetus. Which, again, is why I support first trimester abortions.


  • Advertisement
  • #877
    Boombastic
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,496 ✭✭✭Boombastic


    Czarcasm wrote: »
    Have you ever been in a delivery room in a hospital when a woman was giving birth? "Passing a football through your back passage" is often how it's described for a man's point of view. That doesn't even come close. That's just a delivery where everything goes as expected, after enduring a couple of hours labour. There are numerous risks involved, and that's just the physical effects of the immediate aftermath of giving birth.

    During the pregnancy women can suffer violent sickness (whoever the fcuk came up with "morning sickness" was clearly not aware that it can happen morning, noon, and night!), as well as other conditions, risks and possible infections.

    Then there's the psychological aspect of the pregnancy, and if you don't want to be pregnant, and you're told you have no choice in the matter, the next couple of weeks are mental torture, not to mention the psychological trauma of being forced to give birth, and the mental prison you find yourself locked into after being forced to give birth against your will to a child you never wanted. That can have a detrimental effect on a woman's mental health that she may never come to terms with.

    Those reasons probably aren't enough justification for you, but they're justification enough for a woman who does not want to be pregnant.

    and if you don't get around to having the abortion when you're pregnant, there should be the option of euthanasia, right?


  • #878
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    GrayFox208 wrote: »
    A psychopath is someone who does not feel emotion.
    LOL. Where did you find that definition, down the back of the sofa.


  • #879
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Boombastic wrote: »
    and if you don't get around to having the abortion when you're pregnant, there should be the option of euthanasia, right?
    Right what? Are you proposing this because nobody else has and we've already been through the reasons.


  • #880
    Boombastic
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,496 ✭✭✭Boombastic


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Right what? Are you proposing this because nobody else has and we've already been through the reasons.

    why do you not agree?


  • #881
    osarusan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,926 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    Boombastic wrote: »
    and if you don't get around to having the abortion when you're pregnant, there should be the option of euthanasia, right?

    Have all of your 5934 posts been as silly as this one?


  • Advertisement
  • #882
    Boombastic
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,496 ✭✭✭Boombastic


    osarusan wrote: »
    Have all of your 5934 posts been as silly as this one?

    i'll await czars answer, i'd be interested in hearing about the Groningen convention


  • #883
    Czarcasm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭Czarcasm


    Boombastic wrote: »
    and if you don't get around to having the abortion when you're pregnant, there should be the option of euthanasia, right?


    Yes, and I'm grateful that at least you had the decency and respect to refer to it as euthanasia and not murder.


  • #884
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »
    Yawn. More unfunny jokes that fail to retort points made.

    Incubators are designed to function as a womb. Sorry if this is news to you.

    Im sorry, I didnt believe that someone saying that a child in an incubator was the same as a woman being pregnant was being serious. Machines are just a little bit different than humans.


  • #885
    StudentDad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,525 ✭✭✭StudentDad


    WishIWasA .... I hate to break it to you but arguing that a woman ought not have an abortion is an attempt to impose your will on another adult human.

    Regarding other examples of actions that require the imposition of another's will on other individuals without cause is another example of that very same behaviour and not as you imply a 'pity' card.

    There is a fundamental necessity to uphold the right of every individual to bodily integrity and I find it repugnant that another person would seek to impose their view on them without due regard for their well being.

    Like I said before this woman acted within the law and as far as I can see this issue has nothing to do with you.

    The sooner we can reach a point in society where every individual is respected as autonomous individuals free from arbitrary interference in their personal lives the better.

    SD


  • #886
    Czarcasm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭Czarcasm


    Boombastic wrote: »
    i'll await czars answer, i'd be interested in hearing about the Groningen convention

    The Groningen Protocol is a text created in September 2004 by Eduard Verhagen, the medical director of the department of pediatrics at the University Medical Center Groningen (UMCG) in Groningen, the Netherlands. It contains directives with criteria under which physicians can perform "active ending of life on infants" (child euthanasia) without fear of legal prosecution.

    The protocol, made up after extensive consultation between physicians, lawyers, parents and the Prosecution Office, offers procedures and guidelines to achieve the correct decision and performance. The final decision about "active ending of life on infants" is not in the hands of the physicians but with the parents, with physicians and social workers agreeing to it. Criteria are amongst others "unbearable suffering" and "expected quality of life". Only the parents can start the procedure. The procedure is reported to be working well.[7]

    For the Dutch public prosecutor, the termination of a child's life (under age 12) is acceptable if 4 requirements were properly fulfilled:
    1.The presence of hopeless and unbearable suffering
    2.The consent of the parents to termination of life
    3.Medical consultation having taken place
    4.Careful execution of the termination[7]

    Doctors who end the life of a baby must report the death to the local medical examiner, who in turn reports it to both the district attorney and to a review committee. The procedure differs in this respect from the black letter law governing voluntary euthanasia. There, the medical examiner sends the report only to the regional review committee, which alerts the district attorney only if it judges that the physician acted improperly.


    Source: Groningen Protocol - Wikipedia


  • #887
    Wishiwasa Littlebitaller
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,337 ✭✭✭Wishiwasa Littlebitaller


    Czarcasm wrote: »
    I don't think you realise how many women discover they are unexpectedly pregnant until their second trimester.

    That's not the unborn child's fault.

    If rape has been involved, health of the mother or child deemed to be at risk, then I have no issue with an abortion being carried out but otherwise, if a woman is in the second trimester when she finds out, then it is too late and she should just deal with her disappointment. Life is tough. We all have to deal with things we'd rather not.
    Don't be daft, I think you know well that Muise is saying that the unborn child is not an independent entity while it is dependent on the woman for it's nutrition, growth and development. If it were an independent entity, it would be a fully formed human being from conception, but that would crush a woman's vital organs and kill her.

    Good Christ. Yawn Yawn Yawn. These ludicrously exaggerated arguments are nonsensical folks, extremely so and do nothing but show how trite and emotionally disconnected from the debate many of you want to be and before someone says that the debate should be devoid of emotion, let me remind you we are talking about life and death of human life. Something that should not really need to be pointed out but this crap about giving birth to fully formed adults is quite childish.

    For a start, there are many children born that are not "fully developed" and which are considered independently alive. The notion that fetus has to be able to walk and talk to be declared an independent life, is ludicrous.

    Fetuses have a genome that does not come from the mother, they have independent genetic mutations that they do not inherit from her either and so are clearly independent entities but even if that isn't accepted, the fact that fetuses can live independent from women in incubators, should leave no doubt that they should not be considered part of a women's bodies, from at least the 20 week stage of development.

    But pro-choice folk will never accept this. They will still insist that it's a woman's body and so her choice. If they said: 'the developing fetus is within her body and so it's her choice' I would have more respect for them but they won't, as that would require conceding that when a woman has an abortion they are ending a life, which in some cases, could live independent of them in an incubator.

    I believe that women should have a right to do whatever they want with their bodies, I have no issue with that at all. What I don't think they should have a right to do however, is end the life of a second trimester fetus, as this developing human life is not theirs, to determine life or death over, or at least it shouldn't be.


  • #888
    eviltwin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »
    That's not the unborn child's fault.

    If rape has been involved, health of the mother or child deemed to be at risk, then I have no issue with an abortion being carried out but otherwise, if a woman is in the second trimester when she finds out, then it is too late and she should just deal with her disappointment. Life is tough. We all have to deal with things we'd rather not.



    Good Christ. Yawn Yawn Yawn. These ludicrously exaggerated arguments are nonsensical folks, extremely so and do nothing but show how trite and emotionally disconnected from the debate many of you want to be and before someone says that the debate should be devoid of emotion, let me remind you we are talking about life and death of human life. Something that should not really need to be pointed out but this crap about giving birth to fully formed adults is quite childish.

    For a start, there are many children born that are not "fully developed" and which are considered independently alive. The notion that fetus has to be able to walk and talk to be declared an independent life, is ludicrous.

    Fetuses have a genome that does not come from the mother, they have independent genetic mutations that they do not inherit from her either and so are clearly independent entities but even if that isn't accepted, the fact that fetuses can live independent from women in incubators, should leave no doubt that they should not be considered part of a women's bodies, from at least the 20 week stage of development.

    But pro-choice folk will never accept this. They will still insist that it's a woman's body and so her choice. If they said: 'the developing fetus is within her body and so it's her choice' I would have more respect for them but they won't, as that would require conceding that when a woman has an abortion they are ending a life, which in some cases, could live independent of them in an incubator.

    I believe that women should have a right to do whatever they want with their bodies, I have no issue with that at all. What I don't think they should have a right to do however, is end the life of a second trimester fetus, as this developing human life is not theirs, to determine life or death over, or at least it shouldn't be.

    Why do you have such a distinction between a first and second trimester fetus?


  • #889
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    Always find it odd its never the "childs fault" unless the father was a rapist. Then lets "murder" it.


  • #890
    Wishiwasa Littlebitaller
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,337 ✭✭✭Wishiwasa Littlebitaller


    shruikan2553 wrote: »
    Machines are just a little bit different than humans.

    Just words here, no retort of my point, yet again.

    I mean, it sounds good saying women are not machines and you will get backslapped for it, but it doesn't retort the point.

    In much the same way as if this was a debate about the use of sperm banks and I said something akin to: I didn't realize men were refrigerators.

    Either address the point I made (which was that a 22 week old fetus can be declared as independently alive outside the womb, when placed in an incubator) or just don't bother replying to my posts with your sanctimonious women are not machines as it doesn't challenge any of the points I made.
    StudentDad wrote: »
    WishIWasA .... I hate to break it to you but arguing that a woman ought not have an abortion is an attempt to impose your will on another adult human.

    So is telling adult humans that they are not to kill one another.

    Adults imposing their will on other humans is something we do all the time.

    Nothing inherently wrong with that, especially when done in the attempt to protect the innocent.
    There is a fundamental necessity to uphold the right of every individual to bodily integrity and I find it repugnant that another person would seek to impose their view on them without due regard for their well being.

    I have due regard. I have already posted what I feel would be understandable expeditions to have second trimester abortions.

    Tell me. Do you also have due regard for fathers of these developing fetuses, who would prefer if their developing off-spring wasn't aborted. I mean, each unborn child does inherent a genome from each parent afterall and so, you can surely understand a father who might be somewhat reluctant to have it aborted. Or does your empathy only stretch as far as the woman when it comes to rights.
    The sooner we can reach a point in society where every individual is respected as autonomous individuals free from arbitrary interference in their personal lives the better.

    But sure you don't respect "every individual" life and so who are you to pontificate about others doing so. You seemingly have no problem with a woman aborting a 21 week old baby, that chances are would have no problem going on to have a productive life were it lucky enough to be born premature and put in an incubator. Doesn't sound to me like you respect human life at all, well, other than the life it suits you to.


  • #891
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    @Wishiwasa
    There you go with your respect again.
    Once more, what makes you think anybody wants, needs, or gives a flying duck about having your respect?


  • Advertisement
  • #892
    StudentDad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,525 ✭✭✭StudentDad


    Quote:
    Originally Posted by StudentDad viewpost.gif
    WishIWasA .... I hate to break it to you but arguing that a woman ought not have an abortion is an attempt to impose your will on another adult human.
    So is telling adult humans that they are not to kill one another.

    Adults imposing their will on other humans is something we do all the time.

    Nothing inherently wrong with that, especially when done in the attempt to protect the innocent.

    Quote:
    There is a fundamental necessity to uphold the right of every individual to bodily integrity and I find it repugnant that another person would seek to impose their view on them without due regard for their well being.
    I have due regard. I have already posted what I feel would be understandable expeditions to have second trimester abortions.

    Tell me. Do you also have due regard for fathers of these developing fetuses, who would prefer if their developing off-spring wasn't aborted. I mean, each unborn child does inherent a genome from each parent afterall and so, you can surely understand a father who might be somewhat reluctant to have it aborted. Or does your empathy only stretch as far as the woman when it comes to rights.

    Quote:
    The sooner we can reach a point in society where every individual is respected as autonomous individuals free from arbitrary interference in their personal lives the better.
    But sure you don't respect "every individual" life and so who are you to pontificate about others doing so. You seemingly have no problem with a woman aborting a 21 week old baby, that chances are would have no problem going on to have a productive life were it lucky enough to be born premature and put in an incubator. Doesn't sound to me like you respect human life at all, well, other than the life it suits you to.




    Fascinating. You have missed the point entirely. Well done. Whether or not I agree with abortion is irrelevant. What I am saying is that you or I do not have the right to impose our beliefs on another human being without just cause. The woman in this case has acted entirely within the law and does not have to answer to you or anyone else for her actions.


    You seem to think you have the right to dictate to another human being whether or not they have control over their own bodies. In that regard you are attempting to impose your will on others, again without just cause.


    Your beliefs are yours and yours alone. You do not have the right to impose them on others who do not agree with you. Your rights end when they conflict with the rights of others. Sorry but that's the way it is.


    As things currently stand as far as I'm aware abortion is legal up to 24 weeks in the UK. This is a choice many women make. This is their legal right and as such whether or you agree with it is irrelevant.


    Whether or not I agree with it is irrelevant. It always comes down to the choice of the woman. What she chooses to do is paramount. It is her body, her choice. To impose a 'choice' on another human being without just cause is frankly barbaric.


    SD


  • #893
    ryan101
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,671 ✭✭✭ryan101


    StudentDad wrote: »
    What I am saying is that you or I do not have the right to impose our beliefs on another human being without just cause.

    Can you explain how killing an innocent human life is a just cause ?


  • #894
    Muise...
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,512 ✭✭✭Muise...


    ryan101 wrote: »
    Can you explain how killing an innocent human life is a just cause ?

    I hear this when I read your posts.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSvdSQE7GLA


  • #895
    Czarcasm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭Czarcasm


    Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »
    That's not the unborn child's fault.

    If rape has been involved, health of the mother or child deemed to be at risk, then I have no issue with an abortion being carried out but otherwise, if a woman is in the second trimester when she finds out, then it is too late and she should just deal with her disappointment. Life is tough. We all have to deal with things we'd rather not.


    Do you even think before you post? The same rationale you posted above could equally be applied to the life of the unborn child - if a woman doesn't want to be pregnant, then the unborn child has to learn that life is tough, and they'll have to deal with it, or not.

    Good Christ. Yawn Yawn Yawn. These ludicrously exaggerated arguments are nonsensical folks, extremely so and do nothing but show how trite and emotionally disconnected from the debate many of you want to be and before someone says that the debate should be devoid of emotion, let me remind you we are talking about life and death of human life. Something that should not really need to be pointed out but this crap about giving birth to fully formed adults is quite childish.


    Personally, I like to give children more credit than thinking it could be related to a microwave oven, but your argument that an incubator is the same thing as a human being ignores the emotional aspect of the pregnancy for the woman, so it is indeed by your own doing that you are trying to dismiss the emotional aspect of the discussion. I've yet to see a Playstation that can empathise with a human being. The Japanese are good, but incubators with empathy? You're right, that IS a daft comparison. You probably shouldn't have made it then.

    For a start, there are many children born that are not "fully developed" and which are considered independently alive. The notion that fetus has to be able to walk and talk to be declared an independent life, is ludicrous.


    Why do you put "fully developed" in inverted commas? By that sort of rationale, there are many adults born that are not fully developed? Nobody argued that the ability to walk and talk were characteristics of an independent life form. The arguments was solely that the unborn child is dependent on the woman for it's continuing nutrition, development and growth. If you're going to make the argument that an unborn child can survive independently outside the womb, then it must also be able to do so without the aid of medical intervention. Otherwise, that's why the normal gestation period for human beings is 40 weeks, and not 22, 24, or 28.

    Fetuses have a genome that does not come from the mother, they have independent genetic mutations that they do not inherit from her either and so are clearly independent entities but even if that isn't accepted, the fact that fetuses can live independent from women in incubators, should leave no doubt that they should not be considered part of a women's bodies, from at least the 20 week stage of development.


    Oh look, you're back to calling the unborn child a foetus now, to make your bullshìt sound all science-like and factual, devoid of emotion, and with no regard to the woman as more than just a biological incubation vessel for the life growing inside her womb that she doesn't want in there. You'd have to have the emotional intellect of an incubator if you fail to empathise with a woman who does not want what feels to her like a foreign body growing inside her own that she doesn't want in there.

    But pro-choice folk will never accept this. They will still insist that it's a woman's body and so her choice. If they said: 'the developing fetus is within her body and so it's her choice' I would have more respect for them but they won't, as that would require conceding that when a woman has an abortion they are ending a life, which in some cases, could live independent of them in an incubator.


    You make the mistake of thinking that people are as black and white and you can conveniently label them pro-choice/pro-life, etc. What you forget is that the most important choice of all, is individual choice, and you making someone else's choices for them is nothing shy of a God complex. Who the hell are you to judge what another person can and cannot choose for their own body? The unborn child exerts an innate will to be born from the inside, you exert pressure from the outside, and the woman is only incubator in the middle. When a woman chooses to end a life growing inside her, it takes a special sort of righteous cnut to point out the obvious!


    I believe that women should have a right to do whatever they want with their bodies, I have no issue with that at all. What I don't think they should have a right to do however, is end the life of a second trimester fetus, as this developing human life is not theirs, to determine life or death over, or at least it shouldn't be.


    And a woman's life is not yours to determine either, nor is the life inside her yours to determine what happens to it either. It shouldn't be, but the law as it stands at the moment means that you do get to vote whether a woman has access to abortion in this country, and because you seem to lack any sort of empathy for the woman, you can tell her life is tough, you only care about the life growing inside her being born. You show no concern for the woman's welfare, yet you think you have a right to sit up in judgement of other people and tell THEM they are devoid of any empathy.

    Go look in the reflective glass of an incubator, a pregnant woman's eyes, and tell her you only care about the welfare of the unborn foetus growing inside her, that her welfare is none of your concern.


  • #896
    Muise...
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,512 ✭✭✭Muise...


    ryan101 wrote: »
    Are you that stuck now ?

    I'm not the one rearranging the subjects in posts and flinging them back at the posters like a chimp throwing his own sh1t.


  • #897
    ryan101
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,671 ✭✭✭ryan101


    Muise... wrote: »
    I'm not the one rearranging the subjects in posts and flinging them back at the posters like a chimp throwing his own sh1t.

    I suppose if you're stuck yet again, you can always try personal abuse . . again . .

    lol


  • #898
    Muise...
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,512 ✭✭✭Muise...


    ryan101 wrote: »
    I suppose if you're stuck yet again, you can always try personal abuse . . again . .

    lol

    It's your attempts at argument I abuse.


  • #899
    ryan101
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,671 ✭✭✭ryan101


    Muise... wrote: »
    It's your attempts at argument I abuse.

    oh that's what calling me a chimp is, instead of debating the topic, i see. :rolleyes:


  • #900
    Muise...
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,512 ✭✭✭Muise...


    ryan101 wrote: »
    oh that's what calling me a chimp is, instead of debating the topic, i see. :rolleyes:

    That's what calling your style is. Surprised you haven't asked me what right the chimp has to kill a child, tbh.


  • Advertisement
  • #901
    ryan101
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,671 ✭✭✭ryan101


    Muise... wrote: »
    That's what calling your style is. Surprised you haven't asked me what right the chimp has to kill a child, tbh.

    Since your're not able to explain why a human has the right, I don't want to tax you too much.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement