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…2526272931

Comments

  • #842
    hynesie08
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,439 ✭✭✭✭hynesie08


    NachoBusiness wrote: »
    Oh for God sake. So a man daren't have an opinion on a topic where child birth is part of it, cause he hasn't given birth. That's up there with there with 'You're not even a parent, so shut up' "argument" that is often reached for by the barrel scrapers.

    Well, no. A man shouldn't have an opinion on a level of pain he can't physically experience, just like women shouldn't be able to tell us getting kicked in the bollocks isn't that bad.


  • #843
    eviltwin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    NachoBusiness wrote: »
    Oh for God sake. So a man daren't have an opinion on a topic where child birth is part of it, cause he hasn't given birth. That's up there with there with 'You're not even a parent, so shut up' "argument" that is often reached for by the barrel scrapers.



    So, any women can abort a child days before it's due, bury it in the back garden and as far as you're concerned, they should not get charged with anything.

    Unbelievable, truly.

    Yes, that is exactly what I said isn't it. :rolleyes:


  • #844
    OneOfThem
    Closed Accounts Posts: 667 ✭✭✭OneOfThem


    I think that in the very limited circumstance that a woman has deliberately gotten pregnant, against the guy she was sleeping with's wishes, where there is evidence that's the case, then a man should be able to request an abortion, and the state should enforce it, if the evidence is there. It'd be a rare enough occurrence that there'd be evidence I'd say, but it's happened.

    What's everyone think of that? It's just not something I've seen come up before in this whole conversation. So would be curious of the views in relation to it.


  • #845
    inocybe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 505 ✭✭✭inocybe


    OneOfThem wrote: »
    I think that in the very limited circumstance that a woman has deliberately gotten pregnant, against the guy she was sleeping with's wishes, where there is evidence that's the case, then a man should be able to request an abortion, and the state should enforce it, if the evidence is there. It'd be a rare enough occurrence that there'd be evidence I'd say, but it's happened.

    What's everyone think of that? It's just not something I've seen come up before in this whole conversation. So would be curious of the views in relation to it.

    which state?
    eta seeing as abortion in almost every situation is illegal in Ireland


  • #846
    OneOfThem
    Closed Accounts Posts: 667 ✭✭✭OneOfThem


    inocybe wrote: »
    which state?

    Irish. Or whatever state it occurs in I guess. Let's call it a global rule, for the sake of the hypothetical.


  • Advertisement
  • #847
    NachoBusiness
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,389 ✭✭✭NachoBusiness


    eviltwin wrote: »
    Yes, that is exactly what I said isn't it. :rolleyes:

    Essentially, yes it is.

    Look, you won't even answer the question I put to without changing aspects of it. Why, may I ask you, are you even assuming that the woman would be willing to have an induced labour, let alone actually wants one. I mean, haven't we heard on this thread a dozen times or more now that giving a child up is not an easy thing for a woman to do. So, for the last time, and we respect, I would appreciate it if you would answer the question (which has been now amended to avoid further pedantic loophole exploitation):

    Okay, forget Sarah Catt. Let's just say a woman in the UK wanted to abort her child at 29 weeks, abortion clinic refuses her and so the woman goes online to look for an illegal abortionist which she cannot find. She finds a hospital willing to induce the baby but she does not want this and so instead buys drugs with intent to procure a miscarriage. Two weeks before she is due to give birth she takes them, the baby dies and is stillborn. This woman has no mental health issues, she's just 'cold and calculating' and just didn't want to have the child. Now.. do you feel what this women did should be legal or illegal?


  • #848
    Not a NSA agent
    Closed Accounts Posts: 781 ✭✭✭Not a NSA agent


    lazygal wrote: »
    Once I had my children, I was and am not under any obligation to undergo any medical treatment to preserve their right to life. Why am I not obliged to donate blood or organs to those who's right to life is under threat?
    And before someone says 'but you have to feed and cloth and take care of them', I'm typing this with one hand as I breastfeed my nearly two year old. Incidentally, I wasn't legally obliged to breastfeed, even though it is best as a form of nutrition until two years of age.

    It is an odd one, you can consent to donate a kidney but at the last minute change your mind but when it comes to pregnancy your health becomes secondary to another's life. Of course you get the people who say you knew the risks when you had sex but we still treat people who were in car accidents instead of telling them they shouldnt have been driving if they didnt want to risk crashing.


  • #849
    NachoBusiness
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,389 ✭✭✭NachoBusiness


    hynesie08 wrote: »
    Well, no. A man shouldn't have an opinion on a level of pain he can't physically experience, just like women shouldn't be able to tell us getting kicked in the bollocks isn't that bad.

    Oh right, so if a woman was about to kick a guy in the nuts and he took out a gun and blew her brains out.. no women should have an opinion on whether doing him doing that was disproportionate or not because: a woman "shouldn't have an opinion on a level of pain she can't physically experience".

    Yeah, I can see that going down well in the: Man Shoots Chick In The Face thread :pac:


  • #850
    hynesie08
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,439 ✭✭✭✭hynesie08


    NachoBusiness wrote: »
    Oh right, so if a woman was about to kick a guy in the nuts and he took out a gun and blew her brains out.. no women should have an opinion on whether doing him doing that was disproportionate or not because: a woman "shouldn't have an opinion on a level of pain she can't physically experience".

    Yeah, I can see that going down well in the: Man Shoots Chick In The Face thread :pac:

    Yep, Exactly, That is exactly what i said. You should quote me again and go off on another tangent to reply to a point no-one made.


  • #851
    NachoBusiness
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,389 ✭✭✭NachoBusiness


    inocybe wrote: »
    She obviously has psychological problems and should be helped..

    Why? All she did was abort a fetus.

    Who are you to say she has psychological problems and needs help?

    A woman should have the right to do whatever she wants with her body.


  • Advertisement
  • #852
    NachoBusiness
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,389 ✭✭✭NachoBusiness


    hynesie08 wrote: »
    Yep, Exactly, That is exactly what i said. You should quote me again and go off on another tangent to reply to a point no-one made.

    I never said it was what you said. I made an analogy based on it.

    Do you know the difference. Here is your idiotic comment again:
    hynesie08 wrote: »
    A man shouldn't have an opinion on a level of pain he can't physically experience, just like women shouldn't be able to tell us getting kicked in the bollocks isn't that bad.

    I like to cut to the truth so let's just be honest about what you meant with the above: You were saying that no man should ever say that the pain / problems associated with pregnancy are not so bad that they should excuse a woman choosing to have an abortion in avoidance of them, as he has never experienced that pain and so: how the fcuk would he know. Right?

    Well, my analogy was taking the Michael out of that by suggesting that if some guy shot a woman in the face (the woman is the aborted child in case you hadn't worked it out) just to avoid getting kicked in the nuts, and some women jumped on the thread that was started to discuss it, saying the man overreacted, it would go down like a fcuking lead balloon if they were all told: women "shouldn't have an opinion on a level of pain she can't physically experience".


  • #853
    osarusan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,926 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    NachoBusiness wrote: »
    So, any women can abort a child days before it's due, bury it in the back garden and as far as you're concerned, they should not get charged with anything.

    Unbelievable, truly.

    Did you graduate from the university of strawman arguments?


  • #854
    hynesie08
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,439 ✭✭✭✭hynesie08


    NachoBusiness wrote: »
    I never said it was what you said. I made an analogy based on it.

    Do you know the difference. Here is your idiotic comment again:



    I like to cut to the truth so let's just be honest about what you meant with the above: You were saying that no man should ever say that the pain / problems associated with pregnancy are not so bad that they should excuse a woman choosing to have an abortion in avoidance of them, as he has never experienced that pain and so: how the fcuk would he know. Right?

    Completely wrong, the post we're all responding to in this go round was a poster saying that because his wife didn't have a bad pregnancy that no pregnancy is bad, my response was to that and nothing else. Sorry that you couldn't figure that out. But going by your terrible analogy, if someone said "getting shot in the face isn't that bad, i know someone who got shot in the face and they were grand." i would think that that too was an idiotic statement they had no right to make.

    Clear enough or are you gonna wanna come up with some terrible analogy and then claim i said i wanted to drown puppies?


  • #855
    inocybe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 505 ✭✭✭inocybe


    NachoBusiness wrote: »
    Why? All she did was abort a fetus.

    Who are you to say she has psychological problems and needs help?

    A woman should have the right to do whatever she wants with her body.

    So glad we agree on your last sentence!
    She hid the body of her stillborn baby, which isn't exactly the action of a rational person.


  • #856
    Patrick Wheelock
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 138 ✭✭Patrick Wheelock


    Virgil° wrote: »
    I'm quoting this from another source but I've yet to see a decent response to it. Apologies if its been brought up before.
    I actually would love to see a good well thought out response to this.

    "You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. [If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but] in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you"

    Should you be allowed unplug yourself from this person? Or should you be legally forced to provide this person with use of your body for 9 months?
    Now, its a thought experiment. The main point of which is to show that a person is never obligated to relinquish bodily autonomy to another person for any reason. The pro-life position here grants MORE rights to the unborn child than any other person. Why should this be the case?

    I don't wanna hear that it was the mothers choice. Because as we know this isn't always the case. I'll also not be responding to any of the "Stop murdering innocent ikkle Baybees" types.

    Yes, you should be allowed unplug yourself from the violinist.

    You don't gave any connection to him / her.

    He is not your offspring [the foetus inside you will be].


  • #857
    volchitsa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,185 ✭✭✭✭volchitsa


    Patrick Wheelock wrote: »
    Yes, you should be allowed unplug yourself from the violinist.

    You don't gave any connection to him / her.

    He is not your offspring [the foetus inside you will be].
    So not about right to life but about family responsibility?

    So what if the violinist was your brother? You have a very close connection there.

    Or is it only one's child?

    "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



  • #858
    NachoBusiness
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,389 ✭✭✭NachoBusiness


    inocybe wrote: »
    So glad we agree on your last sentence!
    She hid the body of her stillborn baby, which isn't exactly the action of a rational person.

    Of course it's a very rational thing to do.. when you don't want to get caught ;)

    She went on holidays the next day by the way.
    hynesie08 wrote: »
    Completely wrong, the post we're all responding to in this go round was a poster saying that because his wife didn't have a bad pregnancy that no pregnancy is bad, my response was to that and nothing else. Sorry that you couldn't figure that out. But going by your terrible analogy, if someone said "getting shot in the face isn't that bad, i know someone who got shot in the face and they were grand." i would think that that too was an idiotic statement they had no right to make.

    We are not talking about mere hearsay though. We are talking about members of the man's family. I have to say I also don't recognize many of these horror stories of pregnancy and I have known dozens of women who have had many children. I mean sure, it's not always a walk in the park, women die in childbirth in this country, know a chap who lost his mother that way, but it's rare. This isn't sub saharan Africa, the UK must be one of the safest places in the world to have a child and so, the man has a point with what he said, and so saying: "A man shouldn't have an opinion on a level of pain he can't physically experience" is nonsense. Absurd nonsense.


  • #859
    lazygal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    NachoBusiness wrote: »
    It's a very rational thing to do, when you don't want to get caught.

    She went on holidays the next day.



    We are not talking about mere hearsay though. We are talking about members of the man's family. I have to say I also don't recognize many of these horror stories of pregnancy and I have known dozens of women who have had many children. I mean sure, it's not always a walk in the park, women die in childbirth but it's rare. This isn't sub saharan Africa, the UK must be one of the safest places in the world to have a child and so, the man has a point and so saying: "A man shouldn't have an opinion on a level of pain he can't physically experience" is nonsense. Absurd nonsense.

    Not dying during or after birth is a pretty low bar. I had issues with my bladder after my first section that had to be operated on during my second. I know loads of women who had third degree tears, leading to on going issues with urination and sexual intercourse. Then there's mastitis, spd during pregnancy, constant vomiting leading to teeth issues and the mental health aspects such as post natal depression. The thing is, very often the attitude is "well your baby is fine so you've nothing to complain about" so I can see why women don't share the negative elements of pregnancy and birth because it sounds like once the baby is relatively ok the woman should just get on with it, going by a lot of posts here. Until I was pregnant and gave birth I was ambivalent about reproductive rights. Being pregnant in Ireland has definitely made me sit up and try to change things, as well as donate to abortion services.


  • #860
    Patrick Wheelock
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 138 ✭✭Patrick Wheelock


    volchitsa wrote: »
    So not about right to life but about family responsibility?

    So what if the violinist was your brother? You have a very close connection there.

    Or is it only one's child?

    Different if the violinist is one's brother. I'd feel compelled to help, not sure about you.

    Does anybody have any sources for this sort of thing happening? If so, is it a regular occurrence?

    Or is the purpose of the argument to muddy the waters? When it comes down to it, the vast majority of abortions are not from rape, incest, threat of suicide or FFAs. It's easy use the hard cases to make your argument but maybe they could be set aside for once - and people just admit that they want abortion on demand for any reason whatsoever.


  • #861
    volchitsa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,185 ✭✭✭✭volchitsa


    Patrick Wheelock wrote: »
    Different if the violinist is one's brother. I'd feel compelled to help, not sure about you.

    Does anybody have any sources for this sort of thing happening? If so, is it a regular occurrence?

    Or is the purpose of the argument to muddy the waters? When it comes down to it, the vast majority of abortions are not from rape, incest, threat of suicide or FFAs. It's easy use the hard cases to make your argument but maybe they could be set aside for once - and people just admit that they want abortion on demand for any reason whatsoever.
    it's a thought experiment, useful for clarifying one's ideas, and quite the opposite of something designed to muddy the waters.

    So it's your belief that it should be legally enforceable to make someone remain hooked up to another person for 9 months in order to save the other person's life, only so long as one has direct responsibility for that person's existence - right?

    So presumably you think parents should be legally (not just morally but legally) obliged to donate a kidney or bone marrow to any of their children who might need it? Is that much the same as the violinist scenario or not?

    "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



  • Advertisement
  • #862
    NachoBusiness
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,389 ✭✭✭NachoBusiness


    lazygal wrote: »
    I had issues with my bladder after my first section that had to be operated on during my second. I know loads of women who had third degree tears, leading to on going issues with urination and sexual intercourse. Then there's mastitis, spd during pregnancy, constant vomiting leading to teeth issues and the mental health aspects such as post natal depression. The thing is, very often the attitude is "well your baby is fine so you've nothing to complain about" so I can see why women don't share the negative elements of pregnancy and birth because it sounds like once the baby is relatively ok the woman should just get on with it, going by a lot of posts here. Until I was pregnant and gave birth I was ambivalent about reproductive rights. Being pregnant in Ireland has definitely made me sit up and try to change things, as well as donate to abortion services.

    I don't think anyone is denying that there is crap to be dealt with when having a kid. Where people, like myself, have a problem, is why should a baby lose their chance at life just because a woman would prefer to avoid having to deal with those issues. I would vote for first trimester abortions by the way (along also with pretty much all therapeutic abortions) and so I say this in context of being against second trimester abortions.. and beyond.

    You see, most sane women (and men) I feel, would not want Sarah Catt to get away with what she did. I don't believe for one second that any sane person believes that women should be able to abort their children whenever they want, at any stage of a pregnancy and if people were honest in the discussion, they would concede that and then we could move on to discussing what really needs to be discussed (in my view) and that is: at which point of a pregnancy does each individual (both men and women) believe that a woman should be legally able to avail of a non therapeutic abortion and at which point should she not be able to.

    That's why the whole 'It's a woman's body and it's up to her' is such a disingenuous argument as nobody truly believes in it. Otherwise women would have been on the streets marching for Sarah Catt. She would have been the poster child for pro choice movement, but yet, hardly anyone has really ever heard of her, and why? Well because the vast vast majority of pro choice crowd do not truly believe that a women should be able to abort her child mere days before it's due and support her being jailed. This also of course shows you that that the whole body autonomy nonsense has it's limits with them too as it's quite clear from the lack of an outcry that they have no problem with the authorities prosecuting women who abort their children, when it's as late as Sarah did at least, but no matter the rarity, as this one endorsement is enough to show that the core of what they say they believe in is.. inaccurate.


  • #863
    Patrick Wheelock
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 138 ✭✭Patrick Wheelock


    volchitsa wrote: »
    So it's your belief that it should be legally enforceable to make someone remain hooked up to another person for 9 months in order to save the other person's life, only so long as one has direct responsibility for that person's existence - right?

    I'd prefer to think of it as a moral obligation. Legal enforcement is impossible.

    A certain degree of prevention (restriction of abortion in Ireland) is the best that can be achieved.
    volchitsa wrote: »
    So presumably you think parents should be legally (not just morally but legally) obliged to donate a kidney or bone marrow to any of their children who might need it? Is that much the same as the violinist scenario or not?

    Again morally obliged - you can't force them.
    It's similar to the violinist scenario if the violinist is your brother or sister.

    I presume your answers to both questions are:

    No.
    No.

    ?


  • #864
    Patrick Wheelock
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 138 ✭✭Patrick Wheelock


    also

    The foetus should have the right not be killed. Pregnancy is ordinary and maintaining it is an ordinary way of saving the life of the foetus. It's natural for a foetus to be dependant on its mother.

    The violinist should not have the right not to die. Forcing somebody to donate an organ is an extraordinary measure. It's also a rare and very unlikely situation.


  • #865
    Cold War Kid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,353 ✭✭✭Cold War Kid


    di11on wrote: »
    I find views on and discussion of abortion a really curious societal phenomenon. For some reason, the logic employed is completely inconsistent with every other moral, legal and ethical discussion.
    Aye, it's a weird one indeed - one that brings out a kind of lack of empathy in those who are usually the most compassionate, and a compassion in those who can be the most lacking in empathy.

    I cannot agree with "It's my body, I can do what I like with it" - well at least after the 12-week mark - when it's not just her body, there is another life growing inside her. I hate the "It's my body" reasoning tbh. It is also someone else's child. I know it's the woman only who is carrying this life, but I still can't bring myself to discard the father completely.

    That said, I am pro-choice, but within reason.


  • #866
    NachoBusiness
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,389 ✭✭✭NachoBusiness


    Virgil° wrote: »
    "You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. [If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but] in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you"

    Fcuk the Violinist and fcuk The Society of Music Lovers.

    The ONLY way this story has any relevance to abortion is with regards to rape, and even then it's only a smidgen of relevance as the baby if born would be innocent whereas the Violinist is not, unless the kidnapping had nothing to do with him, in which case, fine but I would still leg it were I to wake and find the fcuker hooked up to me. Unless that is, they paid me to stay.

    However, this stupid story has ZERO relevance to pregnancies which result from consensual intercourse. The mother has not been kidnapped by the anyone, nor has she had a child implanted into her womb. She has in fact created it, as but for her actions, the child would not exist.

    How did this illogical and irrelevant story ever get so much attention in the first place I'll never know.


  • #867
    traprunner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,887 ✭✭✭traprunner


    Patrick Wheelock wrote: »
    I'd prefer to think of it as a moral obligation. Legal enforcement is impossible.

    A certain degree of prevention (restriction of abortion in Ireland) is the best that can be achieved.

    So all is good once we export the problem.


  • #868
    traprunner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,887 ✭✭✭traprunner


    Medallion of Kunt wrote: »
    I think it's good that people speak up for the rights of the foetus, the foetus has no voice to defend itself. it couldn't be more vulnerable.

    So a different scenario. Someone who is on life support with no chance of recovery. They can't communicate. Should we keep them connected to the machine forever?


  • #869
    Kev W
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,536 ✭✭✭Kev W


    Medallion of Kunt wrote: »
    If there is no chance and they are clinically braindead then I would say it's best to turn off the machine.

    You're leaving yourself wide open with that one.


  • #870
    volchitsa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,185 ✭✭✭✭volchitsa


    Patrick Wheelock wrote: »
    also

    The foetus should have the right not be killed.
    What - never? Under no circumstances? Or is it a fact that you agree it can sometimes be killed, but only for a reason that you agree with?

    In other words, do you accord the fetus the same interests and rights in life as you do the woman carrying it?

    If fewer than her, who gets to choose which reasons are sufficient for destroying the fetus? You? Why? Shouldnt the woman carrying it have more rights to decide, given that it's her body, her health and her life that's at stake?

    Secondly, why only the fetus? What about the embryo? Does it have as many rights as the fetus of fewer? And why not the sperm and the egg? Since the fetus gains its rights based on the child it is going to become, why should the fetus have more rights than the sperm it came from?
    Patrick Wheelock wrote: »
    Pregnancy is ordinary and maintaining it is an ordinary way of saving the life of the foetus. It's natural for a foetus to be dependant on its mother.

    So that's an argument about "nature" then. Well, heart transplants are completely abnormal, whereas cancer is normal. Yet we don't (though many religions did, initially, before yielding in the face of public demand) hesitate to intervene against what is "normal" there.

    Physiologically, pregnancy is definitely not normal: it imposes huge demands on the woman's body, metabolism etc. It can leave her disabled or even kill her.
    Patrick Wheelock wrote: »
    The violinist should not have the right not to die. Forcing somebody to donate an organ is an extraordinary measure. It's also a rare and very unlikely situation.
    Rare and unlikely is not the point, it's a thought experiment. The issue for you os to prove whether or not it's a comparable situation, not to prove it doesn't really happen. No-one imagines it does. In fact that's the point.

    Why is it so unimaginable to enforce removal of an organ, or to force one person to serve as life-support to another and yet, "because that's the way it's always been" it's perfectly reasonable to force a woman to have her health destroyed for a fetus she may not even have chosen to have inside her?

    And the "because it's natural" argument doesn't convince in a society where people have heart transplants or indeed plastic surgery for all sorts of reasons.

    So all that's left is "because it's a fetus". Well, and? What is a fetus? Do we attribute the same interests to a fetus as to a born person? Clearly not, or the pregnant woman would die if she fell ill during pregnancy, since we can't harm one person in order to save another. Would the emergency services cut their way through one (healthy) person in order to get to another (injured) one?

    "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



  • Advertisement
  • #871
    traprunner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,887 ✭✭✭traprunner


    Medallion of Kunt wrote: »
    If there is no chance and they are clinically braindead then I would say it's best to turn off the machine.

    Now I'm totally confused. They are unable to speak for themselves and totally reliant on something else to survive just like a foetus. Same scenario as a pregnancy if you think about it.


Advertisement