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

Decent Skin · 05-09-2016 6:18pm

Widdershins wrote: »

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.

Seriously ? :eek: That's NUTS!!

Decent Skin · 05-09-2016 6:20pm

Depp wrote: »

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

Heartbeat and resemble human features ? As in a chimp ? How "resemble" are we talking ?

Discodog · 05-09-2016 6:25pm

So, for those that oppose abortion, if a fetus won't survive after birth then should those preventing an abortion be charged with causing unnecessary suffering & what should their punishment be ?

Widdershins · 05-09-2016 6:26pm

Donald Trump wrote: »

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:

Not at all but you are misunderstanding my comment. Regardless of the reason for the rules around married women adopting out a baby, they are there, and your suggestion was that she should 'simply' tell the state that she's an unfit mother so as to circumvent these rules and have the baby adopted. The sex offenders part is a joke, but you are again missing it. It's realistic to you that a woman would go through all that pregnancy and birth entails and then declare herself unfit and ASK for the baby to be taken from her care on those grounds. It's as if that's no more than an inconvenient couple of hours in court to a woman. In that case why couldn't a man tell the court he's a sex offender-but (by your logic)-he doesn't think he's a risk to existing children, only the unwanted baby. And that'll be fine.

Decent Skin · 05-09-2016 6:26pm

Discodog wrote: »

So, for those that oppose abortion, if a fetus won't survive after birth then should those preventing an abortion be charged with causing unnecessary suffering & what should their punishment be ?

It's born at that stage, so it falls into the same category as the mother who was forced to carry it.

Widdershins · 05-09-2016 6:27pm

Decent Skin wrote: »

Seriously ? :eek: That's NUTS!!

If you look back a bit someone posted the conditions under which a married couple can have their baby adopted-e.g if they are deemed unfit parents, or if they die and the child is orphaned.

Decent Skin · 05-09-2016 6:28pm

Widdershins wrote: »

Not at all but you are misunderstanding my comment. Regardless of the reason for the rules around married women adopting out a baby, they are there, and your suggestion was that she should 'simply' tell the state that she's an unfit mother so as to circumvent these rules and have the baby adopted. The sex offenders part is a joke, but you are again missing it. It's realistic to you that a woman would go through all that pregnancy and birth entails and then declare herself unfit and ASK for the baby to be taken from her care on those grounds. It's as if that's no more than an inconvenient couple of hours in court to a woman. In that case why couldn't a man tell the court he's a sex offender-but (by your logic)-he doesn't think he's a risk to existing children, only the unwanted baby. And that'll be fine.

Some support their stance by claiming that women are born liars and cannot be trusted to not claim suicidation.

So lying re being unfit should be no bother to all those untrustworthy females, right ?

* Emphasis : not my view!

Decent Skin · 05-09-2016 6:29pm

Widdershins wrote: »

If you look back a bit someone posted the conditions under which a married couple can have their baby adopted-e.g if they are deemed unfit parents, or if they die and the child is orphaned.

And it's definitely EXCLUSIVELY those three ?

PucaMama · 05-09-2016 6:29pm

There will never be a reasonable debate on here about abortion because it's always so heavily slanted towards pro choice and no mod will pull people up on the petty digs thrown at the pro life side. It started in the opening post. This thread will turn into a thread for pro choicers to pat each other on the back

Widdershins · 05-09-2016 6:31pm

Decent Skin wrote: »

And it's definitely EXCLUSIVELY those three ?

Originally Posted by TheInterWebLinkAbove
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.

Decent Skin · 05-09-2016 6:31pm

PucaMama wrote: »

There will never be a reasonable debate on here about abortion because it's always so heavily slanted towards pro choice and no mod will pull people up on the petty digs thrown at the pro life side. It started in the opening post. This thread will turn into a thread for pro choicers to pat each other on the back

And no comment from you on the vile posts which stated that we were in favour of women getting raped ?

Heavily slanted and always petty digs thrown at the pro side; indeed; although you might be right, as that was far from "petty".

Donald Trump · 05-09-2016 6:32pm

Widdershins wrote: »

Not at all but you are misunderstanding my comment. Regardless of the reason for the rules around married women adopting out a baby, they are there, and your suggestion was that she should 'simply' tell the state that she's an unfit mother so as to circumvent these rules and have the baby adopted. The sex offenders part is a joke, but you are again missing it. It's realistic to you that a woman would go through all that pregnancy and birth entails and then declare herself unfit and ASK for the baby to be taken from her care on those grounds. It's as if that's no more than an inconvenient couple of hours in court to a woman. In that case why couldn't a man tell the court he's a sex offender-but (by your logic)-he doesn't think he's a risk to existing children, only the unwanted baby. And that'll be fine.

Don't lie.

I never said that.

You said I said it but I never did.

Now you continue to repeat it.

Fell free to quote my post where I said that a woman should declare herself unfit

AbusesToilets · 05-09-2016 6:32pm

PucaMama wrote: »

There will never be a reasonable debate on here about abortion because it's always so heavily slanted towards pro choice and no mod will pull people up on the petty digs thrown at the pro life side. It started in the opening post. This thread will turn into a thread for pro choicers to pat each other on the back

What is a reasonable position to take? A pro-life supporter feels that the potential person-hood of a developing fetus takes primacy over the wishes of the woman carrying it.

There's no shades of grey or area for compromise with a pro life supporter. It's all or nothing.

Widdershins · 05-09-2016 6:33pm

I already did. ''We can't look after it'' =Unfit.

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.

Donald Trump · 05-09-2016 6:35pm

Widdershins wrote: »

I already did. ''We can't look after it'' =Unfit.

Lol.

No it doesn't :pac:

"We already 10 kids. We can look after those but can't afford to take care of another one. We can't look after this one"

Widdershins · 05-09-2016 6:42pm

Donald Trump wrote: »

Lol.

No it doesn't :pac:

"We already 10 kids. We can look after those but can't afford to take care of another one. We can't look after this one"

And the court will just shrug and say, what can you do. They won't be frowned upon in the least. And in the case of women in less obvious financial situations, do they have to detail every aspect of their reasons and if it is a financial issue why they won't just accept state support?

Decent Skin · 05-09-2016 6:55pm

Yup. So they can choose not to choose abortion. It's not like the repeal affects them in any way whatsoever.

How many people who'll never avail of gay marriage voted in favour of it last year ? How many of those would view it as "a bit weird" but decided "ah feck it, who am I to prevent someone doing it - it's not like it'll affect me" ?

AbusesToilets · 05-09-2016 6:58pm

Decent Skin wrote: »

Yup. So they can choose not to choose abortion. It's not like the repeal affects them in any way whatsoever.

How many people who'll never avail of gay marriage voted in favour of it last year ? How many of those would view it as "a bit weird" but decided "ah feck it, who am I to prevent someone doing it - it's not like it'll affect me" ?

This is the crux of the issue and why there can be no reasonable debate.

The pro-choice side is not forcing their moral stand point on anyone, they simply want the ability to choose.

The pro-life side would push their morals on everyone, regardless of opinion and circumstance.

feargale · 05-09-2016 7:03pm

A question for all of you:

Up to what stage of pregnancy would you say abortion should be legal?

Decent Skin · 05-09-2016 7:07pm

feargale wrote: »

A question for all of you:

Up to what stage of pregnancy would you say abortion should be legal?

Given the choice I'd play safe and have it 0-10 or maybe 0-12 weeks

Discodog · 05-09-2016 7:09pm

Decent Skin wrote: »

It's born at that stage, so it falls into the same category as the mother who was forced to carry it.

An ill or fatally deformed fetus may be suffering for months. Why don't the Pro Life lobby care about this ?

AbusesToilets · 05-09-2016 7:13pm

feargale wrote: »

A question for all of you:

Up to what stage of pregnancy would you say abortion should be legal?

Independent fetal viability, whatever a general medical standard for such would be determined at.

A Little Pony · 05-09-2016 7:14pm

Im an Atheist and hate the concept of abortion. Morally wrong.

Decent Skin · 05-09-2016 7:16pm

Murder affects others.

There is no "unborn child", as in any other discussion a "child" comes after being a baby, which comes after being a foetus.

You'd never hear someone saying "unborn adult" for some reason, because it doesn't sound as emotive.

And there are a few stages before that foetus too.

Anyway - this is miles off-topic.

Decent Skin · 05-09-2016 7:32pm

Cancelling a date could affect an unborn child; because it doesn't exist either and won't.

How can you affect something that doesn't exist and won't ?

eviltwin · 05-09-2016 7:37pm

To go back to the point of the thread, do you think women who have abortions should be punished?

PucaMama · 05-09-2016 7:41pm

Decent Skin wrote: »

PucaMama wrote: »

There will never be a reasonable debate on here about abortion because it's always so heavily slanted towards pro choice and no mod will pull people up on the petty digs thrown at the pro life side. It started in the opening post. This thread will turn into a thread for pro choicers to pat each other on the back

And no comment from you on the vile posts which stated that we were in favour of women getting raped ?

Heavily slanted and always petty digs thrown at the pro side; indeed; although you might be right, as that was far from "petty".

if you think this forum is not heavily slanted (or heavily in favour of) pro abortion then you are very wrong

eviltwin · 05-09-2016 7:44pm

PucaMama wrote: »

if you think this forum is not heavily slanted (or heavily in favour of) pro abortion then you are very wrong

So?

PucaMama · 05-09-2016 7:47pm

eviltwin wrote: »

PucaMama wrote: »

if you think this forum is not heavily slanted (or heavily in favour of) pro abortion then you are very wrong

So?

And what impact does that have on people looking for discussion? The place is full of people echoing the same stuff back at each other

martingriff · 05-09-2016 7:50pm

Decent Skin wrote: »

As long as it's a reasoned discussion without the extremists from both sides getting to hog it, it's long overdue!

Good opening question btw.

Personally I'd guess they're partially covered given their reliance on the "thou shalt not kill", therefore ruling out capital punishment, but given that - how do they want them dealt with ? Jailed for the 7 years that passes for "life" in this country ?

Unfortunately the message you quoted is highly inflammatory as if it is a conspiracy from a certain organisation and if you are not part of it you must be for it. As you so conform to as the "thou shall not kill" comment.

As for the question I am sure they will go with what the country decides as that democracy

Widdershins · 05-09-2016 7:50pm

Decent Skin wrote: »

Some support their stance by claiming that women are born liars and cannot be trusted to not claim suicidation.

So lying re being unfit should be no bother to all those untrustworthy females, right ?

* Emphasis : not my view!

Sounds like that might be the mentality.

martingriff · 05-09-2016 7:51pm

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

Because their arguments and beliefs ultimately stem from religious faith.

Not sure if you are been sarcastic or not but I know non religous people that are pro life

eviltwin · 05-09-2016 7:51pm

PucaMama wrote: »

And what impact does that have on people looking for discussion? The place is full of people echoing the same stuff back at each other

Boards has always been very liberal on this issue. What do you expect? Do you want people to lie about their opinion? There are other abortion threads in the religion forums, you'll find plenty of conservative voices there who share your views.

PucaMama · 05-09-2016 7:52pm

martingriff wrote: »

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

Because their arguments and beliefs ultimately stem from religious faith.

Not sure if you are been sarcastic or not but I know non religous people that are pro life

I'm not a particularly religious person, my lifestyle wouldn't fit with a lot of religious rules, my stance on abortion is completely my own

PucaMama · 05-09-2016 7:54pm

eviltwin wrote: »

PucaMama wrote: »

And what impact does that have on people looking for discussion? The place is full of people echoing the same stuff back at each other

Boards has always been very liberal on this issue. What do you expect? Do you want people to lie about their opinion? There are other abortion threads in the religion forums, you'll find plenty of conservative voices there who share your views.

What do I expect from a thread when posters say they want reasoned debate on it? I expect the insults to be left out and the high and mighty "I'm such a liberal" attitude of pro choicers to be left at the door.

AbusesToilets · 05-09-2016 7:56pm

PucaMama wrote: »

And what impact does that have on people looking for discussion? The place is full of people echoing the same stuff back at each other

Again, what level of discussion can a pro life supporter put forth? It's an all or nothing position.

You're pro life. Your posts will consist of stating that fact and your moral opposition to the termination of a fetus. How much debate can be generated from that?

Decent Skin · 05-09-2016 7:56pm

martingriff wrote: »

Unfortunately the message you quoted is highly inflammatory as if it is a conspiracy from a certain organisation and if you are not part of it you must be for it. As you so conform to as the "thou shall not kill" comment.

Have to say that the last line has me lost.

As for the question I am sure they will go with what the country decides as that democracy

In order for the country to decide there would have to be a referendum, and some don't want that.

eviltwin · 05-09-2016 7:59pm

PucaMama wrote: »

What do I expect from a thread when posters say they want reasoned debate on it? I expect the insults to be left out and the high and mighty "I'm such a liberal" attitude of pro choicers to be left at the door.

What's the point in debating at all? Are you going to change your mind?

PucaMama · 05-09-2016 7:59pm

If you allow a referendum, there will be the same controlling behaviour from the repeal side as there was from the yes side in the same sex marriage referendum. Although I voted yes I was disgusted at the no sides posters being ripped down etc and don't tell me it didn't happen because o had a family member who took part in it. All "no" opinions will be stamped down. You will not be let talk how you want.

Decent Skin · 05-09-2016 8:00pm

PucaMama wrote: »

What do I expect from a thread when posters say they want reasoned debate on it? I expect the insults to be left out and the high and mighty "I'm such a liberal" attitude of pro choicers to be left at the door.

I believe you read into my post incorrectly based on your bias. There are extremists on both sides, and I didn't single out either of them.

In fact, I explicitly mentioned the extremists from both sides.

PucaMama · 05-09-2016 8:00pm

eviltwin wrote: »

PucaMama wrote: »

What do I expect from a thread when posters say they want reasoned debate on it? I expect the insults to be left out and the high and mighty "I'm such a liberal" attitude of pro choicers to be left at the door.

What's the point in debating at all? Are you going to change your mind?

Are you?

eviltwin · 05-09-2016 8:02pm

PucaMama wrote: »

If you allow a referendum, there will be the same controlling behaviour from the repeal side as there was from the yes side in the same sex marriage referendum. Although I voted yes I was disgusted at the no sides posters being ripped down etc and don't tell me it didn't happen because o had a family member who took part in it. All "no" opinions will be stamped down. You will not be let talk how you want.

Is that the best you can come up with?

Decent Skin · 05-09-2016 8:02pm

PucaMama wrote: »

If you allow a referendum, there will be the same controlling behaviour from the repeal side as there was from the yes side in the same sex marriage referendum. Although I voted yes I was disgusted at the no sides posters being ripped down etc and don't tell me it didn't happen because o had a family member who took part in it. All "no" opinions will be stamped down. You will not be let talk how you want.

Have to say that I agree completely with that, and defriended 2 people on Facebook when they posted photos of themselves taking posters down.

Said posters were merely "don't be silenced" and nothing whatsoever inflammatory or objectionable.

Widdershins · 05-09-2016 8:03pm

PucaMama wrote: »

If you allow a referendum, there will be the same controlling behaviour from the repeal side as there was from the yes side in the same sex marriage referendum. Although I voted yes I was disgusted at the no sides posters being ripped down etc and don't tell me it didn't happen because o had a family member who took part in it. All "no" opinions will be stamped down. You will not be let talk how you want.

As a YES voter I was bothered by some of it. It was also over the top and in my face constantly. I don't think that would have persuaded me to vote YES if I wasn't originally going to. In a reverse psychology it almost made me want to vote NO out of irritation

eviltwin · 05-09-2016 8:03pm

PucaMama wrote: »

Are you?

No. If anything these threads just reinforce my feelings on the issue.

PucaMama · 05-09-2016 8:03pm

eviltwin wrote: »

PucaMama wrote: »

If you allow a referendum, there will be the same controlling behaviour from the repeal side as there was from the yes side in the same sex marriage referendum. Although I voted yes I was disgusted at the no sides posters being ripped down etc and don't tell me it didn't happen because o had a family member who took part in it. All "no" opinions will be stamped down. You will not be let talk how you want.

Is that the best you can come up with?

There's nothing wrong with not wanting a referendum where people will be bullied into voting how others want them to.

PucaMama · 05-09-2016 8:04pm

eviltwin wrote: »

PucaMama wrote: »

Are you?

No. If anything these threads just reinforce my feelings on the issue.

That's pretty much my feelings too so why do people look for debate or pretend to look for look for one

eviltwin · 05-09-2016 8:06pm

PucaMama wrote: »

There's nothing wrong with not wanting a referendum where people will be bullied into voting how others want them to.

Let's take a look shall we? I'd imagine the slurs to the keep the 8th side will revolve around comments about being anti women, holy joes etc. Not nice or mature but a lot less damaging than the emotional ****e that will come from the other side about baby killing, murder, abortion causes cancer, women who choose abortion are more likely to abuse kids and the other nonsense in the newspapers today.

Decent Skin · 05-09-2016 8:09pm

PucaMama wrote: »

There's nothing wrong with not wanting a referendum where people will be bullied into voting how others want them to.

Sorry but that's nuts! Someone blocking a referendum is FAR worse a bully than someone campaigning during it, however misbehaved either side might be during it.

PucaMama · 05-09-2016 8:10pm

eviltwin wrote: »

PucaMama wrote: »

There's nothing wrong with not wanting a referendum where people will be bullied into voting how others want them to.

Let's take a look shall we? I'd imagine the slurs to the keep the 8th side will revolve around comments about being anti women, holy joes etc. Not nice or mature but a lot less damaging than the emotional ****e that will come from the other side about baby killing, murder, abortion causes cancer, women who choose abortion are more likely to abuse kids and the other nonsense in the newspapers today.

I have never heard a single other person claiming abortion makes a person more likely to be abusive, maybe because I'd pull them up on it and my friends tend to know that about me already. And a lot of people do assume pro life = religious, which is a lot like assuming pro choice = using abortion as casual contraception.

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

Comments