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

‘People think I’m the devil for having an abortion, but it’s the only option that&

1…1314161819…37

Comments

  • #452
    kylith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,739 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    DuffmanGuy wrote: »
    Which is nothing like that attitude, and you're lame attempt to dismiss science rather than present a sustainable opinion.

    It is the same attitude. If 'placing someone in a position that kills them' warrants a prison sentence then every woman who miscarries faces suspicion that she did something to bring it on.


  • #453
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    DuffmanGuy wrote: »
    Foetus is defined as the 'Unborn Young'.

    Yup. That's what it is. However, there's no emotional attachment to it.


  • #454
    DuffmanGuy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 99 ✭✭DuffmanGuy


    traprunner wrote: »
    So switching off a life support system on someone is a bad thing because they can't defend themselves?

    I agree, as many on life support regain consciousness. So switching off the support would be killing them. Killing them would be a bad thing.


  • #455
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,524 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    traprunner wrote: »
    So let's see where much of this argument is coming from.....who here is a Roman Catholic? :pac:


    I'm Roman Catholic, I'm also pro-choice. I know atheists who are pro-life, or anti-abortion, or whatever other terms you choose, so I wouldn't automatically assume people's motivations are entirely religious. They are often argued on humanitarian grounds.

    If someone is pro-life, anti-abortion, etc, I don't consider it my place to enforce my opinion on them, I can only appreciate that they feel that way for their own reasons.

    Then there are just the more obvious trolls like those seen on this thread, and I personally just wouldn't bother entertaining them at all, and anyone that does, knowing that the person is only trolling, is doing themselves no favours IMO.


  • #456
    DuffmanGuy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 99 ✭✭DuffmanGuy


    kylith wrote: »
    It is the same attitude. If 'placing someone in a position that kills them' warrants a prison sentence then every woman who miscarries faces suspicion that she did something to bring it on.

    Nope, death by natural causes is never treated the same as deliberate killing. That's why we have courts.


  • Advertisement
  • #457
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    DuffmanGuy wrote: »
    You've lost the 'living' argument, so you move onto a philosophical one.
    Identity and personality are not scientific signs of living.

    I haven't lost an argument because I wasn't involved in one. The foetus is only "alive" so to speak, on life support. It is not developed.


  • #458
    DuffmanGuy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 99 ✭✭DuffmanGuy


    sup_dude wrote: »
    Yup. That's what it is. However, there's no emotional attachment to it.

    Emotional attachment is irrelevant. Legal attachment is relevant.


  • #459
    wonderfullife
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,924 ✭✭✭wonderfullife


    superelliptic wrote: »
    In her Irish Times interview she said that she is 24 years old and it is not the right time for her to have a child that she cannot provide for. Ultimately she wants to have a life before she is willing to settle down, which IMO is fair enough.

    Personally I agree with her decision. She was being responsible with a long term boyfriend, she was on the pill so the pregnancy was out of the blue. I would have exactly the same reaction as she did if that had happened to me at that young age, and I would have no problem if a girlfriend of mine decided that she wanted to abort (so long as we both talked it through at least). Ultimately she, with the support of her partner made the best decision for themselves and I think that women that want this option should have it without stigma.


    Sauce: http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/tara-they-shouldn-t-have-control-over-my-uterus-1.2089490

    Fundamentally I don't think anybody should agree or disagree with another womans choice to have an abortion.

    She made the choice for her own reasons. Just as it would be equally unwise to agree or disagree with a woman deciding to have her baby.

    Agreement implies advocating the choice she made. Its not our place to advocate a choice any particular woman makes. Her right to make the choice....sure.


  • #460
    DuffmanGuy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 99 ✭✭DuffmanGuy


    smash wrote: »
    I haven't lost an argument because I wasn't involved in one. The foetus is only "alive" so to speak, on life support. It is not developed.

    So now you agree that a human foetus IS alive. Quite the turnaround.
    So, as a young human being, why should we have less legal protection that older human beings?


  • #461
    mikom
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,391 ✭✭✭✭mikom


    wonderfullife wrote: »

    Agreement implies advocating the choice she made. Its not our place to advocate a choice any particular woman makes. Her right to make the choice....sure.

    Just not in the comfort of her own country........


  • Advertisement
  • #462
    DuffmanGuy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 99 ✭✭DuffmanGuy


    wonderfullife wrote: »
    Fundamentally I don't think anybody should agree or disagree with another womans choice to have an abortion.

    She made the choice for her own reasons. Just as it would be equally unwise to agree or disagree with a woman deciding to have her baby.

    Agreement implies advocating the choice she made. Its not our place to advocate a choice any particular woman makes. Her right to make the choice....sure.

    Choices to kill a human being are legally restricted. Otherwise we'd live in Anarchy.


  • #463
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    DuffmanGuy wrote: »
    I agree, as many on life support regain consciousness. So switching off the support would be killing them. Killing them would be a bad thing.

    Many who get their have to have life support switched off are only being kept alive by the life support. The decision is not taken lightly and is done under the advice and medical opinion of professionals. Life support will not be switched off if the patient has a chance of surviving in a valid state of living. However, if a patient will have to be on life support forever, then how is it murder? I would consider them already dead. Many others do too, particularly those who are brain dead. You can keep a body "alive" on life support even when the brain dies.


  • #464
    traprunner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,887 ✭✭✭traprunner


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    I'm Roman Catholic, I'm also pro-choice. I know atheists who are pro-life, or anti-abortion, or whatever other terms you choose, so I wouldn't automatically assume people's motivations are entirely religious. They are often argued on humanitarian grounds.

    If someone is pro-life, anti-abortion, etc, I don't consider it my place to enforce my opinion on them, I can only appreciate that they feel that way for their own reasons.

    Then there are just the more obvious trolls like those seen on this thread, and I personally just wouldn't bother entertaining them at all, and anyone that does, knowing that the person is only trolling, is doing themselves no favours IMO.

    I said it tongue in cheek. There wasn't a smilie with tongue in cheek so I used Pacman.

    I agree that everyone is entitled to an opinion. No one should be forced to so as others wish. Everyone that chooses abortion does so for their own personal reasons. People say things in public but don't necessarily mean them e.g. someone with depression letting on they are fine.

    I'm pro-choice. I wasn't always though.


  • #465
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    DuffmanGuy wrote: »
    Emotional attachment is irrelevant. Legal attachment is relevant.

    We were talking about science, were we not?


  • #466
    kylith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,739 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    DuffmanGuy wrote: »
    Nope, death by natural causes is never treated the same as deliberate killing. That's why we have courts.

    But if it is alleged that a woman brought about a miscarriage how can she prove otherwise? Any pregnant woman who falls over can be suspected of doing so on purpose to end the pregnancy.


  • #467
    DuffmanGuy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 99 ✭✭DuffmanGuy


    kylith wrote: »
    Except it's not a separate human being, it is completely incapable of idependant living and does not have a functioning brain or nervous system.
    So, if I take a freshly laid, fertilised hen's egg and boot it over a wall I should be done for animal cruelty?

    A new born baby is incapable of independent living. She's still a human being, still protected from harm under law.


  • #468
    wonderfullife
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,924 ✭✭✭wonderfullife


    mikom wrote: »
    Just not in the comfort of her own country........

    No. That's the law. Plane or boat are the current options. Neither add much cost to the situation. It would have been far more prohibitive financially in the 70s and 80s to get to england.

    Anyway even if the day ever comes where abortion is legal in Ireland we all know it will be a handful of strictly supervised clinics in major cities. So for the vast majority of people there will still be 1 or 2 or 3 hour drives to Dublin or cork. Far longer than a flight to London or Liverpool or Birmingham. The travel argument is fairly moot. It is what it is for now.


  • #469
    DuffmanGuy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 99 ✭✭DuffmanGuy


    sup_dude wrote: »
    Many who get their have to have life support switched off are only being kept alive by the life support. The decision is not taken lightly and is done under the advice and medical opinion of professionals. Life support will not be switched off if the patient has a chance of surviving in a valid state of living. However, if a patient will have to be on life support forever, then how is it murder? I would consider them already dead. Many others do too, particularly those who are brain dead. You can keep a body "alive" on life support even when the brain dies.

    It would be tested in court to determine if it was murder or not.


  • #470
    mikom
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,391 ✭✭✭✭mikom


    wonderfullife wrote: »
    No. That's the law. Plane or boat are the current options. Neither add much cost to the situation. It would have been far more prohibitive financially in the 70s and 80s to get to england.

    Serious progress.


  • #471
    kylith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,739 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    DuffmanGuy wrote: »
    A new born baby is incapable of independent living. She's still a human being, still protected from harm under law.

    A newborn baby can be cared for by anyone. A foetus cannot.


  • Advertisement
  • #472
    DuffmanGuy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 99 ✭✭DuffmanGuy


    kylith wrote: »
    A newborn baby can be cared for by anyone. A foetus cannot.

    So you agree that she's not capable of independent living.


  • #473
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    DuffmanGuy wrote: »
    It would be tested in court to determine if it was murder or not.

    Can you point me to a case where turning off a lifesupport machine was deemed murder?
    DuffmanGuy wrote: »
    A new born baby is incapable of independent living. She's still a human being, still protected from harm under law.

    A new born baby needs someone to feed it, but not to eat for it. It needs someone to change nappies but not shít for it. It doesn't need anyone to breathe for it. It's capable of independent living. It's no longer dependant on the mother for basic functions


  • #474
    kylith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,739 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    DuffmanGuy wrote: »
    So you agree that she's not capable of independent living.

    An infant is capable of living independently from its mother due to the fact that literally almost anyone is capable of caring for it. A foetus is not capable of living independently from its mother until very late is pregnancy.


  • #475
    sunshine and showers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,027 ✭✭✭sunshine and showers


    I like how Youth Defence are trying to be down-with-the-kids by using Simpsons' references in their usernames.


  • #476
    Fizzlesque
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 669 ✭✭✭Fizzlesque


    eviltwin wrote: »
    Open adoptions aren't the norm here though. I think its a shame they aren't available. It might actually encourage more women to consider it if they knew they could still have a relationship with their child.

    Open adoptions are available here - that is the situation I am in (well, mine is semi open) and my daughter is now 25 years old. Very few people are aware of open adoption though. In a way, I wish I hadn't discovered this option because then I wouldn't have agreed to relinquish my child. If I knew then that I was setting myself up for a lifetime of heartache I would never have agreed. Too late for me now, but I'd advise anyone considering adoption to think again - it gets worse with each passing year and can damage you in ways you can't imagine.


  • #477
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    DuffmanGuy wrote: »
    So now you agree that a human foetus IS alive. Quite the turnaround.
    So, as a young human being, why should we have less legal protection that older human beings?

    I never said it wasn't alive. What's wrong with you that you have to put words in people's mouths just to make your point work?


  • #478
    jackal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 786 ✭✭✭jackal


    The solution put forward as an alternative to abortion, adoption, is not the answer.

    Are there 4000 vetted would-be adoptive parents available, every year, to take up these babies that the pro-life brigade are so adamant should be born? How many would they like to adopt themselves? Particularly the poor children with serious disabilities who would make up a good sized minority of that number.

    This is from the adoption authorities 2012 annual report:
    In 2012, the Adoption Authority of Ireland granted 79 Declarations of Eligibility and Suitability in
    respect of applicants wishing to adopt in Ireland. 49 adoption orders were granted in the same year. 33
    of these were family adoptions while 16 were non-family adoptions (see Tables 1-2). This was a slight
    increase on the number of declarations and adoption orders granted in 2011.
    This increase was partly due to the reduction of delays in processing existing applications, through ongoing
    assistance given to the service providers to clarify requirements under the terms of the Adoption
    Act 2010, as well as new procedures put in place for baby placements to comply with the 1993 Hague
    Convention

    They managed to vet 79 applicants in a year, of which 33 were family adoptions.

    So I wish people would stop bandying adoption around as a realistic alternative. These children would end up in institutions if they were all carried to term, as there is not the appetite or ability to process those kind of numbers under the very restrictive provisions of the Adoption Act 2010. Its easier to get knighted.

    The pro-life crowd don't seem to think much beyond the womb. Once the baby is born, they are happy. There seems to be no mention of what happens next.

    For the unfortunate woman who finds herself with an unwanted pregnancy, do you really think adoption is going to be a pain-free option?

    Imagine all the congratulations she is going to get as her bump gets bigger. "Oh no its not my baby, I am giving it up for adoption".

    Imagine explaining to everyone in work how you are taking maternity leave soon but wont have a baby to look after.

    It's just not anywhere near as simple as its made out to be.


  • #479
    DuffmanGuy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 99 ✭✭DuffmanGuy


    sup_dude wrote: »
    Can you point me to a case where turning off a lifesupport machine was deemed murder?



    A new born baby needs someone to feed it, but not to eat for it. It needs someone to change nappies but not shít for it. It doesn't need anyone to breathe for it. It's capable of independent living. It's no longer dependant on the mother for basic functions

    Life a human foetus, a human baby requires food (nourishment) and a sustainable environment to survive. As do you.


  • #480
    rainbow kirby
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,928 ✭✭✭✭rainbow kirby


    wonderfullife wrote: »
    Neither add much cost to the situation.
    Unless you already have kids that need extra childcare or you have to take them with you, unless you have a job where it is extremely difficult to take time off work at short notice, unless you have a controlling partner who makes it extremely difficult for you to get your hands on any cash, unless you require a visa for the UK, unless you have a health condition which makes travel difficult...

    It's one thing trying to travel if you're young, an EU citizen and have fewer responsibilities, but a large number of women who choose abortion have children already or other complicating factors in their situation.


  • Advertisement
  • #481
    DuffmanGuy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 99 ✭✭DuffmanGuy


    smash wrote: »
    I never said it wasn't alive. What's wrong with you that you have to put words in people's mouths just to make your point work?

    My point is scientifically sound. No attempt to 'put words' intended.


Advertisement