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

Abortion whats your stance?

12467…10

Comments

  • #152
    Nevyn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 43,045 ✭✭✭✭Nevyn


    Zulu wrote: »
    I can understand someone who doesn't see the child as a child opting for abortion, but I have a big problem understanding how someone can rationalising having an abortion if they understand what they carry to be a child.

    Cos they do not want to bring a child into this world/become a mother/endure the pregnancy/birth for a range of reasons, that is why.
    Zulu wrote: »
    Human nature is littered with desperate times, most far far worse than finding yourself pregnant, yet people have carried out seemingly impossible acts of bravery and selflessness.

    I would say one of the reasons that it is said it is a woman's choice cos it is her body it that she is the one who is trapped being pregnant and having a heap of changes happen to her body which in the case of an unplanned pregnancy she does not want happening.

    It is something most healthy men will never experience.

    Morning sickness is hell.
    Zulu wrote: »
    Do we need more role models?

    What like Juno, Ms Spears Jr and Bristol Plain ?


  • #153
    eveie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 307 ✭✭eveie


    hi all
    i missed out on the last few days of this thread.
    in reltion to embryos, although i know people are not going to take too nicely to what im about to say, it is my belief.


    i believe that a child is a gift not something that should be created from science.i can honestly say that if i found myself in a position where i couldnt concieve through natural methods and if i really wanted a child that bad i would adopt, although i know many women want "their own child" and i can understand where their coming from. i just think this whole i.v.f has brought a lot of problems some of which have been mentioned earlier. what about the gay couple who found a surrogate mother, they used i.v.f and later sued the doctor becuase they wanted one child but instead got two, imagine sueing a doctor because because of that!!! everyone knows that with i.v.f there is a high chance of multiple children.

    there was a break through a number of months ago where it was establised that stem cell research found that using the placenta or cells from tissue other then embryos was just if not more successful so the use of embryos was pretty much made redundant by this.
    i do understand that the embryo is not yet implanted in the womb but i think there should be very tight laws around what is done with it.


  • #154
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Zulu wrote: »
    I can understand someone who doesn't see the child as a child opting for abortion, but I have a big problem understanding how someone can rationalising having an abortion if they understand what they carry to be a child.

    Some user, I'm assuming when you say "ungodly" that you recognise the child. How can desperate times rationalise killing a child?

    Human nature is littered with desperate times, most far far worse than finding yourself pregnant, yet people have carried out seemingly impossible acts of bravery and selflessness.

    Do we need more role models?

    (The above is on the understand that the child is recognised as more than "a bundle of cells, or a parasite(sic)")

    exactly - there is a huge difference between this "oh well" shrug attitude and that of say Jordan( Katie Price) who has and is bringing up a blind child.:cool:


  • #155
    Zulu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,965 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


    Thaedydal wrote: »
    Cos they do not want to bring a child into this world/become a mother/endure the pregnancy/birth for a range of reasons, that is why.
    A range of reasons that make it ok to kill a child? (note I stressed this in the post) How can someone rationalise killing another person? Particularly a child. That is wrong.
    I would say one of the reasons that it is said it is a woman's choice cos it is her body it that she is the one who is trapped being pregnant and having a heap of changes happen to her body which in the case of an unplanned pregnancy she does not want happening.
    I get that. I never questioned why it was said to be a womans choice. :confused:
    I do however recognise the point CDfm and others have made, relating to the ignorance displayed to the father in the topic.
    Morning sickness is hell.
    Death is worse. No reason to kill.
    I'll give you a hypothetical situation: imagine you were very ill. Nausea all the time. Imagine this would last for 1 year. Sick, hormonal, weight gain, and to top it off you were going to have a very painful procedure at the end of the year. Imagine to escape this fate, all you needed to do was to kill another person; a baby. Just put a gun to it's head and pull the trigger.
    Would you do it?
    I wouldn't.

    The dramatic comparison I'm trying to draw here, relates to a person who views the unborn child as a child. The person recognises the child for what it is: a child, yet still has the abortion. I don't get that.

    I do how ever acknowledge that some people view this impregnated egg, as nothing more than a pimple/growth and as such, don't worry about removing it, any more than I would burst a spot.
    What like Juno, Ms Spears Jr and Bristol Plain ?
    No. They weren't quite who I would consider role models. I take your point, though.


  • #156
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    You cant be overly selective about your role models here. When you think of it you only know about the ones who havent taken the nucleur option (abortion) and given birth.

    The other thing is this - adoption is traumatic - like it or not a person developes an attatchment to an unborn child.

    We see this with mothers planning adoption,surrogate mums, and IVF embryo storage.

    Religion aside here as I have to respect people who dont have a belief.

    These matters need to be consisered by a rational person as an alternative to a Ryanair flight to Gatwick if they are truly against abortion and are looking openly at alternatives to it.


  • Advertisement
  • #157
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Thaedydal wrote: »
    What like Juno, Ms Spears Jr and Bristol Plain ?

    They may have both made mistakes, but hey one mistake is a lot better than making two?

    I respect them a lot for keeping their children. Why punish the unborn for your mistake?


  • #158
    themadchef
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,813 ✭✭✭themadchef


    Agent Smith wrote: »
    i'm pro-life. I believe that life begins at conception. I would only support an abortion if the life of the mother was in serious danger. I agree with the idea of being pro-info

    Im pro life too, and completly agree with Agent Smith.

    I have a few friends who have had abortions, and would never "finger wag and tut tut" at any of them or any one else who chose to have an abortion as it's a very personal thing. They are the ones that have to deal with the mental, emotional and physical consaquences of their actions. It must be the hardest decision that anyone would ever face in theirs lives..imagine facing it at 16 or 18 or god forbid younger?.

    Everyone's circumstances are different, but it seems to me that it is used as a way to stop people having to be responsible. "Sure ya can always have an abortion" is not how i'd like to see the next generations attitude progress.

    Teach our kids respect, teach our kids responsibility and teach our kids that life is life.

    I would always vote no to abortion. There should be options though, i just think its prevention not cure we should be looking at.


  • #159
    ChocolateSauce
    Registered Users Posts: 2,892 ✭✭✭ChocolateSauce


    There is a very important issue in relation to abortion and law which almost everyone in Ireland seems to ignore, including in this thread, even though I've already pointed it out, so I'm going to do it again.

    The legal argument should never be about is abortion right or wrong. That is a philosophical and moral argument, and it has been very well debated by both sides. At the end of the day, it is safe to say consensus will probably never be achieved. So what to do? If you have two sides which are opposed to one another, obviously they can't both be right.

    Either it is morally wrong to abort a foetus or it isn't. How do we decide? Simple, we consult our own conscience. We weigh up our opinions and beliefs and we say, it is right, or, it is wrong. Someone who thinks it is wrong won't have an abortion. But this is where the anti-choice side shows its arrogant and self-righteous and self-pitying colours. So-called pro-lifers try and force their views, their conclusions on those who do not agree. This amounts to religious oppression.

    They are arrogant and self-righteous because they assume that their opinions and their conclusions trump those of other, no dumber, no eviler people, and insist that their morals are above those of their opponents, and that they somehow occupy the moral highground. This is something pro-choicers are not guilty of. No reasonable person who is pro-abortion (distinct from pro-choice) would ever dream of forcing someone to have an abortion against their wishes. Unlike anti-choicers, they do not want to force their opinions on others. Pro-choicers also are happy to let pro-lifers live life with their own morals; they accept some people think abortion is wrong. They just wish the same courtesy would be returned to them.

    Anti-choicers also espouse self-pity, saying they are under attack and all they want to do it save the children and do the right thing, as if they're unilaterally qualified to know what the right thing is. Pro-life is not under attack; anti-choice is. You can be against abortion and still be pro-choice, if you are able to admit that not everyone agrees with you. If you want to stop abortion, if you think you are right, a far more honourable way to do it is to debate the ethics of it and convince people not to do it. Bypassing intelligent debate and making it illegal is not right. Of course, if after all your arguements against it a person still is pro-abortion, maybe they are right? Who knows.

    A society where women are free to choose is of paramount importance. Abortion being illegal goes against everything a modern democracy stands for-human rights, freedom of person and freedom from oppression and religion. Illegal abortion means the majority are being allowed to rule over a minority, to dictate their own terms on the lives of others. Neither side can ever be proven to be correct, so the only way to resolve the situation is to allow people to make up their own minds and follow their own conscience, to foster a culture of mutual respect for differing world views and, as an after thought, to ensure women who decide to have an abortion have good medical care.

    Anything less is unacceptable.


  • #160
    ChocolateSauce
    Registered Users Posts: 2,892 ✭✭✭ChocolateSauce


    themadchef wrote: »
    I have a few friends who have had abortions, and would never "finger wag and tut tut" at any of them or any one else who chose to have an abortion as it's a very personal thing. They are the ones that have to deal with the mental, emotional and physical consaquences of their actions. It must be the hardest decision that anyone would ever face in theirs lives..imagine facing it at 16 or 18 or god forbid younger?.

    I would always vote no to abortion. There should be options though, i just think its prevention not cure we should be looking at.

    You have just totally contradicted yourself. First you say abortion is a personal thing and you would never finger wag, but then you say you will do everything in your power to make sure they cannot legally do it? It is exactly this kind of hypocrisy I condemn above.


  • #161
    tallaght01
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,778 ✭✭✭tallaght01


    ChocolateSauce wrote: »
    There is a very important issue in relation to abortion and law which almost everyone in Ireland seems to ignore, including in this thread, even though I've already pointed it out, so I'm going to do it again.

    The legal argument should never be about is abortion right or wrong. That is a philosophical and moral argument, and it has been very well debated by both sides. At the end of the day, it is safe to say consensus will probably never be achieved. So what to do? If you have two sides which are opposed to one another, obviously they can't both be right.

    Either it is morally wrong to abort a foetus or it isn't. How do we decide? Simple, we consult our own conscience. We weigh up our opinions and beliefs and we say, it is right, or, it is wrong. Someone who thinks it is wrong won't have an abortion. But this is where the anti-choice side shows its arrogant and self-righteous and self-pitying colours. So-called pro-lifers try and force their views, their conclusions on those who do not agree. This amounts to religious oppression.

    They are arrogant and self-righteous because they assume that their opinions and their conclusions trump those of other, no dumber, no eviler people, and insist that their morals are above those of their opponents, and that they somehow occupy the moral highground. This is something pro-choicers are not guilty of. No reasonable person who is pro-abortion (distinct from pro-choice) would ever dream of forcing someone to have an abortion against their wishes. Unlike anti-choicers, they do not want to force their opinions on others. Pro-choicers also are happy to let pro-lifers live life with their own morals; they accept some people think abortion is wrong. They just wish the same courtesy would be returned to them.

    Anti-choicers also espouse self-pity, saying they are under attack and all they want to do it save the children and do the right thing, as if they're unilaterally qualified to know what the right thing is. Pro-life is not under attack; anti-choice is. You can be against abortion and still be pro-choice, if you are able to admit that not everyone agrees with you. If you want to stop abortion, if you think you are right, a far more honourable way to do it is to debate the ethics of it and convince people not to do it. Bypassing intelligent debate and making it illegal is not right. Of course, if after all your arguements against it a person still is pro-abortion, maybe they are right? Who knows.

    A society where women are free to choose is of paramount importance. Abortion being illegal goes against everything a modern democracy stands for-human rights, freedom of person and freedom from oppression and religion. Illegal abortion means the majority are being allowed to rule over a minority, to dictate their own terms on the lives of others. Neither side can ever be proven to be correct, so the only way to resolve the situation is to allow people to make up their own minds and follow their own conscience, to foster a culture of mutual respect for differing world views and, as an after thought, to ensure women who decide to have an abortion have good medical care.

    Anything less is unacceptable.

    You can dress it up anyway you like, but you've just said that we should all accept abortion if the woman thinks abortion is OK, and that is the bottom line in this issue.

    Well, I'm sorry if it's arrogant, or if I'm dictating the terms of your life to you. But I think it's more important that babies have an advocate. Someone needs to speak up for them. That's what I do. For precisely the reasons you've outlined above.


  • Advertisement
  • #162
    Zulu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,965 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


    Nonsense.
    ChocolateSauce wrote: »
    Someone who thinks it is wrong won't have an abortion. But this is where the anti-choice side shows its arrogant and self-righteous and self-pitying colours.
    The above comment shows your own arrogant and self-righteous colours.
    In one sentence you have completely dismissed and condemned the majority of the society (Irish) we live in. You have totally ignored the fact that the majority of citizens view the child as a legitimate person and are attempting to safeguard their basic right to life. Bravo.
    So-called pro-lifers try and force their views, their conclusions on those who do not agree. This amounts to religious oppression.
    It has nothing to do with religion. This is your own prejudice. The are following through in their civic duty to ensure the society they are a part of doesn't allow (in their opinion) immoral actions to legally happen. That is the backbone of democracy.
    They are arrogant and self-righteous because they assume that their opinions and their conclusions trump those of other, no dumber, no eviler people, and insist that their morals are above those of their opponents, and that they somehow occupy the moral highground.
    This is just being abusive for the sake of it. They assume their opinions are correct (everyone does) and protect their right to voice that. Would you have different? Would you silence these people because they don't suit your opinions??
    Pro-choicers also are happy to let pro-lifers live life with their own morals;
    We don't do this with any other aspect of society, so why make an exception for abortion?
    Anti-choicers also espouse self-pity....
    :rolleyes:
    If you want to stop abortion, if you think you are right, a far more honourable way to do it is to debate the ethics of it and convince people not to do it. Bypassing intelligent debate and making it illegal is not right.
    What rubbish is this? Why not prove that abortion is ok, and convince the no lobby, and then legalise it? Oh wait. They tried that. It didn't work.
    A society where women are free to choose is of paramount importance. Abortion being illegal goes against everything a modern democracy stands for
    Actually it doesn't. Having a vote, like we did, is everything modren democracy stands for.
    Trying to change that because you didn't get the result you wanted however.....


  • #163
    kizzyr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,410 ✭✭✭kizzyr


    Zulu wrote: »
    A range of reasons that make it ok to kill a child? (note I stressed this in the post) How can someone rationalise killing another person? Particularly a child. That is wrong.

    I get that. I never questioned why it was said to be a womans choice. :confused:
    I do however recognise the point CDfm and others have made, relating to the ignorance displayed to the father in the topic.

    Death is worse. No reason to kill.
    I'll give you a hypothetical situation: imagine you were very ill. Nausea all the time. Imagine this would last for 1 year. Sick, hormonal, weight gain, and to top it off you were going to have a very painful procedure at the end of the year. Imagine to escape this fate, all you needed to do was to kill another person; a baby. Just put a gun to it's head and pull the trigger.
    Would you do it?
    I wouldn't.

    The dramatic comparison I'm trying to draw here, relates to a person who views the unborn child as a child. The person recognises the child for what it is: a child, yet still has the abortion. I don't get that.

    I do how ever acknowledge that some people view this impregnated egg, as nothing more than a pimple/growth and as such, don't worry about removing it, any more than I would burst a spot.

    No. They weren't quite who I would consider role models. I take your point, though.

    As you said it comes down to whether or not you see yourself pregnant with a baby or simply pregnant with what may become a baby and so a person. For some as soon as they find out that they are pregnant they see themselves as carrying a baby. For others when they are pregnant they are simply pregnant and they don't see a baby. If they chose to terminate the pregnancy then as far as they are concerned they aren't killing anything.
    If abortion were more freely available in Ireland those who are against it and see it as being fundamentally wrong are free to not have one. By having it more freely available here is not going to force it on anyone. It will simply mean that all of those thousands of women who travel to the UK and elsewhere to avail of a termination will not be forced to travel for something that only a handful of people decide to do easily. As things stand we in Ireland are doing what we always do: export the problem and carry on patting ourselves on the back for being a great ol' country that doesn't deal with controversial issues.


  • #164
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    ChocolateSauce wrote: »

    The legal argument should never be about is abortion right or wrong. That is a philosophical and moral argument, and it has been very well debated by both sides. At the end of the day, it is safe to say consensus will probably never be achieved. So what to do? If you have two sides which are opposed to one another, obviously they can't both be right.

    Either it is morally wrong to abort a foetus or it isn't. How do we decide? Simple, we consult our own conscience. We weigh up our opinions and beliefs and we say, it is right, or, it is wrong. Someone who thinks it is wrong won't have an abortion. But this is where the anti-choice side shows its arrogant and self-righteous and self-pitying colours. So-called pro-lifers try and force their views, their conclusions on those who do not agree. This amounts to religious oppression.

    They are arrogant and self-righteous because they assume that their opinions and their conclusions trump those of other, no dumber, no eviler people, and insist that their morals are above those of their opponents, and that they somehow occupy the moral highground. This is something pro-choicers are not guilty of. No reasonable person who is pro-abortion (distinct from pro-choice) would ever dream of forcing someone to have an abortion against their wishes. Unlike anti-choicers, they do not want to force their opinions on others. Pro-choicers also are happy to let pro-lifers live life with their own morals; they accept some people think abortion is wrong. They just wish the same courtesy would be returned to them.

    Me detects anti -religious secular bigotary here.

    There are some anti-abortion supporters who are anti-abortion on ethical grounds.In the same way we dont allow people to kill each other on the grounds "he needed killing" there are our laws.

    I know some pro-choice supporters who are anti-abortion but who think our definitions are too strict.

    This is a polarised argument between pro-and anti.

    But the pro-choice argument is a free for all and is that what you are proposing.

    Also- to assume someone who is anti-abortion is so purely on religous grounds is soo out of touch with the real world.


  • #165
    tallaght01
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,778 ✭✭✭tallaght01


    kizzyr wrote: »
    If abortion were more freely available in Ireland those who are against it and see it as being fundamentally wrong are free to not have one. .


    Which is fine, except there are those of us who don't just view it as an issue for the mother. Some of us will always feel a moral responsibility to advocate for babies and children.

    Otherwise that kind of argument would be fine.


  • #166
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    ChocolateSauce wrote: »
    Abortion being illegal goes against everything a modern democracy stands for-human rights, freedom of person and freedom from oppression and religion.

    There are a lot of things I will tolerate in life. What I absolutely will not tolerate is killing, and killing for a reason that is inexcusable. There are things which should be tolerated, and there are things which should not be tolerated in life. For me abortion is one of these things. Life is sacred. However in the interest of saving the life of the mother in a fatal scenario I will agree to it, as if the mother dies neither will live.


  • #167
    Zulu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,965 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


    kizzyr wrote: »
    As you said it comes down to whether or not you see yourself pregnant with a baby or simply pregnant with what may become a baby and so a person. For some as soon as they find out that they are pregnant they see themselves as carrying a baby. For others when they are pregnant they are simply pregnant and they don't see a baby. If they chose to terminate the pregnancy then as far as they are concerned they aren't killing anything.
    I understand that. What I was trying to point out is that there exists a sub-set that recognise the child, yet still opt for an abortion. I find it very hard to understand how this sub-set can come to this choice.
    If abortion were more freely available in Ireland those who are against it and see it as being fundamentally wrong are free to not have one.
    By having it more freely available here is not going to force it on anyone.
    Naturally, I'm not disputing that.
    It will simply mean that...
    Your missing part of it here though.
    You see I see it as a child. I see it as more than a "bundle of cells", so why would I allow someone to kill that child? Until someone convinces me it's not a child, I'm not going to allow someone to kill it. You mightn't consider a person in a vegitive state a person, but that doesn't mean I'm going to let you kill them.
    all of those thousands of women who travel to the UK and elsewhere to avail of a termination will not be forced to travel for something that only a handful of people decide to do easily
    well, it's more that a handful, it's the majority.
    As things stand we in Ireland are doing what we always do: export the problem and carry on patting ourselves on the back for being a great ol' country that doesn't deal with controversial issues.
    That's not fair.
    We made a decision via a vote. We also don't imprison people in the country for no good reason. What they decide to do our side of this country, is out side this countries jurisdiction.


  • #168
    kizzyr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,410 ✭✭✭kizzyr


    Zulu wrote: »
    I understand that. What I was trying to point out is that there exists a sub-set that recognise the child, yet still opt for an abortion. I find it very hard to understand how this sub-set can come to this choice.
    Naturally, I'm not disputing that.
    Your missing part of it here though.
    You see I see it as a child. I see it as more than a "bundle of cells", so why would I allow someone to kill that child? Until someone convinces me it's not a child, I'm not going to allow someone to kill it. You mightn't consider a person in a vegitive state a person, but that doesn't mean I'm going to let you kill them.
    well, it's more that a handful, it's the majority.
    That's not fair.
    We made a decision via a vote. We also don't imprison people in the country for no good reason. What they decide to do our side of this country, is out side this countries jurisdiction.

    Someone in a vegetative state is already dead. Their corpse is being ventilated by machines. There is no coming back from being in a PVS. By turning off the machine you are simply confirming death.
    Re: exporting the problem, well I think it is a fair statement to make. The decision made by that referendum was made in an Ireland of a different era. I really and truly think that there is a genuine need to have this before the people again. As it is the thousands of women who travel for a termination return to a country where there are no counselling services available to help someone deal with the after effects of the procedure. There are very few women who see a termination as an easy option. Most reach their decision after much heart searching and genuinely believe that they are doing the right thing by terminating their pregnancy.


  • #169
    Zulu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,965 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


    kizzyr wrote: »
    Someone in a vegetative state is already dead. Their corpse is being ventilated by machines. There is no coming back from being in a PVS.
    Not sure what PVS is, so I can't comment.
    Re: exporting the problem, well I think it is a fair statement to make. The decision made by that referendum was made in an Ireland of a different era.
    You'd swear the vote happened 100 years ago.
    I really and truly think that there is a genuine need to have this before the people again.
    Why? What is the genuine reason? other than "they got it wrong last time around".
    That said, I don't blame you for calling for another vote, it's the Irish way of politics in recient years.
    As it is the thousands of women who travel for a termination return to a country where there are no counselling services available to help someone deal with the after effects of the procedure.
    Seriously? No counselling at all? I find that hard to believe! Is that true?
    Most genuinely believe that they are doing the right thing by terminating their pregnancy.
    I don't doubt they believe they are doing the right thing, otherwise they wouldn't do it.

    I don't agree though.
    I think they are doing the wrong thing.
    Why would I encourage someone to do the wrong thing?


  • #170
    kizzyr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,410 ✭✭✭kizzyr


    Zulu wrote: »
    Not sure what PVS is, so I can't comment.

    You'd swear the vote happened 100 years ago.
    Why? What is the genuine reason? other than "they got it wrong last time around".
    That said, I don't blame you for calling for another vote, it's the Irish way of politics in recient years.
    Seriously? No counselling at all? I find that hard to believe! Is that true?
    I don't doubt they believe they are doing the right thing, otherwise they wouldn't do it.

    I don't agree though.
    I think they are doing the wrong thing.
    Why would I encourage someone to do the wrong thing?


    PVS is Permanent Vegitative State. You are essentially brain dead. Your body cannot survive without the machines which do your breathing for you. There is no brain function whatsoever. Usually people are placed on the machines to allow relatives come in and say goodbye. It also allows some time to keep organs healthy and allow for a possible donation.
    Overall I disagree with the wonderful thing we do of voting again and again until the government gets the answer it wants. However, I do think that the last time a vote was held on this matter i.e. to allow abortion be more freely available to the women of Ireland Ireland was different. We are a more secular nation now, less under the yoke of the Catholic church and people now make decisions on their own without relying on the Church to tell them what to do. Some of these people will think abortion is wrong in all situations and so vote accordingly as is their right. Some will think that it is perhaps understandable in certain circumstances and think that any woman has the right to decide for herself and so vote to allow it. Some will think that it is a good thing and vote accordingly. If we had another referendum now in the 21st century I would be more satisfied with the outcome (regardless of whether it was allowed or not) because I would think people arrived at the decision in a more logical thought out way and not because God disagrees with it.
    Re: counselling, there are very few services available to women who have had a termination believe it or not. I know two women who have had them, the decision to terminate was not an easy one for either but I was astonished how isolated and alone they were when they got home. Our health service is greatly lacking in many ways (as I say this as someone who works in it and knows quite a bit about it) especially in terms of elderly care, support for people who are mentally ill, people with physical disabilities, parents of children with physical or mental problems, etc. Counselling services for women who have had a termination are at the bottom of the list.


  • #171
    Zulu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,965 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


    kizzyr wrote: »
    We are a more secular nation now, less under the yoke of the Catholic church and people now make decisions on their own without relying on the Church to tell them what to do.
    Thats quite a condescending opinion to have. So those who voted against it the last time did so because the church told them to? :(
    If we had another referendum now in the 21st century I would be more satisfied with the outcome (regardless of whether it was allowed or not) because I would think people arrived at the decision in a more logical thought out way and not because God disagrees with it.
    Did you ever consider that people actually made up their own mind and voted accordingly?
    And if the vote was held again, and the result the same, in 10 years, wouldn't you just be saying the same thing: society is more "liberal" now, let's vote again.
    Counselling services for women who have had a termination are at the bottom of the list.
    Well, while that's very unfortunate, I can't help but feel that other people could/should be prioritised over someone who has opted for elective surgery, that is illegal in this country.
    I know I'd rather my tax euros going to rape counselling or what not first.


  • Advertisement
  • #172
    carlybabe1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,069 ✭✭✭carlybabe1


    Zulu wrote: »
    You see I see it as a child. I see it as more than a "bundle of cells", so why would I allow someone to kill that child? Until someone convinces me it's not a child, I'm not going to allow someone to kill it. You mightn't consider a person in a vegitive state a person, but that doesn't mean I'm going to let you kill them.


    Forgive me if this comes across rude, its genuinely not meant that way, but its hard to phrase, so here goes, why should you/anyone be given the right to impose your belief on someone who obviously doesnt have the same beliefs as you,to the extent that it interferes with not only thier lifestyle, but thier own body, regardless of what they consider is growing in thier own body. Why do you think that anyone should need your permission to "kill that child?" Clearly, you see it as a child from more or less conception, am I right? (apologies if Im wrong) and regardless of any scientic/medical posts that have been put up that say its a clump of cells till x, you still see it as a baby? So how would anyone convince you otherwise?? Im not antagonising, Im genuinely interested in all answers


  • #173
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    carlybabe1 wrote: »
    Forgive me if this comes across rude, its genuinely not meant that way, but its hard to phrase, so here goes, why should you/anyone be given the right to impose your belief on someone who obviously doesnt have the same beliefs as you,to the extent that it interferes with not only thier lifestyle, but thier own body, regardless of what they consider is growing in thier own body. Why do you think that anyone should need your permission to "kill that child?" Clearly, you see it as a child from more or less conception, am I right? (apologies if Im wrong) and regardless of any scientic/medical posts that have been put up that say its a clump of cells till x, you still see it as a baby? So how would anyone convince you otherwise?? Im not antagonising, Im genuinely interested in all answers

    Part of why referendums happen in countries is to analyse what country the people of Ireland want to live in. For now the Irish majority consensus is that the unborn child is to be protected. This is the way politics works, and until someone concocts a better system than democracy this is the way it's going to operate for a very long time.


  • #174
    kizzyr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,410 ✭✭✭kizzyr


    Zulu wrote: »
    Thats quite a condescending opinion to have. So those who voted against it the last time did so because the church told them to? :(

    Did you ever consider that people actually made up their own mind and voted accordingly?
    And if the vote was held again, and the result the same, in 10 years, wouldn't you just be saying the same thing: society is more "liberal" now, let's vote again.

    Well, while that's very unfortunate, I can't help but feel that other people could/should be prioritised over someone who has opted for elective surgery, that is illegal in this country.
    I know I'd rather my tax euros going to rape counselling or what not first.


    It certainly wasn't intended to be condesending and I didn't say it with that as my intention. I do think that some people, not all but some, did leave some of their moral decision making to the Church. As I said if a vote were held again and it still was a no vote I'm not going to dispute it but I would give it more credence as being a genuine vote.
    I think there are many ways our collective tax euros could be better spent but to tell someone that they can't have counselling because they brought their own situation about themselves isn't always right either.
    The decision to terminate is rarely one made lightly, all the more so when you consider the fact that women here have to travel abroad furtively and more often than not have no one to talk to about their situation when they get home. These women are isolated and vulnerable and are not unworthy of support.


  • #175
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    So what if religion served as a matter of conscience in the minds of voters? It's actually over-simplified to say religious people opposed it just because God said so. (Although I can't remember any passage in the Old or New Testament explicitly mentioning abortion). There are many reasons even on a secular scale for not supporting abortion.


  • #176
    Zulu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,965 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


    carlybabe1 wrote: »
    why should you/anyone be given the right to impose your belief on someone who obviously doesnt have the same beliefs as you,to the extent that it interferes with not only thier lifestyle, but thier own body, regardless of what they consider is growing in thier own body.
    Well thats the way democracy works. Citizens of the society have one vote, that they use to represent their beliefs. These votes are then cast and calculated and the majority carries.
    Why do you think that anyone should need your permission to "kill that child?"
    They don't need my permission, they need societies permission. They can of course choose to live outside of that society if they want.
    Clearly, you see it as a child from more or less conception, am I right?
    Well, being honest I'm not sure, but I err on the side of caution, so you can safely read it that way.
    regardless of any scientic/medical posts that have been put up that say its a clump of cells till x, you still see it as a baby? So how would anyone convince you otherwise??
    Well I'm all about science, and no one has provided scientific evidence to contradict my position. If there was scientific evident to contradict my opinion, I probably wouldn't hold this opinion.

    Do you have scientific evidence?     Or are you just making a suggestion?
    kizzyr wrote: »
    These women are isolated and vulnerable and are not unworthy of support.
    I agree to an extent. I don't believe they are unworthy of support at all. Quite the contrary.


  • #177
    carlybabe1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,069 ✭✭✭carlybabe1


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Part of why referendums happen in countries is to analyse what country the people of Ireland want to live in. For now the Irish majority consensus is that the unborn child is to be protected. This is the way politics works, and until someone concocts a better system than democracy this is the way it's going to operate for a very long time.

    Did you quote the wrong post by mistake?? :confused::confused: If not, Talk about dodging the question, I wasn't and didnt refer even once to anything political,voting democracy etc. I simply asked what you believe gives you the right to more or less tell someone what they ought to do not just with thier body, but with thier life.
    But since you brought it up, I do believe that its time for another vote and that the country has changed both politically and religiously, and that if both you and zulu geuinely believe the moral majority are just that, and would vote the same way then why would you have a problem with another vote?? unless of course you are afraid that you are a dying breed, and the youth of today not only has no resposibility, but no moral compass either???


  • #178
    kizzyr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,410 ✭✭✭kizzyr


    Jakkass wrote: »
    So what if religion served as a matter of conscience in the minds of voters? It's actually over-simplified to say religious people opposed it just because God said so. (Although I can't remember any passage in the Old or New Testament explicitly mentioning abortion). There are many reasons even on a secular scale for not supporting abortion.[/QUOTE]

    Of course there are. That is why I said I would be more accepting of a vote that was cast now rather than one that was cast in (what I see as) a previous era.
    I have no issue with someone being religious but I do firmly believe that a State should be entirely secular in its laws and it is clear to see that Irish law has been unduly influenced by one religion in particular.
    I do not for one second think that the issue of termination is anything other than a complicated ethical one. I have never once said I personally would have a termination, but I do support the rights of my fellow women to be able to make that decision themselves and I think it is wrong that when they truly feel that they don't have any other choice for whatever reason, they are forced to travel to a different country to avail of a termination.


  • #179
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Human life starts as a clump of cells or a foetus, none the less it is still human life. Just less developed than us. As I've explained before a suitable comparison would be between the catepillar and the butterfly. One forms into another but none the less is a lifeform.


  • #180
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    kizzyr wrote: »
    Of course there are. That is why I said I would be more accepting of a vote that was cast now rather than one that was cast in (what I see as) a previous era.

    A votes a vote, and in the Government's eyes a vote based on religion is just as valid as one that isn't. Otherwise it would be a bigoted system that persecuted against people of faith and their rights. You do advocate the rights of women allegedly, so why not accept the rights of the faithful?


  • Advertisement
  • #181
    carlybabe1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,069 ✭✭✭carlybabe1


    Do you have scientific evidence? Or are you just making a suggestion?



    http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:4NOV47RenTgJ:www.embryology.ch/indexen.html+embryology&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=ie


    This is about as scientific as it gets, and as Im studying biological sciences with embryology as part of its modules I can honestly saw that i know a good bit about it. feel free to query :)


  • #182
    Zulu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,965 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


    carlybabe1 wrote: »
    But since you brought it up, I do believe that its time for another vote and that the country has changed both politically and religiously, and that if both you and zulu geuinely believe the moral majority are just that, and would vote the same way then why would you have a problem with another vote??
    Moral majority? :confused:
    TBH, I have a problem with another vote, because if the result comes back the same, people will just spit the dummy and call for another vote. Some people will always be unhappy with the outcome of a vote (I don't believe there has ever been a unanimous vote), but people need to learn to accept that result.

    Besides, I don't see why you are getting so upset. There will be another vote on it at some stage in the future.
    unless of course you are afraid that you are a dying breed, and the youth of today not only has no responsibility, but no moral compass either???
    Excuse me, I am a member of the "youth of today" thank you very much. Carlybabe, how old are you?
    Why are you intent on getting peoples backs up? Can you not post without attempting to insult someone? Can you not post in a civil manner that affords other posters a basic level of respect/courtesy?


  • #183
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    I am the youth of today also, aged 19. :) There are many more my age I know that share my views also.


  • #184
    Zulu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,965 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


    carlybabe1 wrote: »




    http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:4NOV47RenTgJ:www.embryology.ch/indexen.html+embryology&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=ie


    This is about as scientific as it gets, and as Im studying biological sciences with embryology as part of its modules I can honestly saw that i know a good bit about it. feel free to query :)
    Thats nice, at what point in there have they provided proof that it isn't a human child???


  • #185
    kizzyr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,410 ✭✭✭kizzyr


    Jakkass wrote: »
    A votes a vote, and in the Government's eyes a vote based on religion is just as valid as one that isn't. Otherwise it would be a bigoted system that persecuted against people of faith and their rights. You do advocate the rights of women allegedly, so why not accept the rights of the faithful?

    I have never once said that people of faith should be persecuted or stripped of their rights.
    I cannot fathom a belief that is based on superstition, a threat of going to hell rather than heaven and so on. To me that is what religion is, dress it up how you want and call it Judaism, Christianity or whatever you want, as far as I can see it that is exactly what religion is.
    I don't say that to insult or offend anyone. People are entitled to worship a rock in their back garden if they want. I would however ask that they don't make a decision that will affect our laws based on what the rock tells them is right or wrong.
    Four out of ten people believe the myth that is the story of creation. :(


  • #186
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    It's their right to make a decision based on what guides their conscience, and if Christianity is that thing, so be it. Their views get as much airtime as everyone elses.

    As for the story of Creation, even on a secular POV it's actually a rather empowering piece of work that emphasises the value and power of life. And hey, that's a rather positive teaching to have. Belief in ones self, belief in humanity and belief in the world come as a part of the belief in the Abrahamic God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit).


  • Advertisement
  • #187
    carlybabe1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,069 ✭✭✭carlybabe1


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Human life starts as a clump of cells or a foetus, none the less it is still human life. Just less developed than us. As I've explained before a suitable comparison would be between the catepillar and the butterfly. One forms into another but none the less is a lifeform.

    A cancerous growth starts out as a clump of cells too, that just keep dividing and dividing, theres dna in them too. To say they are just slighty less developed is imo skimming information to suit ones argument. Bsaically, you're against the MAP, abortion, sex before marriage, and all for abstinance till mariage. You are entitled to your opinion of course, in this democratic country, just as I am, and imo you dont leave much margin for error, and I also believe (no offence intended) that its somewhat out of touch with what goes on in society today. ( Im sorry, i really dont mean to offend you just giving mho :o)


  • #188
    eveie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 307 ✭✭eveie


    i find it quite humourous that religion (as far as i know) has not been brought up by any of the pro-life posters, yet the pro-choice posters have brought it up again and agian, can you see that you do not need religion to know if something is right or wrong. altough i do have a belief i do not base my pro-life belief on any religion or any teachings. pro-choice posters your going to have to let the religion aspect go.

    kizzyr i think it was you who mentioned pvs,(i know this is where someone may be in a coma and has no brian waves what so ever) but some people look at severly disabled children and believe they are in a vegitative state. many people look at severly disabled children and think they have no quality of life, many people believe that it is unfair for them to experience life, many people believe that their life is less worthy than a normal healthy persons life. i completley disagree with this. for someone to say that a disabled child does not have a right to life because of its disability is shocking, would you say the same about your brother or sister who ended up disabled due to an accident. a girl i knew once said that my aunt and uncle were selfish for not aborting my cousin because "look at the quality of life she has" my cousin has experienced no difference, she is living her life in the only way she can, now thats good enough for me, she is happy, she has brought more love into a family than i have ever seen before and for someone to say that she has less of a right to life sickens me to the core. what would it say about our country if we allowed abortion is the cases where the child as disabled, it would be the reincarnation of the hitler era.

    do we abort children who are deaf/blind/cleft palates/down sydrome????? because EVERY YEAR there are thousands of unborn innocent vunerable children that are aborted because of these reasons?

    irish law (common law) is mostly taken from english law, in fact cases that occur in england still to this day influence our laws here. i do not believe for one minute that are country is taking the easy way out by not legalising abortion. i believe that our country is taking a stance, it would infact be easier for our county to legalise abortion seeing as the majority of countries have already done.


  • #189
    eveie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 307 ✭✭eveie


    carlybabe a wart is a type of tumor however the dna it has is the same dna you carry it is not a seperate life.


  • #190
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    carlybabe1 wrote: »
    A cancerous growth starts out as a clump of cells too, that just keep dividing and dividing, theres dna in them too. To say they are just slighty less developed is imo skimming information to suit ones argument. Bsaically, you're against the MAP, abortion, sex before marriage, and all for abstinance till mariage. You are entitled to your opinion of course, in this democratic country, just as I am, and imo you dont leave much margin for error, and I also believe (no offence intended) that its somewhat out of touch with what goes on in society today. ( Im sorry, i really dont mean to offend you just giving mho :o)

    None taken. My beliefs don't go away because of a post on a forum :)

    As a cancerous growth goes, I've never seen any babies come from it. I'm willing to be proven wrong though :D

    I could also argue that to say that they aren't lifeforms at all is just skimming information to suit your argument.

    As for my views on abstinence till marriage, I don't propose that everyone automatically take on my beliefs. I honestly believe it's impossible to have accidental pregancies and STD's if one keeps themselves for marriage. It seems like the most rational solution to deal with this problem, again even from a secular POV. I don't see how my beliefs in either Christianity or these things I am discussing now makes my point any less valid. It's being argued by many of no faith or different faiths also.

    As for your society today argument. I really don't care what the "expectations of society" are for me. I'm going to keep what I view as ethical or unethical regardless of how popular the idea is. This isn't about being popular it's about doing the right or wrong thing.


  • #191
    carlybabe1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,069 ✭✭✭carlybabe1


    Zulu wrote: »
    Excuse me, I am a member of the "youth of today" thank you very much. Carlybabe, how old are you?
    Why are you intent on getting peoples backs up? Can you not post without attempting to insult someone? Can you not post in a civil manner that affords other posters a basic level of respect/courtesy?

    I am 34 Zulu, and Im starting to get somewhat tired of your accustations of insults in my posts and my being uncivil, I note its as a way of avoiding a direct question.You yourself have claimed that abortion goes against your morality, so how was my post getting your back up?
    I was not uncivil in that post and anyone who reads it will know that. I suggest if your somewhat sensitive to what i post that you just ignore it. A direct question is NOT an insult. If you dont know the answer then just say it, instead of side tracking.


  • Advertisement
  • #192
    Malari
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,150 ✭✭✭✭Malari


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I honestly believe it's impossible to have accidental pregancies and STD's if one keeps themselves for marriage. It seems like the most rational solution to deal with this problem, again even from a secular POV.

    It may prevent against STDs, but it is very irrational. It's your solution, but if no-one is going to adopt it apart from you it's no real solution at all. If we banned cars tomorrow it would end road deaths completely but no one is going to do that because the benefits outweigh the costs. Similarly there are benefits of not "saving yourself for marriage" that couples appreciate.

    I do not accept your point that it's "impossible" to prevent accidental pregnancies within marriage. Please explain?


  • #193
    carlybabe1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,069 ✭✭✭carlybabe1


    Jakkass wrote: »
    None taken. My beliefs don't go away because of a post on a forum :)

    As a cancerous growth goes, I've never seen any babies come from it. I'm willing to be proven wrong though :D

    I could also argue that to say that they aren't lifeforms at all is just skimming information to suit your argument.

    As for my views on abstinence till marriage, I don't propose that everyone automatically take on my beliefs. I honestly believe it's impossible to have accidental pregancies and STD's if one keeps themselves for marriage. It seems like the most rational solution to deal with this problem, again even from a secular POV. I don't see how my beliefs in either Christianity or these things I am discussing now makes my point any less valid. It's being argued by many of no faith or different faiths also.

    As for your society today argument. I really don't care what the "expectations of society" are for me. I'm going to keep what I view as ethical or unethical regardless of how popular the idea is. This isn't about being popular it's about doing the right or wrong thing.

    Glad you didnt take offence :), I do agree with you that abstinence till marriage absolutely solve most of these issues, unfortunately it wont solve them all though, and many partners (too many) are not faithful. Even within a marriage abortions occur. I understand that its not a popularity thing of course,perhaps I didnt put directly enough, but my point was that in this day and age ( I sound like me mam :eek:) the majority of young people are engaging in sex, without even a stable relationship, never mind marriage. Now I absolutely DO NOT agree with that mentality, but the fact remains that it happens, frequently, and so if people are not willing to abstain till marriage, and you're against the map (as are plenty of others), and abortion what other options are there cause Im stumped to think of any


  • #194
    carlybabe1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,069 ✭✭✭carlybabe1


    eveie wrote: »
    carlybabe a wart is a type of tumor however the dna it has is the same dna you carry it is not a seperate life.

    The DNA that cells carry at fertilisation also has the same DNA as the mother, Im sorry eveie Im not really getting your point :o
    And I dont think a wart is a type of tumour, but I'll check


  • #195
    eveie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 307 ✭✭eveie


    it is carlybabe, it basically cell mitosis(as you have pointed out in the past my spelling isnt great:))
    yes the egg from the mother has the same dna but when fertalised with the sperm is generates a completley different set of dna


  • #196
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Malari wrote: »
    It may prevent against STDs, but it is very irrational. It's your solution, but if no-one is going to adopt it apart from you it's no real solution at all. If we banned cars tomorrow it would end road deaths completely but no one is going to do that because the benefits outweigh the costs. Similarly there are benefits of not "saving yourself for marriage" that couples appreciate.

    I do not accept your point that it's "impossible" to prevent accidental pregnancies within marriage. Please explain?

    How is it irrational would you mind explaining? Surely it makes perfect sense that you cannot possibly at all catch an STD if you wait until marriage, and if both partners have done so. Nobody is going to adopt it apart from me? Interesting, I know quite a few people who would have the same philosophy as I would. The benefits in this case (unlike in your car situation) do outweigh the costs. The emotional cost of falling pregnant at age 16 for example. By accidental pregancies, I mean that in a marital situation a couple would be more equipped to deal with the situation without the thought of abortion hitting their mind.
    carlybabe1 wrote: »
    Glad you didnt take offence :), I do agree with you that abstinence till marriage absolutely solve most of these issues, unfortunately it wont solve them all though, and many partners (too many) are not faithful. Even within a marriage abortions occur. I understand that its not a popularity thing of course,perhaps I didnt put directly enough, but my point was that in this day and age ( I sound like me mam :eek:) the majority of young people are engaging in sex, without even a stable relationship, never mind marriage. Now I absolutely DO NOT agree with that mentality, but the fact remains that it happens, frequently, and so if people are not willing to abstain till marriage, and you're against the map (as are plenty of others), and abortion what other options are there cause Im stumped to think of any

    Many partners are not faithful. Unfortunately that is true, and I accept that. I do believe that partners are less likely to cheat in a committed marriage than in a boyfriend - girlfriend situation though.

    From your piece about you say that the majority of young people are engaging in sex. Fair enough, I can say that that is true. However you seem to have a "ah, sure why not let it keep on going so" kind of attitude to it, instead of the attitude of trying to combat the problem and support plans to try and get some form of decent sex-ed going. Also you make abortion sound like a contraceptive. I personally think that life and the unborn deserve a lot more than that.


  • #197
    Malari
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,150 ✭✭✭✭Malari


    Jakkass wrote: »
    How is it irrational would you mind explaining? Surely it makes perfect sense that you cannot possibly at all catch an STD if you wait until marriage, and if both partners have done so. Nobody is going to adopt it apart from me? Interesting, I know quite a few people who would have the same philosophy as I would. The benefits in this case (unlike in your car situation) do outweigh the costs. The emotional cost of falling pregnant at age 16 for example. By accidental pregancies, I mean that in a marital situation a couple would be more equipped to deal with the situation without the thought of abortion hitting their mind.

    Well it's irrational, because short of fixing chastity belts on people you cannot assume that someone you meet has not also waited until marriage. I didn't say nobody is going to adopt it apart from you, but you can't propose it as a realistic solution unless most people do adopt it. While many people may share your view, the majority don't. The benefits of a full sexual relationship can certainly outweigh the cost of a potential unwanted pregnancy. It unites and bonds people and can develop the relationship in an adult, fun and enjoyable way. So really what you're saying is accidental pregnancies are not impossible within a marriage, but are less likely to be aborted.


  • #198
    Hagar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,793 ✭✭✭✭Hagar


    ChocolateSauce wrote: »
    Either it is morally wrong to abort a foetus or it isn't. How do we decide? Simple, we consult our own conscience. We weigh up our opinions and beliefs and we say, it is right, or, it is wrong.
    Burglars, thieves, muggers, rapists all justify what they do by saying it's right for them. They believe their conscience to be clear. The consequences for other people don't enter into their calculations. Should society allow the consciences of socio-paths to be used to justify their actions? If we do, nothing would be criminal as long as the perpetrator could claim his conscience was clear. That is the logical extension of the pro-choice philosophy.


  • #199
    kizzyr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,410 ✭✭✭kizzyr


    eveie wrote: »

    kizzyr i think it was you who mentioned pvs,(i know this is where someone may be in a coma and has no brian waves what so ever) but some people look at severly disabled children and believe they are in a vegitative state. many people look at severly disabled children and think they have no quality of life, many people believe that it is unfair for them to experience life, many people believe that their life is less worthy than a normal healthy persons life. i completley disagree with this. for someone to say that a disabled child does not have a right to life because of its disability is shocking, would you say the same about your brother or sister who ended up disabled due to an accident. a girl i knew once said that my aunt and uncle were selfish for not aborting my cousin because "look at the quality of life she has" my cousin has experienced no difference, she is living her life in the only way she can, now thats good enough for me, she is happy, she has brought more love into a family than i have ever seen before and for someone to say that she has less of a right to life sickens me to the core. what would it say about our country if we allowed abortion is the cases where the child as disabled, it would be the reincarnation of the hitler era.

    do we abort children who are deaf/blind/cleft palates/down sydrome????? because EVERY YEAR there are thousands of unborn innocent vunerable children that are aborted because of these reasons?

    .
    When someone is in a coma they are still alive. There is a functioning brain, there is life. When someone is in a Persistent / Permanent Vegetative State they are dead. There is nothing there, there is nothing to come back from, your brain no longer functions and never will again. It is NOT the same as being in a coma.
    People with severe disabilities are people with severe disabilities. They are NOT in a vegetative state, if they were they would not be able to do anything at all.
    I do think that in some cases it would be better for all concerned if someone with severe mental and physical difficulties had not been born. Some people think that they can't terminate the pregnancy and so they bring to term and give birth to someone who will always and forever be dependent on them to wash them, feed them, change their nappies, push them around in a wheelchair. They may not be able to talk or communicate ever. If they can't do any of that what life experience or enjoyment can they possibly have? And to be honest I do think at times it is more selfish of the parents to have had the child than not. Also if there are other able bodied able minded siblings they too will be responsible for their sibling. What happens when the parents are dead a sibling is then expected to care full time for their brother / sister or they have to make the decision to have them placed in a care home if they can. I think it hugely unfair for this responsibility to be given to siblings.
    Hitler and the Nazi regime forced their beliefs and morals on an entire nation of people and systemically murdered people. There is a difference between a termination of (again what I see it as) a pregnancy and a clump of cells that has the potential to become a human being, to become a person through it's life experiences and gassing a person who is 21 years old and severely mentally and physically retarded. It is the ultimate slippery slope argument to say that a woman who terminates a pregnancy of a foetus that is developing with problems is but a step away from Hitler.
    A cleft palate can be fixed completely by a plastic surgeon and so is not a lasting problem. It is a cosmetic physical issue that can be repaired.
    Someone who is blind or deaf can function fully, independently and completely in society.


  • #200
    kizzyr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,410 ✭✭✭kizzyr


    eveie wrote: »
    hi all
    i missed out on the last few days of this thread.
    in reltion to embryos, although i know people are not going to take too nicely to what im about to say, it is my belief.


    i believe that a child is a gift not something that should be created from science.i can honestly say that if i found myself in a position where i couldnt concieve through natural methods and if i really wanted a child that bad i would adopt,     although i know many women want "their own child" and i can understand where their coming from. i just think this whole i.v.f has brought a lot of problems some of which have been mentioned earlier. what about the gay couple who found a surrogate mother, they used i.v.f and later sued the doctor becuase they wanted one child but instead got two, imagine sueing a doctor because because of that!!! everyone knows that with i.v.f there is a high chance of multiple children.

    there was a break through a number of months ago where it was establised that stem cell research found that using the placenta or cells from tissue other then embryos was just if not more successful so the use of embryos was pretty much made redundant by this.
    i do understand that the embryo is not yet implanted in the womb but i think there should be very tight laws around what is done with it.

    What would you do if you really were desperate for a child, so desperate that it consumed your every waking thought and adoption wasn't an option for you? Adoption is so difficult a process and so few people really get a child through adoption especially today. Would you really say thats it, I'll buy a dog so or would you not even consider IVF?


  • #201
    ChocolateSauce
    Registered Users Posts: 2,892 ✭✭✭ChocolateSauce


    tallaght01 wrote: »
    You can dress it up anyway you like, but you've just said that we should all accept abortion if the woman thinks abortion is OK, and that is the bottom line in this issue.

    No, I'm saying you should accept that the private affairs of another person is none of your business.
    tallaght01 wrote: »
    Well, I'm sorry if it's arrogant, or if I'm dictating the terms of your life to you. But I think it's more important that babies have an advocate. Someone needs to speak up for them. That's what I do. For precisely the reasons you've outlined above.

    You can still advocate for "babies" without resorting to legal restrictions. If you're so confident of your position, go make others agree with you and convince them not to have one.
    tallaght01 wrote: »
    In one sentence you have completely dismissed and condemned the majority of the society (Irish) we live in. You have totally ignored the fact that the majority of citizens view the child as a legitimate person and are attempting to safeguard their basic right to life.

    I have only condemned repression and mob rule. I specifically stated that I respect that other people (in this case the majority of Irish society) have differing views, and wished that same courtesy would be returned. You missed the point.
    zulu wrote: »
    It has nothing to do with religion. This is your own prejudice. The are following through in their civic duty to ensure the society they are a part of doesn't allow (in their opinion) immoral actions to legally happen. That is the backbone of democracy.

    It has everything to do with religion. The whole premise of a foetus being a person is that it has a soul, an entirely religious concept. The backbone of democracy is to ensure freedom. Keeping morality is the duty of other things.
    zulu wrote: »
    This is just being abusive for the sake of it. They assume their opinions are correct (everyone does) and protect their right to voice that. Would you have different? Would you silence these people because they don't suit your opinions??

    You also miss the point. Can you please tell me exactly where I tried to silence dissenting opinions? Quite the opposite, I said quote "a far more honourable way to do it is to debate the ethics of it and convince people not to do it".
    zulu wrote: »
    We don't do this with any other aspect of society

    Yes we do. Homosexuality, freedom of religion, freedom to do legal drugs like tobacco and alcohol, freedom to kill oneself, divorce, anal sex, three-or-more-way sex (pretty much all sex in fact), etc. There is an endless list of things which some people consider immoral and others do not, but we do not ban them for this reason. Abortion is the exception.
    CDfm wrote: »
    to assume someone who is anti-abortion is so purely on religous grounds is soo out of touch with the real world.

    Considering the rate of approval of abortion is in the 80% range among Irish atheists http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055314710, I think it is a fair bet to assume religion plays a signifigant role. The saying goes get your rosaries off my ovaries.
    tallaght01 wrote: »
    Me detects anti -religious secular bigotary here.

    Could you please explain in detail the reasoning used to justify this statment?
    tallaght01 wrote: »
    Some of us will always feel a moral responsibility to advocate for babies and children.


    Just as some will always feel it is none of your business, which is why my post holds true.
    zulu wrote: »
    Your missing part of it here though.
    You see I see it as a child. I see it as more than a "bundle of cells", so why would I allow someone to kill that child? Until someone convinces me it's not a child, I'm not going to allow someone to kill it. You mightn't consider a person in a vegitive state a person, but that doesn't mean I'm going to let you kill them.

    But I see it as a ball of cells with no value as a person. I see your militant pro-life as an intolerable incursion into my private life, no more excusible than if you said I was not allowed to keep my foetus. Why would I allow you to have any say about what I do in my private life? So you see, no matter how strongly you are sure you are right, someone else feels just as strongly the opposite. Only live and let live is acceptable.
    wrote: »


    As things stand we in Ireland are doing what we always do: export the problem and carry on patting ourselves on the back for being a great ol' country that doesn't deal with controversial issues.
    That's not fair.
    We made a decision via a vote. We also don't imprison people in the country for no good reason. What they decide to do our side of this country, is out side this countries jurisdiction.

    It is entirely fair! To say it is ok to murder a baby in Britain is horrific, which is what you are saying. If you want to remain consistant, the only acceptable way to do it is to prosecute people who leave Ireland for that purpose or to stop them leaving.


    wrote: »
    For now the Irish majority consensus is that the unborn child is to be protected. This is the way politics works, and until someone concocts a better system than democracy this is the way it's going to operate for a very long time.

    The United States never legalised abortion, per se. The supreme court unilaterally and undemocratically decided to strike down the anti-abortion law because it was unconstitutional. The constitution states that the government (and by extension the electorate) does not have the right or power to have that level of interference in a private citizens' life. I think this is superior to our system, for many reasons, not just the abortion issue.
    wrote: »
    Well thats the way democracy works.

    I see you are uncritical and perhaps unaware of the faults and limitations of democracy. If there were 3 people on an island, you, me and one other, would you accept it if the other and I voted to make you give us all your food? Of course not. Minority rights are the life-blood of a free society.

    Of course, please feel free to admit you'd rather live in an unfree society.
    Hagar wrote: »
    Burglars, thieves, muggers, rapists all justify what they do by saying it's right for them. They believe their conscience to be clear. The consequences for other people don't enter into their calculations. Should society allow the consciences of socio-paths to be used to justify their actions? If we do, nothing would be criminal as long as the perpetrator could claim his conscience was clear. That is the logical extension of the pro-choice philosophy.

    Maybe to someone who can't make the distinction between knowing something is wrong and still doing it and having no concept of right or wrong.


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement