nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

PopePalpatine

I didn't know whether to post this here or in the Sanctimony of Pro-Lifers thread in t'udder forum - a BBC article on Paraguay's "epidemic" of child pregnancies. Paraguay only allows for abortion if the mother's life is at risk. On average, two girls aged 14 and under become pregnant in Paraguay every day.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

MrPudding

lazygal wrote: »

An Army Of Abortions has a nice ring to it. It could be the new collective noun for abortions.

I think the only proper collective noun for abortion is the same as that for crows.

lazygal wrote: »

Is it cheaper if you provide a UK address?

I have an address in the UK. If anyone is involved with helping Irish women get abortions I would be more than happy by sharing my address.

MrP

robdonn

MrPudding wrote: »

I have an address in the UK. If anyone is involved with helping Irish women get abortions I would be more than happy by sharing my address.

I'd be careful about putting your address out there, there are murderers amongst the pro-life side.

130Kph

robdonn wrote: »

I'd be careful about putting your address out there, there are murderers amongst the pro-life side.

Yes (that's sensible) some of those 'intellectuals' are pretty special all right!!

One eyed Jack

frostyjacks wrote: »

FFA is tragic, but abortion is not a solution. Besides, most of the protesters we see on the repeal marches want unlimited abortion right up to birth; FFA is irrelevant to them. They're exploiting parent's grief to push their agenda through. Shameful.

frosty you've talked an awful amount of nonsense in this thread that quite frankly wasn't worth my time bothering with, but this is absolute and utter contemptible nonsense. I'm one of those people who advocates for a woman's right to choose not to become a parent at any point in her pregnancy. A woman isn't a parent if she doesn't give birth, so your suggestion that I am exploiting parents grief, is nothing shy of bullshìt.

What's shameful is the levels you will stoop to in an effort to throw as many red herrings into the discussion as you can possibly manage, and if other people choose to entertain you, that's their own business, but when you make a claim like that, well, you're just wrong. End of.

eviltwin

I wonder if Frosty thinks it's exploitative of certain anti choice agents to have post abortive women talk about their regret. Probably not :rolleyes:

Lurkio

frostyjacks wrote: »

What a grotesque story. I hope justice catches up with her in some shape or form. Why on earth did she get pregnant if she didn't want to have a baby?

Sorry, you seem to have missed my question earlier

Could you explain what you mean by that. What do you think is happening to make the claim that its "on the way out".
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=99752009&postcount=2406

Shrap

MrPudding wrote: »

I have an address in the UK. If anyone is involved with helping Irish women get abortions I would be more than happy by sharing my address.

MrP

Maybe get in touch with the Abortion Support Network and/or Women On Web and offer helping that way - a UK address could be useful to them maybe, or they might have advice for how you could go about it. Like others said, you'd have to be very wary of being set up (at the very least) by anti-choicers.

robindch

MrPudding wrote: »

I have an address in the UK. If anyone is involved with helping Irish women get abortions I would be more than happy by sharing my address.

While I applaud the sentiment warmly, I'd recommend that, given some of the people involved in the anti-side and what they are prepared to do, it's safer to work through established channels.

frostyjacks

Lurkio wrote: »

Sorry, you seem to have missed my question earlier

Could you explain what you mean by that. What do you think is happening to make the claim that its "on the way out".
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=99752009&postcount=2406

Going by the actual statistics, less and less Irish women are having abortions. It's on a downward curve.

oscarBravo

game-of-thrones-stannis-fewer.gif?w=500&h=277

Delirium

frostyjacks wrote: »

Going by the actual statistics, less and less Irish women are having abortions. It's on a downward curve.

Would it not be more accurate to say that the number of Irish women travelling to England and giving an Irish address is down?

We don't have stats on Irish women travelling to other countries, or giving an English address in England, or having illegal abortions here in Ireland.

And that's before we touch on the issue of under-reporting of Irish women who have had abortions.

aloyisious

frostyjacks wrote: »

What a grotesque story. I hope justice catches up with her in some shape or form. Why on earth did she get pregnant if she didn't want to have a baby?

Pardon me if I misunderstood your question; Why on earth did she get pregnant if she didn't want to have a baby: It sound's like you think she had sex to get pregnant to have a baby, instead of having sex with her boyfriend just for the pleasure. Did you think that she should have used a condom and/or a morning-after pill to prevent a pregnancy?

Would i be nearer the mark if it was the church's recommendation to women: just say NO and keep your legs closed?

aloyisious

Re the issue of the 8th amendment vote in 1983; were the vote to be taken again, inclusive of all the women born since 1983 of voting age now, what's the odds it would be voted in?

Absolam

robdonn wrote: »

I think that the lack of a definition of "significant" is one of the problems that many have with that law. But I think this might be going a tad bit off topic.

I'm not sure many people will view it as a problem really, but yes it's a bit OT.

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

My point was that if laws are unfair/unreasonable, there are likely to be large numbers of people who don't really feel any qualms about breaking them.

Even if they're not unfair or unreasonable (and neither is exactly an objective measure), there are always going to be people who don't really feel any qualms about breaking them. Lawbreaking isn't exactly restricted to conscientious objectors... but States rarely repeal laws simply because people are prepared to break them. We're not about to drop drink driving laws because people drive when drunk; we continue to strengthen the laws, enforcement, and education surrounding the issue in order to minimise the number of people who have to be prosecuted as a result of breaking them.

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

There is evidence to show that the 8th Ammendment very possibly no longer reflects the wishes of the people, and where it stands within the framework of Human Rights is also dubious at best. There needs to be a referendum.

I'd imagine when there's sufficient evidence that the wish of the people is for a referendum, politicians will commit to having one simply as a matter of self interest.

Where the 8th stands within a framework of Human Rights obviously depends on your view of Human Rights; arguably a right to life is the Primary Human Right, because without a right to life what is the point of any other right? So you have the famous "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." from the US Declaration of Independence, and of course the very first right enumerated in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights is (Article 3. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.) and it's the first right set forth in the European Convention on Human Rights (Article 2 – Right to life 1. Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law.) which fairly demonstrates that a right to life is well established in the framework of human rights; it's the desire to curtail how far that right may be proffered that gives rise to the dubiousness...

MrPudding

robdonn wrote: »

I'd be careful about putting your address out there, there are murderers amongst the pro-life side.

robindch wrote: »

While I applaud the sentiment warmly, I'd recommend that, given some of the people involved in the anti-side and what they are prepared to do, it's safer to work through established channels.

Assuming it was something that would be helpful, I would not be advertising a service! I meant that I would be happy to help, if I could, through the established channels. What Shrap suggested is exactly what I was thinking.

MrP

frostyjacks

aloyisious wrote: »

Pardon me if I misunderstood your question; Why on earth did she get pregnant if she didn't want to have a baby: It sound's like you think she had sex to get pregnant to have a baby, instead of having sex with her boyfriend just for the pleasure. Did you think that she should have used a condom and/or a morning-after pill to prevent a pregnancy?

Would i be nearer the mark if it was the church's recommendation to women: just say NO and keep your legs closed?

She didn't elaborate on the circumstances around the conception. If she didn't want to have a baby, having unprotected sex with someone probably wasn't the smartest idea. What did she think would happen?

Cabaal

frostyjacks wrote: »

She didn't elaborate on the circumstances around the conception. If she didn't want to have a baby, having unprotected sex with someone probably wasn't the smartest idea. What did she think would happen?

Perhaps as a child she attended a very religious school with a very poor sex education program? Of course we can only speculate in this regard but its not unheard of for people to be ignorant about safe sex due to a religious influence.

Religious groups can't have it both ways, You can't both condemn people for getting pregnant and also be against safe sex. The reality in the world is people have sex outside of marriage, this is normal.

Nonsense like this does not belong in state funded schools - http://www.thejournal.ie/sex-education-sellotape-1310906-Feb2014/

A CATHOLIC YOUTH group which has been travelling around the country, giving talks on chastity to students

On the topic of pornography, the student also said one of the speakers “casually equated serial killers with the watching of” it.

Serial killers also watched cartoons!!! we're doomed!

Pure in Heart, which has its Irish headquarters in Dublin, in the same building as the Iona Institute, describes itself as an ‘international Catholic movement of young adults, who through prayer and friendship, strive to learn, live and share the truth, beauty and meaning of human sexuality”

Imagine that, what are the odds of two ignorant organizations existing in the one building?

[Deleted User]

frostyjacks wrote: »

She didn't elaborate on the circumstances around the conception . If she didn't want to have a baby, having unprotected sex with someone probably wasn't the smartest idea. What did she think would happen?

How do you know she had unprotected sex?

frostyjacks

[Deleted User] wrote: »

How do you know she had unprotected sex?

Well, she ended up pregnant from it. Like I said, she was very coy about the circumstances around how it happened.

Shrap

Deleted User wrote: »

How do you know she had unprotected sex?

Was just about to say that. Nowhere does the article suggest she had unprotected sex. It is much more likely that they did use contraception and it failed to work.

[Deleted User]

frostyjacks wrote: »

Well, she ended up pregnant from it. Like I said, she was very coy about the circumstances around how it happened.

Does that mean that she had unprotected sex?

Shrap

frostyjacks wrote: »

Well, she ended up pregnant from it. Like I said, she was very coy about the circumstances around how it happened.

FFS. Did you want a blow by blow account of it?

Can I ask you this - do you think that having sex is something that people should be able to do solely for pleasure? Or do you think people should only have sex if they're prepared to have a baby?

Delirium

frostyjacks wrote: »

Well, she ended up pregnant from it. Like I said, she was very coy about the circumstances around how it happened.

So you're just assuming she didn't use contraceptives.

Contraceptives fail so could it's equally possible she did use contraceptives.

She may be coy how she became pregnant because.... it's none of our damn business!!!

Should all women explain themselves as to how the pregnancy happened, i.e failed contraceptives, planned pregnancy etc.? :rolleyes:

frostyjacks

Shrap wrote: »

Was just about to say that. Nowhere does the article suggest she had unprotected sex. It is much more likely that they did use contraception and it failed to work.

It's also possible that it had been planned, given that she went behind the man's back, and that they're no longer together. We're only getting the criminal's side of the story, remember.

Shrap

frostyjacks wrote: »

It's also possible that it had been planned, given that she went behind the man's back, and that they're no longer together. We're only getting the criminal's side of the story, remember.

Scummy, scummy, scummy comment. Disgusting.

Delirium

frostyjacks wrote: »

It's also possible that it had been planned, given that she went behind the man's back, and that they're no longer together. We're only getting the criminal's side of the story, remember.

And? She chose to abort the pregnancy, what difference does it make how she became pregnant?

Pherekydes

aloyisious wrote: »

Re the issue of the 8th amendment vote in 1983; were the vote to be taken again, inclusive of all the women born since 1983 of voting age now, what's the odds it would be voted in?

It would be inclusive of all women (and men) born since 1965! It would have a very slim chance of passing now.

In a referendum, the 8th will probably fall.

Cabaal

frostyjacks wrote: »

Well, she ended up pregnant from it. Like I said, she was very coy about the circumstances around how it happened.

You know condoms split right?
Also pills can be ineffective in certain situations,

Perhaps its you that needs sex education if you think only unprotected sex can result with a pregnancy

Cabaal

frostyjacks wrote: »

It's also possible that it had been planned, given that she went behind the man's back, and that they're no longer together. We're only getting the criminal's side of the story, remember.

Wow,
You are making completely baseless and false comments about this women now. You might as well be suggesting its also possible she murders puppys in her spare time and then baths in their blood.

Although this women is in the media she deserves some level respect and your comments are completely uncalled for and out of order.

Second off, she's not a criminal, she has no conviction for what she has done and as such to call her a criminal is misleading on your part. So with all due respect you should withdraw that remark and your other comment

Second Toughest in_the Freshers

One eyed Jack wrote: »

frosty you've talked an awful amount of nonsense in this thread that quite frankly wasn't worth my time bothering with, but this is absolute and utter contemptible nonsense. I'm one of those people who advocates for a woman's right to choose not to become a parent at any point in her pregnancy. A woman isn't a parent if she doesn't give birth, so your suggestion that I am exploiting parents grief, is nothing shy of bullshìt.

What's shameful is the levels you will stoop to in an effort to throw as many red herrings into the discussion as you can possibly manage, and if other people choose to entertain you, that's their own business, but when you make a claim like that, well, you're just wrong. End of.

Ah now. That's a bit over the top. I'm sure the expectant mothers and fathers of fetuses with fatal abnormalities would and do view themselves as parents. As to the claim of exploiting them to further a cause, well...

Delirium wrote: »

FFA is tragic, yet only some womens wishes are respected regarding how they deal with it? I.e. women who decide to proceed to birth have their wishes respected.

Women who can't deal with proceeding to birth only to watch the child die are required by law to endure this additional trauma. It's nothing more than state-sanctioned cruelty to that subset of pregnant women.

Both sets of women dealing with FFA in the pregnancy should have their choice respected, not just the choice you view as acceptable.