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…2122242627…31

Comments

  • #692
    traprunner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,887 ✭✭✭traprunner


    Yadiel Nutritious Apartment wrote: »
    They are one in the same, this is just bollocks used to try to justify a pro abortion stance.

    :confused:

    So why is it not called a foetus once it's born?


  • #693
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 24,774 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    traprunner wrote: »
    :confused:

    So why is it not called a foetus once it's born?

    Why is it not called an adult when its born, different life stage is the answer.


  • #694
    traprunner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,887 ✭✭✭traprunner


    Yadiel Nutritious Apartment wrote: »
    Why is it not called an adult when its born, different life stage is the answer.

    Then why can't a foetus get government issued ID? Anyone that is born can.


  • #695
    RDM_83 again
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,116 ✭✭✭RDM_83 again


    Samaris wrote: »
    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!

    You see this is the easy thanks whoring bollocks that i despise about these threads, whats the uk rate AFAIK its 190,00 to 200,000 the figure posted that people agree with is 3800, Its about a 0.2 percent, anybody that actually has an interest in this topic knows this but its considered a valid point :-\


  • #696
    RDM_83 again
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,116 ✭✭✭RDM_83 again


    Jenny Thalia wrote: »
    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.

    All fetus means is that its unborn and after aprox 8-10 weeks, If your claiming the logical unemotive grounds what does severing the umbilical cord and passing through a vagina actually change about the entity(fetus/baby/person/parasite) that exists, either after a certain point a fetus has confirmed humanity or it doesn't, whats the rational difference between a 29 week old baby and a 29 week year old fetus in terms of the entity itself ?


  • Advertisement
  • #697
    NachoBusiness
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,389 ✭✭✭NachoBusiness


    Jenny Thalia wrote: »
    It's a foetus. Not a child. Emotive bollocks.

    It's not emotive bollox. Emotive, sure, but it's not as if your side of the discussion hasn't attempted to pull on a few heartstrings yourselves now is it.

    I am against second trimester abortions and as far as I am concerned, and I would say the vast majority of planet Earth are concerned: second trimester human offspring can and often are rightly referred to as either a child or a baby. I believe that if people such as yourself were as comfortable with second trimester abortions as you pretend to be, then people referring to the four to six month old fetus as a baby or child would not bother you in the slightest. I believe it bothers you as it means you have to deal with the reality of what abortion is when those words are used.

    As far as I can remember I have heard adults around me say a woman was "with child" when she was pregnant. I have heard friends say they felt their baby kick. I attended an 15 or 16 week ultrasound once and the nurse said to the mother: 'Look, there's your baby's face'. So please don't tell me I am posting "emotive bollox" just because I am using words that you and others would prefer I didn't.

    I read Phil Lynott's mother's autobiography many years ago and her story mimicked many of my own relative's stories. Alone in England, falls pregnant and abortion is the only choice as coming back to Ireland pregnant as a single woman was impossible back then, and life as single mother in England itself was no picnic either. Especially so for an unmarried white girl with a black child. She tried a self induced abortion by following the infamous wive's tale of drinking quinine with Gin and said she would have had an abortion had she been able to afford one. So, Phil was born and after a few years she sent him home to live with her mother in Dublin as she couldn't afford to look after him in England. Why am saying all this? To show that I get that things can be hard for some women but this is 2015. We live in a welfare state. This is not the 1950s nor even the 1970s. *Some* of the reasons for why women are having late term (four month to six month) abortions these days are disgraceful and I feel the cries of women saying it's their body and they will do want they want, do a great disservice to women that genuinely had no other option down the years but to have an abortion.


  • #698
    lazygal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    ChristianBale wrote: »
    I think your over the top defensiveness reveals that deep down you know it's wrong and selfish to abort a fetus during the 2nd or 3rd trimester.
    So no abortion for fatal abnormalities or when a woman will die as a result of pregnancy then?


  • #699
    lazygal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    ChristianBale wrote: »
    I agree with abortion in those circumstances , why wouldn't I?

    You said it was selfish and wrong to.have abortions after the first trimester. Do you know why later.term abortion is usually carried out?


  • #700
    lazygal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    ChristianBale wrote: »
    In normal circumstance it is immoral and selfish in my opinion.

    What's a normal circumstance for having an abortion after 12 weeks gestation?


  • #701
    lazygal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    ChristianBale wrote: »
    When I say normal I refer to none of the scenarios you pointed out.

    So what is a normal reason for.having an abortion? Which scenarios are you referring to? And why is it selfish and immoral to have an abortion after 12 weeks gestation but not before then?


  • Advertisement
  • #702
    Penny Tration
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,687 ✭✭✭✭Penny Tration


    ChristianBale wrote: »
    I think your over the top defensiveness reveals that deep down you know it's wrong and selfish to abort a fetus during the 2nd or 3rd trimester.

    Lol, I know it's wrong? Nope.

    I disagree with abortions past 24 weeks, except in FFA cases, and I personally would not have one past 16 weeks.

    I still don't agree with it being called a child in this instance.

    Those who call it a baby or a child when pregnant are those who WANT the end product of the pregnancy, so leave them to it.


  • #703
    lazygal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    ChristianBale wrote: »
    For a start the longer the pregnancy goes on the closer the fetus gets to feeling pain and suffering. it is selfish and immoral because you are essentially placing more value on your own convenience than the life of the unborn child. A life form which you had control over creating. A lifeforms which had no say in the matter, it didn't ask to be created. The mother had a choice, the unborn child did not.

    So, just to be clear, you've no problem calling women who kill the unborn selfish and immoral but only if they have an abortion for reason of normal circumstance.after 12 weeks. Nice to hear a pro choice view. And what is the relevance of convenience? Have you been pregnant and had a baby? It's nine months of major inconvenience and afterward isn't a walk in the park either. But at least women who.might die or get to abort before 12 weeks aren't being selfish and immoral.


  • #704
    traprunner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,887 ✭✭✭traprunner


    ChristianBale wrote: »
    Convenience is relevant to the moral question being debated.

    I'm male, therefore I haven't been pregnant.

    The unborn child should not be a disposable entity in my opinion, it is immoral.

    How would you feel if you couldn't get the snip, circumcision, piercing, tattoo or even an arm amputated if needed or wanted because a woman said you can't?

    It still seems to be a lot of men trying to control women. Every where I meet people who are pro-whatMayBePotentialLife the vast majority are men.


  • #705
    Penny Tration
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,687 ✭✭✭✭Penny Tration


    ChristianBale wrote: »
    Why is it men saying women can't have abortions? It's not, it's law.

    It's law that was decided upon by people who, at this point in time, will never have to face an unwanted pregnancy.

    People who DO risk facing one at this present time, should get a say.


  • #706
    lazygal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    ChristianBale wrote: »
    Convenience is relevant to the moral question being debated.

    I'm male, therefore I haven't been pregnant.

    The unborn child should not be a disposable entity in my opinion, it is immoral.
    But it's ok to.dispose of the unborn before 12 weeks gestation, where there's a ffa or where the woman might die.


  • #707
    Penny Tration
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,687 ✭✭✭✭Penny Tration


    ChristianBale wrote: »
    The people who made murder illegal will never have to face being murdered either.

    Yes, but that has nothing to do with abortion.


  • #708
    traprunner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,887 ✭✭✭traprunner


    ChristianBale wrote: »
    Why is it men saying women can't have abortions? It's not, it's law.

    Most of the people against the 8th amendment appear to be men. That was my point. However you didn't answer my question about if women tried to control you and how you would feel!


  • #709
    NI24
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 641 ✭✭✭NI24


    traprunner wrote: »
    How would you feel if you couldn't get the snip, circumcision, piercing, tattoo or even an arm amputated if needed or wanted because a woman said you can't?

    It still seems to be a lot of men trying to control women. Every where I meet people who are pro-whatMayBePotentialLife the vast majority are men.

    With all due respect Trap, I don't think this is an accurate comparison. As far as I know, women are allowed to get their tubes tied, or their private parts "rejuvenated" without male consent. When a fetus, or unborn child is involved, however, things get a little trickier.

    Furthermore, are you really sure it's a majority of men who are pro-Life? Whenever I see demonstrations on TV, there are just as many women in the crowds as men.


  • #710
    eviltwin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    NI24 wrote: »
    With all due respect Trap, I don't think this is an accurate comparison. As far as I know, women are allowed to get their tubes tied, or their private parts "rejuvenated" without male consent. When a fetus, or unborn child is involved, however, things get a little trickier.

    Furthermore, are you really sure it's a majority of men who are pro-Life? Whenever I see demonstrations on TV, there are just as many women in the crowds as men.

    Most of the worst aspects of the pro life movement are female.


  • #711
    NachoBusiness
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,389 ✭✭✭NachoBusiness


    traprunner wrote: »
    How would you feel if you couldn't get the snip, circumcision, piercing, tattoo or even an arm amputated if needed or wanted because a woman said you can't?

    It still seems to be a lot of men trying to control women. Every where I meet people who are pro-whatMayBePotentialLife the vast majority are men.

    What an absurd analogy. Quit playing the martyr. Men are not trying to control women. Stop listening to feminists. Were women banned from voting in the last referendum or something? This attitude just shows how out of touch many women are on this issue with regards to why people have an problem with abortions taking place and no doubt the next time we have a referendum on the issue we will have to put up with nonsense arguments like the above on an hourly basis.


  • Advertisement
  • #712
    Bubbaclaus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,460 ✭✭✭Bubbaclaus


    A "pro-lifer" came up to me before asking me to sign some petition of some sort. I asked her who's life was she pro. She didn't appreciate the question.


  • #713
    NachoBusiness
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,389 ✭✭✭NachoBusiness


    lazygal wrote: »
    Have you been pregnant and had a baby? It's nine months of major inconvenience and afterward isn't a walk in the park either.]

    Nothing in life is a walk in the park. It's life, but at least you have one and someone didn't abort you. It's a major inconvenience to have your life ended when you are two thirds way through your development. When you can move your arms, legs and respond to outside stimuli. It's a major inconvenience to have your heartbeat stopped.

    Were I living in the UK with my 22 week gone pregnant girlfriend, and we both wanted to end the pregnancy and on the way to the abortion clinic she goes into labour and the baby gets hooked up to an incubator, we could not get the doctors to let that baby die. If I took the baby out of incubator, I would be done for murder. Yet, the abortionist who would take life from that baby at the very stage had my g/f not gone into labour, would not. Why? Why is the life of developing human babies only recognized if and when they are lucky enough to be born premature and if not, to hell with them. It's wrong. It's sickening and late term abortions should be illegal.

    Again, I am speaking only of nontherapeutic abortions.


  • #714
    rainbow kirby
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,928 ✭✭✭✭rainbow kirby


    ^ No hospital will resuscitate at 19 weeks, considering that the earliest known surving premature baby was born at 21 weeks, and survival at 23 weeks or earlier is very rare.


  • #715
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,313 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    traprunner wrote: »
    How would you feel if you couldn't get the snip, circumcision, piercing, tattoo or even an arm amputated if needed or wanted because a woman said you can't?

    It still seems to be a lot of men trying to control women. Every where I meet people who are pro-whatMayBePotentialLife the vast majority are men.

    It isn't a subject that comes up often with me, can't remember getting asked recently, like in the last 20 years anyway.


    Often people will just agree, or say nothing in particular to the more ardent people on both sides of the debate. The polite and safest thing to do!

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • #716
    volchitsa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,185 ✭✭✭✭volchitsa


    NachoBusiness wrote: »
    Nothing in life is a walk in the park. It's life, but at least you have one and someone didn't abort you. It's a major inconvenience to have your life ended when you are two thirds way through your development. When you can move your arms, legs and respond to outside stimuli. It's a major inconvenience to have your heartbeat stopped.

    Were I living in the UK with my 19 week gone pregnant girlfriend, and we both wanted to end the pregnancy and on the way to the abortion clinic she goes into labour and the baby gets hooked up to an incubator, we could not get the doctors to let that baby die. If I took the baby out of incubator, I would be done for murder. Yet, the abortionist who would take life from that baby at the very stage had my g/f not gone into labour, would not. Why? Why is the life of developing human babies only recognized if and when they are lucky enough to be born premature and if not, to hell with them. It's wrong. It's sickening and late term abortions should be illegal.

    Again, I am speaking only of nontherapeutic abortions.

    This is complete nonsense. First. A newborn baby is far from fully developed, so a 15 or even 19 week fetus is nowhere near 1/2 way to full development, never mind 2/3 as you claim.

    Second, even in Ireland, babies born below 23 weeks are not usually resuscitated against the will of their parents, precisely because of the very poor outlook such babies face. And afaik there are no confirmed cases of 19 week babies surviving for very long anywhere. Many of the very premature babies who do survive (generally with some degree of disability) are often ones whose term was unsure, because the mother got little or no prenatal care.

    "If a woman cannot stand in a public space and say, without fear of consequences, that men cannot be women, then women have no rights at all." Helen Joyce



  • #717
    Pumpkinseeds
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,635 ✭✭✭Pumpkinseeds


    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.

    There you go again, that kind of logic may need some kind of professional counselling. It's creepy that you believe that women should be forced to take second place to a foetus. Typical of pro life people that they don't give a crap about the suffering of a woman so long as she's forced to have a baby she doesn't want. Of course the flip side of that is that most pro lifers don't actually give a fcuk what kind of life that child will have once it's born. But hey, every life matters right. ;)


  • #718
    Penny Tration
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,687 ✭✭✭✭Penny Tration


    ChristianBale wrote: »
    I'm already being put under control by your definitions, the state won't allow me to kill myself.

    There isn't a single government body who could stop you if you chose to kill yourself right now.

    It is illegal to travel for the purposes of euthanasia.

    It is not illegal to take a blade to your wrists, put a noose around your neck, take 50 paracetamol washed down with whiskey, etc.


  • #719
    NachoBusiness
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,389 ✭✭✭NachoBusiness


    volchitsa wrote: »
    This is complete nonsense. First. A newborn baby is far from fully developed, so a 15 or even 19 week fetus is nowhere near 1/2 way to full development, never mind 2/3 as you claim.
    24 weeks is the legal limit in the UK. That's pretty damn close to two thirds in anyone's book.
    Second, even in Ireland, babies born below 23 weeks are not usually resuscitated against the will of their parents, precisely because of the very poor outlook such babies face. And afaik there are no confirmed cases of 19 week babies surviving for very long anywhere. Many of the very premature babies who do survive (generally with some degree of disability) are often ones whose term was unsure, because the mother got little or no prenatal care.

    You have totally avoided the point I was making, so I will make it again.

    Babies have survived in the UK at 22 weeks and so I'll will make my point again, maybe you could address it:
    NachoBusiness wrote: »
    Were I living in the UK with my 22 week gone pregnant girlfriend, and we both wanted to end the pregnancy and on the way to the abortion clinic she goes into labour and the baby gets hooked up to an incubator, we could not get the doctors to let that baby die. If I took the baby out of incubator, I would be done for murder. Yet, the abortionist who would take life from that baby at the very same stage, would not. Why? Why is the life of developing human babies only recognized if and when they are lucky enough to be born premature and if not, to hell with them.


  • #720
    NachoBusiness
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,389 ✭✭✭NachoBusiness


    Pumpkinseeds wrote: »
    There you go again, that kind of logic may need some kind of professional counselling. It's creepy that you believe that women should be forced to take second place to a foetus.

    I have stated many times now that I believe in, and would vote for, therapeutic abortions and so can you please point out where I have said a woman should take "second place to a fetus". Her lifestyle, sure but not her.
    Typical of pro life people that they don't give a crap about the suffering of a woman so long as she's forced to have a baby she doesn't want. Of course the flip side of that is that most pro lifers don't actually give a fcuk what kind of life that child will have once it's born. But hey, every life matters right. ;)

    So, I don't care about the life of living children now?

    Oh and I don't think pro lifers would appreciate you referring to me one, as I support first trimester abortions.


  • Advertisement
  • #721
    Penny Tration
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,687 ✭✭✭✭Penny Tration


    ChristianBale wrote: »
    There isn't a single government body who could stop a woman from hitting herself repeatedly in the stomach until the fetus dies or ingesting enough chemicals to kill the fetus.

    Which has what exactly to do with you claiming the government stop you from committing suicide?


Advertisement