Abortions for 3,735, minature flags for nobody

LadyFenghuang · 12-06-2015 05:05PM

Abortion is a worthwhile topic. And is very fascinating and in itself could fill up a thread all on it's very own.

Abortion is misunderstood. Partially because we hide it.

It is a medical emergency in some cases , a medical preference sometimes, a pure choice based on personal or financial issues at others.

Motivations for abortion are usually from the woman's point of view moral and justified.

Bringing in other arguments about other topics shows that generally the no side are angry about other things.

There are societal reasons. Are the no side going to change society? There are maternal health reasons. Are the no side able to remedy this?

There are personal choice reasons. It's the one motivation that the no side attacks. Some of the most common reasons are to postpone childbearing to a more suitable time or to focus energies and resources on existing children. Most single women have an abortion because they cannot afford to raise a child. They cannot afford a pregnancy and don't think they can go through a pregnancy emotionally only to give up a child. They don't see themselves as an incubator. They see themselves as living humans that would be in distress.

Women are not things. They are not machines.

They should have self volition.

K-9 · 12-06-2015 05:30PM

Yadiel Nutritious Apartment wrote: »

He will have a court order demanding he pays maintenance in no time, its total nonsense to say a man can walk away without consequence.

I know of some women who don't look for it at all and a couple of others who dont know where the father is, the above is demonstrably false.

I dont know what happily ignoring that achieves tbh barring some men vs. women point scoring.

kylith · 12-06-2015 05:32PM

bluewolf wrote: »

Did someone actually write a woman can give birth and give up her baby and get on with her life without a second thought whereas the dad would be affected for life? You what

Yes, he did. It was in the context that it is MORE distressing for a man to have a woman abort his child than it is for a woman to go through an enforced pregnancy and birth when she doesn't want to.

Now, I totally agree that a man in that situation would be upset, distressed, and possibly traumatised but to state that that is worse than the total loss of bodily integrity and rights as well as pain and suffering of a woman being forced to carry a pregnancy is total nonsense.

Fred Swanson · 12-06-2015 06:22PM

This post has been deleted.

RDM_83 again · 12-06-2015 06:27PM

K-9 wrote: »

I know of some women who don't look for it at all and a couple of others who dont know where the father is, the above is demonstrably false.

I dont know what happily ignoring that achieves tbh barring some men vs. women point scoring.

I think its quite easy for a man to walk away from the consequences of sex, that is a one night stand or similar type fling where they know little to nothing about each other.
Walking away from a pregnancy thats occured and known about is going to be a lot more awkward, sure we know of plenty of "dead beat dads" but they aren't exactly living a great life being under or unemployed, or like Kylith referenced living somewhere in the outback its hardly walking away if you can't come back to the country of your birth.

RDM_83 again · 12-06-2015 06:28PM

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Somebody is going to mention the Freaknomics article in relation to this, its flawed and not from a pro-life/pro-choice point the math is actually wrong.

Fred Swanson · 12-06-2015 06:31PM

This post has been deleted.

K-9 · 12-06-2015 06:35PM

RDM_83 again wrote: »

I think its quite easy for a man to walk away from the consequences of sex, that is a one night stand or similar type fling where they know little to nothing about each other.
Walking away from a pregnancy thats occured and known about is going to be a lot more awkward, sure we know of plenty of "dead beat dads" but they aren't exactly living a great life being under or unemployed, or like Kylith referenced living somewhere in the outback its hardly walking away if you can't come back to the country of your birth.

Well yes, but we'd gone down the road of a very literal meaning of without a second thought.

The examples above show it does require a lot moee than a second though to walk away. Those Men for whatever reason give
more thought to living a life away from the child than staying about.

NachoBusiness · 12-06-2015 07:03PM

bluewolf wrote: »

Did someone actually write a woman can give birth and give up her baby and get on with her life without a second thought whereas the dad would be affected for life? You what

Love how you quoted my post but yet not my username.. hhmm.

No, is the answer to your question, but I think you knew that.

I answered a question asking which was was worse, a woman having to carry a baby she didn't want and then give it up, or a man having to live with the child he did want being aborted and I said the latter. I said nothing whatsoever about a woman "not having a second thought". I believe that statement was made by a woman regarding men's apparant ease walking away and not giving a fcuk about children they have fathered.

Oh and I find the accusation that I said that not just objectionable because I never said it, but also because in that post which you quote that text from I also linked to website WomenHurt.ie which gives a voice to women that have had to deal with unwanted pregnancies for one reason or another but your post got well thanked all the same, despite how illogical and innacurate it was but.. sure par for the course.

12-06-2015 07:21PM

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Love how you quoted my post but yet not my username.. hhmm.

Scrolling between pages and doing all that on my phone on the mobile site is some craic yeah

, but also because in that post which you quote that text from I also linked to website WomenHurt.ie which gives a voice to women that have had to deal with unwanted pregnancies for one reason or another.

That's great but I wasn't taken aback at that part so ...

It seems to be advertising "I regret my abortion", not "here's how i coped with an unwanted pregnancy". Bit misleading.
Not sure how that somehow nullifies my asking "did someone say this?"

Here's some balance

http://www.imnotsorry.net/

NachoBusiness · 12-06-2015 08:07PM

bluewolf wrote: »

That's great but I wasn't taken aback at that part so ...

Oh yes, that's right, you were "taken aback" by something that I never actually said.

Your words:

bluewolf wrote: »

Did someone actually write a woman can give birth and give up her baby and get on with her life without a second thought whereas the dad would be affected for life? You what

My words:

NachoBusiness wrote: »

You ask which is worse, the trauma for a woman that has a child she doesn't want or a man having a child aborted that he does want, well I would say the latter, as a child can be fostered or adopted and the woman can get on with her life, whereas the man may have spent months emotionally preparing to be a father, been in close contact with his pregnant wife or g/f believing that his child was right there and may even have felt his baby kick (if a late stage abortion is carried out) and he may never get that out of his head.

...so you see, I never said what you and others (via backslaps) said I did.

The Golden Miller · 12-06-2015 08:26PM

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Love how you quoted my post but yet not my username.. hhmm.

No, is the answer to your question, but I think you knew that.

I answered a question asking which was was worse, a woman having to carry a baby she didn't want and then give it up, or a man having to live with the child he did want being aborted and I said the latter. I said nothing whatsoever about a woman "not having a second thought". I believe that statement was made by a woman regarding men's apparant ease walking away and not giving a fcuk about children they have fathered.

Oh and I find the accusation that I said that not just objectionable because I never said it, but also because in that post which you quote that text from I also linked to website WomenHurt.ie which gives a voice to women that have had to deal with unwanted pregnancies for one reason or another but your post got well thanked all the same, despite how illogical and innacurate it was but.. sure par for the course.

It really is impossible to rationally debate with these types, which is why I got a be flippant towards the end. From the first message I posted in this thread, every single one of my posts has been taken out of context and misrepresented and accusations have been thrown left right and center about stuff I never said e.g when I said a man should have to consent to an abortion, there were accusations of me supporting a mans right to control every aspect of a woman's life and keep her as a second class citizens. Disingenuous hysterical hyperbole nonsense

If this is a sign of things to come from the pro-choice campaigners if another referendum comes about, they don't have a hope in hell of winning as they will have alienated just about every man with this nauseating inconsiderate "my body" attitude along with hundreds of thousands of women. They are only shooting themselves in the foot

Fred Swanson · 12-06-2015 08:32PM

This post has been deleted.

am946745 · 12-06-2015 08:33PM

Brancott wrote: »

I see the 2014 figures are up slightly for Irish women having abortions in the UK.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/increase-in-number-of-irish-travelling-to-uk-for-abortions-1.2242750

Of course what these figures haven't account for is the amount of women who purchase abortion pills online & successfully get them passed customs.

The effect of cheap air travel has also meant that the UK is no longer an exclusive destination for this procedure.

The true figure is probably then much higher than the 3,735 quoted, perhaps even a multiple of it.

Not lets be Irish about this & pretend it doesn't exist then bury our heads in the sand.

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.

This right to life protected you (if you are irish) and me.. And everyone born in the republic.

Lets not bury our heads.. We currently have 4% rate, compared to UK 15%.. Removing the right to life would bring up our rates inline with UK. Marie Stopes pays its CEO 500K, he is an ex marketer. Then don't pay him to run a charity, they want a return.

So if we had abortion like the UK we would have MORE abortions.

The abortion industry does not care about the after effects and we the tax payers are left to pick up the pieces of women who suffer PAS.

The Golden Miller · 12-06-2015 08:35PM

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

A vote to liberalise the law in regards to FFA and rape victims etc would win. Not on abortion in general. Very few support that from any opinions polls I've seen

Samaris · 12-06-2015 08:44PM

I have tried to make it as clear as possible that I understand where the pro-male consent side is coming from, and even the pro-life side. Yis can take that or not as yis will, I am only one person with an opinion

.

But it would be nice to think that any of this conversation has gotten through as regards the gender issues in our society to do with family and raising children has affected BOTH genders negatively, and we do need to sort that out.

12-06-2015 09:24PM

The Golden Miller wrote: »

It really is impossible to rationally debate with these types, which is why I got a be flippant towards the end. From the first message I posted in this thread, every single one of my posts has been taken out of context and misrepresented and accusations have been thrown left right and center about stuff I never said e.g when I said a man should have to consent to an abortion, there were accusations of me supporting a mans right to control every aspect of a woman's life and keep her as a second class citizens. Disingenuous hysterical hyperbole nonsense

If this is a sign of things to come from the pro-choice campaigners if another referendum comes about, they don't have a hope in hell of winning as they will have alienated just about every man with this nauseating inconsiderate "my body" attitude along with hundreds of thousands of women. They are only shooting themselves in the foot

Poor nacho was just trying to clarify their post

lazygal · 12-06-2015 10:07PM

am946745 wrote: »

This right to life protected you (if you are irish) and me.. And everyone born in the republic.

Lets not bury our heads.. We currently have 4% rate, compared to UK 15%.. Removing the right to life would bring up our rates inline with UK. Marie Stopes pays its CEO 500K, he is an ex marketer. Then don't pay him to run a charity, they want a return.

So if we had abortion like the UK we would have MORE abortions.

The abortion industry does not care about the after effects and we the tax payers are left to pick up the pieces of women who suffer PAS.

You make it sound like every woman pregnant since 1983 only stayed pregnant because of the eighth amendment. I was born in 1981. How does the eighth amendment protect me, as a women who's now having children of her own? Do you think women should be prevented leaving Ireland to access abortion?

inocybe · 12-06-2015 10:43PM

am946745 wrote: »

Lets not bury our heads.. We currently have 4% rate, compared to UK 15%.. Removing the right to life would bring up our rates inline with UK. Marie Stopes pays its CEO 500K, he is an ex marketer. Then don't pay him to run a charity, they want a return.

So if we had abortion like the UK we would have MORE abortions.

So you believe that 9% of pregnancies are unwanted but those women don't seek abortions because of the 8th amendment. Poor kids.

K-9 · 13-06-2015 04:10PM

am946745 wrote: »

This right to life protected you (if you are irish) and me.. And everyone born in the republic.

Lets not bury our heads.. We currently have 4% rate, compared to UK 15%.. Removing the right to life would bring up our rates inline with UK. Marie Stopes pays its CEO 500K, he is an ex marketer. Then don't pay him to run a charity, they want a return.

So if we had abortion like the UK we would have MORE abortions.

The abortion industry does not care about the after effects and we the tax payers are left to pick up the pieces of women who suffer PAS.

The abortion rate reduces after introduction in the vast majority of European countries, logically you should be for it. The UK tends to be the exception to the rule so why focus on it? I suppose its the proof for the irrational fear.

We've a much different culture when it comes to abortion than the UK.

Samaris · 13-06-2015 04:13PM

K-9 wrote: »

The abortion rate reduces after introduction in the vast majority of European countries, logically you should be for it. The UK tends to be the exception to the rule so why focus on it? I suppose its the proof for the irrational fear.

We've a much different culture when it comes to abortion than the UK.

You know, if we stop sending people over there, and essentially adding the abortion rate of another country onto theirs, it may just be that their rate will decrease!

NachoBusiness · 13-06-2015 05:01PM

inocybe wrote: »

Poor kids.

Poor alive kids.

Pumpkinseeds · 13-06-2015 05:14PM

am946745 wrote: »

This right to life protected you (if you are irish) and me.. And everyone born in the republic.

Lets not bury our heads.. We currently have 4% rate, compared to UK 15%.. Removing the right to life would bring up our rates inline with UK. Marie Stopes pays its CEO 500K, he is an ex marketer. Then don't pay him to run a charity, they want a return.

So if we had abortion like the UK we would have MORE abortions.

The abortion industry does not care about the after effects and we the tax payers are left to pick up the pieces of women who suffer PAS.

Eh, most well known charities employ skilled business/marketing people to run the charity. Do you not understnd that all charities are in the business of making money

It's how they can afford to be charitable.

NachoBusiness · 13-06-2015 07:50PM

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

Eh, most well known charities employ skilled business/marketing people to run the charity. Do you not understnd that all charities are in the business of making money It's how they can afford to be charitable.

Ha, when I posted a link to WomenHurt.ie it was dismissed off as being nothing but an advertisment. Would seem it's only okay to spend money on a message which the 'It's a woman's body, she should be able to do as likes' crowd agree with. Heaven forbid a group spends money who are pro life. The bastards.

Pumpkinseeds · 13-06-2015 07:59PM

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Ha, when I posted a link to WomenHurt.ie it was dismissed off as being nothing but an advertisment. Would seem it's only okay to spend money on a message which the 'It's a woman's body, she should be able to do as likes' crowd agree with. Heaven forbid a group spends money who are pro life. The bastards.

:rolleyes:

Cold War Kid · 13-06-2015 08:28PM

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

:rolleyes:

I don't see anything wrong with what they said. I may not agree all the time with those who are pro-life, particularly the extremists, but they're not all extremists, and they deserve a voice also.

Pumpkinseeds · 13-06-2015 08:46PM

Cold War Kid wrote: »

I don't see anything wrong with what they said. I may not agree all the time with those who are pro-life, particularly the extremists, but they're not all extremists, and they deserve a voice also.

For me it's very simple, as a woman I don't believe that anyone should have the right to have any say in what I choose to do with my body, which is how most women feel. That makes me pro choice. Pro life people want to prevent other women from being able to terminate a pregnancy because it goes against there religious or moral beliefs. Abortion is a personal decision and should have nothing to do with anyone elses moral or religious beliefs, in my opinion. It's an extremely emotive topic and tempers flare.

NachoBusiness · 13-06-2015 10:45PM

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

For me it's very simple, as a woman I don't believe that anyone should have the right to have any say in what I choose to do with my body,

It's the body that would be growing inside you that would concern me and others. What's with all this my body nonsense. Don't you get that yet? Nobody would care what you chose to do with *your body* once it didn't endanger the life of the one growing inside you. A woman is not her child. It's also a bit rich for some women to say "it's my body, I get to choose" when at the very same time they are considering making a life or death choice to destroy the body of their child living within them.

Penny Tration · 13-06-2015 10:52PM

NachoBusiness wrote: »

It's the body that would be growing inside you that would concern me and others. What's with all this my body nonsense. Don't you get that yet? Nobody would care what you chose to do with *your body* once it didn't endanger the life of the one growing inside you. A woman is not her child. It's also a bit rich for some women to say "it's my body, I get to choose" when at the very same time they are considering making a life or death choice to destroy the body of their child living within them.

It's a foetus. Not a child. Emotive bollocks.

As for all the posts in this thread (not by you,nacho, I'm speaking generally), about taking responsibility for an unwanted pregnancy -

I will. I will have an abortion. Simple really.

14-06-2015 12:09AM

Jenny Thalia wrote: »

It's a foetus. Not a child. Emotive bollocks.

They are one in the same, this is just bollocks used to try to justify a pro abortion stance.

Abortions for 3,735, minature flags for nobody

Comments