gaaboard.com

From The Belfast Telegraph...

QuoteMPs unite to fight law that will make abortions available in Northern Ireland

By Sam Lister
Thursday, 24 July 2008

Ulster's politicians last night vowed to fight an attempt to force a vote on proposals to extend British abortion laws to Northern Ireland "all the way".

Despite fierce opposition from the DUP, Sinn Fein, SDLP and the UUP, pro-choice MPs have tabled an amendment on the highly contentious Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill that would allow women the right to an abortion on the NHS.

Although it was widely denied, the DUP was understood to have been assured there would not be any changes in the province by Prime Minister Gordon Brown during his successful attempt to woo the party in return for support on the 42-day detention crunch vote.

But London MP Diane Abbott, who is behind the amendment, believes it has a strong chance of winning enough support to become law.

"When it comes to abortion rights, Northern Ireland women are effectively second-class citizens," she said.

"They don't have the same rights as women in England and Wales and Scotland. They even have fewer rights than women in the Republic of Ireland.

"The main way if you want to have an abortion, you have to travel to the UK and get one privately.

"We think we have got a very good chance of getting the amendment through.

"There is a very clear majority in Parliament for a woman's right to choose and we believe there is a majority to extend that to Northern Ireland."

Abortion is illegal in Northern Ireland unless it is deemed that the life of the mother is in danger or that the pregnancy would cause serious risk to the woman's physical or mental health.

Pro-choice campaigners point out that rape and incest victims are expected to continue the pregnancy and give birth to the child. Around 50,000 women have travelled to England for the procedure over the last 40 years — with costs now estimated to reach around £2,000 once travel and accommodation has been included.

The new clause would extend the Abortion Act 1967, which means terminations could be carried out up to 24 weeks.

But the amendment could fall at the first hurdle if Speaker Michael Martin chooses not to select it when the bill reaches its next stage in the autumn.

It is the 30th tabled so far with more expected in the first weeks back after summer recess and those chosen tend to have been the subject of discussions in committee or ones which the Government has carried work out on.

The main political parties in Northern Ireland and the four main churches have written to MPs opposing any change in the law.

Yesterday the DUP's Upper Bann MP David Simpson uncovered figures about the scale of teenage abortion in England and Wales.

More than 12,000 terminations were carried out on girls aged 15 or under in the last three years and a further 17,500 carried out on 16 year olds.

He said: "There can be little doubt that a return to Direct Rule would only serve to increase both the pressure for such an extension and the chances of success.

"This move also demonstrates that there is not only no support across the political divide in Northern Ireland for it, but that there is active opposition right across Northern Ireland society.

"Every MP in the House of Commons knows full well that if it were up to local politicians and local people this would not take place.

"I and my party will fight such an attempt all the way through the House if necessary."

Leader of the SDLP Mark Durkan added: "The SDLP, with full democratic conscience, will do everything we can to oppose these plans and will do so on behalf of the people who have elected us and on behalf of those human beings who can be saved if we can effectively curb and hold back the extension of this Act.

"In doing so, we will be seeking to maintain and preserve the fundamental integrity of humanity which goes to the heart of human values and the protection of life. "Furthermore, this issue once again highlights why it is important that the devolution of justice and policing powers take place as soon as possible.

I know there have been some discussions on the topic of abortion here before, but this seems very relevant and timely at the minute. It's a very sensitive area and I know there are a lot of very conservative people on this board (and i don't use that term in a derogatory manner).

I've kept the poll as a simple yes or no option, but what i'm really intrested in is the fact that all 4 of the main parties in the north are united on this. Do they really reflect the views of the population here? If you're 'pro-choice', are you annoyed with the position of your elected representative? Are you surprised with the position of Sinn Féin or the SDLP?

It's the one issue our politicans can get right!

Can you put a don't know option on the poll?

The No men are running away with it!!
Introducing an abortion act would just lead to an even greater free for all amongst our young people where sexual activity is concerned!

Quote from: Yes I Would on July 24, 2008, 10:41:51 PM
The No men are running away with it!!
Introducing an abortion act would just lead to an even greater free for all amongst our young people where sexual activity is concerned!

Do you really think young girls will be more promiscuous just because they can have an abortion if the fall pregnant? Do you not think abortion would still be seen as a very traumatic experience for a young girl/woman to have to go through?

And just out of interest, do you think you would feel any different if you were a woman?

As for a 'don't know' option, why? Surely this issue has been around long enough for people to have formed an opinion? And surely if you're not definitely 'anti-abortion', you're pro-choice, i.e. happy to let people make their own choices when it isn't directly effecting you.

QuoteDo you really think young girls will be more promiscuous just because they can have an abortion if the fall pregnant? Do you not think abortion would still be seen as a very traumatic experience for a young girl/woman to have to go through?

God love them.  ::)

Slightly off topic,a friends missus is pregnant and is in the hospital at the minute and when she went in was 23 weeks and 3 days pregnant, she was told if she had to deliver the baby before it was 24 weeks they (the hospital) would not resucitate it but if it was 24 weeks they would. So 23 weeks and 6 days = do not resusitate, 24 weeks = resusitate  ???

Quote from: pintsofguinness on July 24, 2008, 10:55:48 PM

QuoteDo you really think young girls will be more promiscuous just because they can have an abortion if the fall pregnant? Do you not think abortion would still be seen as a very traumatic experience for a young girl/woman to have to go through?

God love them.  ::)

So you think someone takes such a decision lightly?

With the young ones running around these days Maguire i honestly dont know whether they would realise the implications or would even give a shit about the physical and psychological implications of what they are putting themselves through.
I know i am genarilising here but i honestly feel that many young girls with the safety net of an abortion may either be sexually exploited by young men, or may somehow feel that with abortion so publically available locally that it is normal!!
It i believe would only add to a further lowering of morals and ethics within society. I believe no abortion act serves the greater good.
If i was a young woman i believ i would still hold the same opinion!

Quote from: Maguire01 on July 24, 2008, 11:01:29 PM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on July 24, 2008, 10:55:48 PM

QuoteDo you really think young girls will be more promiscuous just because they can have an abortion if the fall pregnant? Do you not think abortion would still be seen as a very traumatic experience for a young girl/woman to have to go through?

God love them.  ::)

So you think someone takes such a decision lightly?

I'd say a lot don't but regardless of that don't try to paint them as the victims because that's not what they are (at least 98-99% of them)

Quote from: pintsofguinness on July 24, 2008, 11:03:36 PM

Quote from: Maguire01 on July 24, 2008, 11:01:29 PM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on July 24, 2008, 10:55:48 PM

QuoteDo you really think young girls will be more promiscuous just because they can have an abortion if the fall pregnant? Do you not think abortion would still be seen as a very traumatic experience for a young girl/woman to have to go through?

God love them.  ::)

So you think someone takes such a decision lightly?

I'd say a lot don't but regardless of that don't try to paint them as the victims because that's not what they are (at least 98-99% of them)

I'm not trying to paint them as victims. I just don't think most girls would become more promiscuous because there's now 'another option' available. Would a girl decide not to use a condom, because, well if the worst happens, you can always have a termination?

Also, i'd assume a significant number of abortions (at the early stage) would not require an 'invasive procedure', but drugs. If you're opposed to that, are you also opposed to the morning after pill? Where is the line drawn?


Any chance of a view from some of the female posters?

A shocking statistic I heard on the radio earlier was that in Britain, 1 in 4 pregnancies are aborted. Is this what we have have in line for here? 

It can only take the statistic in that direction.

QuoteAlso, i'd assume a significant number of abortions (at the early stage) would not require an 'invasive procedure', but drugs. If you're opposed to that, are you also opposed to the morning after pill? Where is the line drawn?

Yes

Why is a female opinion so relevant?  Why is there opinion worth more than men's?

Downgirl, thats a very tired, old argument. At the end of the day abortion is murder. Two wrongs dont make a right.

I am in no way condoning rape, but the argument you are using to excuse the murder of an unborn baby is a bit thin. How many women get pregnant in this country as a result of rape each year? 10? 5? less? You can dress it up any way you like, call it a termination if it makes you feel any better, but it is still taking a human life and that should not be allowed in any society.
Why should the abortion laws be changed in NI? the people of NI dont want it, their politicians dont, should we be in line with the rest of the UK on this?

Downgael?
IS the morning after pill murder?

Down Gael - When is a foetus a baby?

Down Girl - While it's always disappointing when someone drags this debate with use of simple emotive language straight away - it's hard to put across your argument rationally when someone is calling you a murderer.

Quote from: pintsofguinness on July 24, 2008, 11:17:13 PM
Why is a female opinion so relevant?  Why is there opinion worth more than men's?

In all circumstances?
Because in the vast majority of cases it is the girl left on her own. Its very esy for the fella to f**k off, the gir can rarely do this. If anyone knows any girl who has got pregrant during college invariably it has disrupted their lives, for fellas it makes f**k all difference

but them cells become life, so stopping them stops life surely. In the eyes of those who believe.

Quote from: downgirl on July 25, 2008, 12:12:48 AM
So it's ok for a girl to be raped, possibly a young girl, who wouldn't be fit to look after the child?  What is the point in having a child if you are not going to be fit physically, mentally or financially to look after it?????

Yes Downgirl - it is. It is crueller to terminate that clump of cells as it is clearly a human being from the first mitotic division. ???
Also - two wrongs dont make a right.  ::)

Pick either of those arguments or make up some of your own cliches - chances are you will hear them all before this thread has run its course

By the way - slapper isnt really a fair term to use for a young girl who more often than not gets herself encouraged at best or pushed at worst into sex. She's made life hard enough for herself without being bandied a slapper. Not to mention Im sure some people on this board have been affected by the pregnancy of a 14 year old sister/daughter/cousin/mother - so lets not try and castigate them even further with name calling.

Quote from: Down Gael on July 25, 2008, 12:23:40 AM
I am in no way condoning rape, but the argument you are using to excuse the murder of an unborn baby is a bit thin. How many women get pregnant in this country as a result of rape each year? 10? 5? less? You can dress it up any way you like, call it a termination if it makes you feel any better, but it is still taking a human life and that should not be allowed in any society.
Why should the abortion laws be changed in NI? the people of NI dont want it, their politicians dont, should we be in line with the rest of the UK on this?

Quite simply - the people of NI who need abortions, or may some day need abortions, or who are sympathetic to the plight of a pregant woman (who for reasons other than laziness or the desire to use abortion as a freely available form of contraception) who needs an abortion do want abortion to be legalized. Unfortunately if this requires a national vote - the act would never get passed. The numbers in favour/in need/who've travelled for abortion in the past are just not enough to over come the numbers of those who are prepared to voice all the anti abortion arguments and then bury their heads in the sand when we see the kids abandoned, mis-treated, unloved, living in poverty, raised in abusive homes all because the mother didnt want them, couldnt care for them. No point in closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. The country really is living in cuckoo land - the number of women sailing over the water for abortion is the only thing that would change with the availability of abortion in NI.

Actually downgirl - ill go one further - a 14 year old is a child. Not a slapper. You really should rephrase that.

cells -> tissues -> organs -> organism

That's the sequence of events

But youse are all against me so it doesn't really matter what I think sure it doesn't

You must have missed my main point - Im very much pro choice. I did disagree with your choice of the vernacular.

Im not against anyone - but Ill disagree with certain opinions.

I actually got my Downs wrong - I wasn't accusing Down Girl of emotive language it was Down Gael, I don't think you can have such a debate when someone is calling someone else a murderer, or using phrases like that

Eh - not really. Id rather have a decent debate about any topic with posters able to put both points across rather than drastic over reaction followed by yelling in caps lock. Are you my wife in disguise?

Put those posts back up - you have valid points - but there is a sensitivity issue there. Throwin out degrogatory language about children who make drastic mistakes was probably going to be pulled by someone. Its very easy for all of us in armchair positions to think less of young women who behave promiscuously. Truth is - they dont get pregnant by themselves but few of us think less of the young fellas. The reality is that those young kids pay long and hard for their carelessness.

No offence taken nor meant.

Ok well basically what I was saying is if a pregnancy occurs through rape the woman should have the choice to have an abortion

Thats fair Downgirl.
Personally I'm pro choice no matter matter what the circumstances. If people don't want kids i they they should have the choice not to have kids., I just don't have this notion of life being the most important thing on earth. I cant get my head around people who are against abortion but not the pill ( or the condom) surely if your beliefs are that strong then all life is sacred?

Im disgusted at the licence given to the pro abortion lobby too describe themselves as pro-choice. Why are they never challenged on this. We are all pro choice,the issue is at what point the choice should be made, pre or post conception. When the wrong choice is made and an unwanted pregnancy ensues, there is a personal responsibility on the Boy and Girl involved to accept the responsibility and consequences of their action. Blame and retribution should not be imposed on the innocent child, whose right to life is as sacred as theirs. This is not a societal problem it is a personal one, though as in so many areas of life those who lack any sense of responsibility look for society to bail them out of situations created by their fecklessness.

Quote from: ludermor on July 25, 2008, 12:55:18 AM
Thats fair Downgirl.
Personally I'm pro choice no matter matter what the circumstances. If people don't want kids i they they should have the choice not to have kids., I just don't have this notion of life being the most important thing on earth. I cant get my head around people who are against abortion but not the pill ( or the condom) surely if your beliefs are that strong then all life is sacred?

"No matter what the circumstances"?

You think its ok for abortion to be used as a form of birth control?

You don't see a difference between preventing fertilization (and thus the beginning of a new life) by blocking sperm/ova from passing into the uterus and killing an embryo or a foetus?

If people don't want to have kids, then either use contraceptives and be a man and deal with the consequences should something fail, or else keep your bloody trousers on!

Quote from: Pangurban on July 25, 2008, 01:39:15 AM
Im disgusted at the licence given to the pro abortion lobby too describe themselves as pro-choice.  Blame and retribution should not be imposed on the innocent child, whose right to life is as sacred as theirs. This is not a societal problem it is a personal one, though as in so many areas of life those who lack any sense of responsibility look for society to bail them out of situations created by their fecklessness.

Where is this blame and retribution coming from? Who would be blaming an embryo? Why would someone look for retribution? What kind of nonsense heartstring tugging sentences are those?

How are people who seek out, fund travel and the expense of the proceedure seeing society to bail them out? Its not a social thing - if anything its one of the most private secrets a woman (and perhaps her partner) might ever have. Its so secret infact - that I wouldnt wager against any one of our extended family and friend circles having undergone such a trial. A far more worrying societal (?) trend are the people who procreate and deliver recklessly over and over and over and sponge welfare off the tax payers - let their kids run riot and destroy neighbourhoods. They are not only expecting society to pay for these miscreants, but also to be terrorised by them.

Further more, your comment about the right to life of the innocent child is the crux of the entire issue. People may say that those who favour abortion (as some people think due to their own seedy needs and wanton desires) can conveniently use the defintion of a human being as being after the legal limit for abortion. All i can offer is from a scientific viewpoint as Ive never had the need to consider abortion in my personal life. The current timeline IMHO tells me that the life of the parents (and Im not talking about people having abortions willy nilly) in a situation is more important than the potential for life coming from an embryo.

Quote from: J70 on July 25, 2008, 05:00:06 AM
If people don't want to have kids, then either use contraceptives and be a man and deal with the consequences should something fail, or else keep your bloody trousers on!

I'd agree with some of that that - I am pro choice in circumstances where conception has occured where it shouldn't otherwise have, in the case of sexual abuse etc. I have no real personal experience on this issue in that it has never happened to me but I also don't believe I have the right to preach to someone else about what to do or what decision to make without having a full understanding of their personal circumstances.

I also feel that Luder has a bit of point.

To those that are anti-abortion on the grounds that all life is sacred, is contraception therefore not also an abomination? Do those who think that, what I would consider to be a clump of cells, believe that the consituents that make up those cells  (ie) sperm and egg, also scared? Where is the line between what they believe to be sacred and not.

My own opinion is that if you consider a foetus in early stage to be sacred then it's hypocritical to use contraception, withdraw method or even masturbate. If you're that bloody high minded on the sanctity of human life it should be all encompassing and not the bits that you like or are palatable to your own morals.

Quote from: J70 on July 25, 2008, 05:00:06 AM
You think its ok for abortion to be used as a form of birth control?
You don't see a difference between preventing fertilization (and thus the beginning of a new life) by blocking sperm/ova from passing into the uterus and killing an embryo or a foetus?
If people don't want to have kids, then either use contraceptives and be a man and deal with the consequences should something fail, or else keep your bloody trousers on!

Thaks for the lecture J70.
Why is it so difficult for some people to accept that others have different opinions?

Quote from: ludermor on July 25, 2008, 09:03:48 AM

Quote from: J70 on July 25, 2008, 05:00:06 AM
You think its ok for abortion to be used as a form of birth control?
You don't see a difference between preventing fertilization (and thus the beginning of a new life) by blocking sperm/ova from passing into the uterus and killing an embryo or a foetus?
If people don't want to have kids, then either use contraceptives and be a man and deal with the consequences should something fail, or else keep your bloody trousers on!

Thaks for the lecture J70.
Why is it so difficult for some people to accept that others have different opinions?

Sorry, J70 was giving his opinion (he doesn't need me to defend him, but on this I agree with what he's said), because you disagree with his opinion, you try to belittle it by saying he's lecturing! Take your own advice.

On the topic, I believe that we are supposed to live in a democracy, the majority of our elected representatives and our society have said that they do not what this legislation to be brought in over here. Therefore it shouldn't.

The amendment hasn't a hope in hell of being passed.  Northern Ireland MPs hold a important role in Westminster, especially when it comes to close votes between Labour and Tories (ie. recent bill on holding suspected terrorists without charge).  If the Northern Ireland MPs don't want amendment passed then I can't see the other major parties opposing them, especially Labour given there tentative grip on power at the minute.

I'm quite happy with the situation as it stands here at present.  If a woman does make the decision to have an abortion here, at least she has to make an effort to do so and presumably has given the situation alot of thought.  It's not merely a matter of popping down the street to the nearest clinic.  I'm anti-abortion personally but at the end of the day I would never stand in the way of a woman to make that decision as it's her body and future which is primarily affected.

Even if the amendment were to be passed, I still think a girl would have alot of difficulty procuring an abortion.  There would be very few doctors and nursing staff that would be happy to do the procedure and unless there was a serious influx of staff from across the water or further abroad there would be major difficulties with staffing clinics/hospitals.

Quote from: tram on July 25, 2008, 10:52:50 AM

Quote from: unforgiven on July 25, 2008, 10:49:06 AM
The amendment hasn't a hope in hell of being passed.  Northern Ireland MPs hold a important role in Westminster, especially when it comes to close votes between Labour and Tories (ie. recent bill on holding suspected terrorists without charge).  If the Northern Ireland MPs don't want amendment passed then I can't see the other major parties opposing them, especially Labour given there tentative grip on power at the minute.

I reckon you're right. There's not a hope in hell of Gordon Brown wanting to upset the DUP9 after they basically saved his arse over the 42-day detention bill.

I'd say that debt has already been paid.

Quote from: Zapatista on July 25, 2008, 10:54:48 AM

Quote from: tram on July 25, 2008, 10:52:50 AM

Quote from: unforgiven on July 25, 2008, 10:49:06 AM
The amendment hasn't a hope in hell of being passed.  Northern Ireland MPs hold a important role in Westminster, especially when it comes to close votes between Labour and Tories (ie. recent bill on holding suspected terrorists without charge).  If the Northern Ireland MPs don't want amendment passed then I can't see the other major parties opposing them, especially Labour given there tentative grip on power at the minute.

I reckon you're right. There's not a hope in hell of Gordon Brown wanting to upset the DUP9 after they basically saved his arse over the 42-day detention bill.

I'd say that debt has already been paid.

Browns majority in the Commons has been cut again yesterday, and a couple of weeks ago. The support of the local MPs has never been more important.

Quote from: tram on July 25, 2008, 10:57:23 AM

In what way?
[/quote]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/majornews/2115131/Brown-to-defend-himself-against-42-day-deal-accusations.html

Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on July 25, 2008, 10:15:09 AM
Sorry, J70 was giving his opinion (he doesn't need me to defend him, but on this I agree with what he's said), because you disagree with his opinion, you try to belittle it by saying he's lecturing! Take your own advice.

Im wasnt belittling at all and didnt mean it to come accross like that.
''If people don't want to have kids, then either use contraceptives and be a man and deal with the consequences should something fail, or else keep your bloody trousers on!''   sounds like lecturing to me.

Quote from: ludermor on July 25, 2008, 11:23:12 AM

Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on July 25, 2008, 10:15:09 AM
Sorry, J70 was giving his opinion (he doesn't need me to defend him, but on this I agree with what he's said), because you disagree with his opinion, you try to belittle it by saying he's lecturing! Take your own advice.

Im wasnt belittling at all and didnt mean it to come accross like that.
''If people don't want to have kids, then either use contraceptives and be a man and deal with the consequences should something fail, or else keep your bloody trousers on!''   sounds like lecturing to me.

Sounds more like common sense with a bit of maturity to me.

I personally think people should be made to take responsibility for their actions. Nanny state has destroyed this generation - sorry away off on a rant on a different direction, for another thread.

Quote from: ludermor on July 25, 2008, 12:29:46 AM
Downgael?
IS the morning after pill murder?

Yes, its no different than abortion.

Quote from: stephenite on July 25, 2008, 12:30:29 AM
Down Gael - When is a foetus a baby?

For me, life begins at conception. Call it a group of cells if you wish, but you were once that very same group of cells.

I haven't been at my computer for a while, so here's some of my replies/comments...

Quote from: Yes I Would on July 24, 2008, 10:41:51 PM
The No men are running away with it!!

Spoke far too soon.

Quote from: Yes I Would on July 24, 2008, 11:02:01 PM
It i believe would only add to a further lowering of morals and ethics within society. I believe no abortion act serves the greater good.

I think teenage and unfit parents are a primary cause of lowering moral standards. Surely that's an argument for abortion.

Quote from: pintsofguinness on July 24, 2008, 11:17:13 PM
Why is a female opinion so relevant?  Why is there opinion worth more than men's?

Why is female opinion so relevant? Are you being serious? I never said their opinion was worth more, but if you don't understand the relevance of their opinion, you clearly don't understand the topic under debate.

Quote from: Pangurban on July 25, 2008, 01:39:15 AM
Im disgusted at the licence given to the pro abortion lobby too describe themselves as pro-choice. Why are they never challenged on this. We are all pro choice,the issue is at what point the choice should be made, pre or post conception.

You're clearly not pro-choice. 'Pro-choice' relates to freedom of choice at all times, not within your parameters.

Quote from: unforgiven on July 25, 2008, 10:49:06 AM
The amendment hasn't a hope in hell of being passed.  Northern Ireland MPs hold a important role in Westminster, especially when it comes to close votes between Labour and Tories (ie. recent bill on holding suspected terrorists without charge).  If the Northern Ireland MPs don't want amendment passed then I can't see the other major parties opposing them, especially Labour given there tentative grip on power at the minute.

It's interesting that the DUP 7 UUP don't want anything to do with the rest of the UK on this one! They think NI should stand alone. That's not a very Unionist position.
Wouldn't it also be interesting if this was passed by a vote in the commons with a majority of 5 or less? That would be Sinn Féin's abstentionism policy in action. Any thoughts on that one for any republicans who have voted 'No' in the poll on this thread?

Quote from: ludermor on July 25, 2008, 09:03:48 AM

Quote from: J70 on July 25, 2008, 05:00:06 AM
You think its ok for abortion to be used as a form of birth control?
You don't see a difference between preventing fertilization (and thus the beginning of a new life) by blocking sperm/ova from passing into the uterus and killing an embryo or a foetus?
If people don't want to have kids, then either use contraceptives and be a man and deal with the consequences should something fail, or else keep your bloody trousers on!

Thaks for the lecture J70.
Why is it so difficult for some people to accept that others have different opinions?

Call it what you want. And since when has expressing an opinion signaled intolerance for other people's opinions? If you have an issue with something specific I said, then state your case, don't complain that I'm intolerant.

Quote from: stephenite on July 25, 2008, 05:47:18 AM

Quote from: J70 on July 25, 2008, 05:00:06 AM
If people don't want to have kids, then either use contraceptives and be a man and deal with the consequences should something fail, or else keep your bloody trousers on!

I'd agree with some of that that - I am pro choice in circumstances where conception has occured where it shouldn't otherwise have, in the case of sexual abuse etc. I have no real personal experience on this issue in that it has never happened to me but I also don't believe I have the right to preach to someone else about what to do or what decision to make without having a full understanding of their personal circumstances.

I also feel that Luder has a bit of point.

To those that are anti-abortion on the grounds that all life is sacred, is contraception therefore not also an abomination? Do those who think that, what I would consider to be a clump of cells, believe that the consituents that make up those cells  (ie) sperm and egg, also scared? Where is the line between what they believe to be sacred and not.

My own opinion is that if you consider a foetus in early stage to be sacred then it's hypocritical to use contraception, withdraw method or even masturbate. If you're that bloody high minded on the sanctity of human life it should be all encompassing and not the bits that you like or are palatable to your own morals.

Not sure I want to go down this particular road with you again, but I enjoy a bit of mental gymnastics, so I might have a go at it over the weekend! Or maybe not.

Quote from: J70 on July 25, 2008, 02:07:39 PM
Call it what you want. And since when has expressing an opinion signaled intolerance for other people's opinions? If you have an issue with something specific I said, then state your case, don't complain that I'm intolerant.

Im not complaining at all, you have a different opinion than me and i accept and respect that.

I have no time for the religious and especially the religious right but on this issue I mostly agree with them. I'm against Abortion except in the most very extreme of circumstances. Therefore I vote No.

I wonder what percentage of the No votes are women. Likewise the Yes vote

Quote from: hmmm on July 25, 2008, 04:43:20 PM
I wonder what percentage of the No votes are women. Likewise the Yes vote

Also the percentage from NI and from the Republic?

Some points after reading the last few pages:

Agree with Pangur - "Pro choice" = Pro abortion - lets not wrap it up in any flowery language.
To those trying to bringing the argument down the path of contraception - get a grip - if you don't know the difference between sperm and an embryo then it's no wonder you're in favour of abortion. 

Puck

QuoteThe numbers in favour/in need/who've travelled for abortion in the past are just not enough to over come the numbers of those who are prepared to voice all the anti abortion arguments and then bury their heads in the sand when we see the kids abandoned, mis-treated, unloved, living in poverty, raised in abusive homes all because the mother didnt want them, couldnt care for them.

Are you saying in the US, where abortion is freely available, kids are never abandoned, mistreated, unloved, living in poverty or abusive homes? 
Now who's tugging at heart strings?
What's the idea here - lets kill them, their life won't be worth livng anyway?

Now puck, maguire, luder, stephenite - let me ask you a question (a point I've raised before on other threads on this subject but which went unanswered) - if I get a woman pregnant and turn around and tell her I want nothing to do with the baby, he or she will never know who I am and will never get a penny what would you think of me? That I was well within my rights because it's my choice not to be a parent?

Quote from: pintsofguinness on July 25, 2008, 07:31:01 PM
Now puck, maguire, luder, stephenite - let me ask you a question (a point I've raised before on other threads on this subject but which went unanswered) - if I get a woman pregnant and turn around and tell her I want nothing to do with the baby, he or she will never know who I am and will never get a penny what would you think of me? That I was well within my rights because it's my choice not to be a parent?

If the woman wants to go ahead and have the baby, then you have a responsibility - at least financially, to support that child, if not willingly, then through the CSA. If the woman decides to keep the baby, then she has accepted a responsibility to raise the child. Whether you stick around or not after that is up to you really.

Quote from: Maguire01 on July 25, 2008, 08:08:40 PM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on July 25, 2008, 07:31:01 PM
Now puck, maguire, luder, stephenite - let me ask you a question (a point I've raised before on other threads on this subject but which went unanswered) - if I get a woman pregnant and turn around and tell her I want nothing to do with the baby, he or she will never know who I am and will never get a penny what would you think of me? That I was well within my rights because it's my choice not to be a parent?

If the woman wants to go ahead and have the baby, then you have a responsibility - at least financially, to support that child, if not willingly, then through the CSA. If the woman decides to keep the baby, then she has accepted a responsibility to raise the child. Whether you stick around or not after that is up to you really.

But I have a financial obligation? What if I don't want the baby, I didn't want to be a parent, what if she lied to me, told me she was on the pill?  Surely I should have the same rights as a woman who doesnt want to be a parent? Afterall i would onyl be denying the child a father and x quid a month - not a life.

I find it very odd that men who dont face their parental responsabilities are condemned and are chased by the law and the courts in an attempt to ensure they cant avoid those responsibilities (rightly so imo) but if it's a woman who doesnt want to be a parent then that's fine, have an abortion. 

Would be a no voteron this one if I lived in the Noth East.
I can't see how killing the most defenceless form of human life can be a human right.

Quote from: Puckoon on July 25, 2008, 12:39:12 AM


Quite simply - the people of NI who need abortions, or may some day need abortions, or who are sympathetic to the plight of a pregant woman (who for reasons other than laziness or the desire to use abortion as a freely available form of contraception) who needs an abortion do want abortion to be legalized. Unfortunately if this requires a national vote - the act would never get passed. The numbers in favour/in need/who've travelled for abortion in the past are just not enough to over come the numbers of those who are prepared to voice all the anti abortion arguments and then bury their heads in the sand when we see the kids abandoned, mis-treated, unloved, living in poverty, raised in abusive homes all because the mother didnt want them, couldnt care for them. No point in closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. The country really is living in cuckoo land - the number of women sailing over the water for abortion is the only thing that would change with the availability of abortion in NI.

Ever heard of the other option if parents dont want a baby?
1 - dont get yourself in that position in the first place
2 - Not abortion - adoption!!! - there are plenty of couples in NI who want kids and cant have them and would give kids a loving home, the arguement about kids being raised in abusive homes cause abortion isnt available is rubbish - no-one is forced to keep a baby.

Also - no-one is actually in need of an abortion - they choose to have one!

I have talked to a few people from NI - mainly men actually who have kids who freely admit that if abortion had been available they wouldnt have them today cause the women would most likely have had a abortion if they had been freely available. The majority of people in northen Ireland who have kids under less than ideal circumstances are probably glad abortion wasnt legalised here and wouldnt give up their children for anything!

Abortion is simply murder. Just because the child is still in the womb doesnt make killing it right.

In regards to contraception - the morning after pill is abortion as well, however the contraceptive pill also works in the same way - so take note anyone using it the doctors tend not to tell u this. It works in 3 ways and the third way is to prevent a fertilsed egg attaching to the lining of the womb.

Quote from: pintsofguinness on July 25, 2008, 07:31:01 PM

Now puck, maguire, luder, stephenite - let me ask you a question (a point I've raised before on other threads on this subject but which went unanswered) - if I get a woman pregnant and turn around and tell her I want nothing to do with the baby, he or she will never know who I am and will never get a penny what would you think of me? That I was well within my rights because it's my choice not to be a parent?

I fully agree with this - fathers have no rights and it is a very strange situation, in countries where abortion in legal (which should be none) - a father should have the right to fordid the murder of his child and should be allowed to raise his child.

Quote
I have talked to a few people from NI - mainly men actually who have kids who freely admit that if abortion had been available they wouldnt have them today cause the women would most likely have had a abortion if they had been freely available. The majority of people in northen Ireland who have kids under less than ideal circumstances are probably glad abortion wasnt legalised here and wouldnt give up their children for anything!

Very true - you regularly hear about women having abortions regretting it but how often do you hear women saying they wish they had an abortion?

Quote from: Rossfan on July 25, 2008, 08:39:38 PM
Would be a no voteron this one if I lived in the Noth East.
I can't see how killing the most defenceless form of human life can be a human right.

MPs will vote as to whether the act is extended.
There is also a big debate as to what stage a fetus becomes human life. Admittedly i'm no expert on this matter, but the argument appears to be around the idea that if a group of cells have no consciousness, are they human life?

Quote from: Lazer on July 25, 2008, 08:49:01 PM
Ever heard of the other option if parents dont want a baby?
1 - dont get yourself in that position in the first place
2 - Not abortion - adoption!!! - there are plenty of couples in NI who want kids and cant have them and would give kids a loving home, the arguement about kids being raised in abusive homes cause abortion isnt available is rubbish - no-one is forced to keep a baby.

Also - no-one is actually in need of an abortion - they choose to have one!

Adoption can be a good alternative, but maybe not in all cases. Are there plenty of willing families ready to adopt? Or would the child end up stuck in a home?
And yes, abortion is a choice - the 'need' is to be able to make that choice. As for 'don't get yourself in that situation in the first place' - patronising, but yes, that would be ideal. But we're discussing situations where the event has happened, not ideal situations.

Quote from: Lazer on July 25, 2008, 08:49:01 PM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on July 25, 2008, 07:31:01 PM
Now puck, maguire, luder, stephenite - let me ask you a question (a point I've raised before on other threads on this subject but which went unanswered) - if I get a woman pregnant and turn around and tell her I want nothing to do with the baby, he or she will never know who I am and will never get a penny what would you think of me? That I was well within my rights because it's my choice not to be a parent?

I fully agree with this - fathers have no rights and it is a very strange situation, in countries where abortion in legal (which should be none) - a father should have the right to fordid the murder of his child and should be allowed to raise his child.

I suppose the ball is primarily in the woman's court as she has to carry and give birth to the baby. I'd also imagine that it's a fairly rare scenario where the father is there willing, waiting and capable to look after a baby and the woman decides on a termination. I'd imagine there are far more abortions due to men not being around or no wanting to be around.

Quote from: pintsofguinness on July 25, 2008, 08:54:23 PM

Quote
I have talked to a few people from NI - mainly men actually who have kids who freely admit that if abortion had been available they wouldnt have them today cause the women would most likely have had a abortion if they had been freely available. The majority of people in northen Ireland who have kids under less than ideal circumstances are probably glad abortion wasnt legalised here and wouldnt give up their children for anything!

Very true - you regularly hear about women having abortions regretting it but how often do you hear women saying they wish they had an abortion?

That's a poor argument. Most people keep these things very private - it's not a public matter. The 'pro-life' movement push examples of the former to the front as par of their propaganda, which they're entitled to do, but i wouldn't take that as any real barometer of truth.




Genuine question here:
The law won't be enforced on anyone, i.e. it won't actually effect you. Why do 'no' voters feel they have the right to deny others taking a course of action that is right for them?
This is the basis for what some people call 'pro-abortion' actually being 'pro-choice' - because only those who choose an abortion will have one.

It's dissapointing that you didn't see fit to address my last point maguire
to quote myself

QuoteBut I have a financial obligation? What if I don't want the baby, I didn't want to be a parent, what if she lied to me, told me she was on the pill?  Surely I should have the same rights as a woman who doesnt want to be a parent? Afterall i would onyl be denying the child a father and x quid a month - not a life.

I find it very odd that men who dont face their parental responsabilities are condemned and are chased by the law and the courts in an attempt to ensure they cant avoid those responsibilities (rightly so imo) but if it's a woman who doesnt want to be a parent then that's fine, have an abortion.

Maguire

Quote
There is also a big debate as to what stage a fetus becomes human life. Admittedly i'm no expert on this matter, but the argument appears to be around the idea that if a group of cells have no consciousness, are they human life?

I, for the life of me, don't understand how someone can consider something with a heart beat (at the very least) as not being life.  But whatever suits their agenda.

QuoteThe law won't be enforced on anyone, i.e. it won't actually effect you. Why do 'no' voters feel they have the right to deny others taking a course of action that is right for them?

Because no one should have a right to end a defenceless, innoncent life. 



Week 16
(http://www.paternityangel.com/PicsAndPhotos/FoetalDevelop/16ish-week-SaiedTohamy.jpg)

Week 22
(http://www.paternityangel.com/PicsAndPhotos/FoetalDevelop/22week-MariaParrillaDelgado.jpg)

Yeah, a collection of cells  ::)

I agree with pints 100% on this one.

Quote from: pintsofguinness on July 25, 2008, 07:31:01 PM
Some points after reading the last few pages:


Puck

QuoteThe numbers in favour/in need/who've travelled for abortion in the past are just not enough to over come the numbers of those who are prepared to voice all the anti abortion arguments and then bury their heads in the sand when we see the kids abandoned, mis-treated, unloved, living in poverty, raised in abusive homes all because the mother didnt want them, couldnt care for them.

Are you saying in the US, where abortion is freely available, kids are never abandoned, mistreated, unloved, living in poverty or abusive homes? 
Now who's tugging at heart strings?
What's the idea here - lets kill them, their life won't be worth livng anyway?

The point is not to terminate "kids" but to have the option of termination of an unwanted pregnancy. You are perfectly right of course that the contraception argument is very thin, but to coin a phrase - if you cant distinguish the difference between early mitotic cell division, and a fetus that can survive on its own - then its no wonder you are anti abortion

Quote from: Lazer on July 25, 2008, 08:49:01 PM

Quote from: Puckoon on July 25, 2008, 12:39:12 AM


Quite simply - the people of NI who need abortions, or may some day need abortions, or who are sympathetic to the plight of a pregant woman (who for reasons other than laziness or the desire to use abortion as a freely available form of contraception) who needs an abortion do want abortion to be legalized. Unfortunately if this requires a national vote - the act would never get passed. The numbers in favour/in need/who've travelled for abortion in the past are just not enough to over come the numbers of those who are prepared to voice all the anti abortion arguments and then bury their heads in the sand when we see the kids abandoned, mis-treated, unloved, living in poverty, raised in abusive homes all because the mother didnt want them, couldnt care for them. No point in closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. The country really is living in cuckoo land - the number of women sailing over the water for abortion is the only thing that would change with the availability of abortion in NI.

Ever heard of the other option if parents dont want a baby?
1 - dont get yourself in that position in the first place
2 - Not abortion - adoption!!! - there are plenty of couples in NI who want kids and cant have them and would give kids a loving home, the arguement about kids being raised in abusive homes cause abortion isnt available is rubbish - no-one is forced to keep a baby.

Also - no-one is actually in need of an abortion - they choose to have one!


In regards to contraception - the morning after pill is abortion as well, however the contraceptive pill also works in the same way - so take note anyone using it the doctors tend not to tell u this. It works in 3 ways and the third way is to prevent a fertilsed egg attaching to the lining of the womb.

There is more to adoption than simply having the child and giving it away. We make it sound so easy. Carrying a child to term is NOT just a walk in the park. Nor can I imagine it would be easy to give that child up. Women who consider abortions are not evil, they are not incapable of loving a child (except perhaps in extenuous circumstances). Perhaps at most you can label them selfish. However, if they make a value judgement and differentiation on the age of the cells vs the first sign of a viable fetus (which I will concede is then human life) , from first impregnation to 2 cells, 4 cells, 8 cells, 16 cells and so on - why shouldnt they be? Provided abortion IMHO is carried out before 12 weeks, it is perfectly acceptable.


This carry on of the pill being abortion - well thats just bullshit.

Quote from: pintsofguinness on July 26, 2008, 10:51:21 AM
It's dissapointing that you didn't see fit to address my last point maguire
to quote myself

QuoteBut I have a financial obligation? What if I don't want the baby, I didn't want to be a parent, what if she lied to me, told me she was on the pill?  Surely I should have the same rights as a woman who doesnt want to be a parent? Afterall i would onyl be denying the child a father and x quid a month - not a life.

I find it very odd that men who dont face their parental responsabilities are condemned and are chased by the law and the courts in an attempt to ensure they cant avoid those responsibilities (rightly so imo) but if it's a woman who doesnt want to be a parent then that's fine, have an abortion.

Apologies - i missed your reply, i didn't ignore it.
Surely the difference is that at the stage where men are chased, there is a baby to look after. If the mother gave birth and then dumped the child, she would be chased to provide for it too.

Quote from: pintsofguinness on July 26, 2008, 10:51:21 AM
Maguire

Quote
There is also a big debate as to what stage a fetus becomes human life. Admittedly i'm no expert on this matter, but the argument appears to be around the idea that if a group of cells have no consciousness, are they human life?

I, for the life of me, don't understand how someone can consider something with a heart beat (at the very least) as not being life.  But whatever suits their agenda.

'Life' and 'Human Life' are not necessarily the same. The images you showed, yes very emotive, but for most arguments, probably accepted as being after the stage where there is a human life rather than a clump of cells, albeit one that could not survive on its own. (Although i accept that for your argument, those images are still within the abortion limits.)

Quote from: pintsofguinness on July 26, 2008, 10:51:21 AM

QuoteThe law won't be enforced on anyone, i.e. it won't actually effect you. Why do 'no' voters feel they have the right to deny others taking a course of action that is right for them?

Because no one should have a right to end a defenceless, innoncent life. 

So your beliefs or morals are more important than those of a woman who wishes to have an abortion?

puck

QuoteThe point is not to terminate "kids" but to have the option of termination of an unwanted pregnancy. You are perfectly right of course that the contraception argument is very thin, but to coin a phrase - if you cant distinguish the difference between early mitotic cell division, and a fetus that can survive on its own - then its no wonder you are anti abortion

You tried to suggest that if abortion was available there would be less child abuse, neglect etc but we all know that that's  not the case.
You can talk about cells all you want in an attempt to jusfity abortion but cells that have a beating heart and human features is a life.

You also avoided my question:
To quote myself (again)

QuoteNow puck, maguire, luder, stephenite - let me ask you a question (a point I've raised before on other threads on this subject but which went unanswered) - if I get a woman pregnant and turn around and tell her I want nothing to do with the baby, he or she will never know who I am and will never get a penny what would you think of me? That I was well within my rights because it's my choice not to be a parent?

QuoteThere is more to adoption than simply having the child and giving it away. We make it sound so easy. Carrying a child to term is NOT just a walk in the park. Nor can I imagine it would be easy to give that child up. Women who consider abortions are not evil, they are not incapable of loving a child (except perhaps in extenuous circumstances). Perhaps at most you can label them selfish. However, if they make a value judgement and differentiation on the age of the cells vs the first sign of a viable fetus (which I will concede is then human life) , from first impregnation to 2 cells, 4 cells, 8 cells, 16 cells and so on - why shouldnt they be? Provided abortion IMHO is carried out before 12 weeks, it is perfectly acceptable.

We make adoption sound easy? At least you're giving the child a chance.  And yes you're right, abortion is based on downright selfishness and all these arguments about a collection of cells, not really a baby is people trying to convince themselves that there is nothing wrong with abortion.  I don't believe anyone can consider something with (at the very lease) a heartbeat as not being life.

QuoteProvided abortion IMHO is carried out before 12 weeks, it is perfectly acceptable.

Because it doesn't look like a baby?
vital oragans are in place
arms and legs are taking shape
baby is responding to pressure and noise
brain and nervous system is functioning
the heart is beating (long before 12 weeks) and blood is being pumped around the body
eyes and ears are formed

But this is just a collection of cells?


maguire

QuoteApologies - i missed your reply, i didn't ignore it.
Surely the difference is that at the stage where men are chased, there is a baby to look after. If the mother gave birth and then dumped the child, she would be chased to provide for it too.

But surely a man has a right not to be a parent - a woman apparently has a right not to be a parent.
I'd imagine most of us here to consider any man who runs away from his parental responsibilites as being a loser yet some of you think it's perfectly ok for a woman to avoid hers and deny a life. 

Quote
'Life' and 'Human Life' are not necessarily the same. The images you showed, yes very emotive, but for most arguments, probably accepted as being after the stage where there is a human life rather than a clump of cells, albeit one that could not survive on its own. (Although i accept that for your argument, those images are still within the abortion limits.)

If it's not a human life what sort of life is it?  That beating heart belongs to a human being. 
I love this survive on it's own argument as well - of course we all know a new born baby wouldn't last too long if it was left on it's own but sure you mean survive outside the womb - in the same way that puck decides abortion shouldnt take place after the baby looks like a baby people come up with their own definition of life in order to justify their pro abortion stance.
I can understand someone arguing that it's not a life until the heart starts beating (which is after about two weeks) but how the f**k can someone argue a beating heart is not a life!

QuoteSo your beliefs or morals are more important than those of a woman who wishes to have an abortion?

An unborn, defenceless baby is more important.

No - I never tried to suggest that if abortion was legal - there would be less childabuse/neglect. I asked where are all the pro life posters on the plight of the poor, and the abused. There is a fundamental difference. If you would like to discuss the point - its better to refrain from inferring meanings of posts which simply arent there.

You've posted strong opinions on the value of life here before - we have all read the "no tears from me" posts. Seems like when someone behaves in a manner unbecoming of the society you want to live in - there is no real issue with the "real" murder of "real" people. We've also debated at length about the requirements to call yourself an (irish) republican.... Remember the post? At all costs, or something such?


Either way - its a tad ballsy to try and defend the sanctity of human life (that cannot exist on its own) and not have any respect for the murder of real people.


However, you have a very good and interesting (and frankly only a point you could come up with!) point concerning the chasing of the father of children for child support, regardless of wether they want anything to do with the child. Maguire is also wrong, if a mother decides to give up her child after birth (abandonment not adoption) she isnt required to do anything more (provided she doesnt leave it in a moses basket on the street - in which case she could face cruelty and neglect charges). I dont have an answer for why that is - it appears to me that the courts of law and society have decided that is how it is.



The reason I argue so heavily on the side of pro choice isnt because Im gung ho for abprtion - there are just alot of people out there willing to put a big X against abortion without really understanding anything about it.

This is the 4th such thread we've had on this topic - the point of this one being should it be legal - to answer that question, I see no reason why not. I do not believe laceers claim that many of his friends would be childless if abortion was available on this island. Easy jet and the norse sea ferries may well see a drop in sales however. For me that is the only difference.


Just on a technical note - the term survive on its own isnt quite as simple as you want to make it seem. A fetus (at a certain age - not 100% sure when) could in a poor case scenario be saved if the mother was dying. Lets say 27 weeks, just for sake of argument. Prior to that time, if the mother was to fall ill and die, even with prior arrangement and the best medical care, the fetus would not survive. No matter how much care there was or if mother mary was there to care for it herself. After a time point however (27 weeks) with fantasic medical care, and substitute parenting - the fetus could survive. Now I hope you understand the point of surviving on its own a little better and can no longer use it as a stick to beat the pro choice group.

Quote from: pintsofguinness on July 26, 2008, 12:08:14 PM
maguire

QuoteApologies - i missed your reply, i didn't ignore it.
Surely the difference is that at the stage where men are chased, there is a baby to look after. If the mother gave birth and then dumped the child, she would be chased to provide for it too.

But surely a man has a right not to be a parent - a woman apparently has a right not to be a parent.
I'd imagine most of us here to consider any man who runs away from his parental responsibilites as being a loser yet some of you think it's perfectly ok for a woman to avoid hers and deny a life. 

Again, let me repeat, that if a woman gave birth and dumped the baby, see too would be a 'loser' as you put it (although i acknowledge that it's not always black and white, for a man or a woman).
The difference between the man and woman argument, is that, through a twist of nature, the woman carries and gives birth - the man doesn't.

Quote from: pintsofguinness on July 26, 2008, 12:08:14 PM

QuoteSo your beliefs or morals are more important than those of a woman who wishes to have an abortion?

An unborn, defenceless baby is more important.

Yes, says you. But it won't affect your life if the baby is born, so that's easy to say.


As for the arguments about when a life is a human life and whether a heartbeat constitutes human life - well i'm not a biologist or a medical expert, so i'm not going to bring an argument further down a road i am not sufficiently qualified in. Someone who is in a vegetative stage can have a heartbeat, but whether it is a human life is debatable. That's veering off into the euthanasia debate, which isn't for this thread necessarily, but the comparison is valid in a way - maybe that's one for another poll/thread!
Regardless of whether it is a life or cells, i retain my position of leaving the choice in the hands of the woman in that situation.

Quote from: Puckoon on July 26, 2008, 12:26:13 PM
However, you have a very good and interesting (and frankly only a point you could come up with!) point concerning the chasing of the father of children for child support, regardless of wether they want anything to do with the child. Maguire is also wrong, if a mother decides to give up her child after birth (abandonment not adoption) she isnt required to do anything more (provided she doesnt leave it in a moses basket on the street - in which case she could face cruelty and neglect charges). I dont have an answer for why that is - it appears to me that the courts of law and society have decided that is how it is.

Fair enough - i'm no expert on the legalities of the situation and that is an obvious loophole.
But in responding to PoG, it would be my view that at this stage (i.e. when the baby is born), the mother should be as accountable as a father would be expected to be. That this isn't the case is clearly an anomaly.

Puck

QuoteYou've posted strong opinions on the value of life here before - we have all read the "no tears from me" posts. Seems like when someone behaves in a manner unbecoming of the society you want to live in - there is no real issue with the "real" murder of "real" people. We've also debated at length about the requirements to call yourself an (irish) republican.... Remember the post? At all costs, or something such?

That's right, when someone behaves in a manner unbecoming to society they'll get no tears from me when they meet a bad faith because society would be a lot better without them.  The same hardly goes for an unborn child. 
As for the irish Republican thread - I cleared up waht I meant when I said "at all costs" and did say that I didn't think you had to believe in armed conflict or killing people in order to be an irish republican.  That was made perfectly clear at the time.

Quote
Either way - its a tad ballsy to try and defend the sanctity of human life (that cannot exist on its own) and not have any respect for the murder of real people.

an unborn child isn't "real people"?

Quote
The reason I argue so heavily on the side of pro choice isnt because Im gung ho for abprtion - there are just alot of people out there willing to put a big X against abortion without really understanding anything about it.

What's to understand? 

Quote
This is the 4th such thread we've had on this topic - the point of this one being should it be legal - to answer that question, I see no reason why not. I do not believe laceers claim that many of his friends would be childless if abortion was available on this island. Easy jet and the norse sea ferries may well see a drop in sales however. For me that is the only difference.

Do you really think that many irish women go to England for abortion - I don't - however if having abortion illegal in Ireland means one life is saved then that's good enough for me.

QuoteJust on a technical note - the term survive on its own isnt quite as simple as you want to make it seem. A fetus (at a certain age - not 100% sure when) could in a poor case scenario be saved if the mother was dying. Lets say 27 weeks, just for sake of argument. Prior to that time, if the mother was to fall ill and die, even with prior arrangement and the best medical care, the fetus would not survive. No matter how much care there was or if mother mary was there to care for it herself. After a time point however (27 weeks) with fantasic medical care, and substitute parenting - the fetus could survive. Now I hope you understand the point of surviving on its own a little better and can no longer use it as a stick to beat the pro choice group.

So what? If a child can't survive outside the womb it's ok to kill it?
Why isn't it legal to kill a baby that can't survive without the aid of an adult?
Why isn't it legal to kill a baby/child that can't walk?
Who said it is perfectly acceptable to end a life if it can't survive outside the womb and what right had they to determine that?

Maguire

QuoteAgain, let me repeat, that if a woman gave birth and dumped the baby, see too would be a 'loser' as you put it (although i acknowledge that it's not always black and white, for a man or a woman).
The difference between the man and woman argument, is that, through a twist of nature, the woman carries and gives birth - the man doesn't.

Well I wouldn't call a woman who dumped a baby a loser - I'd say in most  of those cases she would be in need of medical care. 
The difference between the man and woman argument is that a woman would only need to carry the child for 9 months - yet some of you don't expect her to do this, you think it's perfectly fine for her to opt out by ending the life.
A man, at the very least, is expected to financially support that child for 18+ years - 18+ years compared to 9 months! (and yes I'm sure pregnancy is no walk in the park) or he's considered to be among the lowest in society?  Hypocrisy at it's finest!

QuoteYes, says you. But it won't affect your life if the baby is born, so that's easy to say.

If it did affect my life I'd have the same opinion.

Quote
As for the arguments about when a life is a human life and whether a heartbeat constitutes human life - well i'm not a biologist or a medical expert, so i'm not going to bring an argument further down a road i am not sufficiently qualified in. Someone who is in a vegetative stage can have a heartbeat, but whether it is a human life is debatable.

:o
If someone in a vegetative state is smothered with a pillow the person responsable would be up for murder.  More hypocrisy.
The sad thing is that an aborted unborn baby probably had more signs of life than the person in the vegetative state. 

Quote from: pintsofguinness on July 26, 2008, 12:53:19 PM
Maguire

QuoteAgain, let me repeat, that if a woman gave birth and dumped the baby, see too would be a 'loser' as you put it (although i acknowledge that it's not always black and white, for a man or a woman).
The difference between the man and woman argument, is that, through a twist of nature, the woman carries and gives birth - the man doesn't.

Well I wouldn't call a woman who dumped a baby a loser - I'd say in most  of those cases she would be in need of medical care. 
The difference between the man and woman argument is that a woman would only need to carry the child for 9 months - yet some of you don't expect her to do this, you think it's perfectly fine for her to opt out by ending the life.
A man, at the very least, is expected to financially support that child for 18+ years - 18+ years compared to 9 months! (and yes I'm sure pregnancy is no walk in the park) or he's considered to be among the lowest in society?  Hypocrisy at it's finest!

I've addressed this in my response to puckoon's post. You possibly hadn't read mine at your time of writing.

Quote from: pintsofguinness on July 26, 2008, 12:53:19 PM

QuoteYes, says you. But it won't affect your life if the baby is born, so that's easy to say.

If it did affect my life I'd have the same opinion.

Yes, and my point is that if it did affect you, you would be entitled to input. My point is that when it doesn't affect you - when it's another woman's situation, it's not your place to make choices on her behalf.

Quote from: pintsofguinness on July 26, 2008, 12:53:19 PM

Quote
As for the arguments about when a life is a human life and whether a heartbeat constitutes human life - well i'm not a biologist or a medical expert, so i'm not going to bring an argument further down a road i am not sufficiently qualified in. Someone who is in a vegetative stage can have a heartbeat, but whether it is a human life is debatable.

:o
If someone in a vegetative state is smothered with a pillow the person responsable would be up for murder.  More hypocrisy.
The sad thing is that an aborted unborn baby probably had more signs of life than the person in the vegetative state. 

They would. But they shouldn't. Regardless, that wasn't my point - my point was that a 'heartbeat' isn't sufficient, in my opinion, to be regarded as 'human life'.


I'm not sure hypocricy is the correct term to use against me here - in a number of replies to my posts. I am trying to be consistent and will attempt to explain any inconsistencies that may arise.

You are very impressive with the quotations. I bet your essays looked good in school. Even if they were as full of shite, smokescreens and mirrors as the rest of this.


1. You cannot appropriate value to life just when it suits you. Well, you obviously can, but it discredits your opinion in mine.
2. No, an unborn child is a real person. You should stick to one discriptive term and use it consistently. A child, IMHO (which at the end of the day is the basis for my beliefs) is not legally allowed to be terminated. Neither is a baby (another emotive term you like). A FETUS however IMHO (really hate to have to keep clarifying this) is not a real person. Im not telling you how it is, im telling you what I believe.
3. Everything.
4. Yes. I do believe that. You would be naive not to. I dont know the exact percentage, but I know for a certain number of people in my family and friend circle who have gone. Multiply that by the population and its a fair percentage.
5a. So you should use the term correctly. Its a term you seemed to not know the understanding or meaning off. You are difficult enough to engage with without running rampant with your own ideas on what we mean. Thats so what.
5b. If a child cannot survive outside the womb its ok to kill it? You mean just every day? Should we have a police force checking for women that are in that stage of pregnancy? Is that what you are asking? Because one is as ridiculous as the other. Unless you are asking if that makes it ok to abort that fetus? Is that what you are asking? Because its hard to figure out the real question from the dramatic. If abortion is to be allowed - then this would be a certain cut off point for termination of a viable fetus.
5c. Another ludicris question. What do you really mean? Are you just asking terribly dramatic un related questions? Nolo Contende.
5d. As above.
5e. Ive never heard this being said before. I certainly never said it. I just wanted to make sure you understood the context of the "child that cannot survive by its self". This means unborn child that still needs its mother. Not artificial life or medicine. Think of the term you wrote there - perfectly acceptable. acceptable isnt ever perfect. There is nothing perfect about this.


Lets see what twisting you will do with this.

Maguire

QuoteYes, and my point is that if it did affect you, you would be entitled to input. My point is that when it doesn't affect you - when it's another woman's situation, it's not your place to make choices on her behalf.

It's my business as a human being.  You could say it's none of my business (or society's) if that woman gives birth, brings the baby home and decides she'll smoother it with a pillow becuase she doesn't want to be a mother anymore. individuals in society have an obligation to look out/defend the weaker in society - whether they be unborn babies or somenoe in a vegetative state. 

QuoteRegardless, that wasn't my point - my point was that a 'heartbeat' isn't sufficient, in my opinion, to be regarded as 'human life'.

What constitutes a human life then?  I assume, in your opinion, someone in a vegetative state isn't a human life either?

Puck, who decided that it was acceptable to abort a baby if it couldn't survive outside the womb and what right had they to do this?

btw, I've no interest or intention of softening my language in an attempt to make you feel less guilty about your views.

Pints,
What are you asking? Clarify and I will try and answer.

Puck, who decided that it was acceptable to abort a baby if it couldn't survive outside the womb and what right had they to do this?

I can't make it any simpler.

While you're at it, you can tell me what right have you to decide that a baby can be aborted as long as it doesnt look like a baby.

I can answer the second one right away. I dont decide such things. Sorry. Im neither an abortion Dr, nor a woman.

On the first one, a baby is not aborted if it cannot survive outside the womb. That is not the criteria. However, where I live - the US supreme court ruled in 1973 in Roe Vs Wade (Im sure youve heard of this) that americas abortion laws were unconstitutional.

The central holding of Roe v. Wade was that abortions are permissible for any reason a woman chooses, up until the "point at which the fetus becomes 'viable,' that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid. Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."[1] The Court also held that abortion after viability must be available when needed to protect a woman's health, which the Court defined broadly in the companion case of Doe v. Bolton. These court rulings affected laws in 46 states.[3]


I guess you'd need to take it up with these guys. I dont make the rules. I simply have an opinion on them.

QuoteOn the first one, a baby is not aborted if it cannot survive outside the womb. That is not the criteria. However, where I live - the US supreme court ruled in 1973 in Roe Vs Wade (Im sure youve heard of this) that americas abortion laws were unconstitutional.

The central holding of Roe v. Wade was that abortions are permissible for any reason a woman chooses, up until the "point at which the fetus becomes 'viable,' that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid. Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."[1] The Court also held that abortion after viability must be available when needed to protect a woman's health, which the Court defined broadly in the companion case of Doe v. Bolton. These court rulings affected laws in 46 states.[3]

So you did know what I was asking?

These people have no right to make decisions like the above and people like you and maguire and whoever else will cite them as some natural fact.  Btw if you smoothered someone in vegetative state (and who showed less signs of life than an unborn baby) you'd be tried for murder by the same courts?  Yeah, these are the people you should be looking to for guidance on how society should be  ::)

A tough one for some of NI's political parties. Outside the DUP it's hard to believe that they are all singing from the one hymn-sheet.


http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/mar/06030108.html

I don't know if this is valid, but if it is it may put a bit of a cat among the pigeons.

Quote from: pintsofguinness on July 26, 2008, 01:36:34 PM

QuoteOn the first one, a baby is not aborted if it cannot survive outside the womb. That is not the criteria. However, where I live - the US supreme court ruled in 1973 in Roe Vs Wade (Im sure youve heard of this) that americas abortion laws were unconstitutional.

The central holding of Roe v. Wade was that abortions are permissible for any reason a woman chooses, up until the "point at which the fetus becomes 'viable,' that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid. Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."[1] The Court also held that abortion after viability must be available when needed to protect a woman's health, which the Court defined broadly in the companion case of Doe v. Bolton. These court rulings affected laws in 46 states.[3]

So you did know what I was asking?

These people have no right to make decisions like the above and people like you and maguire and whoever else will cite them as some natural fact.  Btw if you smoothered someone in vegetative state (and who showed less signs of life than an unborn baby) you'd be tried for murder by the same courts?  Yeah, these are the people you should be looking to for guidance on how society should be  ::)

I know one other person as contrary as you. I took a stab at what you were asking. You arent happy if the question isnt answered - so much that you will repeat it until it is. But when it is - how dare we know/guess what you were asking!  :D

Secondly - why would I smother someone in a vegetative state? If you really wanted to top someone, there are better ways than that. If I tried to perform a home abortion Id probably be jailed as well. What is your point? If a Dr performed an abortion on my wife, or we went to oregan and euthanized my father in law - both are legal.

QuoteWhat is your point? If a Dr performed an abortion on my wife, or we went to oregan and euthanized my father in law - both are legal.

Euthansia is legal where you are? Fair enough but that's hardly the norm.

My point is in most places where abortion is legal euthansia is not therefore:
Ending the life of an unborn baby - perfectly ok
Ending the life of someone in a vegetative state, showing less signs of life than an unborn baby, - murder.

Just like - man gets woman pregnant - must be a father
woman gets preganant - don't want to be a mother? have an abortion. 

hardly makes sense.

Quote from: pintsofguinness on July 26, 2008, 01:50:55 PM

QuoteWhat is your point? If a Dr performed an abortion on my wife, or we went to oregan and euthanized my father in law - both are legal.

Euthansia is legal where you are? Fair enough but that's hardly the norm.

My point is in most places where abortion is legal euthansia is not therefore:
Ending the life of an unborn baby - perfectly ok
Ending the life of someone in a vegetative state, showing less signs of life than an unborn baby, - murder.
Just like - man gets woman pregnant - must be a father
woman gets preganant - don't want to be a mother? have an abortion. 

hardly makes sense.

Euthanasia is legal one state north of me - you are right, its not the norm. However - maybe the example you have highlighted (and euthanasia is a very divisive topic too) shows you the value that the law and the society who accepts it has put on a life which is existing outside the womb - and the potential life inside it. You still keep using words like "perfectly ok". This isnt perfect.

It shows hypocrisy is alive and well. 

I challenge anyone to come on here and tell me why someone in a vegetative state should have their life protected (something I agree wiht) and an unborn baby should not. 

Those people dont exist Pints. The same people that are pro choice, would also be in favour of euthanasia.

Quote from: Puckoon on July 26, 2008, 02:04:36 PM
Those people dont exist Pints. The same people that are pro choice, would also be in favour of euthanasia.

There must be plenty or euthansia would be introduced.

You boys must think that society is about the survival of the fittest.

Quote from: pintsofguinness on July 26, 2008, 02:08:19 PM

Quote from: Puckoon on July 26, 2008, 02:04:36 PM
Those people dont exist Pints. The same people that are pro choice, would also be in favour of euthanasia.

There must be plenty or euthansia would be introduced.

You boys must think that society is about the survival of the fittest.

Puckoon is right - most people that would be pro-choice would probably be pro-euthanasia, or at least pro-choice in relation to euthanasia. And as opposed to the argument of the defenceless child from the 'pro life' camp, i would happily go on record as saying that if i ended up in a vegetative state, i'd like to be helped on the way - therefore it definitely should be no ones business or choice other than my own. If anything, the euthanasia debate should be more straightforward - especially if people opt in when they are in good health, or still of sound mind.
As far as i know, euthanasia is legal in a number of european countries.

Maguire, what constitues human life?

Look - I was always anti-abortion and listened to all the arguments pro and anti etc. I watched all the documentaries about the 'back-street' abortionists and the number of women who, in desperation, turned to them to terminate their pregnancies. I tried to understand the reasons and maybe put myself in the position of women who werer at their wits end. I tried to understand. But, I just couldn't justify to myself the act of murder that abortion was. Never. Never. However, on Monday night, Iris Robinson was on UTV Live .........................etc .................etc .... maybe in such circumstances..............................

Quote from: pintsofguinness on July 25, 2008, 08:54:23 PM
Very true - you regularly hear about women having abortions regretting it but how often do you hear women saying they wish they had an abortion?

There is an old woman in Silverbridge who wishes abortion had been legal around 1970  ;)

Quote from: Sideshow Bob on July 27, 2008, 12:59:36 AM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on July 25, 2008, 08:54:23 PM
Very true - you regularly hear about women having abortions regretting it but how often do you hear women saying they wish they had an abortion?

There is an old woman in Silverbridge who wishes abortion had been legal around 1970  ;)

Who/what do you mean?

Quote from: pintsofguinness on July 26, 2008, 11:57:18 PM
Maguire, what constitues human life?

c'mon maguire, no running away from the hard questions.

Quote from: pintsofguinness on July 28, 2008, 09:00:05 PM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on July 26, 2008, 11:57:18 PM
Maguire, what constitues human life?

c'mon maguire, no running away from the hard questions.

I'm not running - i've had limited time online (with Ballybofey & Clones this weekend) and have been prioritising that time to the main board!

Human life... a living human? Is it meant to be deeper that than? Why does a definition matter? Heartbeat? Awareness? Consciousness? I'm sure someone else could come up with something more comprehensive.

As for abortion or euthanasia, whether it is a living human that is killed or not does not central to my position - freedom of choice is. Take someone in a vegetative state - yes it is still human life, but in my opinion, is not worth preserving, and i say that as someone who would willingly (if it was legal), sign up to be 'helped on my way' was i in such a situation. I'd also sign up where i was terminally ill or in pain - the 'human life' element is not important.
An unborn baby may also be a human life, but that 'revelation' doesn't change my pro-choice opinion.

Actually, on my way home after the match, i was coming through Portadown and some old woman in the car in front of me with a car sticker saying 'abortion kills babies'. A bit obvious i thought. Not 'abortion is bad' or 'abortion is wrong', but 'abortion kills babies'.

QuoteHuman life... a living human? Is it meant to be deeper that than? Why does a definition matter? Heartbeat? Awareness? Consciousness? I'm sure someone else could come up with something more comprehensive.

A definition matters because you're the one using the term - to me a human life is a living human, you disagree - so what, in your opinion, is a living human?

Quote
As for abortion or euthanasia, whether it is a living human that is killed or not does not central to my position - freedom of choice is.

No one has/or should not have freedom of choice when it interferes with another human life. 

Quote
Actually, on my way home after the match, i was coming through Portadown and some old woman in the car in front of me with a car sticker saying 'abortion kills babies'. A bit obvious i thought. Not 'abortion is bad' or 'abortion is wrong', but 'abortion kills babies'.

Really? Normally the pro abortion gang have a fit if the "foetus" is referred to as a baby

Pints, I wonder how this thread would have panned out if you had been born a woman.

the same

I very much doubt it.

hmmmm  - are all women pro choice?

Quote from: nifan on July 29, 2008, 11:49:26 AM
hmmmm  - are all women pro choice?

No, nifan.
Any women I know (wife, friends wifes, relatives, work colleagues etc...) are all anti abortion.

No, but I'd say a higher percentage of women than men are pro-choice.

Quote from: hmmm on July 29, 2008, 12:59:36 PM
No, but I'd say a higher percentage of women than men are pro-choice.

Any idea of these percentages?

Id have a hard time knowing the view from most people without having talked to them about it, but most I know are anti abortion, or certainly against it in most cases. But thats anecdotal so hardly any more relevent than any percentages you give.
Questioning pints as to his opinion if he was a woman is also ridiculous - as even if he was you admit your self that only a percentage of women are pro choice -

this is a subject where i am well and truly caught between a rock and a hard place. Whilst i do see the termination of an unborn child as effectively being murder , i am also aware of cases where it may be necessarry. This is my dilemma.

The abortion rate for all conceptions for England and Wales is currently running at 22/23% per annum so I'm going to assume that the percentage of women who are pro choice would be a good deal higher than men.

I'm questioning Pints opinion because he will never walk in a pregnant womans shoes and he has been quite opinionated in this thread about an subject that he seems to think pro-choice take lightly.

I dont get how that figure proves anything about the number of men who are pro choice. It proves that at least 22/23% of pregnant women are but nothing more. Who knows how many are pro choice that didnt get an abortion? Who know what their partners felt of it, or how many partners wanted an abortion but the woman would not consent.

Pints is entitled to his opinion - his opinion is shared by many men and women, and opposed by many men and women.

Quote from: hmmm on July 29, 2008, 01:53:57 PM
The abortion rate for all conceptions for England and Wales is currently running at 22/23% per annum so I'm going to assume that the percentage of women who are pro choice would be a good deal higher than men.

I'm questioning Pints opinion because he will never walk in a pregnant womans shoes and he has been quite opinionated in this thread about an subject that he seems to think pro-choice take lightly.

I think it's correct to say that POG is not the only one who is being quite opinionated on this thread, why pick him out for mention!

This attitude that because a man "won't walk in a pregnant womans shoes" ergo his opinion is less then a womans bugs the sh*te outta me.

Every single one of you reading this can be thankful that your mother didn't have the option of abortion here in Ireland, and wasn't in a difficult situation when pregnant with you, because you may now not be here.

A womans situation when pregnant may seem bad, but thats not to say their circumstances wouldn't change for the better - then there may be major regrets in the future about actions taken now if "certain" options where made available.

Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on July 29, 2008, 12:12:49 PM

Quote from: nifan on July 29, 2008, 11:49:26 AM
hmmmm  - are all women pro choice?

No, nifan.
Any women I know (wife, friends wifes, relatives, work colleagues etc...) are all anti abortion.

I know two girls who have had abortions and they still say that it was the correct thing to do and ar very happy. i think this has to be a pro - choice decision as everyone looks at having a baby differently depending on their stage in life!

Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on July 29, 2008, 02:11:14 PM

Quote from: hmmm on July 29, 2008, 01:53:57 PM
The abortion rate for all conceptions for England and Wales is currently running at 22/23% per annum so I'm going to assume that the percentage of women who are pro choice would be a good deal higher than men.

I'm questioning Pints opinion because he will never walk in a pregnant womans shoes and he has been quite opinionated in this thread about an subject that he seems to think pro-choice take lightly.

I think it's correct to say that POG is not the only one who is being quite opinionated on this thread, why pick him out for mention!

This attitude that because a man "won't walk in a pregnant womans shoes" ergo his opinion is less then a womans bugs the sh*te outta me.

Every single one of you reading this can be thankful that your mother didn't have the option of abortion here in Ireland, and wasn't in a difficult situation when pregnant with you, because you may now not be here.

A womans situation when pregnant may seem bad, but thats not to say their circumstances wouldn't change for the better - then there may be major regrets in the future about actions taken now if "certain" options where made available.

I'm picking him out for mention as he has been to most vocal on the last few pages.

A man telling everyone what a pregnant woman should do with her body without knowing her circumstances bugs the sh!te out of me

If my mother had had an abortion when pregnant with me, then so be it.

Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on July 29, 2008, 02:11:14 PM
Every single one of you reading this can be thankful that your mother didn't have the option of abortion here in Ireland, and wasn't in a difficult situation when pregnant with you, because you may now not be here.

Why? If we had been aborted, we wouldn't know what we were missing, nor would we care!

hmmm

Quote
I'm questioning Pints opinion because he will never walk in a pregnant womans shoes and he has been quite opinionated in this thread about an subject that he seems to think pro-choice take lightly.

I think people who are pro-abortion are so out of a selfishness. 
I will never be pregnant however men are just as entitled to their opinions on this subject.

Personally, a child/baby would be the last thing I want - I'm 37 and I've always felt like that because I like my life the way it is, I like doing what I want when I want, I like my independence and when you have a child that changes. 
I don't think I'm any sort of saint and would actually consider myself to be quite selfish however if my better half got pregnant would I look for a way out of my responsability? Certainly not, a life is a lot more important than how I think my life should be. 

Although I'd never want to see herself going through any pain or discomfort - 9 months out of her life  is not a big deal when another life is involved (she'd agree).  My mother spent the last 3 months of her pregnancy with me lying in a hospital bed in an attempt to save my life (while she risked her own) - a vast majority of pregnancies are, thankfully, straightforward so don't give me shite about what a woman goes through in pregnancy! I'm sure a lot of what is involved is not an easy or pleasant experience but we are talking about another life!
Would you refuse to go though some ill health to give a family member a kidney or bone marrow etc to save their life?


btw, how many of you in the pro abortion camp would have the balls to tell a woman who's miscarried that it was only a bunch of cells?

Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on July 29, 2008, 02:11:14 PM

Every single one of you reading this can be thankful that your mother didn't have the option of abortion here in Ireland, and wasn't in a difficult situation when pregnant with you, because you may now not be here.

Balls. I wouldnt have known any different. The bottom line with that argument is that you cannot miss what you never had. That my friends is a simple fact.

Quote from: pintsofguinness on July 29, 2008, 07:28:11 PM


btw, how many of you in the pro abortion camp would have the balls to tell a woman who's miscarried that it was only a bunch of cells?

Eh - you have some valid points pints - but you are comparing apples with sheep shit here. A woman who wanted a child, and who mis-carried is not in the same emotional state as a woman who doesnt want a child and has an abortion. Even a loon could see how there is a distinction the size of the grand caynon there. Why would anyone say that to a woman who miscarried? Can you produce any scenario where a pro choice person would utter such a sentence in this situation which you presented?

Have you ever wondered if a woman has a mis-carriage and is (relatively) glad?

QuoteEh - you have some valid points pints - but you are comparing apples with sheep shit here. A woman who wanted a child, and who mis-carried is not in the same emotional state as a woman who doesnt want a child and has an abortion.

Maybe not in the same emotional state but they are in the same physical state.  If it was just a case of the woman who miscarried wanting a child she would quickly get over the miscarried baby when she falls pregnant again but this isn't the case.

QuoteCan you produce any scenario where a pro choice person would utter such a sentence in this situation which you presented?

Never, they wouldn't have the balls.

QuoteHave you ever wondered if a woman has a mis-carriage and is (relatively) glad?

I'm sure there's women who have been glad, the selfish ones.

Quote from: pintsofguinness on July 29, 2008, 07:41:40 PM

QuoteEh - you have some valid points pints - but you are comparing apples with sheep shit here. A woman who wanted a child, and who mis-carried is not in the same emotional state as a woman who doesn't want a child and has an abortion.

Maybe not in the same emotional state but they are in the same physical state.  If it was just a case of the woman who miscarried wanting a child she would quickly get over the miscarried baby when she falls pregnant again but this isn't the case.

QuoteCan you produce any scenario where a pro choice person would utter such a sentence in this situation which you presented?

Never, they wouldn't have the balls.

QuoteHave you ever wondered if a woman has a miscarriage and is (relatively) glad?

I'm sure there's women who have been glad, the selfish ones.

Pints - your half a leg to stand on concerning your latest points is quickly becoming even more unstable with your latest repost.

A woman who has a miscarriage is not in any way equivalent to a woman who undergoes an abortion. No way, Nada, zilch, zero comparsion. You cannot reconcile those two scenarios. Sorry. You've lost that point with no potential for retrieval.

"Never - they wouldn't have the balls" is a terrible cop out - even you with your neck of brass should be ashamed at the quality of that effort

NEWS FLASH - There are selfish people in the world!

Quote
A woman who has a miscarriage is not in any way equivalent to a woman who undergoes an abortion. No way, Nada, zilch, zero comparsion. You cannot reconcile those two scenarios. Sorry. You've lost that point with no potential for retrieval.

They were both pregnant, carrying a baby who died.
Granted one lost the baby due to no fault of her own and mourns for that loss, possibly blames herself, the other had hers murdered - that's the only difference I see.

Quote"Never - they wouldn't have the balls" is a terrible cop out - even you with your neck of brass should be ashamed at the quality of that effort

Not one of you would have the balls to say what you're saying on here to a woman who has miscarried.  What if it was a family member or a friend you were comforting - would "sure it was only a bunch of cells" cross your lips?

Quote from: Puckoon on July 29, 2008, 07:33:29 PM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on July 29, 2008, 07:28:11 PM
btw, how many of you in the pro abortion camp would have the balls to tell a woman who's miscarried that it was only a bunch of cells?

Eh - you have some valid points pints - but you are comparing apples with sheep shit here. A woman who wanted a child, and who mis-carried is not in the same emotional state as a woman who doesnt want a child and has an abortion. Even a loon could see how there is a distinction the size of the grand caynon there. Why would anyone say that to a woman who miscarried? Can you produce any scenario where a pro choice person would utter such a sentence in this situation which you presented?

Have you ever wondered if a woman has a mis-carriage and is (relatively) glad?

Agree totally. I wouldn't say that to a woman because i'm not that ignorant or insensitive - not because i 'don't have the balls'. Would it show that i had balls if i said such a thing? Would you admire someone who 'had the balls' to say such a thing?

QuoteWould you admire someone who 'had the balls' to say such a thing?

No, nor if they thought it. 


btw, where would yous draw the line with abortions? (or do you?)
abortions based on the sex of the child ok?
Are abortions if the child will be disabled ok?

Quote from: pintsofguinness on July 29, 2008, 08:46:38 PM

Quote
A woman who has a miscarriage is not in any way equivalent to a woman who undergoes an abortion. No way, Nada, zilch, zero comparsion. You cannot reconcile those two scenarios. Sorry. You've lost that point with no potential for retrieval.

They were both pregnant, carrying a baby who died.
Granted one lost the baby due to no fault of her own and mourns for that loss, possibly blames herself, the other had hers murdered - that's the only difference I see.

Quote"Never - they wouldn't have the balls" is a terrible cop out - even you with your neck of brass should be ashamed at the quality of that effort

Not one of you would have the balls to say what you're saying on here to a woman who has miscarried.  What if it was a family member or a friend you were comforting - would "sure it was only a bunch of cells" cross your lips?

Cop out. Cop out.

Why would you say something like that to a grieving mother? Your twistedness knows no bounds.

Apples. Sheep shit. One and the same now apparently. :D


"The only difference you see" is my learned friend - the fundamental difference being discussed. You've just shot your entire argument in the arse (at least you wont get it pregnant).

Sounds to me like you don't have an argument puck.  Lets drop the saying of it - would you be thinking "what's she crying about, it was only a bunch of cells?"

Are you running away from questions again?
To quote myself (like I've had to do several times on this thread now)

Quotebtw, where would yous draw the line with abortions? (or do you?)
abortions based on the sex of the child ok?
Are abortions if the child will be disabled ok?

Quote from: pintsofguinness on July 29, 2008, 08:51:14 PM

QuoteWould you admire someone who 'had the balls' to say such a thing?

No, nor if they thought it. 


btw, where would yous draw the line with abortions? (or do you?)
abortions based on the sex of the child ok?
Are abortions if the child will be disabled ok?

Again, not my choice, but not on the basis of sex of a child if the mother otherwise wanted a baby. As for a disabled baby, only in circumstances where the baby/child would not have an acceptable quality of life, or life expectancy was determined to be very short - similar to the choice to terminate a pregnancy if it will have a serious adverse effect on the health and quality of life or life expectancy of the mother.

Quote from: pintsofguinness on July 29, 2008, 09:07:33 PM
Sounds to me like you don't have an argument puck.  Lets drop the saying of it - would you be thinking "what's she crying about, it was only a bunch of cells?"

No, i'd be thinking - "she really wanted a baby and she's lost that chance, i hope she's alright".

QuoteAgain, not my choice, but not on the basis of sex of a child if the mother otherwise wanted a baby. As for a disabled baby, only in circumstances where the baby/child would not have an acceptable quality of life, or life expectancy was determined to be very short - similar to the choice to terminate a pregnancy if it will have a serious adverse effect on the health and quality of life or life expectancy of the mother.

But I thought you boys were for "choice"?  I thought it was none of our business what any woman did with her body?

Ill answer those questions once you've dug yourself out of this hole. Its convenient to change the argument to your questions when you are struggling so badly with my own.

If a mother lost a child she wanted, I would be vexed for her. The irony of a world where people who want kids can sometimes struggle to concieve, and those who dont want kids/dont raise kids well, can concieve all to easily is not lost on me. If a mother aborted a child she didnt want, I would feel nothing.

Abortions based on the sex of the child are in my opinion gratuitous. - edit
Abportions based on a pending disability are a grey area, Id have to think about that one from my own personal perspective. I would not abort my own child in this situation most likely. I do not condemn those who would.


I should add - soley based on the sex of the child. For example - we'd have a boy, but abort a girl.

Quote from: pintsofguinness on July 29, 2008, 09:20:12 PM

QuoteAgain, not my choice, but not on the basis of sex of a child if the mother otherwise wanted a baby. As for a disabled baby, only in circumstances where the baby/child would not have an acceptable quality of life, or life expectancy was determined to be very short - similar to the choice to terminate a pregnancy if it will have a serious adverse effect on the health and quality of life or life expectancy of the mother.

But I thought you boys were for "choice"?  I thought it was none of our business what any woman did with her body?

I am for choice. I said the choice wasn't mine - did you miss that bit? I thought you wanted my own opinion on those specific scenarios, otherwise why be specific(?)

Quote from: Maguire01 on July 29, 2008, 09:25:13 PM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on July 29, 2008, 09:20:12 PM

QuoteAgain, not my choice, but not on the basis of sex of a child if the mother otherwise wanted a baby. As for a disabled baby, only in circumstances where the baby/child would not have an acceptable quality of life, or life expectancy was determined to be very short - similar to the choice to terminate a pregnancy if it will have a serious adverse effect on the health and quality of life or life expectancy of the mother.

But I thought you boys were for "choice"?  I thought it was none of our business what any woman did with her body?

I am for choice. I said the choice wasn't mine - did you miss that bit? I thought you wanted my own opinion on those specific scenarios, otherwise why be specific(?)

To quote my own post for an afterthought - evidence surely that 'pro-choice' does not necessarily mean 'pro-abortion'.

So basically Maguire, you have you think a woman should be able to abort a baby if it's not the sex she wants?
I'm not asking what yous would do if it was your partner that was pregnant - I'm trying to establish if there is anywhere you draw the line with regards to abortion?

QuoteTo quote my own post for an afterthought - evidence surely that 'pro-choice' does not necessarily mean 'pro-abortion'.

Course it does.

You still haven't told me what constitutes human life by the way.

Quote from: Puckoon on July 29, 2008, 09:21:26 PM
Ill answer those questions once you've dug yourself out of this hole. Its convenient to change the argument to your questions when you are struggling so badly with my own.

If a mother lost a child she wanted, I would be vexed for her. The irony of a world where people who want kids can sometimes struggle to concieve, and those who dont want kids/dont raise kids well, can concieve all to easily is not lost on me. If a mother aborted a child she didnt want, I would feel nothing.

Abortions based on the sex of the child are in my opinion gratuitous.
Abportions based on a pending disability are a grey area, Id have to think about that one from my own personal perspective. I would not abort my own child in this situation most likely. I do not condemn those who would.

I'm not sure what hole I'm in puck - I think it's clear that an unborn baby is only a "foetus" or "bunch of cells" when it suits your agenda.
Why would you be against aborting a baby if it was because of the sex?  Surely it's still only a "bunch of cells"?

A few girls at my age have had children, unexpected during school/uni... im sure these girls had a very hard time coming to terms with their pregnancy and at such a young age. I was chatting to one of them the other day and she hasnt been happier with the child. She adores it, and even though it came as a shock to start off with, everyone came to terms with it and now its spoiled rotten and going to have a brilliant life.

In my opinion, i think abortion is out of the question and i could never put myself through it, nor do i know how anybody goes through with killing an innocent child. There are ways round it, adoption, surrogate mothers etc etc... abortion would just be the "easy" way out.
Fair enough, i understand that if girls have been sexually abused and arent willing to have the hild, thats a different situation altogether. Though in my opinion it should still have a chance at laugh, no matter how it was conceived.

It is a fetus or a bunch of cells regardless of my agenda - whats your agenda here? You have sidestepped every question that isnt one of your own, and most of your most recent ones are scrapping the bottom of the barrell. You really are acting a fool of epic proportions, but the thing is, you are no fool. Why play one?

I have no agenda, proven by the fact that even in my most personal scenario, I have the sense to realise that my progeny was not always a human, or a baby or a child. She was a fetus, and even before that only a few cells. That changes nothing with regards to my feelings for her. Others may not feel the same - that is their decision to bear.

Over and out.

QuoteIt is a fetus or a bunch of cells regardless of my agenda - whats your agenda here? You have sidestepped every question that isnt one of your own, and most of your most recent ones are scrapping the bottom of the barrell. You really are acting a fool of epic proportions, but the thing is, you are no fool. Why play one?

I don't have an agenda, simply expressing my views - which doesn't make me a fool btw, even if you don't agree with them.
What questions haven't I answered?

Quote from: Puckoon on July 29, 2008, 09:49:29 PM
You really are acting a fool of epic proportions, but the thing is, you are no fool. Why play one?

Quote from: pintsofguinness on July 29, 2008, 09:52:40 PM

QuoteIt is a fetus or a bunch of cells regardless of my agenda - whats your agenda here? You have sidestepped every question that isnt one of your own, and most of your most recent ones are scrapping the bottom of the barrell. You really are acting a fool of epic proportions, but the thing is, you are no fool. Why play one?

I don't have an agenda, simply expressing my views - which doesn't make me a fool btw, even if you don't agree with them.
What questions haven't I answered?

I think I made the fool distinction very clear - like everything else Ive tried to debate.

Your agenda appears to be an unwillingness to debate rationally, except to throw out ridiculous questions like why wouldnt a pro choice person rub salt in the wounds of a miscarried mother by telling her it was only a clump of cells. If you cant see the foolishness in asking a question like that, or the sidestepping of the real issue with even presenting such an irrational scenario like that in what should be a rational debate - then the thread has run its course - and of course the magic words you are looking for - you've won!


The defense has no further questions your honour - we rest our case and throw our mercy upon the jury of our peers, who in time may see us not for cold hearted baby murderers, but rather, well - I guess there is no alternative - supporters of the cold blooded murder of wee innocent babies must be what we are.

Quote from: pintsofguinness on July 29, 2008, 09:35:12 PM
So basically Maguire, you have you think a woman should be able to abort a baby if it's not the sex she wants?

What does that mean?

Quote from: pintsofguinness on July 29, 2008, 09:35:12 PM

QuoteTo quote my own post for an afterthought - evidence surely that 'pro-choice' does not necessarily mean 'pro-abortion'.

Course it does.

No, it doesn't. It's allowing others to make their own decisions. Those decisions may or may not be abortion.

Quote from: pintsofguinness on July 29, 2008, 09:35:12 PM
You still haven't told me what constitutes human life by the way.

A autonomous living human being with a heartbeat and consciousness.

QuoteWhat does that mean?

I'm just surprised that you think the sex of a baby is an acceptable reason abortion or have I picked you up wrong?

Quote from: pintsofguinness on July 29, 2008, 10:49:55 PM

QuoteWhat does that mean?

I'm just surprised that you think the sex of a baby is an acceptable reason abortion or have I picked you up wrong?

I just couldn't understand your post - it didn't make sense. I have already said that i don't think sex should be an acceptable reason if the woman otherwise wanted a baby.

Do most of the NO camp find abortion acceptable in certain cases like for a rape victam or if the mothers life is at risk etc?

As an aside to this debate, maybe a question that should be asked is why do we live in a society where so many women feel that abortion is their only option? Is it the shame still associated with having a child out of wedlock? The perception that an unplanned pregnancy ruins your life? Or the fear that you will have no support from family/friends/boyfriend?

Quote from: hmmm on July 30, 2008, 10:09:51 AM
As an aside to this debate, maybe a question that should be asked is why do we live in a society where so many women feel that abortion is their only option? Is it the shame still associated with having a child out of wedlock? The perception that an unplanned pregnancy ruins your life? Or the fear that you will have no support from family/friends/boyfriend?

i think each woman see's it differently, for example a girl under 25 may not want to have a baby as it will stop the from finishing their exams or traveling for a year, but some under 25's are married and cant wait to have a baby. this is why the choice is so important as it is different for every situation!

Quote from: Tankie on July 30, 2008, 12:07:22 PM

Quote from: hmmm on July 30, 2008, 10:09:51 AM
As an aside to this debate, maybe a question that should be asked is why do we live in a society where so many women feel that abortion is their only option? Is it the shame still associated with having a child out of wedlock? The perception that an unplanned pregnancy ruins your life? Or the fear that you will have no support from family/friends/boyfriend?

i think each woman see's it differently, for example a girl under 25 may not want to have a baby as it will stop the from finishing their exams or traveling for a year, but some under 25's are married and cant wait to have a baby. this is why the choice is so important as it is different for every situation!

Precisely why there shouldn't be a choice.

Quote from: Tankie on July 30, 2008, 12:07:22 PM

Quote from: hmmm on July 30, 2008, 10:09:51 AM
As an aside to this debate, maybe a question that should be asked is why do we live in a society where so many women feel that abortion is their only option? Is it the shame still associated with having a child out of wedlock? The perception that an unplanned pregnancy ruins your life? Or the fear that you will have no support from family/friends/boyfriend?

i think each woman see's it differently, for example a girl under 25 may not want to have a baby as it will stop the from finishing their exams or traveling for a year, but some under 25's are married and cant wait to have a baby. this is why the choice is so important as it is different for every situation!

What else Tankie, they won't be able to fit into their favourite jeans?

Quote from: Tony Baloney on July 30, 2008, 12:55:16 PM

Quote from: Tankie on July 30, 2008, 12:07:22 PM

Quote from: hmmm on July 30, 2008, 10:09:51 AM
As an aside to this debate, maybe a question that should be asked is why do we live in a society where so many women feel that abortion is their only option? Is it the shame still associated with having a child out of wedlock? The perception that an unplanned pregnancy ruins your life? Or the fear that you will have no support from family/friends/boyfriend?

i think each woman see's it differently, for example a girl under 25 may not want to have a baby as it will stop the from finishing their exams or traveling for a year, but some under 25's are married and cant wait to have a baby. this is why the choice is so important as it is different for every situation!

What else Tankie, they won't be able to fit into their favourite jeans?

Not everone see's having a baby as this wonderful giving of life that you may have. in this day and age alot of people dont want to or are not ready to have kids before they are 30 (i know i dont want them till after that) and to make a 21 yr old have a baby just beause of your beliefs is crazy. Same applys to rape victams etc, why should they have the baby if they dont want it?

Have any of ye read Mr Brain Feeney's coloum in th irish news today...good article and worth a read....it is linked to this thread. can anyone post it.

Backing Brown in June doesn't look too clever now
Brian Feeney
By Brian Feeney The Wednesday Column
30/07/08

Peter Robinson's decision to back Gordon Brown's proposal for 42-day detention isn't looking too clever now.

It was always a high-risk tactic.

You couldn't dignify it with the word 'strategy', for it was just naked opportunism.

It looked as if it had worked out just dandy when Brown got his proposal through with exactly the same number of votes as DUP MPs.

We were then treated to the party's soothsayer, G Campbell, crowing about how in the future (for as soothsayer he specialises in

prediction) the DUP would be regularly selling their votes for whatever benefits they could achieve for Norn Irn.

Obviously in his mind that nine-vote margin could be dangled in front of Brown again and again. He was delighted with himself. Hubris fairly dripped from every word.

What poor Gregory hadn't appreciated was the well of anger the DUP's opportunism had tapped in both Labour and Conservative parties.

As you read here at the time, it's

always impossible to understate the outrage you cause by keeping an unpopular government in power beyond its time.

David Cameron's lot were furious with Peter Robinson for saving Brown's bacon. If he'd been

defeated on the 42-day motion by his own party he would have had to go and there would have been an election. The DUP denied the

Conservatives that summer election.

On the Labour side, the left wing has found its voice again after the departure of Blair and their deep disappointment with Brown's

deception of them for a decade. They smelt blood, only to have the prospect of Brown's bleeding carcass whipped away from them at the last moment.

As a result, the DUP have made many powerful enemies at Westminster with no compensating reward for themselves. Their hope now of controlling a hung parliament is laughable.

Brown is finished. The only question is whether he limps on until June 2010 and inflicts a defeat on the Labour party as catastrophic as John Major's Gotterdamerung in 1997 or does the decent thing and falls on his sword in the autumn in time to allow a caretaker leader to take over. What no-one disputes is that Cameron's Conservatives will have a large majority.

Robinson's efforts to mend fences with Cameron failed. Cameron spurned him for the UUP because he knows he won't need the DUP.

Besides, no modern party could have anything to do with them.

The DUP is toxic. Iris Robinson's Neanderthal views – perhaps that's an insult to Neanderthals – have made the party untouchable for a man trying to modernise Conservatism. DUP speeches in Westminster produce derisory laughter from the few MPs who stay lolling on the benches to listen.

As for the Labour rebels, they remain furious Gordon Brown courted the DUP to get his hated

42 days through. No-one wants to be associated with a bunch of cavemen.

One of the assurances the Labour left believe Brown gave the DUP was that the 1967 Abortion Act would not be extended to the north during the course of changes to the Human

Fertilisation and Embryology Bill.

Is it any coincidence then that a group of MPs led by Diane Abbott has tabled an amendment to the bill extending the act to the north and hopes to force a vote in the autumn? Funny they didn't do it in May isn't it?

Couldn't be anything to do with the DUP's stance on 42 days in June, could it?

It's a clever move because it's going to embarrass a lot of MPs, both Labour and Conservative, who will have to vote against a principle they supported in May.

Several may not vote against.

A matter like abortion in Northern Ireland is hardly a three-line whip.

A lot of MPs may not bother to turn up, certainly if it means doing any favours for the DUP.

Why would anyone? Who will want to support Westminster's most reactionary faction?

No-one owes them anything. If you can be bought, you can be sold.

What price now any guarantees Brown gave the DUP in June?

If he's still hanging onto the window ledge in the autumn, what clout will Brown have with his own party?

Backing Brown in June doesn't look too clever now.

Quote from: hmmm on July 30, 2008, 10:09:51 AM
As an aside to this debate, maybe a question that should be asked is why do we live in a society where so many women feel that abortion is their only option? Is it the shame still associated with having a child out of wedlock? The perception that an unplanned pregnancy ruins your life? Or the fear that you will have no support from family/friends/boyfriend?

Women feel abortion is an option because it's a get out clause - a way to run away from their responsibility. 
Shame associated with having a child out of wedlock?  Are you taking the piss?  I'd say this would be quite rare in Ireland these days and it certainly wouldn't be a factor in most other countries (England or the US to name but two). 


Tankie, we wouldn't want to put off travelling for a year now would we?  ::)

Quote
Not everone see's having a baby as this wonderful giving of life that you may have. in this day and age alot of people dont want to or are not ready to have kids before they are 30 (i know i dont want them till after that) and to make a 21 yr old have a baby just beause of your beliefs is crazy. Same applys to rape victams etc, why should they have the baby if they dont want it?

No, but you face up to your responsibilities.  You seem to be trying to justify abortion - the ending of a life - with some pathetic arguments. If a 21 year old goes out and has sex then they are well fit to take the responsabilities (or potential responsabilities) that go wtih it.  In this day and age with contraception so readily available (and I know it's not always 100%) there aren't many excuses for unplanned pregnancies.

Rape victims are a completely different argument and abortions as a result of rape makes up a tiny (about 1% I think) of all abortions.

There can be several factors as to why a woman chooses abortion, all of them are not because they are running away from responibilites. And on the second point, no I am not taking the piss, have you any idea how a single woman (especially in her teens) feels when she has a unplanned pregnancy? any idea what she feels if her boyfriend does a runner or how she feels when she has to try and tell her family? Like it or not there is still a stigma attached to a single girl/women getting pregnant and even worse if she is not in a stable relationship.

Quote from: pintsofguinness on July 30, 2008, 09:00:40 PM

Quote from: hmmm on July 30, 2008, 10:09:51 AM
As an aside to this debate, maybe a question that should be asked is why do we live in a society where so many women feel that abortion is their only option? Is it the shame still associated with having a child out of wedlock? The perception that an unplanned pregnancy ruins your life? Or the fear that you will have no support from family/friends/boyfriend?

Women feel abortion is an option because it's a get out clause - a way to run away from their responsibility. 
Shame associated with having a child out of wedlock?  Are you taking the piss?  I'd say this would be quite rare in Ireland these days and it certainly wouldn't be a factor in most other countries (England or the US to name but two). 


Tankie, we wouldn't want to put off travelling for a year now would we?  ::)

Quote
Not everone see's having a baby as this wonderful giving of life that you may have. in this day and age alot of people dont want to or are not ready to have kids before they are 30 (i know i dont want them till after that) and to make a 21 yr old have a baby just beause of your beliefs is crazy. Same applys to rape victams etc, why should they have the baby if they dont want it?

No, but you face up to your responsibilities.  You seem to be trying to justify abortion - the ending of a life - with some pathetic arguments. If a 21 year old goes out and has sex then they are well fit to take the responsabilities (or potential responsabilities) that go wtih it.  In this day and age with contraception so readily available (and I know it's not always 100%) there aren't many excuses for unplanned pregnancies.

Rape victims are a completely different argument and abortions as a result of rape makes up a tiny (about 1% I think) of all abortions.

How can you say rape victims are different if you see abortion as the taking of a life? I also dont believe in this arguement that you must face up to your responsibilities and using contraception is a form or abortion as you are preventing a life - hense the catholic church will not allow contraception. Abortion should be a choice everyone has as it is the best thing in some circumstances!

Quote from: Tankie on July 31, 2008, 10:54:10 AM
How can you say rape victims are different if you see abortion as the taking of a life? I also dont believe in this arguement that you must face up to your responsibilities and using contraception is a form or abortion as you are preventing a life - hense the catholic church will not allow contraception. Abortion should be a choice everyone has as it is the best thing in some circumstances!

I don't think we should go down the road of the Catholic Church's teachings here. It values life so much that it would rather millions died of AIDS than sanction the use of condoms.

Quote from: Maguire01 on July 31, 2008, 01:22:55 PM
I don't think we should go down the road of the Catholic Church's teachings here. It values life so much that it would rather millions died of AIDS than sanction the use of condoms.

Surely they would rather Catholics abided by their teachings and refrained from sex before marriage thereby negating the need for condoms to prevent AIDS.

Quote from: Donagh on July 31, 2008, 01:35:34 PM

Quote from: Maguire01 on July 31, 2008, 01:22:55 PM
I don't think we should go down the road of the Catholic Church's teachings here. It values life so much that it would rather millions died of AIDS than sanction the use of condoms.

Surely they would rather Catholics abided by their teachings and refrained from sex before marriage thereby negating the need for condoms to prevent AIDS.

Are you serious? Millions of Africans have AIDS, many of them are married. The Catholic Church opposes the use of contraceptives in these instances as well.

Quote from: Maguire01 on July 31, 2008, 01:22:55 PM

Quote from: Tankie on July 31, 2008, 10:54:10 AM
How can you say rape victims are different if you see abortion as the taking of a life? I also dont believe in this arguement that you must face up to your responsibilities and using contraception is a form or abortion as you are preventing a life - hense the catholic church will not allow contraception. Abortion should be a choice everyone has as it is the best thing in some circumstances!

I don't think we should go down the road of the Catholic Church's teachings here. It values life so much that it would rather millions died of AIDS than sanction the use of condoms.

You might find that if people lived by the rules of the Catholic Church AIDS would be a minor problem. The Cathholic Church do offer alternatives.

good man Maguire - do your best to ambush whatever thread you can with your anti-catholic anti-church ideas and opinions

in one breath you put down people for expressing any notion of faith or religion and God forbid should they push those opinions on anyone else, yet at the same time you continue to push your anti-church sentiments on everyone else.

aside from that and back to topic....

I am definitely pro-life.  Not solely because of religious reasons but also moral reasons.  I believe life begins at conception.  I believe I have a soul and all humans have a soul. 
I believe that God creates all human life, and that life begins at conception, and that killing another human being is wrong, then I must accept that abortion is wrong and I do.

People talk about pro-choice but what choice does the baby have in abortion?

I really don't agree with the argument that these babies (if they were not aborted) end up uncared for, unloved, criminals etc etc.  Who are we to decide children's fate? Who are we to make the call that their life won't be worth living or nothing will come of them so lets kill them now? 

Despite my objection to abortion, I am not suggesting that we lose common decency and compassion when approaching individual cases but I do believe that there are alternative options in 99.99% of cases.

Quote from: The Iceman on July 31, 2008, 03:03:28 PM
good man Maguire - do your best to ambush whatever thread you can with your anti-catholic anti-church ideas and opinions

in one breath you put down people for expressing any notion of faith or religion and God forbid should they push those opinions on anyone else, yet at the same time you continue to push your anti-church sentiments on everyone else.

Yes, and you get ultra defensive. It wasn't an ambush - i've been on this thread from the start and was merely responding to a comment regarding contraception (of which there have been many). My comment suggested we didn't go down that route as well. (As you'll see from my first post on this thread, i was looking for the political angle.)

In relation to my comment Iceman, is it misleading or inaccurate?
I didn't put down anyone - a lot of people have faith and religion, yet don't bow to the ridiculous idea that it's better for people to contract HIV than wear a condom.
And yes 'God forbid' anyone who advises people not to use contraceptives in such situations - shame on them!

As for me pushing my opinions - i'm not! This is a discussion board and i'm free to express my opinions. No one is obliged to read this board and if you're easily offended, you don't have to read it. I have yet to receive a warning from mods that i have broken any rules. I'm not pushing my opinions or sentiments on anyone.

Quote from: Maguire01 on July 31, 2008, 06:54:02 PM


In relation to my comment Iceman, is it misleading or inaccurate?
I didn't put down anyone - a lot of people have faith and religion, yet don't bow to the ridiculous idea that it's better for people to contract HIV than wear a condom.
And yes 'God forbid' anyone who advises people not to use contraceptives in such situations - shame on them!

The Catholic Church do not think it is better to contract HIV. You are either mistaking or telling a lie. They say it is better to have one partner in one relationship and eliminate the spread of HIV. What you are suggesting is a complete (intentional or unintentional?) misrepresentation of the position of the CC>

Quote from: hmmm on July 30, 2008, 10:56:57 PM
There can be several factors as to why a woman chooses abortion, all of them are not because they are running away from responibilites. And on the second point, no I am not taking the piss, have you any idea how a single woman (especially in her teens) feels when she has a unplanned pregnancy? any idea what she feels if her boyfriend does a runner or how she feels when she has to try and tell her family? Like it or not there is still a stigma attached to a single girl/women getting pregnant and even worse if she is not in a stable relationship.

Of course they're running away from their responsibilities.  I'd think a lot more of a single woman who's bringing up a child by herself than I would of one who had an abortion.  Even if they are concerned about how people perceive them that doesn't justify ending a life.  A life is more important than their reputation.


Tankie

Quote
How can you say rape victims are different if you see abortion as the taking of a life? I also dont believe in this argument that you must face up to your responsibilities and using contraception is a form or abortion as you are preventing a life - hense the catholic church will not allow contraception. Abortion should be a choice everyone has as it is the best thing in some circumstances!

Yes tankie it's still taking a life however the mother's life must be preserved and if her physical or mental health is at risk then I could understand abortion.  It just think such circumstances are extremely sad.  In the same way a paramedic may have to choose who to save.
The Catholic Church, tankie, teaches that life begins at conception and as a result they teach against abortions.  I'm not sure why exactly they teach against contraception but they certainly don't teach that life begins in sperm.  You're presenting a silly argument with the contraception thing but if you're going to cite the Catholic church as an authority at least get it right.

Quote from: Zapatista on July 31, 2008, 07:03:50 PM

Quote from: Maguire01 on July 31, 2008, 06:54:02 PM
In relation to my comment Iceman, is it misleading or inaccurate?
I didn't put down anyone - a lot of people have faith and religion, yet don't bow to the ridiculous idea that it's better for people to contract HIV than wear a condom.
And yes 'God forbid' anyone who advises people not to use contraceptives in such situations - shame on them!

The Catholic Church do not think it is better to contract HIV. You are either mistaking or telling a lie. They say it is better to have one partner in one relationship and eliminate the spread of HIV. What you are suggesting is a complete (intentional or unintentional?) misrepresentation of the position of the CC>

Let me repeat the example i was referencing:

Quote from: Maguire01 on July 31, 2008, 01:41:35 PM
Millions of Africans have AIDS, many of them are married. The Catholic Church opposes the use of contraceptives in these instances as well.

I know what the Catholic Church teaches 'in an ideal world', but that isn't reality. If a man has HIV and his wife doesn't, or vice versa, is it right to say that they can't use a condom? That's what i'm referring to. In such situations, the Catholic Church still won't sanction the use of condoms. Google it if you don't believe me.

two wrongs dont make a right

and this thread isn't about contraception and the catholic church - its about abortion - so start another thread

and stop playing the innocent victim in all this it doesn't suit you

Quote from: The Iceman on July 31, 2008, 09:27:16 PM
two wrongs dont make a right

Well at least you've acknowledged I was telling the truth and there is a 'wrong' there.

Quote from: The Iceman on July 31, 2008, 09:27:16 PM
and this thread isn't about contraception and the catholic church - its about abortion - so start another thread

Any topic must be discussed in context. Many of those posting with 'anti-abortion' views referenced contraceptives - and rightly so. But you can't expect me to ignore inconvenient truths just because you don't like them.  But if you want to, feel free to start another thread on contraception and the Catholic church.

Quote from: The Iceman on July 31, 2008, 09:27:16 PM
and stop playing the innocent victim in all this it doesn't suit you

Where have i played the innocent victim? I'm not a victim of anything. What does that mean?

Quote from: pintsofguinness on July 31, 2008, 08:14:51 PM

Yes tankie it's still taking a life however the mother's life must be preserved and if her physical or mental health is at risk then I could understand abortion. 

The way the law stands in England abortion is not meant to available on demand

The Act allowed a woman to receive an abortion on any of the following grounds:

To save the woman's life
To prevent grave permanent injury to the woman's physical or mental health
Under 28 weeks to avoid injury to the physical or mental health of the woman
Under 28 weeks to avoid injury to the physical or mental health of the existing child(ren)
If the child was likely to be severely physically or mentally handicapped
The Act required that the procedure must be certified by two doctors before being performed.

Quote from: Lazer on July 31, 2008, 09:52:23 PM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on July 31, 2008, 08:14:51 PM

Yes tankie it's still taking a life however the mother's life must be preserved and if her physical or mental health is at risk then I could understand abortion. 

The way the law stands in England abortion is not meant to available on demand

The Act allowed a woman to receive an abortion on any of the following grounds:

To save the woman's life
To prevent grave permanent injury to the woman's physical or mental health
Under 28 weeks to avoid injury to the physical or mental health of the woman
Under 28 weeks to avoid injury to the physical or mental health of the existing child(ren)
If the child was likely to be severely physically or mentally handicapped
The Act required that the procedure must be certified by two doctors before being performed.

Well there must be an awful lot of doctors acting unlawfully because a huge majority of abortions carried out in England are not for those reasons.

Quote from: pintsofguinness on July 31, 2008, 09:57:22 PM

Quote from: Lazer on July 31, 2008, 09:52:23 PM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on July 31, 2008, 08:14:51 PM

Yes tankie it's still taking a life however the mother's life must be preserved and if her physical or mental health is at risk then I could understand abortion. 

The way the law stands in England abortion is not meant to available on demand

The Act allowed a woman to receive an abortion on any of the following grounds:

To save the woman's life
To prevent grave permanent injury to the woman's physical or mental health
Under 28 weeks to avoid injury to the physical or mental health of the woman
Under 28 weeks to avoid injury to the physical or mental health of the existing child(ren)
If the child was likely to be severely physically or mentally handicapped
The Act required that the procedure must be certified by two doctors before being performed.

Well there must be an awful lot of doctors acting unlawfully because a huge majority of abortions carried out in England are not for those reasons.

The 28 weeks was subsequently reduced to 24, but the rest of the law still stands. And this is exactly why abortion here on any grounds, legalising abortion on any grounds just paves the way for abortion on demand!

The mental health issue is basically a bye-ball in this Act, its such a grey area that anyone can abuse it and get an abortion - therefore abortion on demand!!

Quote from: Maguire01 on July 31, 2008, 01:41:35 PM

Quote from: Donagh on July 31, 2008, 01:35:34 PM

Quote from: Maguire01 on July 31, 2008, 01:22:55 PM
I don't think we should go down the road of the Catholic Church's teachings here. It values life so much that it would rather millions died of AIDS than sanction the use of condoms.

Surely they would rather Catholics abided by their teachings and refrained from sex before marriage thereby negating the need for condoms to prevent AIDS.

Are you serious? Millions of Africans have AIDS, many of them are married. The Catholic Church opposes the use of contraceptives in these instances as well.

No, the Catholic Church would say that the married couple should not be having sex if there is a risk that one partner may transmit a disease to the other.

Quote from: Donagh on August 01, 2008, 09:32:03 AM

Quote from: Maguire01 on July 31, 2008, 01:41:35 PM

Quote from: Donagh on July 31, 2008, 01:35:34 PM

Quote from: Maguire01 on July 31, 2008, 01:22:55 PM
I don't think we should go down the road of the Catholic Church's teachings here. It values life so much that it would rather millions died of AIDS than sanction the use of condoms.

Surely they would rather Catholics abided by their teachings and refrained from sex before marriage thereby negating the need for condoms to prevent AIDS.

Are you serious? Millions of Africans have AIDS, many of them are married. The Catholic Church opposes the use of contraceptives in these instances as well.

No, the Catholic Church would say that the married couple should not be having sex if there is a risk that one partner may transmit a disease to the other.

Yes, that's living in the real world.

Quote from: Maguire01 l

quote]I know what the Catholic Church teaches 'in an ideal world',

Are you complaining about a catholic church teaching about how to live in an ideal world?

Quote from: Zapatista on August 01, 2008, 01:46:55 PM

Quote from: Maguire01

QuoteI know what the Catholic Church teaches 'in an ideal world',

Are you complaining about a catholic church teaching about how to live in an ideal world?

In a nutshell, yes. In understand that religious teaching is often be based on an 'ideal world' scenario, that everyone should be good, etc etc.... but to be relevant, surely the Church/Churches has/have to be a bit more pragmatic in advising on how to deal with situations that aren't so nice and ideal.
Even taking the HIV/AIDs scenario out of the equation for a minute, do you think that sexual relations between a married couple should be solely for procreation? In the grand scheme of things, what (negative) difference does a bit of rubber make?

Quote from: Maguire01 on August 01, 2008, 06:31:39 PM

Quote from: Zapatista on August 01, 2008, 01:46:55 PM

Quote from: Maguire01

QuoteI know what the Catholic Church teaches 'in an ideal world',

Are you complaining about a catholic church teaching about how to live in an ideal world?

In a nutshell, yes. In understand that religious teaching is often be based on an 'ideal world' scenario, that everyone should be good, etc etc.... but to be relevant, surely the Church/Churches has/have to be a bit more pragmatic in advising on how to deal with situations that aren't so nice and ideal.
Even taking the HIV/AIDs scenario out of the equation for a minute, do you think that sexual relations between a married couple should be solely for procreation? In the grand scheme of things, what (negative) difference does a bit of rubber make?

In the grander scheme of things a piece of rubber takes away from the God's devine intention for Marriage.  First of all Marriage is a "sacrament" not just a piece of paper and not everyone fully understands what they are committing to before they enter into marriage.  Never mind who they are making this pledge to apart from their spouse.

from the Catechism:
1652
"By its very nature the institution of marriage and married love is ordered to the procreation and education of the offspring and it is in them that it finds its crowning glory."162


How can the Catholic Church take a more liberal stance on contraception or anything else for that matter?  It goes against God.

Yes the church strives for an "ideal" world and the "real" world is very much different than what they would hope for but to let standards and morals slip just because it is unrealistic according to your ideas and opinions is an extremely foolish view in my opinion.

I have a son - a piece of rubber would mean I don't have that son.  God intended for us to be blessed with that son and who am I or you or anyone else to go against Him?

Did God write the catechism?

if you believe in God and the Trinity and the Holy Spirit then in a way yes He did

When Jesus rose from the dead He left us the Holy Spirit   - as a Church we believe that the Holy Spirit continues to guide us.

God instituted the Church with Peter and his modern day descendants as its head

What the Church says  - God backs up

I don't expect anyone to believe anything just because I say so or the Bible says so or a priest says so

Believe if you all want  - I do

Quote from: tram on August 07, 2008, 05:30:55 PM

QuoteGod intended for us to be blessed with that son and who am I or you or anyone else to go against Him?

Quoteif you believe in God and the Trinity and the Holy Spirit then in a way yes He did

What proof is there that "God" is male?

He invented Monday night football, poker and golf!

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-34963159

NI abortion law 'breaches human rights'

oh la la

A great night for human rights in the wee six

Except for all the Humans that don't even have the right to a life..... A very sad day

Thankfully those that want to keep NI as backward cesspit which treats women like shit are dwindling

And now they've lost forever, which is wonderful

Abortion and same sex marriage will be an accepted fact of life in no time at all, and people will wonder how it took so long

Only the doolally, headbanging fringe will continue to make an issue of this

Before long even the DUP will have accepted it

Ireland is finally united in recognising human rights

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 22, 2019, 12:38:14 AM
Except for all the Humans that don't even have the right to a life..... A very sad day

+1

Quote from: sid waddell on October 22, 2019, 12:48:14 AM
Ireland is finally united in recognising human rights

...and in recognizing that humans dont have the right to life

Sid Waddell your a communist troll.

Quote from: Baile an tuaigh on October 22, 2019, 01:57:38 AM
Sid Waddell your a communist troll.

Woah, I didn't know Joe McCarthy posted here

Sort of sums up the mindset of the anti-abortionists when they call anybody who supports the human rights of women "a communist troll", doesn't it?

Doolally indeed

Here's one for you m8, I know you'll like it

(https://tfk.thefreekick.com/uploads/default/optimized/3X/2/f/2f24577c0a948b9ac8da5a6112dcb273ffcff174_2_750x750.jpeg)

Quote from: sid waddell on October 22, 2019, 02:07:03 AM

Sort of sums up the mindset of the anti-abortionists when they call anybody who supports the human rights of women "a communist troll", doesn't it?

And who dont support the right to be a human or become a woman

Letting Westminister forcing their will on Ireland.....nice one from the shinners....  but then they could hardly start claiming they respect life could they?

DUP letting this law in also shows they're not such die hards on this issue as they claim to be

Quote from: sid waddell on October 22, 2019, 12:29:02 AM
A great night for human rights in the wee six

Agreed. We come into, albeit by default, the 21st century.

A great day for the women of the North

A great day for the gays of the North. Uppa gays!

You can generally assume that if your viewpoint on a topic is in contrast to Iceman (religious fanatic) and omaghjoe (ill-informed imbecile), you're doing something right.

Uppa commies!

Pro abortionists cleverly selling the killing of children at 7 months in the womb (disgusting) as the same issue as same sex marriage, making it difficult for people to oppose. It should have been put to the people in a vote, I think its called democracy. My prediction is that SSM would have went through, the new abortion bill would have been defeated.
SF to be honest are just a party full of bullies who should be ashamed of how they approached this. Moaning about the majority here didn't vote for Brexit  but then begging the Brits to enforce a law nobody gets to vote on.

Abortion on demand up to 28 weeks is very difficult for anyone to justify, especially when survival rates for this period of gestation is 80-90%.

Quote from: RedHand88 on October 22, 2019, 07:54:19 AM
Abortion on demand up to 28 weeks is very difficult for anyone to justify, especially when survival rates for this period of gestation is 80-90%.

My thoughts exactly.

Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 22, 2019, 07:40:02 AM
Pro abortionists cleverly selling the killing of children at 7 months in the womb (disgusting) as the same issue as same sex marriage, making it difficult for people to oppose. It should have been put to the people in a vote, I think its called democracy. My prediction is that SSM would have went through, the new abortion bill would have been defeated.
SF to be honest are just a party full of bullies who should be ashamed of how they approached this. Moaning about the majority here didn't vote for Brexit  but then begging the Brits to enforce a law nobody gets to vote on.

Fully agree. Especially the last bit.

Next time those SF hoors come to my door looking votes they'll be told to go f**k themselves.

Quote from: trailer on October 22, 2019, 09:34:04 AM

Quote from: RedHand88 on October 22, 2019, 07:54:19 AM
Abortion on demand up to 28 weeks is very difficult for anyone to justify, especially when survival rates for this period of gestation is 80-90%.

My thoughts exactly.

Remember, if you disagree you're just a religious extremist who hates women and wants to control their bodies.

Quote from: RedHand88 on October 22, 2019, 09:53:07 AM

Quote from: trailer on October 22, 2019, 09:34:04 AM

Quote from: RedHand88 on October 22, 2019, 07:54:19 AM
Abortion on demand up to 28 weeks is very difficult for anyone to justify, especially when survival rates for this period of gestation is 80-90%.

My thoughts exactly.

Remember, if you disagree you're just a religious extremist who hates women and wants to control their bodies.

And disagree with SSM, you're just a homophobic dinosaur  ::)

Quote from: RedHand88 on October 22, 2019, 09:53:07 AM
Remember, if you disagree you're just a religious extremist who hates women and wants to control their bodies.

Quote from: BennyCake on October 22, 2019, 09:56:08 AM
And disagree with SSM, you're just a homophobic dinosaur  ::)

Nice to finally see some self awareness here  ;D

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 22, 2019, 04:28:59 AM
Letting Westminister forcing their will on Ireland.....nice one from the shinners....  but then they could hardly start claiming they respect life could they?

DUP letting this law in also shows they're not such die hards on this issue as they claim to be

It shows they know there is no votes in it because they know only the doolally fringe object to it

The pro-death, anti-abortion murder cult is finished

It's lucky for a few lads here that they can now get gay married because no self-respecting woman would ever look twice at them

Women don't want to live in Gilead

Quote from: sid waddell on October 22, 2019, 10:21:47 AM

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 22, 2019, 04:28:59 AM
Letting Westminister forcing their will on Ireland.....nice one from the shinners....  but then they could hardly start claiming they respect life could they?

DUP letting this law in also shows they're not such die hards on this issue as they claim to be

It shows they know there is no votes in it because they know only the doolally fringe object to it

The pro-death, anti-abortion murder cult is finished

It's lucky for a few lads here that they can now get gay married because no self-respecting woman would ever look twice at them

Women don't want to live in Gilead

You do realise Aontú stood in Ballyarnett Derry City few months ago and got in easy. Sean Carr also stood on similar ticket as independent in Foyleside and got in.  Just dipping their toes and took 2 seats from Shinners.

Quote from: BennyCake on October 22, 2019, 09:56:08 AM

Quote from: RedHand88 on October 22, 2019, 09:53:07 AM

Quote from: trailer on October 22, 2019, 09:34:04 AM

Quote from: RedHand88 on October 22, 2019, 07:54:19 AM
Abortion on demand up to 28 weeks is very difficult for anyone to justify, especially when survival rates for this period of gestation is 80-90%.

My thoughts exactly.

Remember, if you disagree you're just a religious extremist who hates women and wants to control their bodies.

And disagree with SSM, you're just a homophobic dinosaur  ::)

So what would be your reason for disagreeing with SSM

Quote from: trailer on October 22, 2019, 09:34:04 AM

Quote from: RedHand88 on October 22, 2019, 07:54:19 AM
Abortion on demand up to 28 weeks is very difficult for anyone to justify, especially when survival rates for this period of gestation is 80-90%.

My thoughts exactly.

I personally don't agree with abortion but at the same time I don't feel the need to impose my will on others who may be in a different situation and wish to avail of it.

Abortion is happening today and women in the North are getting it done in the UK, so how do you stop that?

The debate about when life begins can go round in circles ad nauseam.

What does stick in my craw though is those Catholic based pro lifers who don't seem too bothered about what happened in Tuam and the likes.

Evidently being pro life is only important till you're born then zero fucks given.

Same sex marriage has zero impact on me, I'm not being forced to marry another man, why would I care what two other consenting adults get up to?

Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 22, 2019, 10:34:41 AM

Quote from: sid waddell on October 22, 2019, 10:21:47 AM

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 22, 2019, 04:28:59 AM
Letting Westminister forcing their will on Ireland.....nice one from the shinners....  but then they could hardly start claiming they respect life could they?

DUP letting this law in also shows they're not such die hards on this issue as they claim to be

It shows they know there is no votes in it because they know only the doolally fringe object to it

The pro-death, anti-abortion murder cult is finished

It's lucky for a few lads here that they can now get gay married because no self-respecting woman would ever look twice at them

Women don't want to live in Gilead

You do realise Aontú stood in Ballyarnett Derry City few months ago and got in easy. Sean Carr also stood on similar ticket as independent in Foyleside and got in.  Just dipping their toes and took 2 seats from Shinners.

You do realise Aontu are on 0% in the Republic?

The pro-death anti-abortion cult is finished

People no longer tolerate religious bigots forcing women to travel, or worse, to die because of their insane Saudi-type ideology

The pro-death anti-abortionist cult is no different to the New IRA in their willingness to see women die

It says it all that the pro-death, anti-abortionist cult is now the cause celebre of racist scum like Gemma O'Doherty, and heavily dependent on far right US evangelical funding

US evangelicals are some of the worst people on earth

Go back to the 1860s, oh wait, the Catholic Church actually allowed abortion in the 1860s  ;D

Quote from: sid waddell on October 22, 2019, 10:49:50 AM

Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 22, 2019, 10:34:41 AM

Quote from: sid waddell on October 22, 2019, 10:21:47 AM

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 22, 2019, 04:28:59 AM
Letting Westminister forcing their will on Ireland.....nice one from the shinners....  but then they could hardly start claiming they respect life could they?

DUP letting this law in also shows they're not such die hards on this issue as they claim to be

It shows they know there is no votes in it because they know only the doolally fringe object to it

The pro-death, anti-abortion murder cult is finished

It's lucky for a few lads here that they can now get gay married because no self-respecting woman would ever look twice at them

Women don't want to live in Gilead

You do realise Aontú stood in Ballyarnett Derry City few months ago and got in easy. Sean Carr also stood on similar ticket as independent in Foyleside and got in.  Just dipping their toes and took 2 seats from Shinners.

You do realise Aontu are on 0% in the Republic?

The pro-death anti-abortion cult is finished

People no longer tolerate religious bigots forcing women to travel, or worse, to die because of their insane Saudi-type ideology

The pro-death anti-abortionist cult is no different to the New IRA in their willingness to see women die

It says it all that the pro-death, anti-abortionist cult is now the cause celebre of racist scum like Gemma O'Doherty, and heavily dependent on far right US evangelical funding

US evangelicals are some of the worst people on earth

Go back to the 1860s, oh wait, the Catholic Church actually allowed abortion in the 1860s  ;D

This is not the ROI.
And this is not about religion. It is about human values and morals.

Quote from: tonto1888 on October 22, 2019, 10:43:45 AM

Quote from: BennyCake on October 22, 2019, 09:56:08 AM

Quote from: RedHand88 on October 22, 2019, 09:53:07 AM

Quote from: trailer on October 22, 2019, 09:34:04 AM

Quote from: RedHand88 on October 22, 2019, 07:54:19 AM
Abortion on demand up to 28 weeks is very difficult for anyone to justify, especially when survival rates for this period of gestation is 80-90%.

My thoughts exactly.

Remember, if you disagree you're just a religious extremist who hates women and wants to control their bodies.

And disagree with SSM, you're just a homophobic dinosaur  ::)

So what would be your reason for disagreeing with SSM

Why exactly should the government promote homosexual relations?

Because homisexuals are humans?

Quote from: tonto1888 on October 22, 2019, 10:43:45 AM

Quote from: BennyCake on October 22, 2019, 09:56:08 AM

Quote from: RedHand88 on October 22, 2019, 09:53:07 AM

Quote from: trailer on October 22, 2019, 09:34:04 AM

Quote from: RedHand88 on October 22, 2019, 07:54:19 AM
Abortion on demand up to 28 weeks is very difficult for anyone to justify, especially when survival rates for this period of gestation is 80-90%.

My thoughts exactly.

Remember, if you disagree you're just a religious extremist who hates women and wants to control their bodies.

And disagree with SSM, you're just a homophobic dinosaur  ::)

So what would be your reason for disagreeing with SSM

Do I need a reason?

Quote from: gallsman on October 22, 2019, 06:45:10 AM
A great day for the women of the North

A great day for the gays of the North. Uppa gays!

You can generally assume that if your viewpoint on a topic is in contrast to Iceman (religious fanatic) and omaghjoe (ill-informed imbecile), you're doing something right.

Uppa commies!

Have to say I agree with you. It's amazing how many headers have come out of the woodwork in the last 24 hours or so!

Quote from: BennyCake on October 22, 2019, 01:00:08 AM

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 22, 2019, 12:38:14 AM
Except for all the Humans that don't even have the right to a life..... A very sad day

+1

+2

Quote from: BennyCake on October 22, 2019, 11:33:30 AM

Quote from: tonto1888 on October 22, 2019, 10:43:45 AM

Quote from: BennyCake on October 22, 2019, 09:56:08 AM

Quote from: RedHand88 on October 22, 2019, 09:53:07 AM

Quote from: trailer on October 22, 2019, 09:34:04 AM

Quote from: RedHand88 on October 22, 2019, 07:54:19 AM
Abortion on demand up to 28 weeks is very difficult for anyone to justify, especially when survival rates for this period of gestation is 80-90%.

My thoughts exactly.

Remember, if you disagree you're just a religious extremist who hates women and wants to control their bodies.

And disagree with SSM, you're just a homophobic dinosaur  ::)

So what would be your reason for disagreeing with SSM

Do I need a reason?

Of course - there has to be a reason you would be against something. Unless you think God bestowed that belief upon you and you have no say or control over it.

Quote from: BennyCake on October 22, 2019, 11:33:30 AM

Quote from: tonto1888 on October 22, 2019, 10:43:45 AM

Quote from: BennyCake on October 22, 2019, 09:56:08 AM

Quote from: RedHand88 on October 22, 2019, 09:53:07 AM

Quote from: trailer on October 22, 2019, 09:34:04 AM

Quote from: RedHand88 on October 22, 2019, 07:54:19 AM
Abortion on demand up to 28 weeks is very difficult for anyone to justify, especially when survival rates for this period of gestation is 80-90%.

My thoughts exactly.

Remember, if you disagree you're just a religious extremist who hates women and wants to control their bodies.

And disagree with SSM, you're just a homophobic dinosaur  ::)

So what would be your reason for disagreeing with SSM

Do I need a reason?

So you don't actually have a reason to be against SSM. Good to know

Quote from: armaghniac on October 22, 2019, 11:05:56 AM

Quote from: tonto1888 on October 22, 2019, 10:43:45 AM

Quote from: BennyCake on October 22, 2019, 09:56:08 AM

Quote from: RedHand88 on October 22, 2019, 09:53:07 AM

Quote from: trailer on October 22, 2019, 09:34:04 AM

Quote from: RedHand88 on October 22, 2019, 07:54:19 AM
Abortion on demand up to 28 weeks is very difficult for anyone to justify, especially when survival rates for this period of gestation is 80-90%.

My thoughts exactly.

Remember, if you disagree you're just a religious extremist who hates women and wants to control their bodies.

And disagree with SSM, you're just a homophobic dinosaur  ::)

So what would be your reason for disagreeing with SSM

Why exactly should the government promote homosexual relations?

Because they are no different from heterosexual relationships? Do you have an issue with homosexuals?

Quote from: sid waddell on October 22, 2019, 10:49:50 AM
It says it all that the pro-death, anti-abortionist cult is now the cause celebre of racist scum like Gemma O'Doherty,

Gemma O'Doherty tweeted support for last year's referendum Yes vote.

I personally dont agree with abortion but it is not my business what others do. I shouldnt have an opinion or a say on what situation other women may find themselves in.

In relation to same sex marriage whats the problem? Two consenting adults wish to get married why should that be of any concern of mine? or anyone elses for that matter.

Quote from: five points on October 22, 2019, 12:33:06 PM

Quote from: sid waddell on October 22, 2019, 10:49:50 AM
It says it all that the pro-death, anti-abortionist cult is now the cause celebre of racist scum like Gemma O'Doherty,

Gemma O'Doherty tweeted support for last year's referendum Yes vote.

If she did she has certainly changed her mind since

Its so funny this. Due to DUP Pure Stubborn, Ignorant, Bitterness they have single handedley brought Abortion, Same Sex Marriage to the North and moved the 6 counties close to reuniting with the Republic. Well played lads.

I voted Yes by the way.

Quote from: tonto1888 on October 22, 2019, 12:52:22 PM

Quote from: five points on October 22, 2019, 12:33:06 PM

Quote from: sid waddell on October 22, 2019, 10:49:50 AM
It says it all that the pro-death, anti-abortionist cult is now the cause celebre of racist scum like Gemma O'Doherty,

Gemma O'Doherty tweeted support for last year's referendum Yes vote.

If she did she has certainly changed her mind since

How, apart from ranting about it on Twitter? Any gobshite can do that.

Quote from: tyrone girl on October 22, 2019, 12:35:42 PM
I personally dont agree with abortion but it is not my business what others do. I shouldnt have an opinion or a say on what situation other women may find themselves in.

In relation to same sex marriage whats the problem? Two consenting adults wish to get married why should that be of any concern of mine? or anyone elses for that matter.

Of course it is. The whole of society has a vested interest in how it's most vulnerable are protected. Replace abortion with any other act that ends a human life involuntarily and you see how silly it sounds.

Wheny you strip away the pro choice buzz words like "choice" and "rights" you see it for what it is. The ending of a human life in the third trimester of pregnancy and I honestly don't see how anyone would see that as a good thing.

If anyone is wondering, here is a baby at 28 weeks.

https://www.whattoexpect.com/pregnancy/week-by-week/week-28.aspx

Quote from: RedHand88 on October 22, 2019, 01:07:56 PM

Quote from: tyrone girl on October 22, 2019, 12:35:42 PM
I personally dont agree with abortion but it is not my business what others do. I shouldnt have an opinion or a say on what situation other women may find themselves in.

In relation to same sex marriage whats the problem? Two consenting adults wish to get married why should that be of any concern of mine? or anyone elses for that matter.

Of course it is. The whole of society has a vested interest in how it's most vulnerable are protected. Replace abortion with any other act that ends a human life involuntarily and you see how silly it sounds.

Wheny you strip away the pro choice buzz words like "choice" and "rights" you see it for what it is. The ending of a human life in the third trimester of pregnancy and I honestly don't see how anyone would see that as a good thing.

If anyone is wondering, here is a baby at 28 weeks.

https://www.whattoexpect.com/pregnancy/week-by-week/week-28.aspx

100%

One of mine was born at 28 weeks.
She's now a fine healthy  annoying teenager.

Are there circumstances that pro life campaigners consider abortion?

I know the clue is in the title, but for life limited babies who'll be born with terminal conditions?

Quote from: Rossfan on October 22, 2019, 01:29:30 PM
One of mine was born at 28 weeks.
She's now a fine healthy  annoying teenager.

Congrats?

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on October 22, 2019, 01:34:18 PM
Are there circumstances that pro life campaigners consider abortion?

I know the clue is in the title, but for life limited babies who'll be born with terminal conditions?

Opinions differ. The obvious one is where the pregnancy risks the life of the mother.

Quote from: tonto1888 on October 22, 2019, 12:20:42 PM

Quote from: BennyCake on October 22, 2019, 11:33:30 AM

Quote from: tonto1888 on October 22, 2019, 10:43:45 AM

Quote from: BennyCake on October 22, 2019, 09:56:08 AM

Quote from: RedHand88 on October 22, 2019, 09:53:07 AM

Quote from: trailer on October 22, 2019, 09:34:04 AM

Quote from: RedHand88 on October 22, 2019, 07:54:19 AM
Abortion on demand up to 28 weeks is very difficult for anyone to justify, especially when survival rates for this period of gestation is 80-90%.

My thoughts exactly.

Remember, if you disagree you're just a religious extremist who hates women and wants to control their bodies.

And disagree with SSM, you're just a homophobic dinosaur  ::)

So what would be your reason for disagreeing with SSM

Do I need a reason?

So you don't actually have a reason to be against SSM. Good to know

I didn't say I don't have a reason.

Something that does really annoy me however is those with such a differing opinion goading me for not agreeing with them.

Close enough family members who are staunchly pro life. Cannot accept that i am pro-choice! I respect their right to have whatever opinion they wish whether i agree or not. Why cant they see that i am also entitled to hold whatever view i wish also  >:(

Quote from: five points on October 22, 2019, 12:33:06 PM

Quote from: sid waddell on October 22, 2019, 10:49:50 AM
It says it all that the pro-death, anti-abortionist cult is now the cause celebre of racist scum like Gemma O'Doherty,

Gemma O'Doherty tweeted support for last year's referendum Yes vote.

No, she didn't

It's weird that you feel you have to lie about such a matter

O'Doherty is a pro-death, anti-abortionist nutcase

Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 22, 2019, 10:53:07 AM

Quote from: sid waddell on October 22, 2019, 10:49:50 AM

Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 22, 2019, 10:34:41 AM

Quote from: sid waddell on October 22, 2019, 10:21:47 AM

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 22, 2019, 04:28:59 AM
Letting Westminister forcing their will on Ireland.....nice one from the shinners....  but then they could hardly start claiming they respect life could they?

DUP letting this law in also shows they're not such die hards on this issue as they claim to be

It shows they know there is no votes in it because they know only the doolally fringe object to it

The pro-death, anti-abortion murder cult is finished

It's lucky for a few lads here that they can now get gay married because no self-respecting woman would ever look twice at them

Women don't want to live in Gilead

You do realise Aontú stood in Ballyarnett Derry City few months ago and got in easy. Sean Carr also stood on similar ticket as independent in Foyleside and got in.  Just dipping their toes and took 2 seats from Shinners.

You do realise Aontu are on 0% in the Republic?

The pro-death anti-abortion cult is finished

People no longer tolerate religious bigots forcing women to travel, or worse, to die because of their insane Saudi-type ideology

The pro-death anti-abortionist cult is no different to the New IRA in their willingness to see women die

It says it all that the pro-death, anti-abortionist cult is now the cause celebre of racist scum like Gemma O'Doherty, and heavily dependent on far right US evangelical funding

US evangelicals are some of the worst people on earth

Go back to the 1860s, oh wait, the Catholic Church actually allowed abortion in the 1860s  ;D

This is not the ROI.
And this is not about religion. It is about human values and morals.

Religious fundamentalists are the last people who should talk about human values and morals

And countries which ban abortion have a higher rate of abortion than those which don't

Quote from: tyrone girl on October 22, 2019, 01:42:24 PM
Something that does really annoy me however is those with such a differing opinion goading me for not agreeing with them.

Close enough family members who are staunchly pro life. Cannot accept that i am pro-choice! I respect their right to have whatever opinion they wish whether i agree or not. Why cant they see that i am also entitled to hold whatever view i wish also  >:(

No one is allowed differing views nowadays else the other side will ram their opinion down your throat.

Quote from: sid waddell on October 22, 2019, 02:00:32 PM
And countries which ban abortion have a higher rate of abortion than those which don't

{{Citation needed}}

Quote from: five points on October 22, 2019, 02:03:27 PM

Quote from: sid waddell on October 22, 2019, 02:00:32 PM
And countries which ban abortion have a higher rate of abortion than those which don't

{{Citation needed}}

What a load of nonsense. If this was true, shouldn't you be fighting to keep it banned so as to give more women the option of availing of abortion services?

Quote from: Taylor on October 22, 2019, 02:02:10 PM

Quote from: tyrone girl on October 22, 2019, 01:42:24 PM
Something that does really annoy me however is those with such a differing opinion goading me for not agreeing with them.

Close enough family members who are staunchly pro life. Cannot accept that i am pro-choice! I respect their right to have whatever opinion they wish whether i agree or not. Why cant they see that i am also entitled to hold whatever view i wish also  >:(

No one is allowed differing views nowadays else the other side will ram their opinion down your throat.

What you meant to say is "I can't utter my bigoted views without being challenged on them, and I hate that"

The problem for religuious fundies and woman haters is that they can't defend their views without coming across as nuts

Free speech has never been freer

But hey, play the imagined victim all you want

There's no such a thing as the thought police, even though you'd love if there were

It is yourself that is fundamentally anti-free speech

Quote from: sid waddell on October 22, 2019, 01:56:48 PM

Quote from: five points on October 22, 2019, 12:33:06 PM

Quote from: sid waddell on October 22, 2019, 10:49:50 AM
It says it all that the pro-death, anti-abortionist cult is now the cause celebre of racist scum like Gemma O'Doherty,

Gemma O'Doherty tweeted support for last year's referendum Yes vote.

No, she didn't

It's weird that you feel you have to lie about such a matter

O'Doherty is a pro-death, anti-abortionist nutcase

I haven't lied.

https://twitter.com/gemmaod1/status/1033679212492873728

An apology would be nice.

Quote from: RedHand88 on October 22, 2019, 02:06:19 PM

Quote from: five points on October 22, 2019, 02:03:27 PM

Quote from: sid waddell on October 22, 2019, 02:00:32 PM
And countries which ban abortion have a higher rate of abortion than those which don't

{{Citation needed}}

What a load of nonsense. If this was true, shouldn't you be fighting to keep it banned so as to give more women the option of availing of abortion services?

It's lads like yourself that have been doing that

Lads like you never had a problem with backstreet abortions because you've never given a shit abut the health of women

Quote from: five points on October 22, 2019, 02:13:14 PM

Quote from: sid waddell on October 22, 2019, 01:56:48 PM

Quote from: five points on October 22, 2019, 12:33:06 PM

Quote from: sid waddell on October 22, 2019, 10:49:50 AM
It says it all that the pro-death, anti-abortionist cult is now the cause celebre of racist scum like Gemma O'Doherty,

Gemma O'Doherty tweeted support for last year's referendum Yes vote.

No, she didn't

It's weird that you feel you have to lie about such a matter

O'Doherty is a pro-death, anti-abortionist nutcase

I haven't lied.

https://twitter.com/gemmaod1/status/1033679212492873728

An apology would be nice.

O'Doherty was against the abolition of the 8th Amendment and specifically stated so

And she's made no doubt whatsoever of her viciously anti-choice stance since, in amongst all the racism and anti-semitism that now go hand in hand with the screaming anti-choice nutcases in Ireland

Quote from: sid waddell on October 22, 2019, 02:15:48 PM

Quote from: RedHand88 on October 22, 2019, 02:06:19 PM

Quote from: five points on October 22, 2019, 02:03:27 PM

Quote from: sid waddell on October 22, 2019, 02:00:32 PM
And countries which ban abortion have a higher rate of abortion than those which don't

{{Citation needed}}

What a load of nonsense. If this was true, shouldn't you be fighting to keep it banned so as to give more women the option of availing of abortion services?

It's lads like yourself that have been doing that

Lads like you never had a problem with backstreet abortions because you've never given a shit abut the health of women

Have you a link to that claim Sid?

Quote from: RedHand88 on October 22, 2019, 01:07:56 PM
If anyone is wondering, here is a baby at 28 weeks.

https://www.whattoexpect.com/pregnancy/week-by-week/week-28.aspx

Just curious, when was the last time you gave birth?

Quote from: sid waddell on October 22, 2019, 02:19:04 PM

Quote from: five points on October 22, 2019, 02:13:14 PM

Quote from: sid waddell on October 22, 2019, 01:56:48 PM

Quote from: five points on October 22, 2019, 12:33:06 PM

Quote from: sid waddell on October 22, 2019, 10:49:50 AM
It says it all that the pro-death, anti-abortionist cult is now the cause celebre of racist scum like Gemma O'Doherty,

Gemma O'Doherty tweeted support for last year's referendum Yes vote.

No, she didn't

It's weird that you feel you have to lie about such a matter

O'Doherty is a pro-death, anti-abortionist nutcase

I haven't lied.

https://twitter.com/gemmaod1/status/1033679212492873728

An apology would be nice.

O'Doherty was against the abolition of the 8th Amendment and specifically stated so

And she's made no doubt whatsoever of her viciously anti-choice stance since, in amongst all the racism and anti-semitism that now go hand in hand with the screaming anti-choice nutcases in Ireland

I made a statement. You accused me of lying. I produced evidence to support my statement. Instead of admitting your error, you go off an another rant.  ::)

Quote from: sid waddell on October 22, 2019, 02:07:02 PM

Quote from: Taylor on October 22, 2019, 02:02:10 PM

Quote from: tyrone girl on October 22, 2019, 01:42:24 PM
Something that does really annoy me however is those with such a differing opinion goading me for not agreeing with them.

Close enough family members who are staunchly pro life. Cannot accept that i am pro-choice! I respect their right to have whatever opinion they wish whether i agree or not. Why cant they see that i am also entitled to hold whatever view i wish also  >:(

No one is allowed differing views nowadays else the other side will ram their opinion down your throat.

What you meant to say is "I can't utter my bigoted views without being challenged on them, and I hate that"

The problem for religuious fundies and woman haters is that they can't defend their views without coming across as nuts

Free speech has never been freer

But hey, play the imagined victim all you want

There's no such a thing as the thought police, even though you'd love if there were

It is yourself that is fundamentally anti-free speech

No Sid - that wasnt what I meant to say - not sure about TG, but if I had wanted to say that I am perfectly capable of doing so.

You do realise that not everyone has the same outlook and view?

Because they differ from your specific views it doesnt make them a bigot, religious fundies or women haters?

Quote from: trueblue1234 on October 22, 2019, 02:19:52 PM

Quote from: sid waddell on October 22, 2019, 02:15:48 PM

Quote from: RedHand88 on October 22, 2019, 02:06:19 PM

Quote from: five points on October 22, 2019, 02:03:27 PM

Quote from: sid waddell on October 22, 2019, 02:00:32 PM
And countries which ban abortion have a higher rate of abortion than those which don't

{{Citation needed}}

What a load of nonsense. If this was true, shouldn't you be fighting to keep it banned so as to give more women the option of availing of abortion services?

It's lads like yourself that have been doing that

Lads like you never had a problem with backstreet abortions because you've never given a shit abut the health of women

Have you a link to that claim Sid?

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-care/abortion-rates-go-down-when-countries-make-it-legal-report-n858476

Quote from: Taylor on October 22, 2019, 02:25:24 PM

Quote from: sid waddell on October 22, 2019, 02:07:02 PM

Quote from: Taylor on October 22, 2019, 02:02:10 PM

Quote from: tyrone girl on October 22, 2019, 01:42:24 PM
Something that does really annoy me however is those with such a differing opinion goading me for not agreeing with them.

Close enough family members who are staunchly pro life. Cannot accept that i am pro-choice! I respect their right to have whatever opinion they wish whether i agree or not. Why cant they see that i am also entitled to hold whatever view i wish also  >:(

No one is allowed differing views nowadays else the other side will ram their opinion down your throat.

What you meant to say is "I can't utter my bigoted views without being challenged on them, and I hate that"

The problem for religuious fundies and woman haters is that they can't defend their views without coming across as nuts

Free speech has never been freer

But hey, play the imagined victim all you want

There's no such a thing as the thought police, even though you'd love if there were

It is yourself that is fundamentally anti-free speech

No Sid - that wasnt what I meant to say - not sure about TG, but if I had wanted to say that I am perfectly capable of doing so.

You do realise that not everyone has the same outlook and view?

Because they differ from your specific views it doesnt make them a bigot, religious fundies or women haters?

It's exactly what you meant to say

Eh i was saying exactly what i typed. I respect everyones right to have their own views. I wish they would allow me to have the same right.  ::)

Quote from: five points on October 22, 2019, 02:24:26 PM

Quote from: sid waddell on October 22, 2019, 02:19:04 PM

Quote from: five points on October 22, 2019, 02:13:14 PM

Quote from: sid waddell on October 22, 2019, 01:56:48 PM

Quote from: five points on October 22, 2019, 12:33:06 PM

Quote from: sid waddell on October 22, 2019, 10:49:50 AM
It says it all that the pro-death, anti-abortionist cult is now the cause celebre of racist scum like Gemma O'Doherty,

Gemma O'Doherty tweeted support for last year's referendum Yes vote.

No, she didn't

It's weird that you feel you have to lie about such a matter

O'Doherty is a pro-death, anti-abortionist nutcase

I haven't lied.

https://twitter.com/gemmaod1/status/1033679212492873728

An apology would be nice.

O'Doherty was against the abolition of the 8th Amendment and specifically stated so

And she's made no doubt whatsoever of her viciously anti-choice stance since, in amongst all the racism and anti-semitism that now go hand in hand with the screaming anti-choice nutcases in Ireland

I made a statement. You accused me of lying. I produced evidence to support my statement. Instead of admitting your error, you go off an another rant.  ::)

Stating facts you don't like is not a rant

O'Doherty is a screaming anti-choice nutcase, quite literally, and a virulent racist with strong Nazi sympathies

Quote from: sid waddell on October 22, 2019, 02:37:48 PM

Quote from: five points on October 22, 2019, 02:24:26 PM

Quote from: sid waddell on October 22, 2019, 02:19:04 PM

Quote from: five points on October 22, 2019, 02:13:14 PM

Quote from: sid waddell on October 22, 2019, 01:56:48 PM

Quote from: five points on October 22, 2019, 12:33:06 PM

Quote from: sid waddell on October 22, 2019, 10:49:50 AM
It says it all that the pro-death, anti-abortionist cult is now the cause celebre of racist scum like Gemma O'Doherty,

Gemma O'Doherty tweeted support for last year's referendum Yes vote.

No, she didn't

It's weird that you feel you have to lie about such a matter

O'Doherty is a pro-death, anti-abortionist nutcase

I haven't lied.

https://twitter.com/gemmaod1/status/1033679212492873728

An apology would be nice.

O'Doherty was against the abolition of the 8th Amendment and specifically stated so

And she's made no doubt whatsoever of her viciously anti-choice stance since, in amongst all the racism and anti-semitism that now go hand in hand with the screaming anti-choice nutcases in Ireland

I made a statement. You accused me of lying. I produced evidence to support my statement. Instead of admitting your error, you go off an another rant.  ::)

Stating facts you don't like is not a rant

O'Doherty is a screaming anti-choice nutcase, quite literally, and a virulent racist with strong Nazi sympathies

You were wrong to accuse me of lying. You still haven't admitted that.

Quote from: general_lee on October 22, 2019, 02:22:29 PM

Quote from: RedHand88 on October 22, 2019, 01:07:56 PM
If anyone is wondering, here is a baby at 28 weeks.

https://www.whattoexpect.com/pregnancy/week-by-week/week-28.aspx

Just curious, when was the last time you gave birth?

Joke of a post. You cant discount men just because they cant give birth. How will you discount the pro life women(in the 100s thousands)?
Almost as bad as the "healthcare" posts people put up or the "crazy religious zealots" posts.
The one that really takes the biscuit is themuns that post saying things like "what did the church ever do for schools, the poor blah blah blah". Emm weak arguments considering we have SVP, Trócaire etc flat out on these matters.
I am not a mass goer but I do suspect the fact that the catholic churchs poor record on sex abuse is being used to muddy the water in this argument. Almost like "why would you listen to them sure they done this......."

Quote from: sid waddell on October 22, 2019, 02:29:35 PM

Quote from: trueblue1234 on October 22, 2019, 02:19:52 PM

Quote from: sid waddell on October 22, 2019, 02:15:48 PM

Quote from: RedHand88 on October 22, 2019, 02:06:19 PM

Quote from: five points on October 22, 2019, 02:03:27 PM

Quote from: sid waddell on October 22, 2019, 02:00:32 PM
And countries which ban abortion have a higher rate of abortion than those which don't

{{Citation needed}}

What a load of nonsense. If this was true, shouldn't you be fighting to keep it banned so as to give more women the option of availing of abortion services?

It's lads like yourself that have been doing that

Lads like you never had a problem with backstreet abortions because you've never given a shit abut the health of women

Have you a link to that claim Sid?

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-care/abortion-rates-go-down-when-countries-make-it-legal-report-n858476

Breaking news.... pro abortion think tank concludes that legal abortion is beneficial  ::)

Quote from: sid waddell on October 22, 2019, 02:29:35 PM

Quote from: trueblue1234 on October 22, 2019, 02:19:52 PM

Quote from: sid waddell on October 22, 2019, 02:15:48 PM

Quote from: RedHand88 on October 22, 2019, 02:06:19 PM

Quote from: five points on October 22, 2019, 02:03:27 PM

Quote from: sid waddell on October 22, 2019, 02:00:32 PM
And countries which ban abortion have a higher rate of abortion than those which don't

{{Citation needed}}

What a load of nonsense. If this was true, shouldn't you be fighting to keep it banned so as to give more women the option of availing of abortion services?

It's lads like yourself that have been doing that

Lads like you never had a problem with backstreet abortions because you've never given a shit abut the health of women

Have you a link to that claim Sid?

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-care/abortion-rates-go-down-when-countries-make-it-legal-report-n858476

It's a bit disingenuous of the article. The actual report that it's based on says the following,

^{Abortion rates are similar in countries where abortion is highly restricted and where it is broadly legal. The abortion rate is 37 per 1,000 women in countries that prohibit abortion altogether or allow it only to save a woman's life, and 34 per 1,000 in countries that allow abortion without restriction as to reason—a difference that is not significant.}

The report says it's an insignificant difference. The article reads like someone is trying to weight it as a more significant fact that the report  says. 

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 22, 2019, 02:49:24 PM

Quote from: sid waddell on October 22, 2019, 02:29:35 PM

Quote from: trueblue1234 on October 22, 2019, 02:19:52 PM

Quote from: sid waddell on October 22, 2019, 02:15:48 PM

Quote from: RedHand88 on October 22, 2019, 02:06:19 PM

Quote from: five points on October 22, 2019, 02:03:27 PM

Quote from: sid waddell on October 22, 2019, 02:00:32 PM
And countries which ban abortion have a higher rate of abortion than those which don't

{{Citation needed}}

What a load of nonsense. If this was true, shouldn't you be fighting to keep it banned so as to give more women the option of availing of abortion services?

It's lads like yourself that have been doing that

Lads like you never had a problem with backstreet abortions because you've never given a shit abut the health of women

Have you a link to that claim Sid?

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-care/abortion-rates-go-down-when-countries-make-it-legal-report-n858476

Breaking news.... pro abortion think tank concludes that legal abortion is beneficial  ::)

Countries with a right to chose generally had better sex education, access to contraception and dealt with rapists. Hence less unwanted pregnancies

Quote from: Baile Brigín 2 on October 22, 2019, 03:21:09 PM

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 22, 2019, 02:49:24 PM

Quote from: sid waddell on October 22, 2019, 02:29:35 PM

Quote from: trueblue1234 on October 22, 2019, 02:19:52 PM

Quote from: sid waddell on October 22, 2019, 02:15:48 PM

Quote from: RedHand88 on October 22, 2019, 02:06:19 PM

Quote from: five points on October 22, 2019, 02:03:27 PM

Quote from: sid waddell on October 22, 2019, 02:00:32 PM
And countries which ban abortion have a higher rate of abortion than those which don't

{{Citation needed}}

What a load of nonsense. If this was true, shouldn't you be fighting to keep it banned so as to give more women the option of availing of abortion services?

It's lads like yourself that have been doing that

Lads like you never had a problem with backstreet abortions because you've never given a shit abut the health of women

Have you a link to that claim Sid?

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-care/abortion-rates-go-down-when-countries-make-it-legal-report-n858476

Breaking news.... pro abortion think tank concludes that legal abortion is beneficial  ::)

Countries with a right to chose generally had better sex education, access to contraception and dealt with rapists. Hence less unwanted pregnancies

So not so much to do with abortion being against the law then...

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 22, 2019, 03:25:53 PM

Quote from: Baile Brigín 2 on October 22, 2019, 03:21:09 PM

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 22, 2019, 02:49:24 PM

Quote from: sid waddell on October 22, 2019, 02:29:35 PM

Quote from: trueblue1234 on October 22, 2019, 02:19:52 PM

Quote from: sid waddell on October 22, 2019, 02:15:48 PM

Quote from: RedHand88 on October 22, 2019, 02:06:19 PM

Quote from: five points on October 22, 2019, 02:03:27 PM

Quote from: sid waddell on October 22, 2019, 02:00:32 PM
And countries which ban abortion have a higher rate of abortion than those which don't

{{Citation needed}}

What a load of nonsense. If this was true, shouldn't you be fighting to keep it banned so as to give more women the option of availing of abortion services?

It's lads like yourself that have been doing that

Lads like you never had a problem with backstreet abortions because you've never given a shit abut the health of women

Have you a link to that claim Sid?

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-care/abortion-rates-go-down-when-countries-make-it-legal-report-n858476

Breaking news.... pro abortion think tank concludes that legal abortion is beneficial  ::)

Countries with a right to chose generally had better sex education, access to contraception and dealt with rapists. Hence less unwanted pregnancies

So not so much to do with abortion being against the law then...

Very much so. Abortion being illegal generally points to a stoneage approach to womens reproductive rights.  Abortion being legal is part of a broader approach.

Abortion numbers fell in the south as free contraception was introduced at the same time.

Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 22, 2019, 02:47:25 PM

Quote from: general_lee on October 22, 2019, 02:22:29 PM

Quote from: RedHand88 on October 22, 2019, 01:07:56 PM
If anyone is wondering, here is a baby at 28 weeks.

https://www.whattoexpect.com/pregnancy/week-by-week/week-28.aspx

Just curious, when was the last time you gave birth?

Joke of a post. You cant discount men just because they cant give birth. How will you discount the pro life women(in the 100s thousands)?
Almost as bad as the "healthcare" posts people put up or the "crazy religious zealots" posts.
The one that really takes the biscuit is themuns that post saying things like "what did the church ever do for schools, the poor blah blah blah". Emm weak arguments considering we have SVP, Trócaire etc flat out on these matters.
I am not a mass goer but I do suspect the fact that the catholic churchs poor record on sex abuse is being used to muddy the water in this argument. Almost like "why would you listen to them sure they done this......."

Not really a joke of a post, this forum is almost entirely male posters, the majority of whom on the poll on this thread want to deny women their rights but none of whom are actually able to conceive.

Quote from: sid waddell on October 22, 2019, 02:33:32 PM

Quote from: Taylor on October 22, 2019, 02:25:24 PM

Quote from: sid waddell on October 22, 2019, 02:07:02 PM

Quote from: Taylor on October 22, 2019, 02:02:10 PM

Quote from: tyrone girl on October 22, 2019, 01:42:24 PM
Something that does really annoy me however is those with such a differing opinion goading me for not agreeing with them.

Close enough family members who are staunchly pro life. Cannot accept that i am pro-choice! I respect their right to have whatever opinion they wish whether i agree or not. Why cant they see that i am also entitled to hold whatever view i wish also  >:(

No one is allowed differing views nowadays else the other side will ram their opinion down your throat.

What you meant to say is "I can't utter my bigoted views without being challenged on them, and I hate that"

The problem for religuious fundies and woman haters is that they can't defend their views without coming across as nuts

Free speech has never been freer

But hey, play the imagined victim all you want

There's no such a thing as the thought police, even though you'd love if there were

It is yourself that is fundamentally anti-free speech

No Sid - that wasnt what I meant to say - not sure about TG, but if I had wanted to say that I am perfectly capable of doing so.

You do realise that not everyone has the same outlook and view?

Because they differ from your specific views it doesnt make them a bigot, religious fundies or women haters?

It's exactly what you meant to say

Now you are telling me exactly what I meant to say even though I said nothing of the like  ;D ;D

Either a WUM or something wrong with you man

Intolerant Sid is always right about everything all the time.
How do I know this?
Because Sid said so.

Quote from: general_lee on October 22, 2019, 03:35:19 PM

Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 22, 2019, 02:47:25 PM

Quote from: general_lee on October 22, 2019, 02:22:29 PM

Quote from: RedHand88 on October 22, 2019, 01:07:56 PM
If anyone is wondering, here is a baby at 28 weeks.

https://www.whattoexpect.com/pregnancy/week-by-week/week-28.aspx

Just curious, when was the last time you gave birth?

Joke of a post. You cant discount men just because they cant give birth. How will you discount the pro life women(in the 100s thousands)?
Almost as bad as the "healthcare" posts people put up or the "crazy religious zealots" posts.
The one that really takes the biscuit is themuns that post saying things like "what did the church ever do for schools, the poor blah blah blah". Emm weak arguments considering we have SVP, Trócaire etc flat out on these matters.
I am not a mass goer but I do suspect the fact that the catholic churchs poor record on sex abuse is being used to muddy the water in this argument. Almost like "why would you listen to them sure they done this......."

Not really a joke of a post, this forum is almost entirely male posters, the majority of whom on the poll on this thread want to deny women their rights but none of whom are actually able to conceive.

On the contrary you want to deny the right to life... all other rights come after this most basic human right.

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 22, 2019, 04:22:04 PM

Quote from: general_lee on October 22, 2019, 03:35:19 PM

Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 22, 2019, 02:47:25 PM

Quote from: general_lee on October 22, 2019, 02:22:29 PM

Quote from: RedHand88 on October 22, 2019, 01:07:56 PM
If anyone is wondering, here is a baby at 28 weeks.

https://www.whattoexpect.com/pregnancy/week-by-week/week-28.aspx

Just curious, when was the last time you gave birth?

Joke of a post. You cant discount men just because they cant give birth. How will you discount the pro life women(in the 100s thousands)?
Almost as bad as the "healthcare" posts people put up or the "crazy religious zealots" posts.
The one that really takes the biscuit is themuns that post saying things like "what did the church ever do for schools, the poor blah blah blah". Emm weak arguments considering we have SVP, Trócaire etc flat out on these matters.
I am not a mass goer but I do suspect the fact that the catholic churchs poor record on sex abuse is being used to muddy the water in this argument. Almost like "why would you listen to them sure they done this......."

Not really a joke of a post, this forum is almost entirely male posters, the majority of whom on the poll on this thread want to deny women their rights but none of whom are actually able to conceive.

On the contrary you want to deny the right to life... all other rights come after this most basic human right.

Spare me that hysterical bullshit. That paucity of argument is partially why abortion is now legal across the land.

Quote from: five points on October 22, 2019, 02:13:14 PM

Quote from: sid waddell on October 22, 2019, 01:56:48 PM

Quote from: five points on October 22, 2019, 12:33:06 PM

Quote from: sid waddell on October 22, 2019, 10:49:50 AM
It says it all that the pro-death, anti-abortionist cult is now the cause celebre of racist scum like Gemma O'Doherty,

Gemma O'Doherty tweeted support for last year's referendum Yes vote.

No, she didn't

It's weird that you feel you have to lie about such a matter

O'Doherty is a pro-death, anti-abortionist nutcase

I haven't lied.

https://twitter.com/gemmaod1/status/1033679212492873728

An apology would be nice.

That's not her actually tweeting support is it

Quote from: five points on October 22, 2019, 02:42:06 PM

Quote from: sid waddell on October 22, 2019, 02:37:48 PM

Quote from: five points on October 22, 2019, 02:24:26 PM

Quote from: sid waddell on October 22, 2019, 02:19:04 PM

Quote from: five points on October 22, 2019, 02:13:14 PM

Quote from: sid waddell on October 22, 2019, 01:56:48 PM

Quote from: five points on October 22, 2019, 12:33:06 PM

Quote from: sid waddell on October 22, 2019, 10:49:50 AM
It says it all that the pro-death, anti-abortionist cult is now the cause celebre of racist scum like Gemma O'Doherty,

Gemma O'Doherty tweeted support for last year's referendum Yes vote.

No, she didn't

It's weird that you feel you have to lie about such a matter

O'Doherty is a pro-death, anti-abortionist nutcase

I haven't lied.

https://twitter.com/gemmaod1/status/1033679212492873728

An apology would be nice.

O'Doherty was against the abolition of the 8th Amendment and specifically stated so

And she's made no doubt whatsoever of her viciously anti-choice stance since, in amongst all the racism and anti-semitism that now go hand in hand with the screaming anti-choice nutcases in Ireland

I made a statement. You accused me of lying. I produced evidence to support my statement. Instead of admitting your error, you go off an another rant.  ::)

Stating facts you don't like is not a rant

O'Doherty is a screaming anti-choice nutcase, quite literally, and a virulent racist with strong Nazi sympathies

You were wrong to accuse me of lying. You still haven't admitted that.

Again, the link you posted doesn't prove your point

Quote from: tonto1888 on October 22, 2019, 04:40:54 PM
Again, the link you posted doesn't prove your point

It does.

I said "Gemma O'Doherty tweeted support for last year's referendum Yes vote."

Her tweet read "The Irish people were overdue a referendum on a woman's right to choose. They voted overwhelmingly to #repealthe8th. Abortion will be legal soon. Both sides need to heal the divisions between them now so we can focus on the next big job in hand: ridding #Ireland of corruption"

Note the first sentence.  It's very clear.

Nowhere in that is there support for a yes vote

Quote from: Baile Brigín 2 on October 22, 2019, 03:29:13 PM

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 22, 2019, 03:25:53 PM

Quote from: Baile Brigín 2 on October 22, 2019, 03:21:09 PM

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 22, 2019, 02:49:24 PM

Quote from: sid waddell on October 22, 2019, 02:29:35 PM

Quote from: trueblue1234 on October 22, 2019, 02:19:52 PM

Quote from: sid waddell on October 22, 2019, 02:15:48 PM

Quote from: RedHand88 on October 22, 2019, 02:06:19 PM

Quote from: five points on October 22, 2019, 02:03:27 PM

Quote from: sid waddell on October 22, 2019, 02:00:32 PM
And countries which ban abortion have a higher rate of abortion than those which don't

{{Citation needed}}

What a load of nonsense. If this was true, shouldn't you be fighting to keep it banned so as to give more women the option of availing of abortion services?

It's lads like yourself that have been doing that

Lads like you never had a problem with backstreet abortions because you've never given a shit abut the health of women

Have you a link to that claim Sid?

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-care/abortion-rates-go-down-when-countries-make-it-legal-report-n858476

Breaking news.... pro abortion think tank concludes that legal abortion is beneficial  ::)

Countries with a right to chose generally had better sex education, access to contraception and dealt with rapists. Hence less unwanted pregnancies

So not so much to do with abortion being against the law then...

Very much so. Abortion being illegal generally points to a stoneage approach to womens reproductive rights.  Abortion being legal is part of a broader approach.

Abortion numbers fell in the south as free contraception was introduced at the same time.

So actually not......contraception is not abortion.

The question should be did abortion rise when it was made legal in the South?

Quote from: Baile Brigín 2 on October 22, 2019, 04:31:30 PM

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 22, 2019, 04:22:04 PM

Quote from: general_lee on October 22, 2019, 03:35:19 PM

Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 22, 2019, 02:47:25 PM

Quote from: general_lee on October 22, 2019, 02:22:29 PM

Quote from: RedHand88 on October 22, 2019, 01:07:56 PM
If anyone is wondering, here is a baby at 28 weeks.

https://www.whattoexpect.com/pregnancy/week-by-week/week-28.aspx

Just curious, when was the last time you gave birth?

Joke of a post. You cant discount men just because they cant give birth. How will you discount the pro life women(in the 100s thousands)?
Almost as bad as the "healthcare" posts people put up or the "crazy religious zealots" posts.
The one that really takes the biscuit is themuns that post saying things like "what did the church ever do for schools, the poor blah blah blah". Emm weak arguments considering we have SVP, Trócaire etc flat out on these matters.
I am not a mass goer but I do suspect the fact that the catholic churchs poor record on sex abuse is being used to muddy the water in this argument. Almost like "why would you listen to them sure they done this......."

Not really a joke of a post, this forum is almost entirely male posters, the majority of whom on the poll on this thread want to deny women their rights but none of whom are actually able to conceive.

On the contrary you want to deny the right to life... all other rights come after this most basic human right.

Spare me that hysterical bullshit. That paucity of argument is partially why abortion is now legal across the land.

So your telling me people dont like facts and logic when its put to them...you could be right Brexit etc

BTW Its legal because it was forced in by the British government

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 22, 2019, 05:45:08 PM

Quote from: Baile Brigín 2 on October 22, 2019, 03:29:13 PM

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 22, 2019, 03:25:53 PM

Quote from: Baile Brigín 2 on October 22, 2019, 03:21:09 PM

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 22, 2019, 02:49:24 PM

Quote from: sid waddell on October 22, 2019, 02:29:35 PM

Quote from: trueblue1234 on October 22, 2019, 02:19:52 PM

Quote from: sid waddell on October 22, 2019, 02:15:48 PM

Quote from: RedHand88 on October 22, 2019, 02:06:19 PM

Quote from: five points on October 22, 2019, 02:03:27 PM

Quote from: sid waddell on October 22, 2019, 02:00:32 PM
And countries which ban abortion have a higher rate of abortion than those which don't

{{Citation needed}}

What a load of nonsense. If this was true, shouldn't you be fighting to keep it banned so as to give more women the option of availing of abortion services?

It's lads like yourself that have been doing that

Lads like you never had a problem with backstreet abortions because you've never given a shit abut the health of women

Have you a link to that claim Sid?

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-care/abortion-rates-go-down-when-countries-make-it-legal-report-n858476

Breaking news.... pro abortion think tank concludes that legal abortion is beneficial  ::)

Countries with a right to chose generally had better sex education, access to contraception and dealt with rapists. Hence less unwanted pregnancies

So not so much to do with abortion being against the law then...

Very much so. Abortion being illegal generally points to a stoneage approach to womens reproductive rights.  Abortion being legal is part of a broader approach.

Abortion numbers fell in the south as free contraception was introduced at the same time.

So actually not......contraception is not abortion.

The question should be did abortion rise when it was made legal in the South?

There is no link between contraception and unwanted pregnancies?

No, it fell.

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 22, 2019, 05:50:13 PM

Quote from: Baile Brigín 2 on October 22, 2019, 04:31:30 PM

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 22, 2019, 04:22:04 PM

Quote from: general_lee on October 22, 2019, 03:35:19 PM

Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 22, 2019, 02:47:25 PM

Quote from: general_lee on October 22, 2019, 02:22:29 PM

Quote from: RedHand88 on October 22, 2019, 01:07:56 PM
If anyone is wondering, here is a baby at 28 weeks.

https://www.whattoexpect.com/pregnancy/week-by-week/week-28.aspx

Just curious, when was the last time you gave birth?

Joke of a post. You cant discount men just because they cant give birth. How will you discount the pro life women(in the 100s thousands)?
Almost as bad as the "healthcare" posts people put up or the "crazy religious zealots" posts.
The one that really takes the biscuit is themuns that post saying things like "what did the church ever do for schools, the poor blah blah blah". Emm weak arguments considering we have SVP, Trócaire etc flat out on these matters.
I am not a mass goer but I do suspect the fact that the catholic churchs poor record on sex abuse is being used to muddy the water in this argument. Almost like "why would you listen to them sure they done this......."

Not really a joke of a post, this forum is almost entirely male posters, the majority of whom on the poll on this thread want to deny women their rights but none of whom are actually able to conceive.

On the contrary you want to deny the right to life... all other rights come after this most basic human right.

Spare me that hysterical bullshit. That paucity of argument is partially why abortion is now legal across the land.

So your telling me people dont like facts and logic when its put to them...you could be right Brexit etc

BTW Its legal because it was forced in by the British government

What facts? You offered an opinion, one with no legal or medical basis.

Abortion is now legal because Stormont wasn't there to enact what a court found to be a fundamental breach of human rights, so you got British law. One way or another it was happening.

Quote from: Baile Brigín 2 on October 22, 2019, 06:07:38 PM

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 22, 2019, 05:50:13 PM

Quote from: Baile Brigín 2 on October 22, 2019, 04:31:30 PM

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 22, 2019, 04:22:04 PM

Quote from: general_lee on October 22, 2019, 03:35:19 PM

Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 22, 2019, 02:47:25 PM

Quote from: general_lee on October 22, 2019, 02:22:29 PM

Quote from: RedHand88 on October 22, 2019, 01:07:56 PM
If anyone is wondering, here is a baby at 28 weeks.

https://www.whattoexpect.com/pregnancy/week-by-week/week-28.aspx

Just curious, when was the last time you gave birth?

Joke of a post. You cant discount men just because they cant give birth. How will you discount the pro life women(in the 100s thousands)?
Almost as bad as the "healthcare" posts people put up or the "crazy religious zealots" posts.
The one that really takes the biscuit is themuns that post saying things like "what did the church ever do for schools, the poor blah blah blah". Emm weak arguments considering we have SVP, Trócaire etc flat out on these matters.
I am not a mass goer but I do suspect the fact that the catholic churchs poor record on sex abuse is being used to muddy the water in this argument. Almost like "why would you listen to them sure they done this......."

Not really a joke of a post, this forum is almost entirely male posters, the majority of whom on the poll on this thread want to deny women their rights but none of whom are actually able to conceive.

On the contrary you want to deny the right to life... all other rights come after this most basic human right.

Spare me that hysterical bullshit. That paucity of argument is partially why abortion is now legal across the land.

So your telling me people dont like facts and logic when its put to them...you could be right Brexit etc

BTW Its legal because it was forced in by the British government

What facts? You offered an opinion, one with no legal or medical basis.

Abortion is now legal because Stormont wasn't there to enact what a court found to be a fundamental breach of human rights, so you got British law. One way or another it was happening.

Biological Fact: Human life begins at conception
Logic1: Human Rights would be extended to humans
Logic2: First Human right would be the right to life as without life all no other rights can be applied.

Glad you can at least see that the British forced this law upon the people youd surely be opposed to that.

Quote from: Baile Brigín 2 on October 22, 2019, 06:04:34 PM

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 22, 2019, 05:45:08 PM

Quote from: Baile Brigín 2 on October 22, 2019, 03:29:13 PM

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 22, 2019, 03:25:53 PM

Quote from: Baile Brigín 2 on October 22, 2019, 03:21:09 PM

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 22, 2019, 02:49:24 PM

Quote from: sid waddell on October 22, 2019, 02:29:35 PM

Quote from: trueblue1234 on October 22, 2019, 02:19:52 PM

Quote from: sid waddell on October 22, 2019, 02:15:48 PM

Quote from: RedHand88 on October 22, 2019, 02:06:19 PM

Quote from: five points on October 22, 2019, 02:03:27 PM

Quote from: sid waddell on October 22, 2019, 02:00:32 PM
And countries which ban abortion have a higher rate of abortion than those which don't

{{Citation needed}}

What a load of nonsense. If this was true, shouldn't you be fighting to keep it banned so as to give more women the option of availing of abortion services?

It's lads like yourself that have been doing that

Lads like you never had a problem with backstreet abortions because you've never given a shit abut the health of women

Have you a link to that claim Sid?

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-care/abortion-rates-go-down-when-countries-make-it-legal-report-n858476

Breaking news.... pro abortion think tank concludes that legal abortion is beneficial  ::)

Countries with a right to chose generally had better sex education, access to contraception and dealt with rapists. Hence less unwanted pregnancies

So not so much to do with abortion being against the law then...

Very much so. Abortion being illegal generally points to a stoneage approach to womens reproductive rights.  Abortion being legal is part of a broader approach.

Abortion numbers fell in the south as free contraception was introduced at the same time.

So actually not......contraception is not abortion.

The question should be did abortion rise when it was made legal in the South?

There is no link between contraception and unwanted pregnancies?

No, it fell.

Abortion and Contraception are 2 separate issues

Abortion fell in the Free State when it was made legal? You've got before and after stats obviously?

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 22, 2019, 06:20:46 PM

Quote from: Baile Brigín 2 on October 22, 2019, 06:04:34 PM

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 22, 2019, 05:45:08 PM

Quote from: Baile Brigín 2 on October 22, 2019, 03:29:13 PM

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 22, 2019, 03:25:53 PM

Quote from: Baile Brigín 2 on October 22, 2019, 03:21:09 PM

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 22, 2019, 02:49:24 PM

Quote from: sid waddell on October 22, 2019, 02:29:35 PM

Quote from: trueblue1234 on October 22, 2019, 02:19:52 PM

Quote from: sid waddell on October 22, 2019, 02:15:48 PM

Quote from: RedHand88 on October 22, 2019, 02:06:19 PM

Quote from: five points on October 22, 2019, 02:03:27 PM

Quote from: sid waddell on October 22, 2019, 02:00:32 PM
And countries which ban abortion have a higher rate of abortion than those which don't

{{Citation needed}}

What a load of nonsense. If this was true, shouldn't you be fighting to keep it banned so as to give more women the option of availing of abortion services?

It's lads like yourself that have been doing that

Lads like you never had a problem with backstreet abortions because you've never given a shit abut the health of women

Have you a link to that claim Sid?

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-care/abortion-rates-go-down-when-countries-make-it-legal-report-n858476

Breaking news.... pro abortion think tank concludes that legal abortion is beneficial  ::)

Countries with a right to chose generally had better sex education, access to contraception and dealt with rapists. Hence less unwanted pregnancies

So not so much to do with abortion being against the law then...

Very much so. Abortion being illegal generally points to a stoneage approach to womens reproductive rights.  Abortion being legal is part of a broader approach.

Abortion numbers fell in the south as free contraception was introduced at the same time.

So actually not......contraception is not abortion.

The question should be did abortion rise when it was made legal in the South?

There is no link between contraception and unwanted pregnancies?

No, it fell.

Abortion and Contraception are 2 separate issues

Abortion fell in the Free State when it was made legal? You've got before and after stats obviously?

They fundamentally are not. Same people opposed them too. Which is odd considering the church allowed abortion and even claim one of St Brigids miracles was performing one.

Someone in my family was pregnant last year. A few months in, they found fetal abnormalities and it was certain that if this pregnancy went to full term the child would have been stillborn. They had to terminate the pregnancy. On Christmas Day.

She's pregnant again and they're expecting in the next few months. I hope it all goes well for them.

This is a horrible situation for anyone to be in. Nobody takes this kind of decision lightly, and the only people qualified to make it are the people in the situation.

A lot of the people pontificating on this thread should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.

If someone needs a blood transfusion or organ transplant and you are the only person that is fit to donate, you have to be willing to donate. No doctor has the right to forcibly stick a needle in you or cut you open against your will even if it's to save another life. It is your body, your choice. This is the principle of bodily autonomy. It is not negotiable.

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on October 22, 2019, 06:35:04 PM
If someone needs a blood transfusion or organ transplant and you are the only person that is fit to donate, you have to be willing to donate. No doctor has the right to forcibly stick a needle in you or cut you open against your will even if it's to save another life. It is your body, your choice. This is the principle of bodily autonomy. It is not negotiable.

Im with you Eamonn.. no doctor should have the right to end a human life

Quote from: Baile Brigín 2 on October 22, 2019, 06:28:38 PM

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 22, 2019, 06:20:46 PM

Quote from: Baile Brigín 2 on October 22, 2019, 06:04:34 PM

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 22, 2019, 05:45:08 PM

Quote from: Baile Brigín 2 on October 22, 2019, 03:29:13 PM

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 22, 2019, 03:25:53 PM

Quote from: Baile Brigín 2 on October 22, 2019, 03:21:09 PM

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 22, 2019, 02:49:24 PM

Quote from: sid waddell on October 22, 2019, 02:29:35 PM

Quote from: trueblue1234 on October 22, 2019, 02:19:52 PM

Quote from: sid waddell on October 22, 2019, 02:15:48 PM

Quote from: RedHand88 on October 22, 2019, 02:06:19 PM

Quote from: five points on October 22, 2019, 02:03:27 PM

Quote from: sid waddell on October 22, 2019, 02:00:32 PM
And countries which ban abortion have a higher rate of abortion than those which don't

{{Citation needed}}

What a load of nonsense. If this was true, shouldn't you be fighting to keep it banned so as to give more women the option of availing of abortion services?

It's lads like yourself that have been doing that

Lads like you never had a problem with backstreet abortions because you've never given a shit abut the health of women

Have you a link to that claim Sid?

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-care/abortion-rates-go-down-when-countries-make-it-legal-report-n858476

Breaking news.... pro abortion think tank concludes that legal abortion is beneficial  ::)

Countries with a right to chose generally had better sex education, access to contraception and dealt with rapists. Hence less unwanted pregnancies

So not so much to do with abortion being against the law then...

Very much so. Abortion being illegal generally points to a stoneage approach to womens reproductive rights.  Abortion being legal is part of a broader approach.

Abortion numbers fell in the south as free contraception was introduced at the same time.

So actually not......contraception is not abortion.

The question should be did abortion rise when it was made legal in the South?

There is no link between contraception and unwanted pregnancies?

No, it fell.

Abortion and Contraception are 2 separate issues

Abortion fell in the Free State when it was made legal? You've got before and after stats obviously?

They fundamentally are not. Same people opposed them too. Which is odd considering the church allowed abortion and even claim one of St Brigids miracles was performing one.

They fundamentaly are different..... one deals with preventing life the other deals with ending it.

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 22, 2019, 06:39:32 PM

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on October 22, 2019, 06:35:04 PM
If someone needs a blood transfusion or organ transplant and you are the only person that is fit to donate, you have to be willing to donate. No doctor has the right to forcibly stick a needle in you or cut you open against your will even if it's to save another life. It is your body, your choice. This is the principle of bodily autonomy. It is not negotiable.

Im with you Eamonn.. no doctor should have the right to end a human life

So our family member should have been forced to carry the pregnancy to full term and give birth to a dead baby? Because you know more about her situation than she does?

This thread is pointless. Lock it up, mods.

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 22, 2019, 06:39:32 PM

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on October 22, 2019, 06:35:04 PM
If someone needs a blood transfusion or organ transplant and you are the only person that is fit to donate, you have to be willing to donate. No doctor has the right to forcibly stick a needle in you or cut you open against your will even if it's to save another life. It is your body, your choice. This is the principle of bodily autonomy. It is not negotiable.

Im with you Eamonn.. no doctor should have the right to end a human life

lucky nobody believes a foetus to be 'human life'.

We did all this last year. You lost resoundingly.

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on October 22, 2019, 07:40:12 PM

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 22, 2019, 06:39:32 PM

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on October 22, 2019, 06:35:04 PM
If someone needs a blood transfusion or organ transplant and you are the only person that is fit to donate, you have to be willing to donate. No doctor has the right to forcibly stick a needle in you or cut you open against your will even if it's to save another life. It is your body, your choice. This is the principle of bodily autonomy. It is not negotiable.

Im with you Eamonn.. no doctor should have the right to end a human life

So our family member should have been forced to carry the pregnancy to full term and give birth to a dead baby? Because you know more about her situation than she does?

No, of course not. She should have gotten on a plane to keep the hypocrisy up. The pressure valve of outsourcing to godless England available but lets not deal with it ourselves

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on October 22, 2019, 07:40:12 PM

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 22, 2019, 06:39:32 PM

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on October 22, 2019, 06:35:04 PM
If someone needs a blood transfusion or organ transplant and you are the only person that is fit to donate, you have to be willing to donate. No doctor has the right to forcibly stick a needle in you or cut you open against your will even if it's to save another life. It is your body, your choice. This is the principle of bodily autonomy. It is not negotiable.

Im with you Eamonn.. no doctor should have the right to end a human life

So our family member should have been forced to carry the pregnancy to full term and give birth to a dead baby? Because you know more about her situation than she does?

I'm hardly likely to be drawn in to comment on anyone's personal situation when i know sfa about it. I also would never bring any family members situation on to the internet because you never know what will be said

The comment was related to abortion on demand not medical emergencies.

Quote from: Baile Brigín 2 on October 22, 2019, 08:29:48 PM

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 22, 2019, 06:39:32 PM

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on October 22, 2019, 06:35:04 PM
If someone needs a blood transfusion or organ transplant and you are the only person that is fit to donate, you have to be willing to donate. No doctor has the right to forcibly stick a needle in you or cut you open against your will even if it's to save another life. It is your body, your choice. This is the principle of bodily autonomy. It is not negotiable.

Im with you Eamonn.. no doctor should have the right to end a human life

lucky nobody believes a foetus to be 'human life'.

We did all this last year. You lost resoundingly.

If anyone believes that a foetus is not a human life, there is a lot of unscientific information going around the South

By every scientific definition imaginable a foetus is a human life.

...if we found it on Mars, it would be life.

So at what point is it ok to have an abortion?

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 22, 2019, 08:54:09 PM

Quote from: Baile Brigín 2 on October 22, 2019, 08:29:48 PM

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 22, 2019, 06:39:32 PM

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on October 22, 2019, 06:35:04 PM
If someone needs a blood transfusion or organ transplant and you are the only person that is fit to donate, you have to be willing to donate. No doctor has the right to forcibly stick a needle in you or cut you open against your will even if it's to save another life. It is your body, your choice. This is the principle of bodily autonomy. It is not negotiable.

Im with you Eamonn.. no doctor should have the right to end a human life

lucky nobody believes a foetus to be 'human life'.

We did all this last year. You lost resoundingly.

If anyone believes that a foetus is not a human life, there is a lot of unscientific information going around the South

Its a clump of cells. No scientist uses the phrase

Quote from: Baile Brigín 2 on October 22, 2019, 09:15:38 PM

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 22, 2019, 08:54:09 PM

Quote from: Baile Brigín 2 on October 22, 2019, 08:29:48 PM

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 22, 2019, 06:39:32 PM

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on October 22, 2019, 06:35:04 PM
If someone needs a blood transfusion or organ transplant and you are the only person that is fit to donate, you have to be willing to donate. No doctor has the right to forcibly stick a needle in you or cut you open against your will even if it's to save another life. It is your body, your choice. This is the principle of bodily autonomy. It is not negotiable.

Im with you Eamonn.. no doctor should have the right to end a human life

lucky nobody believes a foetus to be 'human life'.

We did all this last year. You lost resoundingly.

If anyone believes that a foetus is not a human life, there is a lot of unscientific information going around the South

Its a clump of cells. No scientist uses the phrase

You and I are a clump of cells

and I think you'll find ever scientist uses the phrase

Anyway I knew the schools were bad in the Free State but this is shocking, anyway here you go.....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_life_cycle

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 22, 2019, 09:20:41 PM

Quote from: Baile Brigín 2 on October 22, 2019, 09:15:38 PM

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 22, 2019, 08:54:09 PM

Quote from: Baile Brigín 2 on October 22, 2019, 08:29:48 PM

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 22, 2019, 06:39:32 PM

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on October 22, 2019, 06:35:04 PM
If someone needs a blood transfusion or organ transplant and you are the only person that is fit to donate, you have to be willing to donate. No doctor has the right to forcibly stick a needle in you or cut you open against your will even if it's to save another life. It is your body, your choice. This is the principle of bodily autonomy. It is not negotiable.

Im with you Eamonn.. no doctor should have the right to end a human life

lucky nobody believes a foetus to be 'human life'.

We did all this last year. You lost resoundingly.

If anyone believes that a foetus is not a human life, there is a lot of unscientific information going around the South

Its a clump of cells. No scientist uses the phrase

You and I are a clump of cells

and I think you'll find ever scientist uses the phrase

Anyway I knew the schools were bad in the Free State but this is shocking, anyway here you go.....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_life_cycle

Where in your link does it say what you want it to say?

You and I are humans. Birth certs and everything.

Quote from: Baile Brigín 2 on October 22, 2019, 09:23:06 PM

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 22, 2019, 09:20:41 PM

Quote from: Baile Brigín 2 on October 22, 2019, 09:15:38 PM

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 22, 2019, 08:54:09 PM

Quote from: Baile Brigín 2 on October 22, 2019, 08:29:48 PM

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 22, 2019, 06:39:32 PM

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on October 22, 2019, 06:35:04 PM
If someone needs a blood transfusion or organ transplant and you are the only person that is fit to donate, you have to be willing to donate. No doctor has the right to forcibly stick a needle in you or cut you open against your will even if it's to save another life. It is your body, your choice. This is the principle of bodily autonomy. It is not negotiable.

Im with you Eamonn.. no doctor should have the right to end a human life

lucky nobody believes a foetus to be 'human life'.

We did all this last year. You lost resoundingly.

If anyone believes that a foetus is not a human life, there is a lot of unscientific information going around the South

Its a clump of cells. No scientist uses the phrase

You and I are a clump of cells

and I think you'll find ever scientist uses the phrase

Anyway I knew the schools were bad in the Free State but this is shocking, anyway here you go.....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_life_cycle

Where in your link does it say what you want it to say?

You and I are humans. Birth certs and everything.

It was a link to the biological life cycle, if you believe that a foetus is not part of the human lifecycle I would suggest you read the whole thing.

Plenty of humans have been and are around without birth certificates... piece of paper from a registrars office doesn't make you human.

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 22, 2019, 08:34:12 PM

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on October 22, 2019, 07:40:12 PM

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 22, 2019, 06:39:32 PM

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on October 22, 2019, 06:35:04 PM
If someone needs a blood transfusion or organ transplant and you are the only person that is fit to donate, you have to be willing to donate. No doctor has the right to forcibly stick a needle in you or cut you open against your will even if it's to save another life. It is your body, your choice. This is the principle of bodily autonomy. It is not negotiable.

Im with you Eamonn.. no doctor should have the right to end a human life

So our family member should have been forced to carry the pregnancy to full term and give birth to a dead baby? Because you know more about her situation than she does?

I'm hardly likely to be drawn in to comment on anyone's personal situation when i know sfa about it. I also would never bring any family members situation on to the internet because you never know what will be said

The comment was related to abortion on demand not medical emergencies.

Now you're catching on, old boy!

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 22, 2019, 09:28:09 PM

Quote from: Baile Brigín 2 on October 22, 2019, 09:23:06 PM

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 22, 2019, 09:20:41 PM

Quote from: Baile Brigín 2 on October 22, 2019, 09:15:38 PM

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 22, 2019, 08:54:09 PM

Quote from: Baile Brigín 2 on October 22, 2019, 08:29:48 PM

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 22, 2019, 06:39:32 PM

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on October 22, 2019, 06:35:04 PM
If someone needs a blood transfusion or organ transplant and you are the only person that is fit to donate, you have to be willing to donate. No doctor has the right to forcibly stick a needle in you or cut you open against your will even if it's to save another life. It is your body, your choice. This is the principle of bodily autonomy. It is not negotiable.

Im with you Eamonn.. no doctor should have the right to end a human life

lucky nobody believes a foetus to be 'human life'.

We did all this last year. You lost resoundingly.

If anyone believes that a foetus is not a human life, there is a lot of unscientific information going around the South

Its a clump of cells. No scientist uses the phrase

You and I are a clump of cells

and I think you'll find ever scientist uses the phrase

Anyway I knew the schools were bad in the Free State but this is shocking, anyway here you go.....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_life_cycle

Where in your link does it say what you want it to say?

You and I are humans. Birth certs and everything.

It was a link to the biological life cycle, if you believe that a foetus is not part of the human lifecycle I would suggest you read the whole thing.

Plenty of humans have been and are around without birth certificates... piece of paper from a registrars office doesn't make you human.

being part of the human lifecycle does not mean it is a human

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on October 22, 2019, 09:32:38 PM

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 22, 2019, 08:34:12 PM

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on October 22, 2019, 07:40:12 PM

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 22, 2019, 06:39:32 PM

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on October 22, 2019, 06:35:04 PM
If someone needs a blood transfusion or organ transplant and you are the only person that is fit to donate, you have to be willing to donate. No doctor has the right to forcibly stick a needle in you or cut you open against your will even if it's to save another life. It is your body, your choice. This is the principle of bodily autonomy. It is not negotiable.

Im with you Eamonn.. no doctor should have the right to end a human life

So our family member should have been forced to carry the pregnancy to full term and give birth to a dead baby? Because you know more about her situation than she does?

I'm hardly likely to be drawn in to comment on anyone's personal situation when i know sfa about it. I also would never bring any family members situation on to the internet because you never know what will be said

The comment was related to abortion on demand not medical emergencies.

Now you're catching on, old boy!

Thats what did for the loveboats mob. Fire and brimstone, pseudoscience and mysogony versus human stories.

Even that exchange. "I'm anti choice", <real life story>, what they are anti shifts.

Quote from: hardstation on October 22, 2019, 09:40:01 PM
Whatever your views on the rights & wrongs of abortion, saying that it is not human life until it is born (and has a birth certificate) is stretching the narrative into the "mental as fcuk" realms.

The disputed phrase was 'a human'.

Quote from: Baile Brigín 2 on October 22, 2019, 09:45:23 PM

Quote from: hardstation on October 22, 2019, 09:40:01 PM
Whatever your views on the rights & wrongs of abortion, saying that it is not human life until it is born (and has a birth certificate) is stretching the narrative into the "mental as fcuk" realms.

The disputed phrase was 'a human'.

What's the dispute?

Quote from: hardstation on October 22, 2019, 09:40:01 PM
Whatever your views on the rights & wrongs of abortion, saying that it is not human life until it is born (and has a birth certificate) is stretching the narrative into the "mental as fcuk" realms.

+1

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 22, 2019, 09:52:51 PM

Quote from: Baile Brigín 2 on October 22, 2019, 09:45:23 PM

Quote from: hardstation on October 22, 2019, 09:40:01 PM
Whatever your views on the rights & wrongs of abortion, saying that it is not human life until it is born (and has a birth certificate) is stretching the narrative into the "mental as fcuk" realms.

The disputed phrase was 'a human'.

What's the dispute?

That a foetus is a full human being.

Quote from: Baile Brigín 2 on October 22, 2019, 09:45:23 PM

Quote from: hardstation on October 22, 2019, 09:40:01 PM
Whatever your views on the rights & wrongs of abortion, saying that it is not human life until it is born (and has a birth certificate) is stretching the narrative into the "mental as fcuk" realms.

The disputed phrase was 'a human'.

If it's not a human.... what is it??

Quote from: Baile Brigín 2 on October 22, 2019, 10:06:46 PM

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 22, 2019, 09:52:51 PM

Quote from: Baile Brigín 2 on October 22, 2019, 09:45:23 PM

Quote from: hardstation on October 22, 2019, 09:40:01 PM
Whatever your views on the rights & wrongs of abortion, saying that it is not human life until it is born (and has a birth certificate) is stretching the narrative into the "mental as fcuk" realms.

The disputed phrase was 'a human'.

What's the dispute?

That a foetus is a full human being.

Do you mean a fully grown human being? Because maturity isnt reached until late teens

Quote from: RedHand88 on October 22, 2019, 10:08:01 PM

Quote from: Baile Brigín 2 on October 22, 2019, 09:45:23 PM

Quote from: hardstation on October 22, 2019, 09:40:01 PM
Whatever your views on the rights & wrongs of abortion, saying that it is not human life until it is born (and has a birth certificate) is stretching the narrative into the "mental as fcuk" realms.

The disputed phrase was 'a human'.

If it's not a human.... what is it??

A foetus. Potentially human.

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 22, 2019, 10:11:23 PM

Quote from: Baile Brigín 2 on October 22, 2019, 10:06:46 PM

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 22, 2019, 09:52:51 PM

Quote from: Baile Brigín 2 on October 22, 2019, 09:45:23 PM

Quote from: hardstation on October 22, 2019, 09:40:01 PM
Whatever your views on the rights & wrongs of abortion, saying that it is not human life until it is born (and has a birth certificate) is stretching the narrative into the "mental as fcuk" realms.

The disputed phrase was 'a human'.

What's the dispute?

That a foetus is a full human being.

Do you mean a fully grown human being? Because maturity isnt reached until late teens

No, that would be silly

Quote from: Baile Brigín 2 on October 22, 2019, 10:19:31 PM

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 22, 2019, 10:11:23 PM

Quote from: Baile Brigín 2 on October 22, 2019, 10:06:46 PM

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 22, 2019, 09:52:51 PM

Quote from: Baile Brigín 2 on October 22, 2019, 09:45:23 PM

Quote from: hardstation on October 22, 2019, 09:40:01 PM
Whatever your views on the rights & wrongs of abortion, saying that it is not human life until it is born (and has a birth certificate) is stretching the narrative into the "mental as fcuk" realms.

The disputed phrase was 'a human'.

What's the dispute?

That a foetus is a full human being.

Do you mean a fully grown human being? Because maturity isnt reached until late teens

No, that would be silly

So nothing to do with maturity then, now I am intrigued..... please do tell us how a foetus or any other stage in the human lifecyle is not a human being?

In fact tell us your personal opinion what constitutes a human being and what doesn't because at this point you really do appear to be running contrary to all biological science

Quote from: Baile Brigín 2 on October 22, 2019, 10:19:02 PM

Quote from: RedHand88 on October 22, 2019, 10:08:01 PM

Quote from: Baile Brigín 2 on October 22, 2019, 09:45:23 PM

Quote from: hardstation on October 22, 2019, 09:40:01 PM
Whatever your views on the rights & wrongs of abortion, saying that it is not human life until it is born (and has a birth certificate) is stretching the narrative into the "mental as fcuk" realms.

The disputed phrase was 'a human'.

If it's not a human.... what is it??

A foetus. Potentially human.

Theres nothing potential about any stage of the human lifecycle they have been a human since conception.

(https://media1.tenor.com/images/edce3f378e73ea765803e97971db1b39/tenor.gif?itemid=14269125)

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on October 22, 2019, 10:58:40 PM
(https://media1.tenor.com/images/edce3f378e73ea765803e97971db1b39/tenor.gif?itemid=14269125)

Do you need someone to explain to you the scientific difference between a sperm cell and an unborn baby?

Quote from: RedHand88 on October 22, 2019, 11:04:03 PM

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on October 22, 2019, 10:58:40 PM
(https://media1.tenor.com/images/edce3f378e73ea765803e97971db1b39/tenor.gif?itemid=14269125)

Do you need someone to explain to you the scientific difference between a sperm cell and an unborn baby?

I think you need the explanation

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 22, 2019, 10:43:09 PM

Quote from: Baile Brigín 2 on October 22, 2019, 10:19:02 PM

Quote from: RedHand88 on October 22, 2019, 10:08:01 PM

Quote from: Baile Brigín 2 on October 22, 2019, 09:45:23 PM

Quote from: hardstation on October 22, 2019, 09:40:01 PM
Whatever your views on the rights & wrongs of abortion, saying that it is not human life until it is born (and has a birth certificate) is stretching the narrative into the "mental as fcuk" realms.

The disputed phrase was 'a human'.

If it's not a human.... what is it??

A foetus. Potentially human.

Theres nothing potential about any stage of the human lifecycle they have been a human since conception.

Is that science or Catholic theology?

I love the fact 'science' is invoked to exactly match what the church settled on, having allowed abortion for over a thousand years,  with zero backup.

This is why you list last year. Total gobbeldygook

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 22, 2019, 10:43:09 PM
they have been a human since conception.

Really?! Says who?

Quote from: gallsman on October 22, 2019, 11:09:40 PM

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 22, 2019, 10:43:09 PM
they have been a human since conception.

Really?! Says who?

All science apparantly. Just don't expect a credible link

Quote from: Baile Brigín 2 on October 22, 2019, 11:05:04 PM

Quote from: RedHand88 on October 22, 2019, 11:04:03 PM

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on October 22, 2019, 10:58:40 PM
(https://media1.tenor.com/images/edce3f378e73ea765803e97971db1b39/tenor.gif?itemid=14269125)

Do you need someone to explain to you the scientific difference between a sperm cell and an unborn baby?

I think you need the explanation

Sperm - A single haploid set of chromosomes derived from father. Is not a human being.

Foetus - Developing/Developed organism where every cell is diploid and contains a full set of 23 human chromosonal pairs. Contains all the genetic information for personality, hair colour, height, predisposition for illness, intelligence etc.
By any scientific definition, is a human being.


To say a foetus is not a human life is to ignore basic biological science.

Quote from: Baile Brigín 2 on October 22, 2019, 11:07:57 PM

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 22, 2019, 10:43:09 PM

Quote from: Baile Brigín 2 on October 22, 2019, 10:19:02 PM

Quote from: RedHand88 on October 22, 2019, 10:08:01 PM

Quote from: Baile Brigín 2 on October 22, 2019, 09:45:23 PM

Quote from: hardstation on October 22, 2019, 09:40:01 PM
Whatever your views on the rights & wrongs of abortion, saying that it is not human life until it is born (and has a birth certificate) is stretching the narrative into the "mental as fcuk" realms.

The disputed phrase was 'a human'.

If it's not a human.... what is it??

A foetus. Potentially human.

Theres nothing potential about any stage of the human lifecycle they have been a human since conception.

Is that science or Catholic theology?

I love the fact 'science' is invoked to exactly match what the church settled on, having allowed abortion for over a thousand years,  with zero backup.

This is why you list last year. Total gobbeldygook

You and Eamonn seem to be the only ones mentioning Catholicism
If your against anything they're for, at least admit to it.

Dont take my word on the science at all it pretty basic level stuff children learn about it at 3-6 years old, we havent even got into unique DNA or anything else.
But at least look into it yourself and be open minded to your opinion when exploring the facts.
Let the facts form your opinion not the other way around I mean that genuinely

Quote from: RedHand88 on October 22, 2019, 11:12:55 PM

Quote from: Baile Brigín 2 on October 22, 2019, 11:05:04 PM

Quote from: RedHand88 on October 22, 2019, 11:04:03 PM

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on October 22, 2019, 10:58:40 PM
(https://media1.tenor.com/images/edce3f378e73ea765803e97971db1b39/tenor.gif?itemid=14269125)

Do you need someone to explain to you the scientific difference between a sperm cell and an unborn baby?

I think you need the explanation

Sperm - A single haploid set of chromosomes derived from father. Is not a human being.

Foetus - Developing/Developed organism where every cell is diploid and contains a full set of 23 human chromosonal pairs. Contains all the genetic information for personality, hair colour, height, predisposition for illness, intelligence etc.
By any scientific definition, is a human being.


To say a foetus is not a human life is to ignore basic biological science.

You are interchangeably using terms like human being and human life. Think about that

I find the prospect of abortion not only being legal but also normalised and socially acceptable as the death knell of any morality in society.

To see SF then parading this as some sort of victory is a major insult to a big base of their long term voting core.

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 22, 2019, 11:15:57 PM

Quote from: Baile Brigín 2 on October 22, 2019, 11:07:57 PM

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 22, 2019, 10:43:09 PM

Quote from: Baile Brigín 2 on October 22, 2019, 10:19:02 PM

Quote from: RedHand88 on October 22, 2019, 10:08:01 PM

Quote from: Baile Brigín 2 on October 22, 2019, 09:45:23 PM

Quote from: hardstation on October 22, 2019, 09:40:01 PM
Whatever your views on the rights & wrongs of abortion, saying that it is not human life until it is born (and has a birth certificate) is stretching the narrative into the "mental as fcuk" realms.

The disputed phrase was 'a human'.

If it's not a human.... what is it??

A foetus. Potentially human.

Theres nothing potential about any stage of the human lifecycle they have been a human since conception.

Is that science or Catholic theology?

I love the fact 'science' is invoked to exactly match what the church settled on, having allowed abortion for over a thousand years,  with zero backup.

This is why you list last year. Total gobbeldygook

You and Eamonn seem to be the only ones mentioning Catholicism
If your against anything they're for, at least admit to it.

Dont take my word on the science at all it pretty basic level stuff children learn about it at 3-6 years old, we havent even got into unique DNA or anything else.
But at least look into it yourself and be open minded to your opinion when exploring the facts.
Let the facts form your opinion not the other way around I mean that genuinely

Its quite the coincidence that the antis here are using theological phrases and passing them off as science and claiming unanimity.

Science is not even almost united and certainly not around your position derived from a middle eastern moral code.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/abortion/child/alive_1.shtml

Quote from: Baile Brigín 2 on October 22, 2019, 11:18:48 PM

Quote from: RedHand88 on October 22, 2019, 11:12:55 PM

Quote from: Baile Brigín 2 on October 22, 2019, 11:05:04 PM

Quote from: RedHand88 on October 22, 2019, 11:04:03 PM

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on October 22, 2019, 10:58:40 PM
(https://media1.tenor.com/images/edce3f378e73ea765803e97971db1b39/tenor.gif?itemid=14269125)

Do you need someone to explain to you the scientific difference between a sperm cell and an unborn baby?

I think you need the explanation

Sperm - A single haploid set of chromosomes derived from father. Is not a human being.

Foetus - Developing/Developed organism where every cell is diploid and contains a full set of 23 human chromosonal pairs. Contains all the genetic information for personality, hair colour, height, predisposition for illness, intelligence etc.
By any scientific definition, is a human being.


To say a foetus is not a human life is to ignore basic biological science.

You are interchangeably using terms like human being and human life. Think about that

A human being is a human life. Do you disagree??

When does sentience begin? A blade of grass is no more alive than a freshly fertilized egg. A single-cell organism is not a sentient life. You can't have sentience without a functioning brain and central nervous system. You need more than one cell to form a brain.

But of course this is all academic. The principle of bodily autonomy still stands regardless of when you think life begins. The only person with any right to decide what to do with a pregnancy is the mother concerned. All other parties need to mind their own business. They need to adopt Omajoe's policy of "I'm hardly likely to be drawn in to comment on anyone's personal situation when i know sfa about it.." His own words.

Quote from: Baile Brigín 2 on October 22, 2019, 11:21:36 PM

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 22, 2019, 11:15:57 PM

Quote from: Baile Brigín 2 on October 22, 2019, 11:07:57 PM

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 22, 2019, 10:43:09 PM

Quote from: Baile Brigín 2 on October 22, 2019, 10:19:02 PM

Quote from: RedHand88 on October 22, 2019, 10:08:01 PM

Quote from: Baile Brigín 2 on October 22, 2019, 09:45:23 PM

Quote from: hardstation on October 22, 2019, 09:40:01 PM
Whatever your views on the rights & wrongs of abortion, saying that it is not human life until it is born (and has a birth certificate) is stretching the narrative into the "mental as fcuk" realms.

The disputed phrase was 'a human'.

If it's not a human.... what is it??

A foetus. Potentially human.

Theres nothing potential about any stage of the human lifecycle they have been a human since conception.

Is that science or Catholic theology?

I love the fact 'science' is invoked to exactly match what the church settled on, having allowed abortion for over a thousand years,  with zero backup.

This is why you list last year. Total gobbeldygook

You and Eamonn seem to be the only ones mentioning Catholicism
If your against anything they're for, at least admit to it.

Dont take my word on the science at all it pretty basic level stuff children learn about it at 3-6 years old, we havent even got into unique DNA or anything else.
But at least look into it yourself and be open minded to your opinion when exploring the facts.
Let the facts form your opinion not the other way around I mean that genuinely

Its quite the coincidence that the antis here are using theological phrases and passing them off as science and claiming unanimity.

Science is not even almost united and certainly not around your position derived from a middle eastern moral code.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/abortion/child/alive_1.shtml

Science is completely united that a foetus is a human (and BTW human life = human, there is no difference). Its science fact, not theory, not even consensus.... its science fact.

Not sure what the middle eastern moral code is your on about but trying to relate this debate to Catholicism is just a straw man

Quote from: Angelo on October 22, 2019, 11:21:01 PM
I find the prospect of abortion not only being legal but also normalised and socially acceptable as the death knell of any morality in society.

To see SF then parading this as some sort of victory is a major insult to a big base of their long term voting core.

Yeah, we should go back 50, or 30, or 20 years before society started this great moral decline.

Back when an oppressed woman would keep her f**king mouth shut and members of the church as society's moral guardian could rape kids to their hearts' content without having to worry about any consequences.

The good old days, eh?

Quote from: Angelo on October 22, 2019, 11:21:01 PM
I find the prospect of abortion not only being legal but also normalised and socially acceptable as the death knell of any morality in society.

To see SF then parading this as some sort of victory is a major insult to a big base of their long term voting core.

It's good to see nobody is getting away with hyperbole on here anyway... what nonsense!!!

What do you mean by socially acceptable?? As if women in that situation feel it's ok to have an abortion and it's no big deal?

I've been following the debate on this for a long time and in countries that have had legal abortion for a lot longer than here and I've yet to hear a story where it hasn't been a difficult decision for the woman involved.

There may be anecdotal cases which I haven't seen but to pass this off as women having sex all over the place without protection and having a dozen abortions doesn't sound within the realms of possibility.

I actually agree about the celebrating I don't think it's a situation worth celebrating and having a party over but then I'm not a woman who has had her rights denied for such a long time!!

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on October 22, 2019, 11:27:18 PM
When does sentience begin? A blade of grass is no more alive than a freshly fertilized egg. A single-cell organism is not a sentient life. You can't have sentience without a functioning brain and central nervous system. You need more than one cell to form a brain.

But of course this is all academic. The principle of bodily autonomy still stands regardless of when you think life begins. The only person with any right to decide what to do with a pregnancy is the mother concerned. All other parties need to mind their own business. They need to adopt Omajoe's policy of "I'm hardly likely to be drawn in to comment on anyone's personal situation when i know sfa about it.." His own words.

Very good Eamon  ;) not going commenting any more on that

But then if bodily autonomy trumps all doesnt that also apply to the human who is having their life snuffed out?

We've been thru the sentience argument b4 your opening a can of worms because:

you dont know where sentience begins or ends brain or no brain,
does this apply to a fully grown person who is not conscious?
a brain is formed at 5/6 weeks

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 22, 2019, 11:28:31 PM

Quote from: Baile Brigín 2 on October 22, 2019, 11:21:36 PM

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 22, 2019, 11:15:57 PM

Quote from: Baile Brigín 2 on October 22, 2019, 11:07:57 PM

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 22, 2019, 10:43:09 PM

Quote from: Baile Brigín 2 on October 22, 2019, 10:19:02 PM

Quote from: RedHand88 on October 22, 2019, 10:08:01 PM

Quote from: Baile Brigín 2 on October 22, 2019, 09:45:23 PM

Quote from: hardstation on October 22, 2019, 09:40:01 PM
Whatever your views on the rights & wrongs of abortion, saying that it is not human life until it is born (and has a birth certificate) is stretching the narrative into the "mental as fcuk" realms.

The disputed phrase was 'a human'.

If it's not a human.... what is it??

A foetus. Potentially human.

Theres nothing potential about any stage of the human lifecycle they have been a human since conception.

Is that science or Catholic theology?

I love the fact 'science' is invoked to exactly match what the church settled on, having allowed abortion for over a thousand years,  with zero backup.

This is why you list last year. Total gobbeldygook

You and Eamonn seem to be the only ones mentioning Catholicism
If your against anything they're for, at least admit to it.

Dont take my word on the science at all it pretty basic level stuff children learn about it at 3-6 years old, we havent even got into unique DNA or anything else.
But at least look into it yourself and be open minded to your opinion when exploring the facts.
Let the facts form your opinion not the other way around I mean that genuinely

Its quite the coincidence that the antis here are using theological phrases and passing them off as science and claiming unanimity.

Science is not even almost united and certainly not around your position derived from a middle eastern moral code.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/abortion/child/alive_1.shtml

Science is completely united that a foetus is a human (and BTW human life = human, there is no difference). Its science fact, not theory, not even consensus.... its science fact.

Not sure what the middle eastern moral code is your on about but trying to relate this debate to Catholicism is just a straw man

Science is not united on that you madman.

Quote from: Angelo on October 22, 2019, 11:21:01 PM
I find the prospect of abortion not only being legal but also normalised and socially acceptable as the death knell of any morality in society.

To see SF then parading this as some sort of victory is a major insult to a big base of their long term voting core.

May we remind ourselves that the church allowed abortion up until the 18th century. In fact one of St Brigids miracles was performing one. Odd that gets ignored

Quote from: Baile Brigín 2 on October 22, 2019, 11:37:40 PM

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 22, 2019, 11:28:31 PM

Quote from: Baile Brigín 2 on October 22, 2019, 11:21:36 PM

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 22, 2019, 11:15:57 PM

Quote from: Baile Brigín 2 on October 22, 2019, 11:07:57 PM

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 22, 2019, 10:43:09 PM

Quote from: Baile Brigín 2 on October 22, 2019, 10:19:02 PM

Quote from: RedHand88 on October 22, 2019, 10:08:01 PM

Quote from: Baile Brigín 2 on October 22, 2019, 09:45:23 PM

Quote from: hardstation on October 22, 2019, 09:40:01 PM
Whatever your views on the rights & wrongs of abortion, saying that it is not human life until it is born (and has a birth certificate) is stretching the narrative into the "mental as fcuk" realms.

The disputed phrase was 'a human'.

If it's not a human.... what is it??

A foetus. Potentially human.

Theres nothing potential about any stage of the human lifecycle they have been a human since conception.

Is that science or Catholic theology?

I love the fact 'science' is invoked to exactly match what the church settled on, having allowed abortion for over a thousand years,  with zero backup.

This is why you list last year. Total gobbeldygook

You and Eamonn seem to be the only ones mentioning Catholicism
If your against anything they're for, at least admit to it.

Dont take my word on the science at all it pretty basic level stuff children learn about it at 3-6 years old, we havent even got into unique DNA or anything else.
But at least look into it yourself and be open minded to your opinion when exploring the facts.
Let the facts form your opinion not the other way around I mean that genuinely

Its quite the coincidence that the antis here are using theological phrases and passing them off as science and claiming unanimity.

Science is not even almost united and certainly not around your position derived from a middle eastern moral code.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/abortion/child/alive_1.shtml

Science is completely united that a foetus is a human (and BTW human life = human, there is no difference). Its science fact, not theory, not even consensus.... its science fact.

Not sure what the middle eastern moral code is your on about but trying to relate this debate to Catholicism is just a straw man

Science is not united on that you madman.

So where are these scientists  that dont believe a human is a human?

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 22, 2019, 11:37:21 PM

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on October 22, 2019, 11:27:18 PM
When does sentience begin? A blade of grass is no more alive than a freshly fertilized egg. A single-cell organism is not a sentient life. You can't have sentience without a functioning brain and central nervous system. You need more than one cell to form a brain.

But of course this is all academic. The principle of bodily autonomy still stands regardless of when you think life begins. The only person with any right to decide what to do with a pregnancy is the mother concerned. All other parties need to mind their own business. They need to adopt Omajoe's policy of "I'm hardly likely to be drawn in to comment on anyone's personal situation when i know sfa about it.." His own words.

Very good Eamon  ;) not going commenting any more on that

But then if bodily autonomy trumps all doesnt that also apply to the human who is having their life snuffed out?

We've been thru the sentience argument b4 your opening a can of worms because:

you dont know where sentience begins or ends brain or no brain,
does this apply to a fully grown person who is not conscious?
a brain is formed at 5/6 weeks

Fine. Let the mother die then. Force women to give birth to stillborn babies. Deny women the right to decide what to do with their own bodies.

What's it going to be next? Reopening the Magdalene laundries?

Get into the 21st century with the rest of us.

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on October 22, 2019, 11:42:45 PM

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 22, 2019, 11:37:21 PM

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on October 22, 2019, 11:27:18 PM
When does sentience begin? A blade of grass is no more alive than a freshly fertilized egg. A single-cell organism is not a sentient life. You can't have sentience without a functioning brain and central nervous system. You need more than one cell to form a brain.

But of course this is all academic. The principle of bodily autonomy still stands regardless of when you think life begins. The only person with any right to decide what to do with a pregnancy is the mother concerned. All other parties need to mind their own business. They need to adopt Omajoe's policy of "I'm hardly likely to be drawn in to comment on anyone's personal situation when i know sfa about it.." His own words.

Very good Eamon  ;) not going commenting any more on that

But then if bodily autonomy trumps all doesnt that also apply to the human who is having their life snuffed out?

We've been thru the sentience argument b4 your opening a can of worms because:

you dont know where sentience begins or ends brain or no brain,
does this apply to a fully grown person who is not conscious?
a brain is formed at 5/6 weeks

Fine. Let the mother die then. Force women to give birth to stillborn babies. Deny women the right to decide what to do with their own bodies.

What's it going to be next? Reopening the Magdalene laundries?

Get into the 21st century with the rest of us.

As I have said before this debate for me is about on demand abortion, not sure of the particulars of the NI prior to being forced upon us by the Brits but I believe that there was provision for medical emergencies that you mentioned, so really your point is just an appeal to extremism.

At the end of the day you can break it down whatever way you want. But surely we have a right to protect those who cannot speak? When you break it down into arguments of weeks and development etc - I feel the point is being wasted completely. Children will not come into this world because of developments in our law. One life lost is surely too many? When I think of this debate, Avril Monaghan always enters my head. I wonder do the Monaghan family mourn two victims or four?

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 22, 2019, 11:47:03 PM

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on October 22, 2019, 11:42:45 PM

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 22, 2019, 11:37:21 PM

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on October 22, 2019, 11:27:18 PM
When does sentience begin? A blade of grass is no more alive than a freshly fertilized egg. A single-cell organism is not a sentient life. You can't have sentience without a functioning brain and central nervous system. You need more than one cell to form a brain.

But of course this is all academic. The principle of bodily autonomy still stands regardless of when you think life begins. The only person with any right to decide what to do with a pregnancy is the mother concerned. All other parties need to mind their own business. They need to adopt Omajoe's policy of "I'm hardly likely to be drawn in to comment on anyone's personal situation when i know sfa about it.." His own words.

Very good Eamon  ;) not going commenting any more on that

But then if bodily autonomy trumps all doesnt that also apply to the human who is having their life snuffed out?

We've been thru the sentience argument b4 your opening a can of worms because:

you dont know where sentience begins or ends brain or no brain,
does this apply to a fully grown person who is not conscious?
a brain is formed at 5/6 weeks

Fine. Let the mother die then. Force women to give birth to stillborn babies. Deny women the right to decide what to do with their own bodies.

What's it going to be next? Reopening the Magdalene laundries?

Get into the 21st century with the rest of us.

As I have said before this debate for me is about on demand abortion, not sure of the particulars of the NI prior to being forced upon us by the Brits but I believe that there was provision for medical emergencies that you mentioned, so really your point is just an appeal to extremism.

As would most, why would you think this opens up the door to rampant abortion? Where is the evidence of this? They've been driven to go to England to have back street abortions, no one in their right mind will go through that just for the craic.

Being told you have a terminal ill child growing in your body or a child with a hole in the skull or other life limiting conditions that the child would barely get by without the help of life support services is that ok?

If your wife was raped, fell pregnant and you decided to keep the child, I get that, it's not the child's fault, but the decision for me would lie with the woman.

On demand abortion... f**k sakes what's the point in debating that shit??

Quote from: screenexile on October 23, 2019, 12:22:50 AM
On demand abortion... f**k sakes what's the point in debating that shit??

Anyone who talks about "abortion on demand" is basically trying to make it sound like women just decide on a whim to get an abortion, as if it's as easy as choosing from a fast food menu.

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on October 22, 2019, 11:42:45 PM

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 22, 2019, 11:37:21 PM

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on October 22, 2019, 11:27:18 PM
When does sentience begin? A blade of grass is no more alive than a freshly fertilized egg. A single-cell organism is not a sentient life. You can't have sentience without a functioning brain and central nervous system. You need more than one cell to form a brain.

But of course this is all academic. The principle of bodily autonomy still stands regardless of when you think life begins. The only person with any right to decide what to do with a pregnancy is the mother concerned. All other parties need to mind their own business. They need to adopt Omajoe's policy of "I'm hardly likely to be drawn in to comment on anyone's personal situation when i know sfa about it.." His own words.

Very good Eamon  ;) not going commenting any more on that

But then if bodily autonomy trumps all doesnt that also apply to the human who is having their life snuffed out?

We've been thru the sentience argument b4 your opening a can of worms because:

you dont know where sentience begins or ends brain or no brain,
does this apply to a fully grown person who is not conscious?
a brain is formed at 5/6 weeks

Fine. Let the mother die then. Force women to give birth to stillborn babies. Deny women the right to decide what to do with their own bodies.

What's it going to be next? Reopening the Magdalene laundries?

Get into the 21st century with the rest of us.

The mother's life was always protected in NI law. Abortion was legal when her life was in danger.
You are wrong to use that as an excuse to radically change the law.

There's nothing "radical" about respecting a woman's bodily autonomy.

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on October 23, 2019, 12:31:30 AM

Quote from: screenexile on October 23, 2019, 12:22:50 AM
On demand abortion... f**k sakes what's the point in debating that shit??

Anyone who talks about "abortion on demand" is basically trying to make it sound like women just decide on a whim to get an abortion, as if it's as easy as choosing from a fast food menu.

Lads dont get in such a hissy fit. you dont hear me complain when you call it pro Choice yet the person who's life was taken had no choice at all...
Anyway I googled "on Demand definition" and I got
"as soon as or whenever required." Dont think theres too much in that really to be getting thick about.

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on October 23, 2019, 12:20:46 AM

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 22, 2019, 11:47:03 PM

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on October 22, 2019, 11:42:45 PM

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 22, 2019, 11:37:21 PM

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on October 22, 2019, 11:27:18 PM
When does sentience begin? A blade of grass is no more alive than a freshly fertilized egg. A single-cell organism is not a sentient life. You can't have sentience without a functioning brain and central nervous system. You need more than one cell to form a brain.

But of course this is all academic. The principle of bodily autonomy still stands regardless of when you think life begins. The only person with any right to decide what to do with a pregnancy is the mother concerned. All other parties need to mind their own business. They need to adopt Omajoe's policy of "I'm hardly likely to be drawn in to comment on anyone's personal situation when i know sfa about it.." His own words.

Very good Eamon  ;) not going commenting any more on that

But then if bodily autonomy trumps all doesnt that also apply to the human who is having their life snuffed out?

We've been thru the sentience argument b4 your opening a can of worms because:

you dont know where sentience begins or ends brain or no brain,
does this apply to a fully grown person who is not conscious?
a brain is formed at 5/6 weeks

Fine. Let the mother die then. Force women to give birth to stillborn babies. Deny women the right to decide what to do with their own bodies.

What's it going to be next? Reopening the Magdalene laundries?

Get into the 21st century with the rest of us.

As I have said before this debate for me is about on demand abortion, not sure of the particulars of the NI prior to being forced upon us by the Brits but I believe that there was provision for medical emergencies that you mentioned, so really your point is just an appeal to extremism.

As would most, why would you think this opens up the door to rampant abortion? Where is the evidence of this? They've been driven to go to England to have back street abortions, no one in their right mind will go through that just for the craic.

Being told you have a terminal ill child growing in your body or a child with a hole in the skull or other life limiting conditions that the child would barely get by without the help of life support services is that ok?

If your wife was raped, fell pregnant and you decided to keep the child, I get that, it's not the child's fault, but the decision for me would lie with the woman.

I dont think it will open the flood gates just that it will increase but it's a mute point anyway as far as most people are concerned it's just point scoring and irrelevant to people's opinion.

Your points are good ones tho MR2 and i would wrangle with them a lot but practically no piece of legislation is never cut and dry 100% of the time.
90%+ of the cases relate to abortion on demand of an unplanned but otherwise healthy pregnancy so that's what I think should be legislated for.
And that's without getting into the other side of the coin. Where pregnancies are aborted because of superficial things like club foot or cleft lip or even the wrong gender.
Also the abortion lobby puts a lot of misinformation out there... "not even a human just a clump of cells" isnt a new one yet it persists as we can see.

The flood gates have already opened.

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 23, 2019, 06:03:23 AM

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on October 23, 2019, 12:20:46 AM

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 22, 2019, 11:47:03 PM

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on October 22, 2019, 11:42:45 PM

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 22, 2019, 11:37:21 PM

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on October 22, 2019, 11:27:18 PM
When does sentience begin? A blade of grass is no more alive than a freshly fertilized egg. A single-cell organism is not a sentient life. You can't have sentience without a functioning brain and central nervous system. You need more than one cell to form a brain.

But of course this is all academic. The principle of bodily autonomy still stands regardless of when you think life begins. The only person with any right to decide what to do with a pregnancy is the mother concerned. All other parties need to mind their own business. They need to adopt Omajoe's policy of "I'm hardly likely to be drawn in to comment on anyone's personal situation when i know sfa about it.." His own words.

Very good Eamon  ;) not going commenting any more on that

But then if bodily autonomy trumps all doesnt that also apply to the human who is having their life snuffed out?

We've been thru the sentience argument b4 your opening a can of worms because:

you dont know where sentience begins or ends brain or no brain,
does this apply to a fully grown person who is not conscious?
a brain is formed at 5/6 weeks

Fine. Let the mother die then. Force women to give birth to stillborn babies. Deny women the right to decide what to do with their own bodies.

What's it going to be next? Reopening the Magdalene laundries?

Get into the 21st century with the rest of us.

As I have said before this debate for me is about on demand abortion, not sure of the particulars of the NI prior to being forced upon us by the Brits but I believe that there was provision for medical emergencies that you mentioned, so really your point is just an appeal to extremism.

As would most, why would you think this opens up the door to rampant abortion? Where is the evidence of this? They've been driven to go to England to have back street abortions, no one in their right mind will go through that just for the craic.

Being told you have a terminal ill child growing in your body or a child with a hole in the skull or other life limiting conditions that the child would barely get by without the help of life support services is that ok?

If your wife was raped, fell pregnant and you decided to keep the child, I get that, it's not the child's fault, but the decision for me would lie with the woman.

I dont think it will open the flood gates just that it will increase but it's a mute point anyway as far as most people are concerned it's just point scoring and irrelevant to people's opinion.

Your points are good ones tho MR2 and i would wrangle with them a lot but practically no piece of legislation is never cut and dry 100% of the time.
90%+ of the cases relate to abortion on demand of an unplanned but otherwise healthy pregnancy so that's what I think should be legislated for.
And that's without getting into the other side of the coin. Where pregnancies are aborted because of superficial things like club foot or cleft lip or even the wrong gender.
Also the abortion lobby puts a lot of misinformation out there... "not even a human just a clump of cells" isnt a new one yet it persists as we can see.

Look I'm the father of a a grown man who was not planned, though born into a loving relationship at the time,  I was only 19, thinking WTF!, abortion never came into our thoughts and while it was difficult and as our relationship fell down we still had our child, which was one of the best unplanned things that Ive ever done, unborn children do deserve to be given a chance and my sister has two children from adoption that she would never had that chance, should abortion been readily available for the girl, as she was unable to look after them.

But there seems to be words like murder and killing and other such words which don't help, there are many cases, some of which I've mentin which need to be Looked at by the pro life people. Anyone uses words like on demand need to get a grip, the thoughts that go through a persons head if faced with the prospect of bringing up a baby alone with no money and future (in their head) must be awful..

I've two daughters also one 18 and the other 16 (next week) and i'm in a position where if something like an unplanned pregnacy happened the child would brought up in a loving  supportive family. That's not always available

Quote from: TwoUpTwoDown on October 22, 2019, 11:54:03 PM
At the end of the day you can break it down whatever way you want. But surely we have a right to protect those who cannot speak? When you break it down into arguments of weeks and development etc - I feel the point is being wasted completely. Children will not come into this world because of developments in our law. One life lost is surely too many? When I think of this debate, Avril Monaghan always enters my head. I wonder do the Monaghan family mourn two victims or four?

When I think of this debate, I think of young rape victims. I immediately thought of a story I read the other day about the 15 year old with learning difficulties in Armagh who was raped by two Romanian nationals. To my knowledge she didn't fall pregnant but the thought of someone in her position being forced to go through with a pregnancy is disgusting.

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 22, 2019, 11:28:31 PM

Quote from: Baile Brigín 2 on October 22, 2019, 11:21:36 PM

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 22, 2019, 11:15:57 PM

Quote from: Baile Brigín 2 on October 22, 2019, 11:07:57 PM

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 22, 2019, 10:43:09 PM

Quote from: Baile Brigín 2 on October 22, 2019, 10:19:02 PM

Quote from: RedHand88 on October 22, 2019, 10:08:01 PM

Quote from: Baile Brigín 2 on October 22, 2019, 09:45:23 PM

Quote from: hardstation on October 22, 2019, 09:40:01 PM
Whatever your views on the rights & wrongs of abortion, saying that it is not human life until it is born (and has a birth certificate) is stretching the narrative into the "mental as fcuk" realms.

The disputed phrase was 'a human'.

If it's not a human.... what is it??

A foetus. Potentially human.

Theres nothing potential about any stage of the human lifecycle they have been a human since conception.

Is that science or Catholic theology?

I love the fact 'science' is invoked to exactly match what the church settled on, having allowed abortion for over a thousand years,  with zero backup.

This is why you list last year. Total gobbeldygook

You and Eamonn seem to be the only ones mentioning Catholicism
If your against anything they're for, at least admit to it.

Dont take my word on the science at all it pretty basic level stuff children learn about it at 3-6 years old, we havent even got into unique DNA or anything else.
But at least look into it yourself and be open minded to your opinion when exploring the facts.
Let the facts form your opinion not the other way around I mean that genuinely

Its quite the coincidence that the antis here are using theological phrases and passing them off as science and claiming unanimity.

Science is not even almost united and certainly not around your position derived from a middle eastern moral code.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/abortion/child/alive_1.shtml

Science is completely united that a foetus is a human (and BTW human life = human, there is no difference). Its science fact, not theory, not even consensus.... its science fact.

Not sure what the middle eastern moral code is your on about but trying to relate this debate to Catholicism is just a straw man

I mean a simple google search will show you that science is not untied on this

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on October 23, 2019, 09:14:34 AM

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 23, 2019, 06:03:23 AM

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on October 23, 2019, 12:20:46 AM

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 22, 2019, 11:47:03 PM

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on October 22, 2019, 11:42:45 PM

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 22, 2019, 11:37:21 PM

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on October 22, 2019, 11:27:18 PM
When does sentience begin? A blade of grass is no more alive than a freshly fertilized egg. A single-cell organism is not a sentient life. You can't have sentience without a functioning brain and central nervous system. You need more than one cell to form a brain.

But of course this is all academic. The principle of bodily autonomy still stands regardless of when you think life begins. The only person with any right to decide what to do with a pregnancy is the mother concerned. All other parties need to mind their own business. They need to adopt Omajoe's policy of "I'm hardly likely to be drawn in to comment on anyone's personal situation when i know sfa about it.." His own words.

Very good Eamon  ;) not going commenting any more on that

But then if bodily autonomy trumps all doesnt that also apply to the human who is having their life snuffed out?

We've been thru the sentience argument b4 your opening a can of worms because:

you dont know where sentience begins or ends brain or no brain,
does this apply to a fully grown person who is not conscious?
a brain is formed at 5/6 weeks

Fine. Let the mother die then. Force women to give birth to stillborn babies. Deny women the right to decide what to do with their own bodies.

What's it going to be next? Reopening the Magdalene laundries?

Get into the 21st century with the rest of us.

As I have said before this debate for me is about on demand abortion, not sure of the particulars of the NI prior to being forced upon us by the Brits but I believe that there was provision for medical emergencies that you mentioned, so really your point is just an appeal to extremism.

As would most, why would you think this opens up the door to rampant abortion? Where is the evidence of this? They've been driven to go to England to have back street abortions, no one in their right mind will go through that just for the craic.

Being told you have a terminal ill child growing in your body or a child with a hole in the skull or other life limiting conditions that the child would barely get by without the help of life support services is that ok?

If your wife was raped, fell pregnant and you decided to keep the child, I get that, it's not the child's fault, but the decision for me would lie with the woman.

I dont think it will open the flood gates just that it will increase but it's a mute point anyway as far as most people are concerned it's just point scoring and irrelevant to people's opinion.

Your points are good ones tho MR2 and i would wrangle with them a lot but practically no piece of legislation is never cut and dry 100% of the time.
90%+ of the cases relate to abortion on demand of an unplanned but otherwise healthy pregnancy so that's what I think should be legislated for.
And that's without getting into the other side of the coin. Where pregnancies are aborted because of superficial things like club foot or cleft lip or even the wrong gender.
Also the abortion lobby puts a lot of misinformation out there... "not even a human just a clump of cells" isnt a new one yet it persists as we can see.

Look I'm the father of a a grown man who was not planned, though born into a loving relationship at the time,  I was only 19, thinking WTF!, abortion never came into our thoughts and while it was difficult and as our relationship fell down we still had our child, which was one of the best unplanned things that Ive ever done, unborn children do deserve to be given a chance and my sister has two children from adoption that she would never had that chance, should abortion been readily available for the girl, as she was unable to look after them.

But there seems to be words like murder and killing and other such words which don't help, there are many cases, some of which I've mentin which need to be Looked at by the pro life people. Anyone uses words like on demand need to get a grip, the thoughts that go through a persons head if faced with the prospect of bringing up a baby alone with no money and future (in their head) must be awful..

I've two daughters also one 18 and the other 16 (next week) and i'm in a position where if something like an unplanned pregnacy happened the child would brought up in a loving  supportive family. That's not always available

In 2018 in England and wales there were 200,608 abortions. It does look a bit like "on demand". There is no way that there were 200,608 rapes, fatal foetal, medical emergencies, incest. If there was well we need to be looking more deeply at how our society in operating.

Bringing up a child with no money is not a precursor to having no future, it should never be accepted as an excuse for an abortion. We live in a society where people's coping mechanisms having plummeted, it is no surprise that a lack of coping mechanisms is linked to the increase in suicide here.

For me the bill which has been introduced is far too loose.

Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 23, 2019, 10:37:26 AM

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on October 23, 2019, 09:14:34 AM

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 23, 2019, 06:03:23 AM

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on October 23, 2019, 12:20:46 AM

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 22, 2019, 11:47:03 PM

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on October 22, 2019, 11:42:45 PM

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 22, 2019, 11:37:21 PM

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on October 22, 2019, 11:27:18 PM
When does sentience begin? A blade of grass is no more alive than a freshly fertilized egg. A single-cell organism is not a sentient life. You can't have sentience without a functioning brain and central nervous system. You need more than one cell to form a brain.

But of course this is all academic. The principle of bodily autonomy still stands regardless of when you think life begins. The only person with any right to decide what to do with a pregnancy is the mother concerned. All other parties need to mind their own business. They need to adopt Omajoe's policy of "I'm hardly likely to be drawn in to comment on anyone's personal situation when i know sfa about it.." His own words.

Very good Eamon  ;) not going commenting any more on that

But then if bodily autonomy trumps all doesnt that also apply to the human who is having their life snuffed out?

We've been thru the sentience argument b4 your opening a can of worms because:

you dont know where sentience begins or ends brain or no brain,
does this apply to a fully grown person who is not conscious?
a brain is formed at 5/6 weeks

Fine. Let the mother die then. Force women to give birth to stillborn babies. Deny women the right to decide what to do with their own bodies.

What's it going to be next? Reopening the Magdalene laundries?

Get into the 21st century with the rest of us.

As I have said before this debate for me is about on demand abortion, not sure of the particulars of the NI prior to being forced upon us by the Brits but I believe that there was provision for medical emergencies that you mentioned, so really your point is just an appeal to extremism.

As would most, why would you think this opens up the door to rampant abortion? Where is the evidence of this? They've been driven to go to England to have back street abortions, no one in their right mind will go through that just for the craic.

Being told you have a terminal ill child growing in your body or a child with a hole in the skull or other life limiting conditions that the child would barely get by without the help of life support services is that ok?

If your wife was raped, fell pregnant and you decided to keep the child, I get that, it's not the child's fault, but the decision for me would lie with the woman.

I dont think it will open the flood gates just that it will increase but it's a mute point anyway as far as most people are concerned it's just point scoring and irrelevant to people's opinion.

Your points are good ones tho MR2 and i would wrangle with them a lot but practically no piece of legislation is never cut and dry 100% of the time.
90%+ of the cases relate to abortion on demand of an unplanned but otherwise healthy pregnancy so that's what I think should be legislated for.
And that's without getting into the other side of the coin. Where pregnancies are aborted because of superficial things like club foot or cleft lip or even the wrong gender.
Also the abortion lobby puts a lot of misinformation out there... "not even a human just a clump of cells" isnt a new one yet it persists as we can see.

Look I'm the father of a a grown man who was not planned, though born into a loving relationship at the time,  I was only 19, thinking WTF!, abortion never came into our thoughts and while it was difficult and as our relationship fell down we still had our child, which was one of the best unplanned things that Ive ever done, unborn children do deserve to be given a chance and my sister has two children from adoption that she would never had that chance, should abortion been readily available for the girl, as she was unable to look after them.

But there seems to be words like murder and killing and other such words which don't help, there are many cases, some of which I've mentin which need to be Looked at by the pro life people. Anyone uses words like on demand need to get a grip, the thoughts that go through a persons head if faced with the prospect of bringing up a baby alone with no money and future (in their head) must be awful..

I've two daughters also one 18 and the other 16 (next week) and i'm in a position where if something like an unplanned pregnacy happened the child would brought up in a loving  supportive family. That's not always available

In 2018 in England and wales there were 200,608 abortions. It does look a bit like "on demand". There is no way that there were 200,608 rapes, fatal foetal, medical emergencies, incest. If there was well we need to be looking more deeply at how our society in operating.

Bringing up a child with no money is not a precursor to having no future, it should never be accepted as an excuse for an abortion. We live in a society where people's coping mechanisms having plummeted, it is no surprise that a lack of coping mechanisms is linked to the increase in suicide here.

For me the bill which has been introduced is far too loose.

Does that exclude in the case of someone very young, the trauma of pregnancy and birth, the mental well being of the mother during and after the birth, the resentment that mother may feel towards the child which might as we have seen repeatedly on the news manifest itself in ugly forms, would you rather a child live, have a horrible few years and die in awful circumstances.  I am not a woman, I don't have sisters, but I have a mother, a wife and daughters, in a situation with a stable home and stable minds I think best endeavours would ensure any unplanned child is cared for and loved, but that is not the case in many many instances, I think each case is unique and, due to huge cuts, there little or no governmental support out there  so for me the best person to adjudge what is right for them is the mother and her wider support group, if such exists. 

Quote from: t_mac on October 23, 2019, 10:55:51 AM

Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 23, 2019, 10:37:26 AM

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on October 23, 2019, 09:14:34 AM

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 23, 2019, 06:03:23 AM

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on October 23, 2019, 12:20:46 AM

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 22, 2019, 11:47:03 PM

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on October 22, 2019, 11:42:45 PM

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 22, 2019, 11:37:21 PM

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on October 22, 2019, 11:27:18 PM
When does sentience begin? A blade of grass is no more alive than a freshly fertilized egg. A single-cell organism is not a sentient life. You can't have sentience without a functioning brain and central nervous system. You need more than one cell to form a brain.

But of course this is all academic. The principle of bodily autonomy still stands regardless of when you think life begins. The only person with any right to decide what to do with a pregnancy is the mother concerned. All other parties need to mind their own business. They need to adopt Omajoe's policy of "I'm hardly likely to be drawn in to comment on anyone's personal situation when i know sfa about it.." His own words.

Very good Eamon  ;) not going commenting any more on that

But then if bodily autonomy trumps all doesnt that also apply to the human who is having their life snuffed out?

We've been thru the sentience argument b4 your opening a can of worms because:

you dont know where sentience begins or ends brain or no brain,
does this apply to a fully grown person who is not conscious?
a brain is formed at 5/6 weeks

Fine. Let the mother die then. Force women to give birth to stillborn babies. Deny women the right to decide what to do with their own bodies.

What's it going to be next? Reopening the Magdalene laundries?

Get into the 21st century with the rest of us.

As I have said before this debate for me is about on demand abortion, not sure of the particulars of the NI prior to being forced upon us by the Brits but I believe that there was provision for medical emergencies that you mentioned, so really your point is just an appeal to extremism.

As would most, why would you think this opens up the door to rampant abortion? Where is the evidence of this? They've been driven to go to England to have back street abortions, no one in their right mind will go through that just for the craic.

Being told you have a terminal ill child growing in your body or a child with a hole in the skull or other life limiting conditions that the child would barely get by without the help of life support services is that ok?

If your wife was raped, fell pregnant and you decided to keep the child, I get that, it's not the child's fault, but the decision for me would lie with the woman.

I dont think it will open the flood gates just that it will increase but it's a mute point anyway as far as most people are concerned it's just point scoring and irrelevant to people's opinion.

Your points are good ones tho MR2 and i would wrangle with them a lot but practically no piece of legislation is never cut and dry 100% of the time.
90%+ of the cases relate to abortion on demand of an unplanned but otherwise healthy pregnancy so that's what I think should be legislated for.
And that's without getting into the other side of the coin. Where pregnancies are aborted because of superficial things like club foot or cleft lip or even the wrong gender.
Also the abortion lobby puts a lot of misinformation out there... "not even a human just a clump of cells" isnt a new one yet it persists as we can see.

Look I'm the father of a a grown man who was not planned, though born into a loving relationship at the time,  I was only 19, thinking WTF!, abortion never came into our thoughts and while it was difficult and as our relationship fell down we still had our child, which was one of the best unplanned things that Ive ever done, unborn children do deserve to be given a chance and my sister has two children from adoption that she would never had that chance, should abortion been readily available for the girl, as she was unable to look after them.

But there seems to be words like murder and killing and other such words which don't help, there are many cases, some of which I've mentin which need to be Looked at by the pro life people. Anyone uses words like on demand need to get a grip, the thoughts that go through a persons head if faced with the prospect of bringing up a baby alone with no money and future (in their head) must be awful..

I've two daughters also one 18 and the other 16 (next week) and i'm in a position where if something like an unplanned pregnacy happened the child would brought up in a loving  supportive family. That's not always available

In 2018 in England and wales there were 200,608 abortions. It does look a bit like "on demand". There is no way that there were 200,608 rapes, fatal foetal, medical emergencies, incest. If there was well we need to be looking more deeply at how our society in operating.

Bringing up a child with no money is not a precursor to having no future, it should never be accepted as an excuse for an abortion. We live in a society where people's coping mechanisms having plummeted, it is no surprise that a lack of coping mechanisms is linked to the increase in suicide here.

For me the bill which has been introduced is far too loose.

Does that exclude in the case of someone very young, the trauma of pregnancy and birth, the mental well being of the mother during and after the birth, the resentment that mother may feel towards the child which might as we have seen repeatedly on the news manifest itself in ugly forms, would you rather a child live, have a horrible few years and die in awful circumstances.  I am not a woman, I don't have sisters, but I have a mother, a wife and daughters, in a situation with a stable home and stable minds I think best endeavours would ensure any unplanned child is cared for and loved, but that is not the case in many many instances, I think each case is unique and, due to huge cuts, there little or no governmental support out there  so for me the best person to adjudge what is right for them is the mother and her wider support group, if such exists.

You have not listed one reason that I would view as acceptable for having an abortion. You have listed tough scenarios.

.

Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 23, 2019, 10:37:26 AM

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on October 23, 2019, 09:14:34 AM

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 23, 2019, 06:03:23 AM

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on October 23, 2019, 12:20:46 AM

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 22, 2019, 11:47:03 PM

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on October 22, 2019, 11:42:45 PM

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 22, 2019, 11:37:21 PM

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on October 22, 2019, 11:27:18 PM
When does sentience begin? A blade of grass is no more alive than a freshly fertilized egg. A single-cell organism is not a sentient life. You can't have sentience without a functioning brain and central nervous system. You need more than one cell to form a brain.

But of course this is all academic. The principle of bodily autonomy still stands regardless of when you think life begins. The only person with any right to decide what to do with a pregnancy is the mother concerned. All other parties need to mind their own business. They need to adopt Omajoe's policy of "I'm hardly likely to be drawn in to comment on anyone's personal situation when i know sfa about it.." His own words.

Very good Eamon  ;) not going commenting any more on that

But then if bodily autonomy trumps all doesnt that also apply to the human who is having their life snuffed out?

We've been thru the sentience argument b4 your opening a can of worms because:

you dont know where sentience begins or ends brain or no brain,
does this apply to a fully grown person who is not conscious?
a brain is formed at 5/6 weeks

Fine. Let the mother die then. Force women to give birth to stillborn babies. Deny women the right to decide what to do with their own bodies.

What's it going to be next? Reopening the Magdalene laundries?

Get into the 21st century with the rest of us.

As I have said before this debate for me is about on demand abortion, not sure of the particulars of the NI prior to being forced upon us by the Brits but I believe that there was provision for medical emergencies that you mentioned, so really your point is just an appeal to extremism.

As would most, why would you think this opens up the door to rampant abortion? Where is the evidence of this? They've been driven to go to England to have back street abortions, no one in their right mind will go through that just for the craic.

Being told you have a terminal ill child growing in your body or a child with a hole in the skull or other life limiting conditions that the child would barely get by without the help of life support services is that ok?

If your wife was raped, fell pregnant and you decided to keep the child, I get that, it's not the child's fault, but the decision for me would lie with the woman.

I dont think it will open the flood gates just that it will increase but it's a mute point anyway as far as most people are concerned it's just point scoring and irrelevant to people's opinion.

Your points are good ones tho MR2 and i would wrangle with them a lot but practically no piece of legislation is never cut and dry 100% of the time.
90%+ of the cases relate to abortion on demand of an unplanned but otherwise healthy pregnancy so that's what I think should be legislated for.
And that's without getting into the other side of the coin. Where pregnancies are aborted because of superficial things like club foot or cleft lip or even the wrong gender.
Also the abortion lobby puts a lot of misinformation out there... "not even a human just a clump of cells" isnt a new one yet it persists as we can see.

Look I'm the father of a a grown man who was not planned, though born into a loving relationship at the time,  I was only 19, thinking WTF!, abortion never came into our thoughts and while it was difficult and as our relationship fell down we still had our child, which was one of the best unplanned things that Ive ever done, unborn children do deserve to be given a chance and my sister has two children from adoption that she would never had that chance, should abortion been readily available for the girl, as she was unable to look after them.

But there seems to be words like murder and killing and other such words which don't help, there are many cases, some of which I've mentin which need to be Looked at by the pro life people. Anyone uses words like on demand need to get a grip, the thoughts that go through a persons head if faced with the prospect of bringing up a baby alone with no money and future (in their head) must be awful..

I've two daughters also one 18 and the other 16 (next week) and i'm in a position where if something like an unplanned pregnacy happened the child would brought up in a loving  supportive family. That's not always available

In 2018 in England and wales there were 200,608 abortions. It does look a bit like "on demand". There is no way that there were 200,608 rapes, fatal foetal, medical emergencies, incest. If there was well we need to be looking more deeply at how our society in operating.

Bringing up a child with no money is not a precursor to having no future, it should never be accepted as an excuse for an abortion. We live in a society where people's coping mechanisms having plummeted, it is no surprise that a lack of coping mechanisms is linked to the increase in suicide here.

For me the bill which has been introduced is far too loose.

How many pregnancies were there?

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on October 22, 2019, 10:58:40 PM
(https://media1.tenor.com/images/edce3f378e73ea765803e97971db1b39/tenor.gif?itemid=14269125)

You sum up everything f=cked up about lefties. Crying on the depression thread, yet you post this vile condescending diatribe.

Usual manchurian candidate stuff from the pro aborts. Misogyny,  women haters, body autonomy, cave dwellers, world is flat, all spin words from marketing companies.

As for Sein Fein, at least they're consistent never had any regard for human life.

Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 23, 2019, 11:21:57 AM

Quote from: t_mac on October 23, 2019, 10:55:51 AM

Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 23, 2019, 10:37:26 AM

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on October 23, 2019, 09:14:34 AM

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 23, 2019, 06:03:23 AM

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on October 23, 2019, 12:20:46 AM

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 22, 2019, 11:47:03 PM

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on October 22, 2019, 11:42:45 PM

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 22, 2019, 11:37:21 PM

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on October 22, 2019, 11:27:18 PM
When does sentience begin? A blade of grass is no more alive than a freshly fertilized egg. A single-cell organism is not a sentient life. You can't have sentience without a functioning brain and central nervous system. You need more than one cell to form a brain.

But of course this is all academic. The principle of bodily autonomy still stands regardless of when you think life begins. The only person with any right to decide what to do with a pregnancy is the mother concerned. All other parties need to mind their own business. They need to adopt Omajoe's policy of "I'm hardly likely to be drawn in to comment on anyone's personal situation when i know sfa about it.." His own words.

Very good Eamon  ;) not going commenting any more on that

But then if bodily autonomy trumps all doesnt that also apply to the human who is having their life snuffed out?

We've been thru the sentience argument b4 your opening a can of worms because:

you dont know where sentience begins or ends brain or no brain,
does this apply to a fully grown person who is not conscious?
a brain is formed at 5/6 weeks

Fine. Let the mother die then. Force women to give birth to stillborn babies. Deny women the right to decide what to do with their own bodies.

What's it going to be next? Reopening the Magdalene laundries?

Get into the 21st century with the rest of us.

As I have said before this debate for me is about on demand abortion, not sure of the particulars of the NI prior to being forced upon us by the Brits but I believe that there was provision for medical emergencies that you mentioned, so really your point is just an appeal to extremism.

As would most, why would you think this opens up the door to rampant abortion? Where is the evidence of this? They've been driven to go to England to have back street abortions, no one in their right mind will go through that just for the craic.

Being told you have a terminal ill child growing in your body or a child with a hole in the skull or other life limiting conditions that the child would barely get by without the help of life support services is that ok?

If your wife was raped, fell pregnant and you decided to keep the child, I get that, it's not the child's fault, but the decision for me would lie with the woman.

I dont think it will open the flood gates just that it will increase but it's a mute point anyway as far as most people are concerned it's just point scoring and irrelevant to people's opinion.

Your points are good ones tho MR2 and i would wrangle with them a lot but practically no piece of legislation is never cut and dry 100% of the time.
90%+ of the cases relate to abortion on demand of an unplanned but otherwise healthy pregnancy so that's what I think should be legislated for.
And that's without getting into the other side of the coin. Where pregnancies are aborted because of superficial things like club foot or cleft lip or even the wrong gender.
Also the abortion lobby puts a lot of misinformation out there... "not even a human just a clump of cells" isnt a new one yet it persists as we can see.

Look I'm the father of a a grown man who was not planned, though born into a loving relationship at the time,  I was only 19, thinking WTF!, abortion never came into our thoughts and while it was difficult and as our relationship fell down we still had our child, which was one of the best unplanned things that Ive ever done, unborn children do deserve to be given a chance and my sister has two children from adoption that she would never had that chance, should abortion been readily available for the girl, as she was unable to look after them.

But there seems to be words like murder and killing and other such words which don't help, there are many cases, some of which I've mentin which need to be Looked at by the pro life people. Anyone uses words like on demand need to get a grip, the thoughts that go through a persons head if faced with the prospect of bringing up a baby alone with no money and future (in their head) must be awful..

I've two daughters also one 18 and the other 16 (next week) and i'm in a position where if something like an unplanned pregnacy happened the child would brought up in a loving  supportive family. That's not always available

In 2018 in England and wales there were 200,608 abortions. It does look a bit like "on demand". There is no way that there were 200,608 rapes, fatal foetal, medical emergencies, incest. If there was well we need to be looking more deeply at how our society in operating.

Bringing up a child with no money is not a precursor to having no future, it should never be accepted as an excuse for an abortion. We live in a society where people's coping mechanisms having plummeted, it is no surprise that a lack of coping mechanisms is linked to the increase in suicide here.

For me the bill which has been introduced is far too loose.

Does that exclude in the case of someone very young, the trauma of pregnancy and birth, the mental well being of the mother during and after the birth, the resentment that mother may feel towards the child which might as we have seen repeatedly on the news manifest itself in ugly forms, would you rather a child live, have a horrible few years and die in awful circumstances.  I am not a woman, I don't have sisters, but I have a mother, a wife and daughters, in a situation with a stable home and stable minds I think best endeavours would ensure any unplanned child is cared for and loved, but that is not the case in many many instances, I think each case is unique and, due to huge cuts, there little or no governmental support out there  so for me the best person to adjudge what is right for them is the mother and her wider support group, if such exists.

You have not listed one reason that I would view as acceptable for having an abortion. You have listed tough scenarios.

.

I am not condoning abortion, and I have no desire, nor do I care, if I can't give you a view as to when abortion is acceptable.  I am merely stating that each circumstance is different and the final decision should be for the mother and her wider family / support network if she happens to have one.

Quote from: tonto1888 on October 23, 2019, 11:22:20 AM

Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 23, 2019, 10:37:26 AM

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on October 23, 2019, 09:14:34 AM

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 23, 2019, 06:03:23 AM

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on October 23, 2019, 12:20:46 AM

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 22, 2019, 11:47:03 PM

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on October 22, 2019, 11:42:45 PM

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 22, 2019, 11:37:21 PM

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on October 22, 2019, 11:27:18 PM
When does sentience begin? A blade of grass is no more alive than a freshly fertilized egg. A single-cell organism is not a sentient life. You can't have sentience without a functioning brain and central nervous system. You need more than one cell to form a brain.

But of course this is all academic. The principle of bodily autonomy still stands regardless of when you think life begins. The only person with any right to decide what to do with a pregnancy is the mother concerned. All other parties need to mind their own business. They need to adopt Omajoe's policy of "I'm hardly likely to be drawn in to comment on anyone's personal situation when i know sfa about it.." His own words.

Very good Eamon  ;) not going commenting any more on that

But then if bodily autonomy trumps all doesnt that also apply to the human who is having their life snuffed out?

We've been thru the sentience argument b4 your opening a can of worms because:

you dont know where sentience begins or ends brain or no brain,
does this apply to a fully grown person who is not conscious?
a brain is formed at 5/6 weeks

Fine. Let the mother die then. Force women to give birth to stillborn babies. Deny women the right to decide what to do with their own bodies.

What's it going to be next? Reopening the Magdalene laundries?

Get into the 21st century with the rest of us.

As I have said before this debate for me is about on demand abortion, not sure of the particulars of the NI prior to being forced upon us by the Brits but I believe that there was provision for medical emergencies that you mentioned, so really your point is just an appeal to extremism.

As would most, why would you think this opens up the door to rampant abortion? Where is the evidence of this? They've been driven to go to England to have back street abortions, no one in their right mind will go through that just for the craic.

Being told you have a terminal ill child growing in your body or a child with a hole in the skull or other life limiting conditions that the child would barely get by without the help of life support services is that ok?

If your wife was raped, fell pregnant and you decided to keep the child, I get that, it's not the child's fault, but the decision for me would lie with the woman.

I dont think it will open the flood gates just that it will increase but it's a mute point anyway as far as most people are concerned it's just point scoring and irrelevant to people's opinion.

Your points are good ones tho MR2 and i would wrangle with them a lot but practically no piece of legislation is never cut and dry 100% of the time.
90%+ of the cases relate to abortion on demand of an unplanned but otherwise healthy pregnancy so that's what I think should be legislated for.
And that's without getting into the other side of the coin. Where pregnancies are aborted because of superficial things like club foot or cleft lip or even the wrong gender.
Also the abortion lobby puts a lot of misinformation out there... "not even a human just a clump of cells" isnt a new one yet it persists as we can see.

Look I'm the father of a a grown man who was not planned, though born into a loving relationship at the time,  I was only 19, thinking WTF!, abortion never came into our thoughts and while it was difficult and as our relationship fell down we still had our child, which was one of the best unplanned things that Ive ever done, unborn children do deserve to be given a chance and my sister has two children from adoption that she would never had that chance, should abortion been readily available for the girl, as she was unable to look after them.

But there seems to be words like murder and killing and other such words which don't help, there are many cases, some of which I've mentin which need to be Looked at by the pro life people. Anyone uses words like on demand need to get a grip, the thoughts that go through a persons head if faced with the prospect of bringing up a baby alone with no money and future (in their head) must be awful..

I've two daughters also one 18 and the other 16 (next week) and i'm in a position where if something like an unplanned pregnacy happened the child would brought up in a loving  supportive family. That's not always available

In 2018 in England and wales there were 200,608 abortions. It does look a bit like "on demand". There is no way that there were 200,608 rapes, fatal foetal, medical emergencies, incest. If there was well we need to be looking more deeply at how our society in operating.

Bringing up a child with no money is not a precursor to having no future, it should never be accepted as an excuse for an abortion. We live in a society where people's coping mechanisms having plummeted, it is no surprise that a lack of coping mechanisms is linked to the increase in suicide here.

For me the bill which has been introduced is far too loose.

How many pregnancies were there?

657,076

1 out of every 3 wains was dumped in the bin.

On demand id say

Quote from: t_mac on October 23, 2019, 10:55:51 AM


Does that exclude in the case of someone very young, the trauma of pregnancy and birth, the mental well being of the mother during and after the birth, the resentment that mother may feel towards the child which might as we have seen repeatedly on the news manifest itself in ugly forms, would you rather a child live, have a horrible few years and die in awful circumstances.  I am not a woman, I don't have sisters, but I have a mother, a wife and daughters, in a situation with a stable home and stable minds I think best endeavours would ensure any unplanned child is cared for and loved, but that is not the case in many many instances, I think each case is unique and, due to huge cuts, there little or no governmental support out there  so for me the best person to adjudge what is right for them is the mother and her wider support group, if such exists.

Absolutely not, sure aren't they only stupid sluts who should have known better?

Quote from: Rudi on October 23, 2019, 11:28:10 AM

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on October 22, 2019, 10:58:40 PM
(https://media1.tenor.com/images/edce3f378e73ea765803e97971db1b39/tenor.gif?itemid=14269125)

You sum up everything f=cked up about lefties. Crying on the depression thread, yet you post this vile condescending diatribe.

Usual manchurian candidate stuff from the pro aborts. Misogyny,  women haters, body autonomy, cave dwellers, world is flat, all spin words from marketing companies.

As for Sein Fein, at least they're consistent never had any regard for human life.

You make a great point in regards to the ballot box. Where does a Republican or Nationalist voter turn in the North now? Any options outside Aontu? Didn't think the political situation could get any bleaker here.

Quote from: TwoUpTwoDown on October 23, 2019, 11:59:08 AM

Quote from: Rudi on October 23, 2019, 11:28:10 AM

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on October 22, 2019, 10:58:40 PM
(https://media1.tenor.com/images/edce3f378e73ea765803e97971db1b39/tenor.gif?itemid=14269125)

You sum up everything f=cked up about lefties. Crying on the depression thread, yet you post this vile condescending diatribe.

Usual manchurian candidate stuff from the pro aborts. Misogyny,  women haters, body autonomy, cave dwellers, world is flat, all spin words from marketing companies.

As for Sein Fein, at least they're consistent never had any regard for human life.

You make a great point in regards to the ballot box. Where does a Republican or Nationalist voter turn in the North now? Any options outside Aontu? Didn't think the political situation could get any bleaker here.

I think this illustrates the huge divide or difference between north and south nowadays - the south has changed dramatically over this this past 25 years and they look at the north as a backward place.

I'd never have thought the Repeal would have passed with such a high majority.   Can probably safely now say there is complete seperation between state and church in the 26.

Also when posting, can you start a new one after 5 or 6 copies instead of a full page of previous posts with your submission at bottom?

Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 23, 2019, 11:21:57 AM

Quote from: t_mac on October 23, 2019, 10:55:51 AM

Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 23, 2019, 10:37:26 AM

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on October 23, 2019, 09:14:34 AM

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 23, 2019, 06:03:23 AM

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on October 23, 2019, 12:20:46 AM

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 22, 2019, 11:47:03 PM

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on October 22, 2019, 11:42:45 PM

Quote from: omaghjoe on October 22, 2019, 11:37:21 PM

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on October 22, 2019, 11:27:18 PM
When does sentience begin? A blade of grass is no more alive than a freshly fertilized egg. A single-cell organism is not a sentient life. You can't have sentience without a functioning brain and central nervous system. You need more than one cell to form a brain.

But of course this is all academic. The principle of bodily autonomy still stands regardless of when you think life begins. The only person with any right to decide what to do with a pregnancy is the mother concerned. All other parties need to mind their own business. They need to adopt Omajoe's policy of "I'm hardly likely to be drawn in to comment on anyone's personal situation when i know sfa about it.." His own words.

Very good Eamon  ;) not going commenting any more on that

But then if bodily autonomy trumps all doesnt that also apply to the human who is having their life snuffed out?

We've been thru the sentience argument b4 your opening a can of worms because:

you dont know where sentience begins or ends brain or no brain,
does this apply to a fully grown person who is not conscious?
a brain is formed at 5/6 weeks

Fine. Let the mother die then. Force women to give birth to stillborn babies. Deny women the right to decide what to do with their own bodies.

What's it going to be next? Reopening the Magdalene laundries?

Get into the 21st century with the rest of us.

As I have said before this debate for me is about on demand abortion, not sure of the particulars of the NI prior to being forced upon us by the Brits but I believe that there was provision for medical emergencies that you mentioned, so really your point is just an appeal to extremism.

As would most, why would you think this opens up the door to rampant abortion? Where is the evidence of this? They've been driven to go to England to have back street abortions, no one in their right mind will go through that just for the craic.

Being told you have a terminal ill child growing in your body or a child with a hole in the skull or other life limiting conditions that the child would barely get by without the help of life support services is that ok?

If your wife was raped, fell pregnant and you decided to keep the child, I get that, it's not the child's fault, but the decision for me would lie with the woman.

I dont think it will open the flood gates just that it will increase but it's a mute point anyway as far as most people are concerned it's just point scoring and irrelevant to people's opinion.

Your points are good ones tho MR2 and i would wrangle with them a lot but practically no piece of legislation is never cut and dry 100% of the time.
90%+ of the cases relate to abortion on demand of an unplanned but otherwise healthy pregnancy so that's what I think should be legislated for.
And that's without getting into the other side of the coin. Where pregnancies are aborted because of superficial things like club foot or cleft lip or even the wrong gender.
Also the abortion lobby puts a lot of misinformation out there... "not even a human just a clump of cells" isnt a new one yet it persists as we can see.

Look I'm the father of a a grown man who was not planned, though born into a loving relationship at the time,  I was only 19, thinking WTF!, abortion never came into our thoughts and while it was difficult and as our relationship fell down we still had our child, which was one of the best unplanned things that Ive ever done, unborn children do deserve to be given a chance and my sister has two children from adoption that she would never had that chance, should abortion been readily available for the girl, as she was unable to look after them.

But there seems to be words like murder and killing and other such words which don't help, there are many cases, some of which I've mentin which need to be Looked at by the pro life people. Anyone uses words like on demand need to get a grip, the thoughts that go through a persons head if faced with the prospect of bringing up a baby alone with no money and future (in their head) must be awful..

I've two daughters also one 18 and the other 16 (next week) and i'm in a position where if something like an unplanned pregnacy happened the child would brought up in a loving  supportive family. That's not always available

In 2018 in England and wales there were 200,608 abortions. It does look a bit like "on demand". There is no way that there were 200,608 rapes, fatal foetal, medical emergencies, incest. If there was well we need to be looking more deeply at how our society in operating.

Bringing up a child with no money is not a precursor to having no future, it should never be accepted as an excuse for an abortion. We live in a society where people's coping mechanisms having plummeted, it is no surprise that a lack of coping mechanisms is linked to the increase in suicide here.

For me the bill which has been introduced is far too loose.

Does that exclude in the case of someone very young, the trauma of pregnancy and birth, the mental well being of the mother during and after the birth, the resentment that mother may feel towards the child which might as we have seen repeatedly on the news manifest itself in ugly forms, would you rather a child live, have a horrible few years and die in awful circumstances.  I am not a woman, I don't have sisters, but I have a mother, a wife and daughters, in a situation with a stable home and stable minds I think best endeavours would ensure any unplanned child is cared for and loved, but that is not the case in many many instances, I think each case is unique and, due to huge cuts, there little or no governmental support out there  so for me the best person to adjudge what is right for them is the mother and her wider support group, if such exists.

You have not listed one reason that I would view as acceptable for having an abortion. You have listed tough scenarios.

.

So don't have one

Quote from: TwoUpTwoDown on October 23, 2019, 11:59:08 AM

Quote from: Rudi on October 23, 2019, 11:28:10 AM

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on October 22, 2019, 10:58:40 PM
(https://media1.tenor.com/images/edce3f378e73ea765803e97971db1b39/tenor.gif?itemid=14269125)

You sum up everything f=cked up about lefties. Crying on the depression thread, yet you post this vile condescending diatribe.

Usual manchurian candidate stuff from the pro aborts. Misogyny,  women haters, body autonomy, cave dwellers, world is flat, all spin words from marketing companies.

As for Sein Fein, at least they're consistent never had any regard for human life.

You make a great point in regards to the ballot box. Where does a Republican or Nationalist voter turn in the North now? Any options outside Aontu? Didn't think the political situation could get any bleaker here.

There's always the DUP. They were against SSM and abortion.