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

Healthy baby aborted at 15 weeks

Options
1…4748505253…55

Comments

  • Options
    #1472
    kylith
    Registered Users Posts: 17,736 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    Graces7 wrote: »
    My entire concern is with killing by abortion a baby . Which is wrong. Period.

    Even if it will die anyway? Even if it will, at best, live for hours or days in pain?


  • Options
    #1473
    pinkyeye
    Registered Users Posts: 1,293 ✭✭✭pinkyeye


    Titclamp wrote: »
    Why is asking questions so irritating for some?

    Only when they're really really stupid questions. :rolleyes::rolleyes:


  • Options
    #1474
    pinkyeye
    Registered Users Posts: 1,293 ✭✭✭pinkyeye


    Crock Rock wrote: »
    Like men and boys were and still denied it, despite the fact that it protects males from cancer?

    Not true, now available to teenage boys as well as girls.


  • Options
    #1475
    Crock Rock
    Closed Accounts Posts: 616 ✭✭✭Crock Rock


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    I'm sure there are cases where a woman gets pregnant and regrets it. that regret can have many reasons. Thankfully the woman now has an outlet to resolve her problem instead of being forced to carry a child she doesnt want

    Yes, Adolf.


  • Options
    #1476
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,200 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    I'm not surprised at who thanked the post above. disgusting thing to thank. you should be ashamed of yourself EOTR. Still banned from all abortion threads for your previous behaviour?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1477
    TheRepentent
    Registered Users Posts: 1,083 ✭✭✭TheRepentent


    Crock Rock wrote: »
    Yes, Adolf.
    More non-sense:rolleyes:


  • Options
    #1478
    pinkyeye
    Registered Users Posts: 1,293 ✭✭✭pinkyeye


    Why is this thread still going on? It's over, build a bridge.


  • Options
    #1479
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 5,917 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Crock Rock wrote: »
    Yes, Adolf.

    Second godwin's law instance in as many days within the thread, never a good sign for someone's argument.


  • Options
    #1480
    kylith
    Registered Users Posts: 17,736 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    Crock Rock wrote: »
    Yes, Adolf.

    I think you’ll find that the nazis were in favour of forced birth.


  • Options
    #1481
    Crock Rock
    Closed Accounts Posts: 616 ✭✭✭Crock Rock


    pinkyeye wrote: »
    Why is this thread still going on? It's over, build a bridge.

    It was "over" in the 80's when the no side won.

    That didn't stop the anti-life brigade from throwing shapes until they got their referendum.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1482
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,025 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    Crock Rock wrote: »
    It was "over" in the 80's when the no side won.

    That didn't stop the anti-life brigade from throwing shapes until they got their referendum.
    You can try again in 30 years, so. :D

    Anyway, there was literally nobody promoting a pro choice position in the 1980s, so it's not even true to suggest they lost the argument at the time. Unlike anti choice now.

    Also, the Catholic church's moral weight was heavily behind the 8th amendment: many people voted for it because they believed the church was always right. So once the truth came out about the church's real "morality", there was an argument to be made that the 8th was passed under false pretences.

    I'm old enough to remember this being so for people I knew personally, and many of them gradually came to feel they had been fooled by the church. A rerun of the referendum 34 years later was more than overdue.

    Not long to wait, then, eh? :D


  • Options
    #1483
    pjohnson
    Registered Users Posts: 23,251 ✭✭✭✭pjohnson


    Crock Rock wrote: »
    It was "over" in the 80's when the no side won.

    That didn't stop the anti-life brigade from throwing shapes until they got their referendum.

    "Anti-life"


    The no side are great value tbf. Never know what they'll vomit out next.


  • Options
    #1484
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    I'm not surprised at who thanked the post above. disgusting thing to thank. you should be ashamed of yourself EOTR. Still banned from all abortion threads for your previous behaviour?
    Shame. SHAME!


  • Options
    #1485
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,025 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    pjohnson wrote: »
    "Anti-life"


    The no side are great value tbf. Never know what they'll vomit out next.

    Especially as the so called "anti life" side at the time included all the churches except the Catholic Church, as well as many doctors and obstetricians who were anti abortion but feared the negative effects of the amendment on women. They were of course correct in that.


  • Options
    #1486
    Crock Rock
    Closed Accounts Posts: 616 ✭✭✭Crock Rock


    pjohnson wrote: »
    "Anti-life"


    The no side are great value tbf. Never know what they'll vomit out next.

    Wilfully ending a child's life in the womb and advocating such is the very definition of anti life


  • Options
    #1487
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,200 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    suicide_circus wrote: »
    Shame. SHAME!

    great argument there. a real intellectual heavyweight


  • Options
    #1488
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 5,917 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Crock Rock wrote: »
    Wilfully ending a child's life in the womb and advocating such is the very definition of anti life

    Since you advocate murdering someone after their born under at least under one specific set of circumstances, what term defines you?


  • Options
    #1489
    Crock Rock
    Closed Accounts Posts: 616 ✭✭✭Crock Rock


    DubInMeath wrote: »
    Since you advocate murdering someone after their born under at least under one specific set of circumstances, what term defines you?

    Where? Where did I say that?


  • Options
    #1490
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 5,917 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Crock Rock wrote: »
    Where? Where did I say that?

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=112616628&postcount=1

    So again what term defines you?

    Of course your now going to say it was just a joke, sort of like your claim that people use abortion as contraception, males aren't provided with the hpv vacation, or that it's unfair that they weren't included originally.

    Your arguments on here are the sort that lost the anti choice side a good few votes in the referendum because people seen them for what they were, false and that's putting it politely.


  • Options
    #1491
    pjohnson
    Registered Users Posts: 23,251 ✭✭✭✭pjohnson


    DubInMeath wrote: »
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=112616628&postcount=1

    So again what term defines you?

    Of course your now going to say it was just a joke, sort of like your claim that people use abortion as contraception, males aren't provided with the hpv vacation, or that it's unfair that they weren't included originally.

    Your arguments on here are the sort that lost the anti choice side a good few votes in the referendum because people seen them for what they were, false and that's putting it politely.

    Tbf it suits the anti choice with their pregnancy fetish. They are pro-life until the birth then they couldn't care about the life at all. It makes the term "pro-life" hilarious.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1492
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    DubInMeath wrote: »
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=112616628&postcount=1

    So again what term defines you?

    Of course your now going to say it was just a joke, sort of like your claim that people use abortion as contraception, males aren't provided with the hpv vacation, or that it's unfair that they weren't included originally.

    Your arguments on here are the sort that lost the anti choice side a good few votes in the referendum because people seen them for what they were, false and that's putting it politely.

    Make an outrageously right wing statement. When the lefties get cross, play it off as a joke, but fall back to a less right wing position. Next time, make an even more right wing statement. Iterate.

    This is the alt-right playbook.


  • Options
    #1493
    Crock Rock
    Closed Accounts Posts: 616 ✭✭✭Crock Rock


    My post WAS in jest. That's already been made abundantly clear.

    Besides, there's a big difference between a person who makes a conscious decision to steal or vandalise and an innocent child who did nothing but be conceived.

    If you don't want to be a mother, give your child up for adoption or fostering, there's plenty of women who'd crawl to Lourdes on broken glass to have that opportunity which so many people discard like an inconvenience.

    If you don't want to fall pregnant in the first place then even a 13-year-old would know how to prevent that from happening.


  • Options
    #1494
    TheRepentent
    Registered Users Posts: 1,083 ✭✭✭TheRepentent


    pjohnson wrote: »
    Tbf it suits the anti choice with their pregnancy fetish. They are pro-life until the birth then they couldn't care about the life at all. It makes the term "pro-life" hilarious.
    Yeah they are full of sh1te , the hyprocrits.


  • Options
    #1495
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,025 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    Crock Rock wrote: »
    My post WAS in jest. That's already been made abundantly clear.

    Besides, there's a big difference between a person who makes a conscious decision to steal or vandalise and an innocent child who did nothing but be conceived.

    If you don't want to be a mother, give your child up for adoption or fostering, there's plenty of women who'd crawl to Lourdes on broken glass to have that opportunity which so many people discard like an inconvenience.

    If you don't want to fall pregnant in the first place then even a 13-year-old would know how to prevent that from happening.

    So it's a subject you find suitable for joking about then? Interesting approach, considering how your post continues. Pro life is only a serious subject when it's the unborn - it's just a big laugh otherwise?

    As for "even a 13 year old", that's like saying that even 13 year olds know not to get dangerously drunk - they probably do know, and yet it happens all the same, and to people much older than 13. And we don't refuse to treat them on the grounds that they should have known now to avoid the situation in the first place.


  • Options
    #1496
    Crock Rock
    Closed Accounts Posts: 616 ✭✭✭Crock Rock


    Like most people on here I was pro choice, but I understand the barbarity of the practice and I've completely changed my outlook.

    Look up potassium chloride abortions. What a barbaric way to die.

    It's ironic really, the most dangerous place for a child statistically is in their mother's womb. It's sad.


  • Options
    #1497
    Salary Negotiator
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,148 ✭✭✭Salary Negotiator


    Crock Rock wrote: »
    It's ironic really, the most dangerous place for a child statistically is in their mother's womb. It's sad.

    And abortion has nothing to do with that, as many as half of all pregnancies end in miscarriage often before the woman even knows she’s pregnant.


  • Options
    #1498
    Igotadose
    Registered Users Posts: 13,037 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    Crock Rock wrote: »

    If you don't want to be a mother, give your child up for adoption or fostering, there's plenty of women who'd crawl to Lourdes on broken glass to have that opportunity

    No men though? Interesting perspective, typical of the anti-women brigade masquerading as anti-choice.


  • Options
    #1499
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    Crock Rock wrote: »
    My post WAS in jest. That's already been made abundantly clear.

    You said its okay to set fatal traps for intruders. Maybe explain the joke, for those of us a little slow on the uptake.

    Not a side-splitter, unless I'm missing something massive.
    Crock Rock wrote: »
    Besides, there's a big difference between a person who makes a conscious decision to steal or vandalise and an innocent child who did nothing but be conceived.

    Yes many differences.

    Traps are dumb and don't consider proportionality, intruder's motive or identity, the true extent and nature of the threat. There is no balanced or considered decision when a trap is triggered. Very different to abortion.
    Crock Rock wrote: »
    If you don't want to be a mother, give your child up for adoption or fostering, there's plenty of women who'd crawl to Lourdes on broken glass to have that opportunity which so many people discard like an inconvenience.

    You belittle and oversimplify the choice. Interesting that there are nuances and shades of grey when it comes to executing an intruder, but not for this.

    You ignore the risks and the hardships an expectant mother faces.

    You ignore the reality of childbirth, the realities of adoption, both immediate and lifelong.

    In short, you show absolutely no empathy for women. Maybe you just mask it, really well.
    Crock Rock wrote: »
    If you don't want to fall pregnant in the first place then even a 13-year-old would know how to prevent that from happening.

    Why would you make such a silly statement. You know the answers to this. Do you just outright reject reality or is this some sort of deficit of yours?

    Contraception is never 100%. In any reasonably-sized population, this means there will be guaranteed unplanned pregnancies, even with full and correct use of contraception.

    Sex between couples, including but not limited to married couples, cannot be abstained from without consequence. It is essential for maintaining stable relationships, and particularly for maintaining the traditional family units that conservative types hold in such high esteem.

    The status of a pregnancy and the personal circumstances of an expectant mother can change dramatically after conception.

    Rape happens and is not the fault of the victim.


  • Options
    #1500
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    Crock Rock wrote: »
    My post WAS in jest. That's already been made abundantly clear.

    Besides, there's a big difference between a person who makes a conscious decision to steal or vandalise and an innocent child who did nothing but be conceived.

    If you don't want to be a mother, give your child up for adoption or fostering, there's plenty of women who'd crawl to Lourdes on broken glass to have that opportunity which so many people discard like an inconvenience.

    If you don't want to fall pregnant in the first place then even a 13-year-old would know how to prevent that from happening.

    There were 7 domestic adoptions of infants in Ireland in 2018 (most recent stats), and there has never been more than 10 domestic adoptions in a year since 2013.
    More people than ever are opting not to have children at all, those that do are sticking to 1/2 and having them much later in life.

    There is little to no appetite for adoption here at all, the large catholic families are a thing of the past.
    Bringing a child into the world just to resign it to a life of being stuck in the foster care system is absolutely despicable. There are already thousands of children stuck in a broken, underfunded system whose needs are not being met without adding more to that number.
    Regardless, adoption or fostering is of no use to a women who cannot or will not stay pregnant.

    And even with perfect use, contraception fails, she didn't get herself pregnant on her own either yet you are laying all the responsibility on the woman.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1501
    Crock Rock
    Closed Accounts Posts: 616 ✭✭✭Crock Rock


    There's so few adoptions because life is disposable.

    8 women on average were going to the UK to have abortions, the number of on-demand abortions are probably similar here since killing children in the womb was legalised.


Advertisement