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.

Abortions for 3,735, minature flags for nobody

1…1314161819…31

Comments

  • #452
    seenitall
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,735 ✭✭✭seenitall


    Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013.

    I'm afraid it's almost certain more women will have to die needlessly before the political will is summoned to change things for the better.


  • #453
    lazygal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    As someone who's had two children in Ireland the abortion laws here are a major factor in deciding whether to have more children. I don't want to be kept alive while brain dead and have my children watch me rot because I'm pregnant.


  • #454
    Pumpkinseeds
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,635 ✭✭✭Pumpkinseeds


    UCDVet wrote: »
    If I'm understanding you correctly, you disagree with the idea that someone (or at least a woman) should be forced to continue with something they don't want?

    Let's say my wife and I have a child. But afterwards, we decide it's too much of a commitment. Is it okay for us to just leave that child somewhere? Or do you think the law should force us to take care of it until we can reasonably make other arrangements to ensure it's safety?

    The posters previous posts say that women who terminate a pregnancy are murderers. He feels that all women should be forced to keep their babies, that's a point of view he's entitled to. Where not talking about giving a child up for adoption, we're discussing abortion. Adoption and fostering exist for a variety of reasons, not least of which is parents giving up a child they no longer want to care for. That's a whole other debate. I believe in a woman's right not to be forced to continue with pregnancy or raise a child she doesn't right. I'm not sure where your difficulty with a woman's right to choose lies.


  • #455
    Not a NSA agent
    Closed Accounts Posts: 781 ✭✭✭Not a NSA agent


    _Whimsical_ wrote: »
    :)

    I'm pretty sure nox pointed out that he/she said he did think people should be able to have an abortion in the case of FFA. And no one said they thought that anyone had an abortion "because they wanted to kill a child". Really that sort of hysterical misrepresenting of other people's views serves no one.

    With views like
    Yadiel Nutritious Apartment wrote: »
    If they gave enough of a damn about the baby to want to bring it back in a box and bury it they wouldn't be killing it in the first place.

    Throwing it in the bin on their way out of the clinic would be a more fitting conclusion to the scenario.
    The Golden Miller wrote: »
    I'm in college, have a part time job, pay rent etc. I'm broke basically, and have another 3 years of college ahead of me. Got my girlfriend pregnant and she's in a similar situation. Abortion wasn't an option. If someone conceives a baby (and unless they are raped or fatal foetal abnormality etc), they are as good as murderers in my eye's. It's functioning to some degree from the minute it's conceived, hence alive. You made your bed, so go and lie in it, instead of taking the cowards way out and trying to convince yourself it's "not alive" because it's not outside the womb. All your doing is fooling yourself, trying to justify murder to yourself, so you don't feel bad for killing it

    and the "why not adopt?" crowd it shows there is a severe lack of understanding around abortion from those who are most against it. A pregnancy is a minor thing to go through so why would you kill children instead?

    The main group of people who would be bringing something back in the boot of their car would be people who had an abortion for reasons like FFA, although knowing that would require others to have some form of understanding which is clearly lacking.


  • #456
    RDM_83 again
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,116 ✭✭✭RDM_83 again


    I think one of the problems with these threads is that posters who support the avail availability choice based late term abortions will constantly reference situations which are very different e.g fetal abnormalities, juvenile rape etc, these posts get a load of thanks but all they do is mean the more extreme pro-lifers have a figure to argue against.

    Even the thread title is like this compared to the discussion going on, if its about the 3,800 woman going abroad its not about the most extreme cases otherwise that figure is meaningless.

    The pro-life side also need to pick their battles and have a bit of empathy, you can still empathise with someone you disagree with. Hell if your coming from a Christian point of view it should be about hating the sin not the sinner.


  • Advertisement
  • #457
    Pumpkinseeds
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,635 ✭✭✭Pumpkinseeds


    RDM_83 again wrote: »
    I think one of the problems with these threads is that posters who support the avail availability choice based late term abortions will constantly reference situations which are very different e.g fetal abnormalities, juvenile rape etc, these posts get a load of thanks but all they do is mean the more extreme pro-lifers have a figure to argue against.

    Even the thread title is like this compared to the discussion going on, if its about the 3,800 woman going abroad its not about the most extreme cases otherwise that figure is meaningless.

    The pro-life side also need to pick their battles and have a bit of empathy, you can still empathise with someone you disagree with. Hell if your coming from a Christian point of view it should be about hating the sin not the sinner.

    I think that most pro choice posters wouldn't be supportive of late term abortions, unless it was medically advised. For most of us abortion is a case of a woman having a choice to terminate a pregnancy. What it comes down to is that if a woman wants an abortion she should be able to have one, whatever her reasons and obviously any woman who is pro life is not going to have an abortion. Pro lifers want to control other women's bodies and that is wrong.

    Pro lifers often loose sight of the fact that for many women abortion is an extremely traumatic and difficult decision and is something that the woman will have to deal with for life.


  • #458
    RDM_83 again
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,116 ✭✭✭RDM_83 again


    Pumpkinseeds wrote: »
    I think that most pro choice posters wouldn't be supportive of late term abortions, unless it was medically advised. For most of us abortion is a case of a woman having a choice to terminate a pregnancy. What it comes down to is that if a woman wants an abortion she should be able to have one, whatever her reasons and obviously any woman who is pro life is not going to have an abortion. Pro lifers want to control other women's bodies and that is wrong.

    Pro lifers often loose sight of the fact that for many women abortion is an extremely traumatic and difficult decision and is something that the woman will have to deal with for life.

    I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding by pro-choicers to pro-lifers though as you post illustrates, its not about controlling women for pro-lifers its about saving what they believe to be lives.

    If it was about controlling women why would some islamic countries have more liberal law than Ireland, in some of these countries woman are actually controlled, the debate is when the fetus gains a soul and could change depending on what opinion is reached there (4 months for some).


  • #459
    K4t
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,362 ✭✭✭K4t


    Pumpkinseeds wrote: »
    Pro lifers often loose sight of the fact that for many women abortion is an extremely traumatic and difficult decision and is something that the woman will have to deal with for life.
    It's what they don't lose sight of that is telling; that is that for many women abortion is neither an extremely traumatic nor a difficult decision. And many pro lifers simply hate to see women have that power.


  • #460
    seenitall
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,735 ✭✭✭seenitall


    K4t wrote: »
    It's what they don't lose sight of that is telling; that is that for many women abortion is neither an extremely traumatic nor a difficult decision. And many pro lifers simply hate to see women have that power.

    Of course. It's about control, it always has been and always will be. Control over women's wombs. So far it's 1:0 on that for the RCC indoctrinated mentality. But it won't always be like that, times they are a changin...


  • #461
    seenitall
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,735 ✭✭✭seenitall


    RDM_83 again wrote: »
    I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding by pro-choicers to pro-lifers though as you post illustrates, its not about controlling women for pro-lifers its about saving what they believe to be lives.

    If it was about controlling women why would some islamic countries have more liberal law than Ireland, in some of these countries woman are actually controlled, the debate is when the fetus gains a soul and could change depending on what opinion is reached there (4 months for some).

    Ah pull the other one. If they wanted to save lives, they can start at the IVF clinics where unused embryos (Babies! potential lives!) are being flushed away.

    But no; the whole thing starts and ends with a woman's uterus and who gets the final word over growing anything in it.

    A pro-lifer up-thread freely admits to it, even; until the embryo is implanted, not a worry on him for the unborn.


  • Advertisement
  • #462
    eviltwin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    seenitall wrote: »
    Of course. It's about control, it always has been and always will be. Control over women's wombs. So far it's 1:0 on that for the RCC indoctrinated mentality. But it won't always be like that, times they are a changin...

    Control pure and simple. If it was about saving the unborn they would campaign to change the laws on assisted reproduction. They don't seem to have the same outrage over embryos being destroyed, being created knowing the surplus will be destroyed.


  • #463
    lazygal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    eviltwin wrote: »
    Control pure and simple. If it was about saving the unborn they would campaign to change the laws on assisted reproduction. They don't seem to have the same outrage over embryos being destroyed, being created knowing the surplus will be destroyed.

    Maybe they could answer this: there's a new born baby and a Petri dish of embryos in a burning building. Who do you save first? Who do you go back into to save?

    Eta there are no laws on assisted human reproduction in Ireland. It's a complete legal vacuum.


  • #464
    RDM_83 again
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,116 ✭✭✭RDM_83 again


    seenitall wrote: »
    Ah pull the other one. If they wanted to save lives, they can start at the IVF clinics where unused embryos (Babies! potential lives!) are being flushed away.

    But no; the whole thing starts and ends with a woman's uterus and who gets the final word over growing anything in it.

    A pro-lifer up-thread freely admits to it, even; until the embryo is implanted, not a worry on him for the unborn.

    I presume some mental gymnastics are used to justify this positions e.g something like that while many potentials are wasted one actuality is created.

    Your argument is incorrect anyway since if somebody is coming from a strict Catholic point of view they oppose IVF too!

    Your just avoiding how I can give real life examples of societies where woman are actually controlled where a different religious definition on "life/ensoulment" can result in more liberal abortion law.

    The replies to this post just indicate how its just a circle jerk really, I genuinely think some of the more aggressively pro-choice posters understand why but it doesn't sound so good to talk about.

    Why do the the stats for prolife vs prochoice tend to be so similar between genders if its about controlling women :confused:


  • #465
    seenitall
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,735 ✭✭✭seenitall


    RDM_83 again wrote: »
    Your argument is incorrect anyway since if somebody is coming from a strict Catholic point of view they oppose IVF too!

    LOL. Sure sure, they might oppose "IVF too", just curiously not enough to make it known anywhere I've ever seen or heard how disgusting and odious the practice of flushing away lives in that manner is. While they're all over abortion at the same time, can't get enough of boasting their pro-life credentials then... spare me.

    The hypocrisy is transparent here, and it is your argument that is, er, incorrect. It's not about babies, it's about wombs.


  • #466
    seenitall
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,735 ✭✭✭seenitall


    RDM_83 again wrote: »

    Why do the the stats for prolife vs prochoice tend to be so similar between genders if its about controlling women :confused:

    Never heard of anti-semitic Jews? Homophobic gay people?

    Indoctrination is your answer.


  • #467
    Electric Sheep
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,113 ✭✭✭Electric Sheep


    RDM_83 again wrote: »
    I presume some mental gymnastics are used to justify this positions e.g something like that while many potentials are wasted one actuality is created.

    Your argument is incorrect anyway since if somebody is coming from a strict Catholic point of view they oppose IVF too!

    Your just avoiding how I can give real life examples of societies where woman are actually controlled where a different religious definition on "life/ensoulment" can result in more liberal abortion law.

    The replies to this post just indicate how its just a circle jerk really, I genuinely think some of the more aggressively pro-choice posters understand why but it doesn't sound so good to talk about.

    Why do the the stats for prolife vs prochoice tend to be so similar between genders if its about controlling women :confused:

    Plenty of women think women should be controlled - in many ways they were the big enforcers of the Catholic church's policy. Much in the way it was the mothers of young girls that took them to the footbinder in China.


  • #468
    Pumpkinseeds
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,635 ✭✭✭Pumpkinseeds


    K4t wrote: »
    It's what they don't lose sight of that is telling; that is that for many women abortion is neither an extremely traumatic nor a difficult decision. And many pro lifers simply hate to see women have that power.

    Really, can you provide statistical evidence for this, I'd be interested to read it?


  • #469
    seenitall
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,735 ✭✭✭seenitall


    RDM_83 again wrote: »
    Your just avoiding how I can give real life examples of societies where woman are actually controlled where a different religious definition on "life/ensoulment" can result in more liberal abortion law.

    There are different types of control, for different types of reasons. Looking elsewhere to show me it's worse there for women, but better in a different way is, dunno, pointless? Unless I equally point to the majority of the first world and say that comparatively, almost anything over there looks like a good model for women's reproductive rights...


  • #470
    Pumpkinseeds
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,635 ✭✭✭Pumpkinseeds


    RDM_83 again wrote: »
    I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding by pro-choicers to pro-lifers though as you post illustrates, its not about controlling women for pro-lifers its about saving what they believe to be lives.

    If it was about controlling women why would some islamic countries have more liberal law than Ireland, in some of these countries woman are actually controlled, the debate is when the fetus gains a soul and could change depending on what opinion is reached there (4 months for some).

    Ah, and there's the crux of the problem, religion, which is where one persons idea of morality is imposed on another person. By that logic we could argue that we don't need Courts, that we could just 'hang em all and let God sort it out'.


  • #471
    RDM_83 again
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,116 ✭✭✭RDM_83 again


    seenitall wrote: »
    LOL. Sure sure, they might oppose "IVF too", just curiously not enough to make it known anywhere I've ever seen or heard how disgusting and odious the practice of flushing away lives in that manner is. While they're all over abortion at the same time, can't get enough of boasting their pro-life credentials then... spare me.

    The hypocrisy is transparent here, and it is your argument that is, er, incorrect. It's not about babies, it's about wombs.

    Explain the changeable Islamic position then?
    seenitall wrote: »
    Never heard of anti-semitic Jews? Homophobic gay people?

    Indoctrination is your answer.

    They are tiny minorities in those communities - have you ever actually met one? (yes you might meet homosexuals that dislike some aspects of Gay culture, thats the same as me disliking some aspects of straight culture it doesn't make me hetrophobic! )

    These posts are a perfect example of why I think for a view point that there is a subset of the pro-choice wing that are very hypocritical, you pat yourself on the back that your rejecting outdated religious superstitions and reactionary traditionalist culture from a point of logic yet its all about easy point scoring that only appeals to those who already agree with you.
    Electric Sheep wrote: »
    Plenty of women think women should be controlled - in many ways they were the big enforcers of the Catholic church's policy. Much in the way it was the mothers of young girls that took them to the footbinder in China.

    Thats actually an interesting subject, have read a bit about foot binding (because it was a remarkably stable cultural phenomenon for such a long time), ironically much of that motivation was about social betterment - if you didn't bind your daughters feet she had no possibility of a "good" marraige.


  • Advertisement
  • #472
    eviltwin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    RDM_83 again wrote: »
    I presume some mental gymnastics are used to justify this positions e.g something like that while many potentials are wasted one actuality is created.

    Your argument is incorrect anyway since if somebody is coming from a strict Catholic point of view they oppose IVF too!

    Your just avoiding how I can give real life examples of societies where woman are actually controlled where a different religious definition on "life/ensoulment" can result in more liberal abortion law.

    The replies to this post just indicate how its just a circle jerk really, I genuinely think some of the more aggressively pro-choice posters understand why but it doesn't sound so good to talk about.

    Why do the the stats for prolife vs prochoice tend to be so similar between genders if its about controlling women :confused:

    What are the laws regarding abortion in these countries? Can a woman make her own decision to end a pregnancy? I would be surprised if the law was established to allow husbands to control their wives fertility.

    I wouldn't read too much into women being pro life, if you look at the church in Ireland often it's the generation of women most damaged by it that is most devout.


  • #473
    The Golden Miller
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,785 ✭✭✭The Golden Miller


    Pumpkinseeds wrote: »
    I think that most pro choice posters wouldn't be supportive of late term abortions, unless it was medically advised. For most of us abortion is a case of a woman having a choice to terminate a pregnancy. What it comes down to is that if a woman wants an abortion she should be able to have one, whatever her reasons and obviously any woman who is pro life is not going to have an abortion. Pro lifers want to control other women's bodies and that is wrong.

    Pro lifers often loose sight of the fact that for many women abortion is an extremely traumatic and difficult decision and is something that the woman will have to deal with for life.

    And why is it so difficult and traumatic? Because it's morally wrong and it eats away at their conscience?

    Hope your joking bringing "control" into it


  • #474
    eviltwin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    The Golden Miller wrote: »
    And why is it so difficult and traumatic? Because it's morally wrong and it eats away at their conscience?

    Hope your joking bringing "control" into it

    Because any life changing decision requires a lot of soul searching. But you would know with your alleged pregnant girlfriend right?


  • #475
    The Golden Miller
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,785 ✭✭✭The Golden Miller


    I think there should be new laws brought into the UK, akin to China (I think it's China), that if a woman wants an abortion that then the father has to also consent to it.


  • #476
    Balmed Out
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,705 ✭✭✭Balmed Out


    I hate how when it comes to abortion there's a complete lack of empathy from so many anti choice and pro death campaigners.

    Really looking at either viewpoint in isolation its a slam dunk case but if we want to progress we could at least try to see both signs of view. Too often one side seems to think the others opinion stems from a hating women etc and the other are all religious zealots etc.


  • #477
    eviltwin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    The Golden Miller wrote: »
    I think there should be new laws brought into the UK akin to China (I think it's China), that if a woman wants an abortion that then the father has to also consent to it.

    So the final decision is in his hands?


  • #478
    The Golden Miller
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,785 ✭✭✭The Golden Miller


    eviltwin wrote: »
    Because any life changing decision requires a lot of soul searching. But you would know with your alleged pregnant girlfriend right?

    Yes I would know as it happens. And yes it is life changing, but that's not what gnaws away at you


  • #479
    The Golden Miller
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,785 ✭✭✭The Golden Miller


    eviltwin wrote: »
    So the final decision is in his hands?

    Nope, it's 50/50


  • #480
    eviltwin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    The Golden Miller wrote: »
    Nope, it's 50/50

    How is it 50/50 if he has the final say?


  • Advertisement
  • #481
    The Golden Miller
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,785 ✭✭✭The Golden Miller


    eviltwin wrote: »
    How is it 50/50 if he has the final say?

    As opposed to her having to only AND final say?


Advertisement