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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

How do Pro Life campaigners want women who have abortions punished?

12467…15

Comments

  • #152
    Donald Trump
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,225 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    Decent Skin wrote: »
    Control over the autonomy of your own body is an indisputable human right.

    You helping foot the bill is because you'd vote to deny that right.


    I'm putting on a bit of weight.

    I'd like to regain autonomy over my body.

    I can't afford a gym membership and a personal trainer along with an expensive customised diet with specially prepared meals and shakes.


    And the government won't pay for it for me? Stop eating the kebabs they say? The bastards. Denying my rights



    Time for people to understand the concept of personal responsibility. Not everything is somebody else's fault or respinsibility

    (Of course I anticipate what you are going to wheel out next)


  • #153
    Widdershins
    Registered Users Posts: 10,633 ✭✭✭✭Widdershins


    Donald Trump wrote: »
    I'm putting on a bit of weight.

    I'd like to regain autonomy over my body.

    I can't afford a gym membership and a personal trainer along with an expensive customised diet with specially prepared meals and shakes.


    And the government won't pay for it for me? Stop eating the kebabs they say? The bastards. Denying my rights



    Time for people to understand the concept of personal responsibility. Not everything is somebody else's fault or respinsibility

    (Of course I anticipate what you are going to wheel out next)

    Nobody is denying your bodily autonomy in that analogy. It's your choice alone to excercise or not. You have the option of taking any cost free exercise or eating less. Your situation arose through cumulative overeating and under activity, not one mistake, contraceptive failure or assault.

    By the way having an abortion oftem IS about taking personal responsibility for your future or your dependents/ family's future.


  • #154
    Donald Trump
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,225 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    animaal wrote: »

    Abortion isn't a simple issue - any legal framework, or lack of one, will lead to some outcomes that I consider to be undesirable. I don't accept that human life is sacred from the moment of conception. But I also don't accept that abortion should be allowed at any time up to birth for all reasons. E.g. I definitely wouldn't like to see abortions allowed after there's a chance of viability outside the womb. Before that, it's various shades of grey. After it can feel pain? After it has a recognisable brain?

    A question for the OP - If a scumbag kicks a pregnant woman in the stomach, ending her pregnancy, should he only be charged with a simple assault? It was only a clump of cells, right?

    The above is something I alluded to in an earlier post.

    There have been cases where an ex boyfriend purposely assaulted a pregnant girl so that she would miscarry or lose the child.

    This is a different issue to abortion. People have to realise though that making a law can and will have effects outside their narrow scope of vision.


  • #155
    Depp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,850 ✭✭✭Depp


    Decent Skin wrote: »
    That wasn't their stance though, as they aren't "one of THOSE pro-life"; they only wanted to ensure that they didn't have to pay for it.
    Depp wrote: »
    again, I believe personally abortion is wrong, however, if someone with different beliefs wants to get one and its not tax or insurance funded thats their business. If a doctor performs one in Ireland without a view to saving the mothers life he is commiting a crime and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law like any criminal. Never said I was anti choice I'm pro life theres a difference, I dont want my taxes or insurance premiums going towards something I dont agree with morally.

    Now does that explain it for you at last or do you wish to continue making a fool of yourself?

    read back through the thread before you say what my stance is/isn't, I discussed at length how I have a personal disagreement with abortion as I see the fetus as a growing human child not as anything else, I then expanded that if someone else sees it differently they can live their own life and do as they wish, but my objection to it being legalised is cause I dont want my taxes funding it. In my opinion an abortion outside of extreme circumstances is a premature ending of a viable human life unnecessarily and its not something that I could ever in good conscience involve myself in. But thats my opinion and I'm not going to force it on anyone. I won't however, vote for a constitutional change that adds unrestricted free abortions to what my tax is spent on. I hope I have been clear and concise enough that you can understand this at last as I'm sick and tired of explaining it at this stage.


  • #156
    Donald Trump
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,225 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    Widdershins wrote: »
    Nobody is denying your bodily autonomy in that analogy. It's your choice alone to excercise or not. You have the option of taking any cost free exercise or eating less. Your situation arose through cumulative overeating and under activity, not one mistake, contraceptive failure or assault.

    By the way having an abortion oftem IS about taking personal responsibility for your future or your dependents/ family's future.

    In my analogy I'm too lazy to do it on my own. I need a gym and personal trainer. I didn't change my diet and I used to be slim. I never realised how far I had gone until it happened. Also, I had an accident and fella and hurt my leg which stopped me from exercising a few years back :pac:

    A pregnant woman can give birth and give the baby up for adoption if she doesn't want to raise it. That's the "free exercise" option for her if you want


  • Advertisement
  • #157
    Decent Skin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,284 ✭✭✭Decent Skin


    Donald Trump wrote: »
    No. You won't find any Irish laws which state that a woman must pay for an abortion herself.




    Rights me hole. Who is denying what right? Just because you want something doesn't make it a "right" :pac:


    It's a bit like saying the state is denying rights because the local social welfare officer won't give money for flights to Amsterdam for people to smoke some hash :pac:

    That is a load of tosh. You know well that I was referring to the extra cost of travel, not the abortion. I clearly said so.

    If that hash was for a medical condition then I'd support it (apparently it's better than standard meds for some health problems) But there's no fundamental human right that provides for "not having a medical condition", because that's not possible.


  • #158
    Decent Skin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,284 ✭✭✭Decent Skin


    Donald Trump wrote: »
    In my analogy I'm too lazy to do it on my own. I need a gym and personal trainer. I didn't change my diet and I used to be slim. I never realised how far I had gone until it happened. Also, I had an accident and fella and hurt my leg which stopped me from exercising a few years back :pac:

    A pregnant woman can give birth and give the baby up for adoption if she doesn't want to raise it. That's the "free exercise" option for her if you want

    Jesus H - you're really equating being lazy with the cases I outlined that I'm in support of like rape ?


  • #159
    Depp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,850 ✭✭✭Depp


    Decent Skin wrote: »
    Jesus H - you're really equating being lazy with the cases I outlined that I'm in support of like rape ?

    have a look out for the 'extreme circumstances' bit we're all mentioning, you seem to be missing it somehow


  • #160
    Donald Trump
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,225 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    Decent Skin wrote: »
    That is a load of tosh. You know well that I was referring to the extra cost of travel, not the abortion. I clearly said so.
    What's the difference. There is still no law saying she must pay for that herself.
    Decent Skin wrote: »
    If that hash was for a medical condition then I'd support it (apparently it's better than standard meds for some health problems) But there's no fundamental human right that provides for "not having a medical condition", because that's not possible.

    Well it could be for mental health. It might make the person happy :pac:

    The people on waiting lists for cancer treatment and other operations are far far further up any list of priority.


  • #161
    Donald Trump
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,225 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    Decent Skin wrote: »
    Jesus H - you're really equating being lazy with the cases I outlined that I'm in support of like rape ?


    You're in support of rape? :eek:


  • Advertisement
  • #162
    Decent Skin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,284 ✭✭✭Decent Skin


    Donald Trump wrote: »
    You're in support of rape? :eek:

    :rolleyes:

    You're incapable of reading ?

    As with some other poster earlier who made rape jokes and interferences, that's me out.

    Have a nice life.

    Edit: Actually holy crap - the other vile one was yours too! How did I get sucked back in ?

    Thank **** for the ignore button, which is about to be used.


  • #163
    Donald Trump
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,225 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    Donald Trump wrote: »
    (Of course I anticipate what you are going to wheel out next)
    Decent Skin wrote: »
    Jesus H - you're really equating being lazy with the cases I outlined that I'm in support of like rape ?

    Donald Trump wrote: »
    I think that it is a scumbag thing to do to use women who have been raped as a tool to try to push your own angle. It's completely scummy and vulture-like. Do those type of people sit around in a room hoping that a woman will be raped and impregnated so that they can use her as a poster girl?

    If you are in favour of abortions, just say it. It is fine to have an opinion. Don't hide behind tragedies of women who are raped. Give them some respect


  • #164
    Depp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,850 ✭✭✭Depp


    Decent Skin wrote: »
    :rolleyes:

    You're incapable of reading ?

    As with some other poster earlier who made rape jokes and interferences, that's me out.

    Have a nice life.

    bit rich considering your last few posts :rolleyes:


  • #165
    Donald Trump
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,225 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    Decent Skin wrote: »
    That is absolutely horrendous to see typed. I'm out.

    Decent Skin wrote: »
    rolleyes.png

    You're incapable of reading ?

    As with some other poster earlier who made rape jokes and interferences, that's me out.

    Have a nice life.

    You'll be back. They always come back :)


  • #166
    GritBiscuit
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 440 ✭✭GritBiscuit


    Donald Trump wrote:
    Time for people to understand the concept of personal responsibility. Not everything is somebody else's fault or respinsibility

    Maybe the baby daddy could be forced to pony up to meet his share of obligations? Or does personal responsibility in these situations lie solely with women?
    Just curious...


  • #167
    Donald Trump
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,225 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    GritBiscuit wrote: »
    Maybe the baby daddy could be forced to pony up to meet his share of obligations? Or does personal responsibility in these situations lie solely with women?
    Just curious...

    As far as I know, in some countries, the father is legally responsible for providing for the child until the child is 18.

    Of course that means legally proving who he is. So you'd need a mechanism for that too which would be difficult and unpopular. And there would be some difficult cases.


  • #168
    Decent Skin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,284 ✭✭✭Decent Skin


    Depp wrote: »
    bit rich considering your last few posts :rolleyes:

    Guilty as charged considering I didn't realise that I had resumed debating with an aptly-usernamed poster!

    Ignore button used since though, so won't be making that mistake again.


  • #169
    Depp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,850 ✭✭✭Depp


    GritBiscuit wrote: »
    Maybe the baby daddy could be forced to pony up to meet his share of obligations? Or does personal responsibility in these situations lie solely with women?
    Just curious...

    father of the child is equally as responsible as the woman, you get a girl pregnant you man up and deal with it same if you get pregnant, outside of extreme circumstances its your mistake and you have to deal with it, there shouldn't be some government sponsored get out of jail free card. If you choose to take the easy way out like that you should have to pony up the cash


  • #170
    Depp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,850 ✭✭✭Depp


    Decent Skin wrote: »
    Guilty as charged considering I didn't realise that I had resumed debating with an aptly-usernamed poster!

    Ignore button used since though, so won't be making that mistake again.

    ah the ignore button, the trusty refuge of someone whos bullsh!t has been called out


  • #171
    GritBiscuit
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 440 ✭✭GritBiscuit


    Depp wrote:
    father of the child is equally as responsible as the woman, you get a girl pregnant you man up and deal with it same if you get pregnant, outside of extreme circumstances its your mistake and you have to deal with it, there shouldn't be some government sponsored get out of jail free card. If you choose to take the easy way out like that you should have to pony up the cash

    Awful lot of "should"'s there...pity real life is so different


  • Advertisement
  • #172
    Depp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,850 ✭✭✭Depp


    GritBiscuit wrote: »
    Awful lot of "should"'s there...pity real life is so different

    on should and one shouldnt isnt really that many, it is real lifepeople make unplanned pregnancies work every day, its not that hard you just have to grow up and accept some responsibility


  • #173
    Little CuChulainn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,624 ✭✭✭Little CuChulainn


    Decent Skin wrote: »
    That wasn't their stance though, as they aren't "one of THOSE pro-life"; they only wanted to ensure that they didn't have to pay for it.

    I think you are misrepresenting the poster again. Or you are confusing their motive with their stance. If we're talking about the same posts that is. But my understanding is that the poster is opposed to abortion on moral grounds, i.e. protection of fetus, and would not like tax payer money going to fund abortions for this reason.


  • #174
    Donald Trump
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,225 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    Decent Skin wrote: »
    Guilty as charged considering I didn't realise that I had resumed debating with an aptly-usernamed poster!

    Ignore button used since though, so won't be making that mistake again.

    Awwwww. I love you too :pac:

    And now you'll never know :pac:


  • #175
    Decent Skin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,284 ✭✭✭Decent Skin


    Depp wrote: »
    ah the ignore button, the trusty refuge of someone whos bullsh!t has been called out

    And where people end up when they make vile posts joking about rape.


  • #176
    Decent Skin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,284 ✭✭✭Decent Skin


    Little CuChulainn wrote: »
    I think you are misrepresenting the poster again. Or you are confusing their motive with their stance. If we're talking about the same posts that is. But my understanding is that the poster is opposed to abortion on moral grounds, i.e. protection of fetus, and would not like tax payer money going to fund abortions for this reason.

    Already discussed. I don't like my taxes going to fund lots of things, but wouldn't deny someone basic human rights on that basis.


  • #177
    GritBiscuit
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 440 ✭✭GritBiscuit


    Depp wrote:
    on should and one shouldnt isnt really that many, it is real lifepeople make unplanned pregnancies work every day, its not that hard you just have to grow up and accept some responsibility


    I'd argue deciding now isn't a good time to bring a child into the world is every bit as grown up and responsible...particularly when the quality of life that can be offered to any child produced is taken into consideration. Life at all cost regardless of the cost isn't really a logic I can wrap my head around...


  • #178
    Depp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,850 ✭✭✭Depp


    Little CuChulainn wrote: »
    I think you are misrepresenting the poster again. Or you are confusing their motive with their stance. If we're talking about the same posts that is. But my understanding is that the poster is opposed to abortion on moral grounds, i.e. protection of fetus, and would not like tax payer money going to fund abortions for this reason.

    thats exactly whats going on same as rjpf1980 ignore what I'm actually saying and invent wild fantasies of what my views actually are. Its quite frustrating, if I was a pettier man I'd consider the ignore button :rolleyes:


  • #179
    Depp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,850 ✭✭✭Depp


    GritBiscuit wrote: »
    I'd argue deciding now isn't a good time to bring a child into the world is every bit as grown up and responsible...particularly when the quality of life that can be offered to any child produced is taken into consideration. Life at all cost regardless of the cost isn't really a logic I can wrap my head around...

    just cause you're not in the position to raise a child doesnt mean you have to deprive them of life, there are plenty of couples with conception problems and same sex couples that would only be too delighted to have the chance to adopt and raise the child as their own. I can't afford a child right no isn't a valid excuse for me personally. I'm not trying to convert anyone, I just want you to see where I'm coming from.


  • #180
    Decent Skin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,284 ✭✭✭Decent Skin


    Depp wrote: »
    just cause you're not in the position to raise a child doesnt mean you have to deprive them of life, there are plenty of couples with conception problems and same sex couples that would only be too delighted to have the chance to adopt and raise the child as their own. I can't afford a child right no isn't a valid excuse for me personally. I'm not trying to convert anyone, I just want you to see where I'm coming from.

    All true. Which is why the whole thing should be dealt with here, offering all counselling and options with the support of those here at home.


  • Advertisement
  • #181
    Donald Trump
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,225 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    GritBiscuit wrote: »
    I'd argue deciding now isn't a good time to bring a child into the world is every bit as grown up and responsible...particularly when the quality of life that can be offered to any child produced is taken into consideration. Life at all cost regardless of the cost isn't really a logic I can wrap my head around...

    Should that logic end at birth?

    If a man with a 6-month old loses his job and his business and he's going to jail for fraud and he doesn't want the 6-month old to have that quality of life.........

    Whether or not you are pro-abortion, you have to recognise that adoption is also another option at least if you can't afford, or don't want to raise a child or maybe even if you just want to appear on Big Brother


  • #182
    Widdershins
    Registered Users Posts: 10,633 ✭✭✭✭Widdershins


    Donald Trump wrote: »
    In my analogy I'm too lazy to do it on my own. I need a gym and personal trainer. I didn't change my diet and I used to be slim. I never realised how far I had gone until it happened. Also, I had an accident and fella and hurt my leg which stopped me from exercising a few years back :pac:

    A pregnant woman can give birth and give the baby up for adoption if she doesn't want to raise it. That's the "free exercise" option for her if you want

    Have you ever been pregnant?If so have you ever had a difficult pregnancy?
    Have you ever been pregnant and had to explain to all and sundry, and your children, that you're intending to adopt (people do of course engage women in conversation about their pregnancy).
    Would you be confident that the baby would be adopted, and that they'd be adopted to a good home, and that they wouldn't spend the rest of their lives dealing with the fact of their adoption?

    And finally are you aware that you cannot give a child up for adoption if you are married? (Something I myself only found out recently, via Boards)

    Your comparison is so flippant I can only assume you're joking. A pregnant woman doesn't have the rest of her life to deal with her pregnancy if she can't continue it. She doesn't have an array of options like private gyms vs a walk in the park. You don't comprehend the complexities of womens lives when a pregnancy is added in, and the impact of an unwanted pregnancy on their futures and their families. If you did, you wouldn't have made that kind of comparison.


  • #183
    AbusesToilets
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,551 ✭✭✭✭AbusesToilets


    Burial. wrote: »
    What a ridiculous statement. You couldn't be any further from the reality.

    No, it really is. Having been party to few in my time, I would feel confident in that observation.


  • #184
    GritBiscuit
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 440 ✭✭GritBiscuit


    Depp wrote:
    just cause you're not in the position to raise a child doesnt mean you have to deprive them of life, there are plenty of couples with conception problems and same sex couples that would only be too delighted to have the chance to adopt and raise the child as their own. I can't afford a child right no isn't a valid excuse for me personally. I'm not trying to convert anyone, I just want you to see where I'm coming from.

    I'd argue being adopted will have far greater ramifications for a child than ending a life they weren't actually aware they were going to have. I say that as an adoptee...

    I'd consider The idea that the lives, wishes and rights of people that actually do live in the here and now should be automatically bulldozed to make way for the rights of a non-sentient cluster of cells is, to my thinking, just bizarre...and if that were truly the case here would require a whole new moral, ethical and legal approach to contraception.

    It's a difficult, emotive topic. Legislation affects one gender over the other which adds further divisive fuel. I'm mostly pro choice...pro choice with a couple less caveats I guess...so it's really all the same spectrum just standing at slightly different junctures...

    Good discussion ☺ï¸


  • #185
    Donald Trump
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,225 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    Widdershins wrote: »
    And finally are you aware that you cannot give a child up for adoption if you are married? (Something I myself only found out recently, via Boards)

    That's not true in all circumstances.

    Reference
    TheInterWebLinkAbove wrote:
    Children eligible for adoption

    The law permits the adoption of:
    (a) orphans, and
    (b) children born outside marriage, including in certain circumstances, children whose natural parents subsequently marry each other.


    In addition, in exceptional cases, the High Court may make an order authorising the adoption of children whose parents have failed in their duty of care towards them. Children born within marriage may be adopted under this provision.

    A child born outside marriage who is legitimated by the subsequent marriage of the natural parents is eligible for adoption provided his/her birth has not been re-registered.
    A child born to a married woman but whose husband is not the father, is eligible for adoption provided the facts of the child's paternity can be proven to the satisfaction of the Adoption Authority of Ireland.
    The child must reside in the State, be at least six weeks old and under 18 years of age. The child need not have been born in this country. An agency cannot place a child for adoption until the child is at least four weeks old.
    In making an adoption order the Adoption Authority of Ireland must regard the welfare of the child as the first and paramount consideration.


  • #186
    Widdershins
    Registered Users Posts: 10,633 ✭✭✭✭Widdershins


    Donald Trump wrote: »
    That's not true in all circumstances.

    Reference

    That confirms that in a typical situation you can't adopt a child out if you're married to its father.

    And adoption is not a desirable outcome for many people. An adopted person has just said similar, before this comment.


  • Advertisement
  • #187
    GritBiscuit
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 440 ✭✭GritBiscuit


    Donald Trump wrote:
    If a man with a 6-month old loses his job and his business and he's going to jail for fraud and he doesn't want the 6-month old to have that quality of life.........

    I don't think infanticide is the same thing as forcing women to see out pregnancies they don't want, having decided in the very early stages of pregnancy...perhaps if I was advocating late term abortion there would be a correlation...but I'm not.

    It only works if you believe life begins at conception and the rights afforded to children who no longer require their mother as an incubator are equal to those that do...and that both those rights supercede the rights of said unfortunate incubator.


  • #188
    Donald Trump
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,225 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    Widdershins wrote: »
    That confirms that in a typical situation you can't adopt a child out if you're married to its father.

    No it doesn't.

    It lists some circumstances under which a child can be adopted.

    It doesn't say that they are exhaustive.

    Even if they were there is nothing stopping a married couple saying "we don't want this child and won't/can't look after it". The child will be put into care. A judge could then easily dissolve their rights for "failing in their duty of care" . Unless they are going to appeal. Which they won't do if they want the kid to be adopted

    The thing about the high court judge is that the adoption service cannot just "give" legal parental responsibility to another person if the mother and father are still alive and married. That legislation is there to allow adoption to take place in the exceptional circumstances where the natural parents could or might come back looking for the child as maybe they never consented ro the child being placed into care


  • #189
    Donald Trump
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,225 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    GritBiscuit wrote: »
    I'd argue being adopted will have far greater ramifications for a child than ending a life they weren't actually aware they were going to have. I say that as an adoptee...

    Ah for feck sake. Sure why don't we just euthenise all the orphans and put them out of their misery


  • #190
    Widdershins
    Registered Users Posts: 10,633 ✭✭✭✭Widdershins


    Donald Trump wrote: »
    No it doesn't.

    It lists some circumstances under which a child can be adopted.

    It doesn't say that they are exhaustive.

    Even if they were there is nothing stopping a married couple saying "we don't want this child and won't/can't look after it". The child will be put into care. A judge could then easily dissolve their rights for "failing in their duty of care" . Unless they are going to appeal. Which they won't do if they want the kid to be adopted

    The thing about the high court judge is that the adoption service cannot just "give" legal parental responsibility to another person if the mother and father are still alive and married. That legislation is there to allow adoption to take place in the exceptional circumstances where the natural parents could or might come back looking for the child as maybe they never consented ro the child being placed into care

    It absolutely does rule out the women who want to end their pregnancy and are not abusive and not planning to kill themselves to orphan the baby so it'll be eligible for adoption! Unless you're suggesting that they do! Or that the woman should go through pregnancy and birth and then nominate herself as an incompetent or abusive parent so as to convince a judge and social services to allow her to adopt out the baby she's just carried for 9 months and given birth to. Nevermind the implications of this on any existing children, whose mother is now considered an unfit parent.

    You seem to have no concern for these women whatsoever, to suggest such things as options.

    Do you think your suggestion even if it didn't require the woman to self identify as incapable, incompetent or abusive,is a healthy, reasonable, compassionate thing to tell women to do?

    What will you suggest next? The father and husband asks to be put on the sex offenders register so mum can adopt the baby out?


  • #191
    Donald Trump
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,225 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    Widdershins wrote: »
    It absolutely does rule out the women who want to end their pregnancy and are not abusive and not planning to kill themselves to orphan the baby so it'll be eligible for adoption! Unless you're suggesting that they do! Or that the woman should go through pregnancy and birth and then nominate herself as an incompetent or abusive parent so as to convince a judge and social services to allow her to adopt out the baby she's just carried for 9 months and given birth to. Nevermind the implications of this on any existing children, whose mother is now considered an unfit parent.

    You seem to have no concern for these women whatsoever, to suggest such things as options.

    Huh?? :confused::confused::confused::confused:

    You were saying that a married couple cannot give up a child for adoption. I pointed out that was not strictly true.

    Now you're trying to imply I want women to kill themselves. Because I pointed out that you were incorrect?


  • Advertisement
  • #192
    Widdershins
    Registered Users Posts: 10,633 ✭✭✭✭Widdershins


    Donald Trump wrote: »
    Huh?? :confused::confused::confused::confused:

    You were saying that a married couple cannot give up a child for adoption. I pointed out that was not strictly true.

    Now you're trying to imply I want women to kill themselves. Because I pointed out that you were incorrect?

    No you are incorrect. A living mother who is married to her baby's father cannot adopt her baby out unless she is classed as unfit. You stooped low enough to say she should tell a judge and/or social workers she's an unfit mother so they'll 'allow' her to adopt it out. Your suggestion shows no regard for her dignity, mental wellbeing, reputation or the security of her existing children if any. at all.


  • #193
    Widdershins
    Registered Users Posts: 10,633 ✭✭✭✭Widdershins


    Donald Trump wrote: »

    Even if they were there is nothing stopping a married couple saying "we don't want this child and won't/can't look after it". The child will be put into care. A judge could then easily dissolve their rights for "failing in their duty of care" . Unless they are going to appeal. Which they won't do if they want the kid to be adopted

    Here is where you suggest women declare themselves unfit mothers so they can adopt a baby out.

    There is a lot to stop them. They may already be very fit and loving mothers to existing children, and not want to be on record as unfit mothers, risking their existing family. They might want to have a family at a later date and not want that mark against their name, and to be monitored and suspected of being unfit.


  • #194
    Donald Trump
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,225 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    Widdershins wrote: »
    Do you think your suggestion even if it didn't require the woman to self identify as incapable, incompetent or abusive,is a healthy, reasonable, compassionate thing to tell women to do?

    What will you suggest next? The father and husband asks to be put on the sex offenders register so mum can adopt the baby out?


    LOL. following up on your edits.

    They wouldn't have to be incapable or incompetent and I don't see a special category on that page for sex offenders.

    They can already have kids and give the new one over to care saying we can't care for it. If someone want to adopt the child, the prospective adopter can apply to the judge to adopt. The judge can declare that the birth parents have failed in their duty of care towards that child. Which they have. They don't have to make a declaration on the intelligence/competency or otherwise of the original parents. Especially if they have waived all rights and declared they will never want the child or care for it


  • #195
    Widdershins
    Registered Users Posts: 10,633 ✭✭✭✭Widdershins


    Well it's the mother who has to do the adopting out in the scenario that was suggested.

    If you read the thread you'll see a number of views on the status of feotus/unborn child and the issues around sentience, heartbeat, brain activity etc. I don't feel I have anything extra to contribute on top of what others have said about that.


  • #196
    AbusesToilets
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,551 ✭✭✭✭AbusesToilets


    You are referring to the self replicating grouping of cells that lack any form of consciousness, not too dissimilar to say a tumor in that respect.


  • #197
    Depp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,850 ✭✭✭Depp


    AbusesToilets wrote: »
    You are referring to the self replicating grouping of cells that lack any form of consciousness, not too dissimilar to say a tumor in that respect.

    but that also have a heartbeat and resemble human features? sorry but to compare a fetus to a tumor is truly despicable


  • #198
    Widdershins
    Registered Users Posts: 10,633 ✭✭✭✭Widdershins


    Depp wrote: »
    but that also have a heartbeat and resemble human features? sorry but to compare a fetus to a tumor is truly despicable

    An unsurprising reaction to an emotive description though.


  • #199
    AbusesToilets
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,551 ✭✭✭✭AbusesToilets


    Depp wrote: »
    but that also have a heartbeat and resemble human features? sorry but to compare a fetus to a tumor is truly despicable

    I think the context of someone who is in a situation where they desire an abortion, it is entirely apt. An unwanted growth in their body, with life changing implications.


  • #200
    Little CuChulainn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,624 ✭✭✭Little CuChulainn


    GritBiscuit wrote: »
    I'd argue being adopted will have far greater ramifications for a child than ending a life they weren't actually aware they were going to have. I say that as an adoptee...

    You believe you would have had a better life if you were aborted? That's pretty sad for you but it can hardly be considered to be the situation for everyone.


  • #201
    Donald Trump
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,225 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    Widdershins wrote: »
    Here is where you suggest women declare themselves unfit mothers so they can adopt a baby out.

    There is a lot to stop them. They may already be very fit and loving mothers to existing children, and not want to be on record as unfit mothers, risking their existing family. They might want to have a family at a later date and not want that mark against their name, and to be monitored and suspected of being unfit.

    You have a fundamental misunderstanding of why those mechanisms are in place. The family unit of the married couple and child is enshrined in constitution. Argue about that elsewhere. The fact is that it is there. So it is difficult to legally break that. So if the child is in care, legally it still holds that getting back with it's family in a good environment is the preferred outcome

    Now, I take it that we can all agree that being adopted is preferable for a child than being continually fostered until they are 18.

    So where it appears that a child may, or should, never go back to it's parents, a judge can make the decision to allow the child to be adopted and break up that family unit.

    That is why that provision is there. It is to prevent a natural parent from preventing its child being adopted even when there is zero chance of them ever taking care of the child.

    It is not there to force the father to go on the sex offenders register. :pac:


  • Advertisement
Advertisement