Just seen this film on tonight, I didnt get watching it but I have seen it a few times. If there is a part of Irish history I am ashamed off this would be it. It's scary the control the Catholic church had over people.
How could anyone send their daughters to places like these, rip new born babies from their child and send them God knows where, refuse to believe sexual abuse allegations against priests etc.
I cant make any sense of it, where people brainwashed or what?!
It was horrific Pints but it was part of our history I'm also ashamed to say.
But don't forget - the church had absolute and total control back then - you dare not say a word about them or you'd have been banished. So it's difficult to criticise our parents etc - the authorities knew full well it was going on and allowed it to happen. Shame on them.
No, first and foremost Id blame the parents who allowed and supported their daughters to be treated in such a way and it's scary to think that it's really not that long ago. We laugh at these suicide bombers thinking if they blow themselves up they'll be rewarded with virgins in heaven when really a few years ago Irish people had just as silly notions. (Some would still have them today) I just can't get my head around it at all.
Difficult to understand Pints, i sometimes wonder if we are judging these events in the moral,social and informational context of the present time, and forgetting that things were very different back then in terms of information, opportunity,and moral outlook. The care of the elderly, and mentally ill in institutions both here and in Britian during the 50s and early 60s would today be described as appalling abuse. Yet people were doing the best they could with very limited knowledge and resources. While there undoubtedly failures on the part of the Catholic Church, the crux of the problem was political failure, and all shades of society share the responsibility for that
Quote from: Take Your Points on December 30, 2008, 11:53:07 PM
Excellent post, Pangurban
Context is everything. The Church did exert control over the people which cannot be understood today because of the way we view the Church and its representatives today. This is not to excuse what happened to people during those times. The state and individuals asked religious orders to take on work that they would not do themselves and in some cases individuals over-stepped the mark causing unacceptable hurt and harm to innocents. Is the treatment of the unmarried mothers and their children worse than a modern alternative where they are sent to the UK for abortions?
Judgement is often too easy from the comfort of our modern moral high ground.
I don't know if we can let the religious institutions off as easily as that TYP. When a woman is raped, that isn't "over-stepping the mark", its evil on a huge scale and made worse by the fact that these people used their position in society to manipulate people for their own ends and those in overall authority involved in cover-ups became complicit in this evil.
But what about the parents who let it happen?
None of it would have happened if the priest, when he arrived at the door, was told to f**k off.
Pint asks....But what about the parents who let it happen
There is a certain element in Irish society who are ultra-conservative, sanctimonious and hypocritical, they still exist today. I suspect that the parents of these unfortunate victims inhabited this group. Some of them were simple minded conformists, while others were small minded, money grubbing tyrants with pretensions of respectability.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on December 31, 2008, 12:36:35 AM
But what about the parents who let it happen?
None of it would have happened if the priest, when he arrived at the door, was told to f**k off.
Pints - you know that that was NEVER going to happen. It was the times they lived in - don't condemn them for that - surely you can scratch your head and wonder about it but don't condemn them.
Quote
Pints - you know that that was NEVER going to happen. It was the times they lived in - don't condemn them for that - surely you can scratch your head and wonder about it but don't condemn them.
I do blame them, how can anyone be so stupid, so brain washed!
Same with the sex abuse allegations, children didnt tell because their parents wouldnt believe that about the priest?
I just dont get it. I cant even think of a modern day example that would explain it or make me understand.
Quote from: Pangurban on December 30, 2008, 11:28:58 PM
Difficult to understand Pints, i sometimes wonder if we are judging these events in the moral,social and informational context of the present time, and forgetting that things were very different back then in terms of information, opportunity,and moral outlook. The care of the elderly, and mentally ill in institutions both here and in Britian during the 50s and early 60s would today be described as appalling abuse. Yet people were doing the best they could with very limited knowledge and resources. While there undoubtedly failures on the part of the Catholic Church, the crux of the problem was political failure, and all shades of society share the responsibility for that
I didnt watch the film, but since first hearing the song the Magdalene Launderies, Ive been interested and shocked by some of the stories from that time.
With respect Pangurban - I dont think that the information ,opportunity nor morality of the time had any consequence whatsoever on the ability of men and women (both of the cloth, and lay people) to inflict some of the most horrendous evil upon the innocents of the time. Many people were working the best the could with limited knowledge and resources, but it takes neither for a priest/bishop/brother/headmaster to prey (and make no mistake - they preyed (the irony)) opon the weak, upon the position of the church at the time, and furthermore upon the poor people who really were those who were limited in both knowledge and resources. Resources, knowledge and the political environment (about which I know little) may somewhat explain the canings and harsh punishments - but not the rape, abuse and systematic coverups by Evil men and women who hid behind dog collars and the catholic guilt, two things that they knew would keep the victims quiet, and they exploited magnificently.
I just finished reading a book called "Please dont make me go" by John Fenton. The memoirs of a young english catholic lad - who was systemaitically beaten, and watched his mother beaten by his Irish father. When he fought back, the father had him thrown in a correctional school run by the Christian Brothers. He loved God, loved the catholic faith - but by Christ did he hate those brothers.
Worth a read.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inteWfmzui0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inteWfmzui0) Joni Mitchells Magdalene launderies - Moore and Sinnot.
Quote from: Take Your Points on December 30, 2008, 11:53:07 PM
Is the treatment of the unmarried mothers and their children worse than a modern alternative where they are sent to the UK for abortions?
Judgement is often too easy from the comfort of our modern moral high ground.
Im not quite sure what you mean regarding the "sending" of unmarried mothers to the UK for abortions?
Id wager a bet that if the girls washed through the magdalene launderies were given the opportunities and support available to their unmarried pregnant counterparts in 2009 -they wouldnt hesitate to let us know which options seem better suited.
The comfort of my moral highground isnt necessary for the condemning of individual acts of evil, and the unfortunate covering up of these acts by those who didnt have the strength to tell the truth because it would have damaged the Church. My opinion is that these revelations have damaged the church, but the church is not God, nor is it goodness. For all the good that the church does do it is a human institution and therefore is as subject to corruptivity as the NYPD. The church was necessary, and is necessary, but not at the expense of the covering up of so much as one act of abuse by its members, IMHO.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on December 31, 2008, 02:38:05 AM
Quote
Pints - you know that that was NEVER going to happen. It was the times they lived in - don't condemn them for that - surely you can scratch your head and wonder about it but don't condemn them.
I do blame them, how can anyone be so stupid, so brain washed!
Same with the sex abuse allegations, children didnt tell because their parents wouldnt believe that about the priest?
I just dont get it. I cant even think of a modern day example that would explain it or make me understand.
Of course it's beyond our comprehension but look at today's front page in the IN about the cops in Castlereagh and Gough Barracks. You know what I mean ?.
Some good points there. It would be interesting to try to make a list of some of the things we accept as normal in today's society that will be viewed as reprehensible in 50 years' time. Hard isn't it? I'm willing to bet it will be the things we least expect, so I'm not sure what to put my hand up for now and take the blame for letting it happen, even though nobody around me seems to see anything wrong with it. I'm sure the Magdalene laundries were viewed with universal approval 50 years ago - works of charity, etc. - probably in much the same way that many view, say, the Equality Agency today.
Quote from: orangeman on December 31, 2008, 03:38:57 AM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on December 31, 2008, 02:38:05 AM
Quote
Pints - you know that that was NEVER going to happen. It was the times they lived in - don't condemn them for that - surely you can scratch your head and wonder about it but don't condemn them.
I do blame them, how can anyone be so stupid, so brain washed!
Same with the sex abuse allegations, children didnt tell because their parents wouldnt believe that about the priest?
I just dont get it. I cant even think of a modern day example that would explain it or make me understand.
Of course it's beyond our comprehension but look at today's front page in the IN about the cops in Castlereagh and Gough Barracks. You know what I mean ?.
Not really, no.
Quote from: Hardy on December 31, 2008, 08:21:18 AM
Some good points there. It would be interesting to try to make a list of some of the things we accept as normal in today's society that will be viewed as reprehensible in 50 years' time. Hard isn't it? I'm willing to bet it will be the things we least expect, so I'm not sure what to put my hand up for now and take the blame for letting it happen, even though nobody around me seems to see anything wrong with it. I'm sure the Magdalene laundries were viewed with universal approval 50 years ago - works of charity, etc. - probably in much the same way that many view, say, the Equality Agency today.
Smoking was good for you.
The Ulster Fry was a hearty breakfast
Fish on a Friday
Limbo
Some possibilities:
- Meat eating will be outlawed and all us carnivores will be vilified as equivalent to cannibals.
- Animal "rights" will be promoted to the extent that it will be illegal to kill an animal (and, horror, horse racing will be abolished). Our turn-of the century attitude to animals will be seen as savage.
- The age of consent will be continually lowered and children's rights will be continually promoted to the level where paedophilia will be an irrelevant concept. The jailing of paedophiles in our time will be seen as discriminatory and backward (I must emphasise that I think we're right and they will be very wrong).
- The prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual preference will reach its logical conclusion(s) - use your imagination.
- The right to self expression and freedom of the individual will reach its logical conclusion(s) - expect to see people defecating in the streets, for instance.
Think it's fantastical?
Who, 50 years ago, would have predicted the demise of the church and its influence on society?
Who would have predicted the legalisation of homosexuality?
Who would have anticipated the effective disappearance of censorship of any kind in the media?
Of course an opposite outcome is also possible - society is due, sometime this century, to undergo one of its periodic cycle reversals and we'll lurch in the direction of curtailed freedoms, greater control - back to something like Victorian values.
Interesting question Hardy, I cant see the meat thing though, animals have been killed for food since the beginning of time.
I think a lot of things will be commonplace in 50 years, discrimination of any kind towards homosexuals will be gone (I think there are correlations between how homosexauls are viewed now and how an unmarried mother was viewed 50 years ago).
Transexuals will be common.
Designer babies will be common. - bad
I with you that the age of consent, I could see it being lowered to 13 or 14. (very wrong imo and yes, we will be right on this one)
Sadly, abortions in Ireland will be common.
The big one though, future generations will curse us for our pollution.
Quote from: Hardy on December 31, 2008, 10:02:46 AM
- The right to self expression and freedom of the individual will reach its logical conclusion(s) - expect to see people defecating in the streets, for instance.
Jeepers, they're forward thinking folk we have in Armagh today. I've a new-found respect for the Orchard.
I first saw the film a few years ago and again last night. I have to say that, prior to first seeing the film, I had no idea these places existed, I'm ashamed to say. I found the film very powerful and when, at the end in the credits, it was stated the last laundry closed as recently as 1996, I was shocked.
I think it was typical of some parts of the Irish psyche (out of sight, out of mind and head in the sand syndromes). I suspect the laundry was more suited to poorer families as those with money avaiable would be able to send their daughters to England for abortions. I can find no mention of any action against the men who fathered these children, again typical in all societies.
Also surprising in today's times, I find no residents of the laundries seeking reparation as many other victims of abuse from the purveyors of the Catholic religion are now embarked upon. Surely, the residents, if anybody, have an excellent case.
Quote from: Pangurban on December 30, 2008, 11:28:58 PM
i sometimes wonder if we are judging these events in the moral,social and informational context of the present time, and forgetting that things were very different back then in terms of information, opportunity,and moral outlook.
Of course morality and social attitudes e.g. as regards homosexuality, divorce, children born out of wedlock etc have changed in recent decades.
But the point is that the physical and sexual abuse, the financial exploitation and deprivation etc which went on in these Magdalen Laundries was regarded as wrong, even sinful, in the 1950's etc. Which is why it was covered up so carefully. Had such treatment been "acceptable" to the families of the abused girls specifically, or the public generally, the Church wouldn't have had to keep it hidden from the outside world, or go to such lengths to keep the victims quiet, even years after their torment had ended.
In the end, to punish a teenage girl for being raped, for instance, whilst turning a blind eye to the man who raped her, is utterly immoral and contrary to the professed teachings of the Church, whether we are talking the 1st Century, the 21st Century, or any point in between.
Lads don't also forget that the poor lads from Artane didn't have their qualifications there recognized by the Trade Unions so they were denied entry to trades and apprenticeships AFTER leaving these homes. Emigrant ships and poverty was to be their only future I'm sad to say.
Very easy to solely blame the Brothers for all what happened. Alot more to it imo.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on December 31, 2008, 02:38:05 AM
Quote
Pints - you know that that was NEVER going to happen. It was the times they lived in - don't condemn them for that - surely you can scratch your head and wonder about it but don't condemn them.
I do blame them, how can anyone be so stupid, so brain washed!
Same with the sex abuse allegations, children didn't tell because their parents wouldn't believe that about the priest?
I just dont get it. I cant even think of a modern day example that would explain it or make me understand.
Why are you looking for someone in particular to blame?
I don't think you quite grasp the impact of the "children didn't tell because their parents wouldn't believe" thing.
After a scandal shit hit the fan in our home town a few years ago, I was trying to explain to my mother (who was looking for somebody to blame or find some scapegoat) about how the child abuse could continue to operate on a sustained level in any town, because of a shared social complicity.
I tried to explain that not only would a kid not be believed but would be beaten up for trying to explain. I tried to tell her that the biggest "sin" inflicted was a retarded social structure where a kid would not to be believed by one's own parents. That no matter how horrific the abuse, not even one's own parents would listen, never mind believe. Paralysing fear kept a kid's mouth shut.
She could not accept that abused children wouldn't be believed. So I said, 'you know so and so' a deceased family member and some sort of a Christian brother 'he was a pervert', 'you know all those times he invited me out, those were times he was building up to a futile attempt to try it on'. I got no response, she tried to change the subject, I asked her 'do you not believe me?' still no response, I said I have been you son for so many years, I am an adult and still you don't believe me, what chance has a kid got.
Ireland in the 50's the 60's the 70's and the 80's was more socially retarded, emotionally retarded, educationally retarded and religiously retarded society, all sorts of abuse could thrive in that atmosphere.
Allot of us young lads (and Lassies) simply do not understand the Power the clergy held. They controlled Schools, Dance Halls, Football clubs etc. If you were a politician and came up against them you would be criticised from the pulpit - which meant losing your seat. This was POWER. I used to go to Church in the wife's home place in the midlands. The Parish Priest there was of old stock and you could see the way he approached things with his sermons that the 50's way was still with him. Strangely i used to love going to church there (in a perverse way) as it was like a time tunnel to the past.
Characteristics that he had were;
He saw everybody as below himself.
You are all going to hell was his usual theme.
Mass was serious and there would be no light moments such as a smile.
In order to be religious you must look miserable.
Weddings were about how the woman must obey the man and they should have hundreds of children.
He refused to have children baptised where the couple were not married (Lets forget that Mary was a single mother when she originally was carrying Jesus).
He would only mingle with a certain class of people.
He has since passed away to be replaced by completely opposite radical priest. Now here is the punch line. Most of the older people in the parish cannot accept this new priest and would rather the 50's
Quote from: Evil Genius on December 31, 2008, 06:51:12 PM
Quote from: Pangurban on December 30, 2008, 11:28:58 PM
i sometimes wonder if we are judging these events in the moral,social and informational context of the present time, and forgetting that things were very different back then in terms of information, opportunity,and moral outlook.
Of course morality and social attitudes e.g. as regards homosexuality, divorce, children born out of wedlock etc have changed in recent decades.
But the point is that the physical and sexual abuse, the financial exploitation and deprivation etc which went on in these Magdalen Laundries was regarded as wrong, even sinful, in the 1950's etc. Which is why it was covered up so carefully. Had such treatment been "acceptable" to the families of the abused girls specifically, or the public generally, the Church wouldn't have had to keep it hidden from the outside world, or go to such lengths to keep the victims quiet, even years after their torment had ended.
In the end, to punish a teenage girl for being raped, for instance, whilst turning a blind eye to the man who raped her, is utterly immoral and contrary to the professed teachings of the Church, whether we are talking the 1st Century, the 21st Century, or any point in between.
In all seriousness, it didn't exist at all!
At least officially it was never averted to. I'm afraid it was a case of the three wise monkeys again; see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil.
Girls who got pregnant were considered to be responsible every time. Parents would feel it brought shame on the family name and if they hadn't the resources or the desire to send the poor girl to relatives in England or in large towns like Dublin they would consent to having her removed from public view. The only one who had no say in the matter was the victim. After the child was born, it was removed from the girl's keeping and the intention was that she would never see it again.
You have to keep in mind those girls and women were inferior beings. People who objected to what went on inside a Magdalene laundry kept quite about it. Most people in any event saw no wrong in what was happening before their eyes.
It certainly was a rough life for growing girls and to a degree for boys also. No one even mentioned the facts of life let alone give kids any sort of sex instruction.
It was the norm then to have large families. Sleeping space was invariably cramped with adolescent boys and girls sharing a common bedroom. As often as not a blanket strung across the room was the only privacy afforded to the girls at their end of the room.
Several older people have told me that incest was far more common than is generally admitted. It might not be siblings who carried out the rapes either. Adult relatives were often culpable and indeed members of the clergy were prone to succumb to temptation as well.
Even in a case where a complete stranger carried out such an act, the victim was likely to be held responsible.
For me, the politicians and state authorities knew full well what was going on but chose to ignore it. What they didn't like, they didn't see.
Children placed in institutions under the care of Christian Brothers and the likes suffered the same fate. I recall reading some correspondence between a schools' inspector who visited Letterfrack centre (Galway) in the 1930s and his immediate superior at the Department of Education.
The inspector wrote in to notify his superiors about the widespread beatings the boys were getting and the answer back was to ignore it as there was no alternative to having the brothers look after the children!
The same type of logic applied to unmarried mothers.
State and Church in general felt that pregnancies outside of wedlock were too much of a drain on resources and resorted to an Irish solution to an Irish problem.
Quote from: From the Bunker on December 31, 2008, 11:35:40 PM
Allot of us young lads (and Lassies) simply do not understand the Power the clergy held. They controlled Schools, Dance Halls, Football clubs etc. If you were a politician and came up against them you would be criticised from the pulpit - which meant losing your seat. This was POWER. I used to go to Church in the wife's home place in the midlands. The Parish Priest there was of old stock and you could see the way he approached things with his sermons that the 50's way was still with him. Strangely i used to love going to church there (in a perverse way) as it was like a time tunnel to the past.
Characteristics that he had were;
He saw everybody as below himself.
You are all going to hell was his usual theme.
Mass was serious and there would be no light moments such as a smile.
In order to be religious you must look miserable.
Weddings were about how the woman must obey the man and they should have hundreds of children.
He refused to have children baptised where the couple were not married (Lets forget that Mary was a single mother when she originally was carrying Jesus).
He would only mingle with a certain class of people.
He has since passed away to be replaced by completely opposite radical priest. Now here is the punch line. Most of the older people in the parish cannot accept this new priest and would rather the 50's
Just saw this post as I put up my last one.
Powerful stuff FoB!
I can identify with every line. ;D
QuoteAfter a scandal shit hit the fan in our home town a few years ago, I was trying to explain to my mother (who was looking for somebody to blame or find some scapegoat) about how the child abuse could continue to operate on a sustained level in any town, because of a shared social complicity.
I tried to explain that not only would a kid not be believed but would be beaten up for trying to explain. I tried to tell her that the biggest "sin" inflicted was a retarded social structure where a kid would not to be believed by one's own parents. That no matter how horrific the abuse, not even one's own parents would listen, never mind believe. Paralysing fear kept a kid's mouth shut.
She could not accept that abused children wouldn't be believed. So I said, 'you know so and so' a deceased family member and some sort of a Christian brother 'he was a pervert', 'you know all those times he invited me out, those were times he was building up to a futile attempt to try it on'. I got no response, she tried to change the subject, I asked her 'do you not believe me?' still no response, I said I have been you son for so many years, I am an adult and still you don't believe me, what chance has a kid got.
Ireland in the 50's the 60's the 70's and the 80's was more socially retarded, emotionally retarded, educationally retarded and religiously retarded society, all sorts of abuse could thrive in that atmosphere.
I understand that, but what I dont understand is why or how parents wouldnt/didnt believe their children. It's just beyond me.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on January 01, 2009, 12:38:59 AM
QuoteAfter a scandal shit hit the fan in our home town a few years ago, I was trying to explain to my mother (who was looking for somebody to blame or find some scapegoat) about how the child abuse could continue to operate on a sustained level in any town, because of a shared social complicity.
I tried to explain that not only would a kid not be believed but would be beaten up for trying to explain. I tried to tell her that the biggest "sin" inflicted was a retarded social structure where a kid would not to be believed by one's own parents. That no matter how horrific the abuse, not even one's own parents would listen, never mind believe. Paralysing fear kept a kid's mouth shut.
She could not accept that abused children wouldn't be believed. So I said, 'you know so and so' a deceased family member and some sort of a Christian brother 'he was a pervert', 'you know all those times he invited me out, those were times he was building up to a futile attempt to try it on'. I got no response, she tried to change the subject, I asked her 'do you not believe me?' still no response, I said I have been you son for so many years, I am an adult and still you don't believe me, what chance has a kid got.
Ireland in the 50's the 60's the 70's and the 80's was more socially retarded, emotionally retarded, educationally retarded and religiously retarded society, all sorts of abuse could thrive in that atmosphere.
I understand that, but what I dont understand is why or how parents wouldnt/didnt believe their children. It's just beyond me.
They were brainwashed - scared shitless of authority and what others might say - yes it's hard to understand but it was a different era.
That's shocking, down right murder.
And the apologists will come on making excuses now ::)
Quite shocking, imagine what it would be if abortion was available here.
Quote from: orangeman on December 31, 2008, 02:19:00 AM
Pints - you know that that was NEVER going to happen. It was the times they lived in - don't condemn them for that - surely you can scratch your head and wonder about it but don't condemn them.
Happened regular enough in Dublin. Priests occasionally got a good hiding too.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on January 02, 2009, 03:30:03 PM
And the apologists will come on making excuses now ::)
Quite shocking, imagine what it would be if abortion was available here.
the numbers would be the exact same and we wouldn't hypocritically and cynically be exporting our problems?
Quote from: dublinfella on January 02, 2009, 04:05:23 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on January 02, 2009, 03:30:03 PM
And the apologists will come on making excuses now ::)
Quite shocking, imagine what it would be if abortion was available here.
the numbers would be the exact same and we wouldn't hypocritically and cynically be exporting our problems?
How do you figure the numbers would be the same? They would be higher as it would be available on people's door steps.
We're not exporting our problems.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on January 02, 2009, 04:08:23 PM
How do you figure the numbers would be the same? They would be higher as it would be available on people's door steps.
We're not exporting our problems.
Women don't go and get scraped out because its 'on their doorstep'. They do it because for a variety of reasons they decide its the course of action for them, right or wrong. If you think that the flight to London is the deal breaker you are on cuckoo land. Google Nurse Cadden - abortions have been available illegally in Ireland since the year dot - at least women aren't dying in numbers anynmore.
Are you for real that we aren't exporting our problems? Its illegal for a woman to do it here, but no problem at all if they jump on a plane and do it elsewhere? How is that not cynical.
Quote from: Take Your Points on January 02, 2009, 03:18:59 PM
QuoteFigures released by Health Minister Michael McGimpsey show that there were 1,343 abortions carried out in England and Wales where the woman gave a home address in Northern Ireland in 2007 — the majority of which would be regarded as illegal here.
In N.Ireland the population is now considered to be 1.4 million and in 2006 the number of live births was 23272. Roughly on the basis of the 2007 abortion figures, there were at least 25070 pregnancies in N.I. in 2007. Therefore, the minimum percentage of children aborted was 5.36%. It will be much higher as Scotland provides a similar but closer abortion service for women from N.Ireland.
1.75m, according to a report released at the beginning of December.
Quote
Women don't go and get scraped out because its 'on their doorstep'. They do it because for a variety of reasons they decide its the course of action for them, right or wrong. If you think that the flight to London is the deal breaker you are on cuckoo land.
If a flight to London stops one selfish cow from aborting her baby then it's worth it.
How can banning abortion be exporting our problems, we've outlawed it. You cant stop someone going to England to get it done, unfortunately.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on January 02, 2009, 04:18:35 PM
If a flight to London stops one selfish cow from aborting her baby then it's worth it.
As said my me in another thread, you know the schools are out. Come back to me when you have lived a bit in the real world. What a cnut.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on January 02, 2009, 04:18:35 PMHow can banning abortion be exporting our problems, we've outlawed it. You cant stop someone going to England to get it done, unfortunately.
But you can stop someone going to England to plant a bomb, rob a bank etc. Why do you think that they made this one an exception?
QuoteAs said my me in another thread, you know the schools are out. Come back to me when you have lived a bit in the real world. What a cnut.
A ****? I object to people murdering their unborn children because they're too selfish to look after them and I'm the ****?
QuoteBut you can stop someone going to England to plant a bomb, rob a bank etc. Why do you think that they made this one an exception?
You can't stop someone from flying to England, it would be impossible for the authorities to know if they're going for an abortion but if they want to start prosecuting I'd support it.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on January 02, 2009, 04:25:17 PM
A ****? I object to people murdering their unborn children because they're too selfish to look after them and I'm the ****?
What a charmer. I think even the most ardent pro-lifer understands that there are more complex reasons for terminating pregnancies than "because they're too selfish to look after them ".
Grow up.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on January 02, 2009, 04:25:17 PM
You can't stop someone from flying to England, it would be impossible for the authorities to know if they're going for an abortion but if they want to start prosecuting I'd support it.
Good for you. How many women would have to die in backstreet abortion clinics in Ireland (again) for you to change your mind on that one?
Quote from: pintsofguinness on January 02, 2009, 03:09:02 PM
That's shocking, down right murder.
Murder? and selfish cow are a bit harsh, but not surprising POG.
until you know all the facts or reasons behind why these girls/women feel that this is the only avenue for them to take, you should lay off the generalisation.
DF
QuoteWhat a charmer. I think even the most ardent pro-lifer understands that there are more complex reasons for terminating pregnancies than "because they're too selfish to look after them ".
Complex reasons like what? I'm not talking about cases of rape, sexaual abuse or instances where the mother's life is at risk but the other 95% of abortions, what complex reasons are there? What justifies aborting a baby?
Quote
Good for you. How many women would have to die in backstreet abortion clinics in Ireland (again) for you to change your mind on that one?
I dont give a shite, people die with bad drugs every year, should be legalise drugs?
While I strongly disagree with abortion POG I think you are talking nonsense. Where did you get this 95% statistic from?
Yes there are reasons like rape, mothers life at risk, child abuse etc which are not the norm.
There can be complex scenarios like family ones - what if the family would disown a young person, what if someone was young and just wasn't mentally stable enough to bring up a child, what if there were degenerative diseases in a family which a mother suffered from, didn't mean to get pregnant, and didn't want a child to be brought up in this kind of scenario.
You have black and white views on everything. Everything is not black and white - if it were we'd all be no better than computers.
There are many schools of thought that drugs should be legalised yes but that's another argument. Of course you will come back with the "drugs are bad" argument however as per the above it's not black and white.
QuoteThere can be complex scenarios like family ones - what if the family would disown a young person, what if someone was young and just wasn't mentally stable enough to bring up a child, what if there were degenerative diseases in a family which a mother suffered from, didn't mean to get pregnant, and didn't want a child to be brought up in this kind of scenario.
None of these are reason enough for me to end a life.
Family disown a young person? Extremely rare occurance these days imo, no reason to abort.
Young person pregnant? - always adoption, old enough to have sex, old enough to face the consquences.
Mentally unstable person - always adoption
Didn't want a child? Tough shit, have sex, accept the consequences.
QuoteYou have black and white views on everything. Everything is not black and white - if it were we'd all be no better than computers.
Everything is not black and white but most things are if you're willing to get off the fence.
Quote
There are many schools of thought that drugs should be legalised yes but that's another argument. Of course you will come back with the "drugs are bad" argument however as per the above it's not black and white.
I just made the point that people do illegal things and if it's dangerous it doesnt mean we have to make them legal.
The last time I looked at statistics it's something like 1 or 2% of reasons for abortion was that the mother was raped, suffered sexual abuse. The pro abortion crowd normally latch on to these reasons to justify abortion, my point is that they are extremly rare occurences and imo are a whole new discussion in relation to abortion.
QuoteFor me, the politicians and state authorities knew full well what was going on but chose to ignore it. What they didn't like, they didn't see
Lar that is all fine and well but what the lads are saying is that it was a product of the society at the time. If politicians would have came out and spoke about it then they would have been ostracised by the community. They would have lost any respect they had worked to gain. I agree they did know what was going on whilst the ordinary 5/8 person was completely ignorant to it. But they simply had to accept it because it kept the status quo and didn't go against the church. I have great aunties and uncles and still to this day if you said a bad word about the priests they would throw you out of the house. You soon learn not to question anthing in the house :). But you can come out of the house afterwards and realise how silly it is to accept and never question anything. It is a bit like the bible belt in America only a lot less extreme. The extremities of the Magdalene sister is to us horrific and totally unacceptable but at the time people where content to let it exist for fear of speaking out against the higher authorities. I can guarantee some of the people who allowed their kids to go to places like this are totally haunted by guilt in modern society. A film like the Magdalene sisters would obviously hunt them. If you thought that you put your child through that it would be very difficult to live with yourself.
Although I don't agree with POG's delivery I do agree that there are no justifiable reasons for abortion.
I have not heard of any reason or excuse for abortion that does not have an alternative that protects the life of the child.
It's a black and white issue in my book too.
Quote from: winsamsoon on January 02, 2009, 05:04:41 PM
Lar that is all fine and well but what the lads are saying is that it was a product of the society at the time. If politicians would have came out and spoke about it then they would have been ostracised by the community. They would have lost any respect they had worked to gain. I agree they did know what was going on whilst the ordinary 5/8 person was completely ignorant to it. But they simply had to accept it because it kept the status quo and didn't go against the church. I have great aunties and uncles and still to this day if you said a bad word about the priests they would throw you out of the house. You soon learn not to question anthing in the house :). But you can come out of the house afterwards and realise how silly it is to accept and never question anything. It is a bit like the bible belt in America only a lot less extreme. The extremities of the Magdalene sister is to us horrific and totally unacceptable but at the time people where content to let it exist for fear of speaking out against the higher authorities. I can guarantee some of the people who allowed their kids to go to places like this are totally haunted by guilt in modern society. A film like the Magdalene sisters would obviously hunt them. If you thought that you put your child through that it would be very difficult to live with yourself.
Good post
I think fear of the Church had a huge part to play in all of this. Also the Church vetting system was ridiculous at the time. Everyone and anyone was able to take up the religious life. Today there is extreme psychological profiling and testing carried out during entry to training. I does not wipe out the problem today and I am sure there is still abuse and corruption in the Church like any other organisation but some day please God that wont be the case.
A predictably black and white answer POG.
I don't sit on the fence. I think it's wrong but it's not always black and white. I disagree with abortion but I also disagree with your views about the black and white reasons for it.
I used the argument didn't want a child in those scenarios - not wanting a child and having an abortion due to this is disgusting behaviour.
Mentally unstable parent = potentially mentally unstable unchild. The argument there was not that there is adoption.
Quote
Mentally unstable parent = potentially mentally unstable unchild. The argument there was not that there is adoption.
you dont know that a mentally unstable parent will lead to a mentally unstable child.
I dont think it's always black and white, there's circumstances where it's not and those who are pro abortion latch on to those. Reality is however, that most abortions happen because the mother does not want the child, does not want to accept the responsibility and thinks her nights out is more important than the life of her unborn child.
Fair enough pints some people will have an abortion because they are worried about thei social life, but it is a very tiny minority. There are a lot of more compex reasons for it. IMHO it is wrong whatever the circumstances. I could never imagine doing it to a innocent child but everyone is different. But remember this lad, once they make the decision to abort a child for whatever reason. That decision will be on their minds for the rest of their lives, i can't see anyone ever forgetting that. You may say that you would have no sympathy for them but i can guarantee when they grow older times like christmas, New Year etc will always be difficult and secretly unhappy times. We all make mistakes when we are younger. Granted this is a major mistake to make but i would say that younger girls who have had abortions would almost certainly regret it and be hunted by it in later life.
Life is sacred no matter what scenario but this is simplistic and im my circumstances very relevant. But as i say everyone is different and lets remember it is a very touchy subject for some . So it does deserve a bit of dignity .
Quote from: The Iceman on January 02, 2009, 05:10:18 PM
I think fear of the Church had a huge part to play in all of this. Also the Church vetting system was ridiculous at the time. Everyone and anyone was able to take up the religious life. Today there is extreme psychological profiling and testing carried out during entry to training. I does not wipe out the problem today and I am sure there is still abuse and corruption in the Church like any other organisation but some day please God that wont be the case.
[/quote
Serious question - if the Church now has this psychological testing, should they not put all current priests/employees through it (as well as new recruits), and sack anyone who fails them?
And a not so serious question - should God not have intervened and stopped the 'dodgy' priests from getting in in the first place?
It seems we are getting off the topic, if private business men had people locked up and made to do work would they be prosecuted today? We all know the answer. So why not prosecute now? The Bishops or ones in charge should face charges
The reality is POG, and this is why I posted on this thread, that you have no idea why most abortions happen. You just assume what you say to be the case with nothing to back it up.
Quote from: imtommygunn on January 02, 2009, 07:18:27 PM
The reality is POG, and this is why I posted on this thread, that you have no idea why most abortions happen. You just assume what you say to be the case with nothing to back it up.
I don't think you really need anything to back it up. The outcome whatever the circumstances is the same - a baby is killed. I'll write that again for you:
For whatever reasons the outcome is the same - a baby is killed.
Quote from: Maguire01 on January 02, 2009, 06:23:17 PM
Serious question - if the Church now has this psychological testing, should they not put all current priests/employees through it (as well as new recruits), and sack anyone who fails them?
And a not so serious question - should God not have intervened and stopped the 'dodgy' priests from getting in in the first place?
Not so serious answer to serious question:
Yes they probably should - I'm having scones with the Pope later on this weekend so I'll run it by him.....
Serious answer to not so serious question:
God doesn't intervene because he gave us all freedom of choice but we don't need to turn this into a 'Does God exist' topic Maguire you can start a new thread for that one.
imtommygunn
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html (http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html)
Very interesting. I'm still reading through it, I suggest you read the whole article, not just the tables.
When do you think it's ok to have an abortion?
QuoteThat decision will be on their minds for the rest of their lives, i can't see anyone ever forgetting that. You may say that you would have no sympathy for them but i can guarantee when they grow older times like christmas, New Year etc will always be difficult and secretly unhappy times. We all make mistakes when we are younger. Granted this is a major mistake to make but i would say that younger girls who have had abortions would almost certainly regret it and be hunted by it in later life.
True and good!
Quote from: winsamsoon on January 02, 2009, 06:03:57 PM
Fair enough pints some people will have an abortion because they are worried about thei social life, but it is a very tiny minority. There are a lot of more compex reasons for it. IMHO it is wrong whatever the circumstances. I could never imagine doing it to a innocent child but everyone is different. But remember this lad, once they make the decision to abort a child for whatever reason. That decision will be on their minds for the rest of their lives, i can't see anyone ever forgetting that. You may say that you would have no sympathy for them but i can guarantee when they grow older times like christmas, New Year etc will always be difficult and secretly unhappy times. We all make mistakes when we are younger. Granted this is a major mistake to make but i would say that younger girls who have had abortions would almost certainly regret it and be hunted by it in later life.
Life is sacred no matter what scenario but this is simplistic and im my circumstances very relevant. But as i say everyone is different and lets remember it is a very touchy subject for some . So it does deserve a bit of dignity .
FCUK them imho (for the most part)..they chose it.... what about the choice or choices the child didn't get the opportunity to make. >:(
No points for knowing where my sympathy lies :'(
Quote from: winsamsoon on January 02, 2009, 05:04:41 PM
QuoteFor me, the politicians and state authorities knew full well what was going on but chose to ignore it. What they didn't like, they didn't see
Lar that is all fine and well but what the lads are saying is that it was a product of the society at the time. If politicians would have came out and spoke about it then they would have been ostracised by the community. They would have lost any respect they had worked to gain. I agree they did know what was going on whilst the ordinary 5/8 person was completely ignorant to it. But they simply had to accept it because it kept the status quo and didn't go against the church. I have great aunties and uncles and still to this day if you said a bad word about the priests they would throw you out of the house. You soon learn not to question anthing in the house :). But you can come out of the house afterwards and realise how silly it is to accept and never question anything. It is a bit like the bible belt in America only a lot less extreme. The extremities of the Magdalene sister is to us horrific and totally unacceptable but at the time people where content to let it exist for fear of speaking out against the higher authorities. I can guarantee some of the people who allowed their kids to go to places like this are totally haunted by guilt in modern society. A film like the Magdalene sisters would obviously hunt them. If you thought that you put your child through that it would be very difficult to live with yourself.
You’re right of course. I was picking up on the post by Evil Genius and was attempting to point out that things were not always what they ought to be.
QuoteIn the end, to punish a teenage girl for being raped, for instance, whilst turning a blind eye to the man who raped her, is utterly immoral and contrary to the professed teachings of the Church, whether we are talking the 1st Century, the 21st Century, or any point in between.
In theory, that seems reasonable and logical but in practice that often was not the case.
One reason why politicians and others in authority allowed such seemingly barbaric practices to go on was because they approved of therm.
Your elderly relations were by no means unique.
In my own schooldays, no kid complained of getting slapped in school because he or she would probably get another few wallops at home on the premise that if the teacher beat you, you deserved it.
Back in them days people in general had far greater respect for authority of any sort than is the case today -and it was of the blind, unquestioning type.
Kids didn’t answer their parents or teachers back. But then curates didn’t give lip to the parish priest or a policeman didn’t stop to question an order from his sergeant.
I suppose you could say that anyone in a uniform would command instant respect.
Christian Brothers and nuns had an immense amount of power over the lives of ordinary people they came in contact with. Okay, priests were even more powerful but they did not have the organisation or numbers of the religious orders.
Even as late as the 60s, as I grew up, the nuns and the brothers were widely regarded as elite corps in the army of Christ against the forces of Satan.
I know it is hard for EG and others who were not brought up in a traditional Catholic environment to understand why blatant transgressions of the law went unnoticed where matters we have been discussing are concerned. They weren’t acted on because society in general saw nothing amiss.
Sociologist friends told me that there were two principal reasons why Irish Catholicism was so repressive and ultra-conservative in nature in the last few centuries gone by.
For one thing, we have been isolated geographically on the outskirts of Europe and therefore relatively unaffected by cultural, economic and political changes and events in more mainstream societies.
But there was another big reason why the Irish Church was so repressive and authoritarian in outlook:
Many students for the priesthood went to seminaries in France and in Belgium. {Here I’m relying on a coupe of drinking buddies who are clergymen.}
Here they came under the influence of teachers who were heavily influenced by the teachings of Cornelius Jansen. Jansen was some boyo where matters of faith and morals were concerned. He was probably more right wing than Oliver Cromwell.
Jansenism was banned as a heresy by some pope or other but his influence lived on for centuries and, as luck would have had it, many on the teaching staffs at Louvain and other leading seminaries were followers of his.
In the Ireland of the 1800s and 1900s class was everything. So, if some guy from a privileged background aspired to the priesthood, he naturally was sent to one of the snotty colleges on the continent. If he came from a relatively poor background, he had to make do with studying at Maynooth or some other plebeian establishment.
In matters of advancement within the Church, having Louvain on a CV meant a lot more than Maynooth or St Patrick’s in Thurles.
It naturally followed that the upper levels of the Church in Ireland were composed of extremely repressive, fundamentalists who looked for evil everywhere. What they looked for, they found and punishment and mortification were the only ways to conquer the snares of Satan, who worked on a 24/7 basis in his efforts to capture souls.
Typ, thanks for the figures. I'm still not sure how that information equates to the treatment of todays pregnant women, nor how them choosing (for the most part) to go across the water is them "being sent".
Pints, we all know your views, but your delivery of your point, especially concerning the "selfish cows" is near the knuckle, and frankly insulting where it doesn't have to be.
I have read some but not all of the contributions so far.
I am of the opinion that some members of the clergy committed offences against young people they should never have been allowed to get away with but did because people didn't want to make the Catholic church look bad.
I am a devout Catholic so I can understand why people thought that way. I don't think it would have served the church well at any time, past or present to run themselves down by pointing out all the abuse, neither do I think it should have been covered up.
I also understand the damage trying to cover it all up did.
Really all I want to say is that not every single member of the clergy was culpable for the abuses that occurred and that most clergy would have been appalled by what happened.
I'm just calling them what they are puck, they've killed a baby so I think they can take me calling them "selfish cows".
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on January 02, 2009, 09:03:31 PM
I have read some but not all of the contributions so far.
I am of the opinion that some members of the clergy committed offences against young people they should never have been allowed to get away with but did because people didn't want to make the Catholic church look bad.
I am a devout Catholic so I can understand why people thought that way. I don't think it would have served the church well at any time, past or present to run themselves down by pointing out all the abuse, neither do I think it should have been covered up.
I also understand the damage trying to cover it all up did.
Really all I want to say is that not every single member of the clergy was culpable for the abuses that occurred and that most clergy would have been appalled by what happened.
Of course you are correct, ardmhachaabu, many clergy were decent, hard-working individuals and not every child born out of wedlock was caused by clerical rape either. With regard to the Magdalene laundries, they were a product of the times. It was not a case of nuns deciding to remove pregnant girls from the scene by forcibly grabbing them and putting them into institutions to do slave labour, when their kids had been born and taken away from them.
Parents were complicit in this in the vast majority of cases. What winsamsoon wrote about his grand aunts and uncles was par for the course for almost everybody. In the closed type of society you had back then, parents could not stand the sort of social stigma that was attached to illegitimate births. The word, "bastard," wasn't just an insulting term in those days; it had very real meaning.
Property, especially succession rights, was a big factor in the way society evolved. Many babies born out of wedlock were fathered by landowners and business people, or most likely by their sons, and the Magdalene laundries were one way of preventing problems with succession rights getting out of hand!
Believe me, Ireland up to fairly recent times was riddled with a class system that would rival that of India.
Up to, say, the 1950s arranged marriages were commonplace. (Indeed the practice lingered on in places well into the 60s and maybe 70s as well.) The two sets of parents met together with a matchmaker and literally drew up a business deal. Often the deal was done and dusted before the boy and girl were told. People stayed within their own social level. A prosperous publican or shopkeeper would not countenance his kid marrying someone whose parents had a council cottage or a small farm. Love didn't enter the scene.
What I'm trying to get across about Magdalene laundries is the nuns alone were not responsible for their existence. It took a wide range of other interests to come together to bring them into being and it would appear that none of the vested interests saw anything wrong with the practice.
Stick to your Guns Pints, there is only one objective truth here,and you have stated it. However i would be so hard on simple ypung girls under pressure who have been mislaid. Also the Lads involved should be made more accountable and made to share the guilt
QuoteAlso the Lads involved should be made more accountable and made to share the guilt
Absoloutely and as I've pointed out in any discussion on abortion these boys who think women are well within the rights to abort their unborn baby are the same people who think that fathers who run away from their responsabilities are the scum of the earth, doesnt make much sense to me.
what pray tell is the single objective truth?
QuoteAbsoloutely and as I've pointed out in any discussion on abortion these boys who think women are well within the rights to abort their unborn baby are the same people who think that fathers who run away from their responsabilities are the scum of the earth,
What gets me is that imo, a lot of these proponents for abortion rights are the very same people
that believe the Death Penalty to be immoral and unconstitutional, citing civil rights violations ... FFS
Now before I get Attacked for my
opinion......as usual ;) let me point out that I am very well aware
that there are times due to serious health concerns and such that it could well be the only alternative,
where I have the problem is Abortion being used freely as a form of birth control >:(
TO, I think you've fingered something important to the crux of the debate: abortion as a freely available form of birth control. I'd like to see the %age figures for women who undergo multiple abortions in everyday sectors of society. I don't see it as being very high. There is a perception that women who undergo abortions are doing so willy nilly with scant thought or due process.
In my experience that is not the case.
It is in my case Puck.. I've known of 3 women who were heard to boast in there own separate little circle about how many
Abortions they had had, proud like almost.. one even saying that the Doctor had strongly advised her not to have another one due to the supposed
adverse consequences to the human body in having too many of them. :o
I'd be of the same belief HS. maybe it's just where i reside, i don't know.
The statistics reveal that in 2007, 64,230 abortions were carried out on women who had already had at least one, indicating that a third of all terminations are performed on women who have had one before.
The number of under-18s undergoing repeat abortions increased from 1,446 in 2006 to 1,465 in 2007, and 13 girls under the age of 18 were on their fourth abortion or more.
http://www.privatehealth.co.uk/news/july-2008/record-numbers-of-women-having-multiple-abortions1340/ (http://www.privatehealth.co.uk/news/july-2008/record-numbers-of-women-having-multiple-abortions1340/)
In 2004, 60% of women who had abortions had already given birth to at least one child, an increase from 50% in 1989, while 47% of women who had an abortion had already undergone the procedure at least once before
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1843717,00.html (http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1843717,00.html)
Two of the first articles I found on a quick google search puck.
YOu'll also see from the link I posted earlier (http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html - hardstation there's stats here on the reasons given for abortion) that 46% of those surveyed weren't using contraception when they got pregnant and only 16% said they were using contraception correctly! (I'd suggest some of those 16% were lying as the figures don't tally with other research on how effective contraception is!). If you're not using contraception or not bothering to use it correctly then running for an abortion when you fall pregnant in my eyes you are using abortion asa form of contraception!
Quote from: Tyrones own on January 03, 2009, 02:20:33 AM
QuoteAbsoloutely and as I've pointed out in any discussion on abortion these boys who think women are well within the rights to abort their unborn baby are the same people who think that fathers who run away from their responsabilities are the scum of the earth,
What gets me is that imo, a lot of these proponents for abortion rights are the very same people
that believe the Death Penalty to be immoral and unconstitutional, citing civil rights violations ... FFS
Now before I get Attacked for my opinion......as usual ;) let me point out that I am very well aware
that there are times due to serious health concerns and such that it could well be the only alternative,
where I have the problem is Abortion being used freely as a form of birth control >:(
T.O you can flip your one statement and say "how can people who are in favor of the death penalty be so opposed to abortion?"
Although I don't agree with POG's delivery I do agree that there are no justifiable reasons for abortion.
I have not heard of any reason or excuse for abortion that does not have an alternative that protects the life of the child.
It's a black and white issue in my book too.
If the woman will lose her life by going full term it is O.K ?
If a 12 year old is raped by her father is it O.K. ?
There was a long discussion about abortion on another thread here a few months back (6-10). It seems that men have the ultimate view and stance on what a women is capable of doing and should do no matter what the circumstances are.
The majority of posters are anti-abortion on this board which fits with their religious ethics/faith which is fair.
If you as a person believes a woman should not be allowed to have an abortion and go full term then gives up said baby, how many posters have or are willing to adopt babies giving up for adoption?
No matter your view or beliefs on the issue of abortion someone will always have the "right" answer to oppose you stance.
Quote
T.O you can flip your one statement and say "how can people who are in favor of the death penalty be so opposed to abortion?"
Surely you're not equating the life of a convicted murderer or serial rapist with that of an innocent little child wanting nothing more than his or her
God given right to be born into this world :o
Quote from: Tyrones own on January 03, 2009, 05:46:50 AM
Quote
T.O you can flip your one statement and say "how can people who are in favor of the death penalty be so opposed to abortion?"
Surely you're not equating the life of a convicted murderer or serial rapist with that of an innocent little child wanting nothing more than his or her
God given right to be born into this world :o
Would it it not be murder either way according to your views.
DH
QuoteThere was a long discussion about abortion on another thread here a few months back (6-10). It seems that men have the ultimate view and stance on what a women is capable of doing and should do no matter what the circumstances are.
what has being men got to do with anything? Another cop out DH. If you became aware that the woman next door wasn't feeding her child would you think "well I'm a man, it's really none of my business what a woman does with her child" or would you be thinking "well I don't want to adopt the child so it's best left to die". (Btw do a google search and there are more people waiting to adopt a child then there are abortions every year). Absoloute cop out.
And rather than doing what all the other pro abortion posters do, run to talk about the 12 yyear old who was raped, or the pregnant mother that was dying why don't you comment on the 98% of abortions that take place because the mother doesnt want to lose her figure! and the fact that the third of the abortions carried out in the UK (and nearly half in the US) are carried out on women who've already had at least one abortion and probably were never using contraception!
some of the posters on this site must still not eat meat on a Friday, go to confession, take the body of Christ on their tongue every Sunday, follow the ten commandmets, and have never had sex before marrage or when they are married they don't use contraception.
heaven awaits, he without sin cast the first stone.
Quotehave never had sex before marrage or when they are married they don't use contraception.
What on earth whether any of us have had unprotected sex got to do with the murder of an unborn child,
Quotehe without sin cast the first stone.
I might be wrong here but I'd be fairly sure that none of us on this thread has murdered anyone let a lone a child.
Quote
Would it it not be murder either way according to your views.
Qualilty switch out there lad ;) but in response to it..Fcuk no, those scum bags got what the
innocent child wasn't afforded, a choice at how to go about
life
Quote from: milltown row on January 03, 2009, 01:31:40 PM
some of the posters on this site must still not eat meat on a Friday, go to confession, take the body of Christ on their tongue every Sunday, follow the ten commandmets, and have never had sex before marrage or when they are married they don't use contraception.
heaven awaits, he without sin cast the first stone.
What are you on about?
Quote from: pintsofguinness on January 03, 2009, 07:15:09 PM
Quote from: milltown row on January 03, 2009, 01:31:40 PM
some of the posters on this site must still not eat meat on a Friday, go to confession, take the body of Christ on their tongue every Sunday, follow the ten commandmets, and have never had sex before marrage or when they are married they don't use contraception.
heaven awaits, he without sin cast the first stone.
What are you on about?
if someone wants to have an abortion then so what, whats it to you POG? it will have no bearing on your life. are you a practicing Catholic
Quote from: milltown row on January 03, 2009, 07:23:53 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on January 03, 2009, 07:15:09 PM
Quote from: milltown row on January 03, 2009, 01:31:40 PM
some of the posters on this site must still not eat meat on a Friday, go to confession, take the body of Christ on their tongue every Sunday, follow the ten commandmets, and have never had sex before marrage or when they are married they don't use contraception.
heaven awaits, he without sin cast the first stone.
What are you on about?
if someone wants to have an abortion then so what, whats it to you POG? it will have no bearing on your life. are you a practicing Catholic
Being catholic has nothing to do with it, I'm not a practicing catholic, I'm not relgious. This is actually probably about the only issue I agree with the church on!
What has it got to do with me if someone is murdering their unborn baby? Everything because in this society the strong should look after the weak. If you notice a child is being neglected and mistreated I assume you think it's got nothing to do with you? I assume you dont see a problem with the mother of baby P, for instance, killing him as it has no bearing on your life? Why should she be prosecuted, it was her child, she can do with him as she pleases. Correct?
What an idiotic post.
i believe that the Law states that you can have an abortion up to so many weeks 20 or something. you feel that strongly about it then lobby the mp's to change it.
as for your part on baby p WTF.
WHAT A c**k POST
Quote from: milltown row on January 03, 2009, 07:37:10 PM
i believe that the Law states that you can have an abortion up to so many weeks 20 or something. you feel that strongly about it then lobby the mp's to change it.
as for your part on baby p WTF.
WHAT A c**k POST
I believe there are plenty who lobby MPs to change the law, they will always have my support.
You think if a woman kills her unborn child it's none of our business as it doesnt affect our lives so with baby P (and the other children who die as a result of negligence and mistreatement) I assume you feel the same way?
Quote from: pintsofguinness on January 03, 2009, 07:43:29 PM
Quote from: milltown row on January 03, 2009, 07:37:10 PM
i believe that the Law states that you can have an abortion up to so many weeks 20 or something. you feel that strongly about it then lobby the mp's to change it.
as for your part on baby p WTF.
WHAT A c**k POST
I believe there are plenty who lobby MPs to change the law, they will always have my support.
You think if a woman kills her unborn child it's none of our business as it doesnt affect our lives so with baby P (and the other children who die as a result of negligence and mistreatement) I assume you feel the same way?
negligence and mistreatement, explain how its the same when someone has an abortion to what happened to baby p
Quote from: milltown row on January 03, 2009, 07:49:57 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on January 03, 2009, 07:43:29 PM
Quote from: milltown row on January 03, 2009, 07:37:10 PM
i believe that the Law states that you can have an abortion up to so many weeks 20 or something. you feel that strongly about it then lobby the mp's to change it.
as for your part on baby p WTF.
WHAT A c**k POST
I believe there are plenty who lobby MPs to change the law, they will always have my support.
You think if a woman kills her unborn child it's none of our business as it doesnt affect our lives so with baby P (and the other children who die as a result of negligence and mistreatement) I assume you feel the same way?
negligence and mistreatement, explain how its the same when someone has an abortion to what happened to baby p
A child is intentionally killed.
of course it is
Quote from: pintsofguinness on January 03, 2009, 10:31:23 AM
DH
QuoteThere was a long discussion about abortion on another thread here a few months back (6-10). It seems that men have the ultimate view and stance on what a women is capable of doing and should do no matter what the circumstances are.
what has being men got to do with anything? Another cop out DH. If you became aware that the woman next door wasn't feeding her child would you think "well I'm a man, it's really none of my business what a woman does with her child" or would you be thinking "well I don't want to adopt the child so it's best left to die". (Btw do a google search and there are more people waiting to adopt a child then there are abortions every year). Absoloute cop out.
And rather than doing what all the other pro abortion posters do, run to talk about the 12 yyear old who was raped, or the pregnant mother that was dying why don't you comment on the 98% of abortions that take place because the mother doesnt want to lose her figure! and the fact that the third of the abortions carried out in the UK (and nearly half in the US) are carried out on women who've already had at least one abortion and probably were never using contraception!
POG,
I was referring to any early post where the post stated there is no black and white.
Obviously there are extreme circumstances when an abortion is just and it isn't so clear cut.
Yes, there are people waiting to adopt children world wide. My question was, are you or any other posters willing to adopt or have adopted ?
My view has not changed, I believe abortion is appropriate under extreme circumstances and should not be used as a form of birth control.
QuoteYes, there are people waiting to adopt children world wide. My question was, are you or any other posters willing to adopt or have adopted ?
What's that got to do with anything?
lets hope POG that your 15 year old does not come to you with a problem.
Quote from: milltown row on January 03, 2009, 10:09:03 PM
lets hope POG that your 15 year old does not come to you with a problem.
I dont have children, but why do you say that?
because thats why you don't have a clue.
have kids and your 'selfish' opinion will change
Quote from: milltown row on January 03, 2009, 10:19:54 PM
because thats why you don't have a clue.
have kids and your 'selfish' opinion will change
How will having kids change my views on abortion? What exactly is selfish about my opinions?
have them, then come back to me
I can see this is a sensible discussion. ::)
Quote from: pintsofguinness on January 03, 2009, 09:41:49 PM
QuoteYes, there are people waiting to adopt children world wide. My question was, are you or any other posters willing to adopt or have adopted ?
What's that got to do with anything?
My point POG was if you or other posters are in favor of women not having an abortion then you should be willing to adopt children who were forced to be born by a mother/s who did not want them. Now you have a child/children growing up in an orphanage or institution who will need love, touch to keep them healthy and emotional support.
Are you or other posters willing to do this? It is very simple to answer.
Quote from: DrinkingHarp on January 03, 2009, 10:54:04 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on January 03, 2009, 09:41:49 PM
QuoteYes, there are people waiting to adopt children world wide. My question was, are you or any other posters willing to adopt or have adopted ?
What's that got to do with anything?
My point POG was if you or other posters are in favor of women not having an abortion then you should be willing to adopt children who were forced to be born by a mother/s who did not want them. Now you have a child/children growing up in an orphanage or institution who will need love, touch to keep them healthy and emotional support.
Are you or other posters willing to do this? It is very simple to answer.
No, I'm not willing to adopt DH, there is estimated to be up to two million people on adoption waiting lists, there are more than enough families for babies to go to. The children who have trouble getting a settled placements are older children. If a woman does not a baby then she can hand it over to a family who do, there are plenty waiting. Are you going to start arguing that a child is better dead than in care?
Quote from: pintsofguinness on January 03, 2009, 10:58:06 PM
Quote from: DrinkingHarp on January 03, 2009, 10:54:04 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on January 03, 2009, 09:41:49 PM
QuoteYes, there are people waiting to adopt children world wide. My question was, are you or any other posters willing to adopt or have adopted ?
What's that got to do with anything?
My point POG was if you or other posters are in favor of women not having an abortion then you should be willing to adopt children who were forced to be born by a mother/s who did not want them. Now you have a child/children growing up in an orphanage or institution who will need love, touch to keep them healthy and emotional support.
Are you or other posters willing to do this? It is very simple to answer.
No, I'm not willing to adopt DH, there is estimated to be up to two million people on adoption waiting lists, there are more than enough families for babies to go to. The children who have trouble getting a settled placements are older children. If a woman does not a baby then she can hand it over to a family who do, there are plenty waiting. Are you going to start arguing that a child is better dead than in care?
No, my point is why are you not willing to adopt a child if you feel there is no way an abortion is justifiable. Support your thoughts with action, that is all I am pointing out.
Quote
No, my point is why are you not willing to adopt a child if you feel there is no way an abortion is justifiable. Support your thoughts with action, that is all I am pointing out.
What? Support my thoughts with action? I disagree with abortion so I should be on an adoption waiting list along with two million other people? ::)
I honestly expected more from you DH.
Not one of you pro abortion posters have come up with reasons for me why abortion in 98% of cases should be allowed. All you've tried to do is to cling on to rape and dying pregnant women, played the relgion card, now I should be on an adoption waiting list, next we'll have the contraction argument.
Can any of you stick to the issue and stop trying to cloud what we're actually talking about?
the adoption process is very long and difficult, and a lot of the times unsuccessful. my sister and brother in law went through it and it took 4 years. the kids are moved from foster parents to foster parents over the years and the trauma they are put through at such an early stage of their life is terrible.
there may be enough families fro these kids to go to but it's not as easy as you suggest.
my poblem with you POG is that your full of shite, you've done nothing to suggest that you have a idea of the complexities of life
Quotethere may be enough families fro these kids to go to but it's not as easy as you suggest.
I know that, but that's a problem with social services.
Quotemy poblem with you POG is that your full of shite, you've done nothing to suggest that you have a idea of the complexities of life
What do you mean? what makes you think you know anything about me?
well after 6858 posts, most people would have an opinion on your views :o
the problem with social services as you know still puts people of. try it. put yourself in my sisters position waiting on a child all her life, and having to wait that long. nearly put her off and so many of the people who she met through this have opted out of it or tried other avenue like going to other countries.
get real man
Quotewell after 6858 posts, most people would have an opinion on your views
Giving my views on here doesnt mean you know anything about me to say:
Quotemy poblem with you POG is that your full of shite, you've done nothing to suggest that you have a idea of the complexities of life
What do you want me to get real about?
Quote from: pintsofguinness on January 03, 2009, 11:30:56 PM
What do you want me to get real about?
Life. The real world. Reality.
I note you did not deny it when I called you a schoolboy. I take exception to a jumped up brat like you calling women 'murderers' and 'sefish cows' for terminating pregnancies from behind your laptop. What gives you the right to judge? The issues is a complex and emotive one and your invective is beyond infantile. This topic is far too serious for your childish preaching.
This thread jumped way out of what it was originally about. For want of a better word, the abortion debates been done to the death.
Quote from: dublinfella on January 05, 2009, 12:24:52 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on January 03, 2009, 11:30:56 PM
What do you want me to get real about?
Life. The real world. Reality.
I note you did not deny it when I called you a schoolboy. I take exception to a jumped up brat like you calling women 'murderers' and 'sefish cows' for terminating pregnancies from behind your laptop. What gives you the right to judge? The issues is a complex and emotive one and your invective is beyond infantile. This topic is far too serious for your childish preaching.
A school boy? A jumped up brat? :D :D :D :D
I take exception at selfish cows murdering babies because it's an easy way out.
The issue is not complex - it's a case of, do you want to kill your baby or do you want to face up to your responsiblities.
NOt one of you in favour of abortion have been able to come on here and make an argument in favour of it. You and milltown row would rather play me, others cling to talk of raped mothers or dying pregnant women.
Not one of you have can make an argument about the real issues!
btw dublinfella, I'm not a kick in the arse of 40!
Quote from: Puckoon on January 05, 2009, 07:15:42 PM
This thread jumped way out of what it was originally about.
Actually it hasn't. The prohibition on abortion is probably the last explicitly 'catholic' law left in Ireland.
I can see POG 50 years ago talking about the 'selfish sluts' in the laundries....
Quote
Actually it hasn't. The prohibition on abortion is probably the last explicitly 'catholic' law left in Ireland.
Catholic law? a lot of people are anti abortion and they arent all catholics.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on January 05, 2009, 07:17:27 PM
Quote from: dublinfella on January 05, 2009, 12:24:52 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on January 03, 2009, 11:30:56 PM
What do you want me to get real about?
Life. The real world. Reality.
I note you did not deny it when I called you a schoolboy. I take exception to a jumped up brat like you calling women 'murderers' and 'selfish cows' for terminating pregnancies from behind your laptop. What gives you the right to judge? The issues is a complex and emotive one and your invective is beyond infantile. This topic is far too serious for your childish preaching.
A school boy? A jumped up brat? :D :D :D :D
I take exception at selfish cows murdering babies because it's an easy way out.
The issue is not complex - it's a case of, do you want to kill your baby or do you want to face up to your responsiblities.
NOt one of you in favour of abortion have been able to come on here and make an argument in favour of it. You and milltown row would rather play me, others cling to talk of raped mothers or dying pregnant women.
Not one of you have can make an argument about the real issues!
btw dublinfella, I'm not a kick in the arse of 40!
i didn't say in my posts that i was for abortion, but your tone and rant about them being selfish murdering cows and other garbage should be kept for the gutter
my views on abortion are simple. each case is different and is the sole responsibility of the people involved. it's there choice. I'd say that 99% of the people who have the abortion regret it till the day they die.
Quotemy views on abortion are simple. each case is different and is the sole responsibility of the people involved. it's there choice.
Cop out.
you have conviced me POG i'm with ya all the way ;D
Quote from: pintsofguinness on January 06, 2009, 11:10:38 PM
Quotemy views on abortion are simple. each case is different and is the sole responsibility of the people involved. it's there choice.
Cop out.
so on what other aspects of health and social policy do you think your opinion should overule an individuals right to chose what actions they take?
and we are seamlessly back into the dogmatic bullying and crude arrocance that allowed a clique of men destroy the lives of women in the 50's. The mentailty has not gone away (selfish cows....) but thankfully the secular movement has marginalised bullies, cranks and nutters like POG.
I've read through most of the abortion debate on this thread and some of us falling into the age old trap and assumptions and its all the mothers fault, she was the one with the legs in the air, no contraception, baby affecting her social life, selfish cow.
What about the father? Has he no responsibilities here? Was he not just as culpable? Why are we eight pages into a thread yet no insults are flying the male direction? Is he the slut who's fucked off and left the young girl in the lurch and when it comes to the abortion debate, has he stepped up to the plate and offered to take the child or has he doled out a few hundred quid to pay for the flight/ boat trip to England which normally happens?
FFS lads some on here are no better than the 1950's priest and those who we're taking the moral high ground on for sending the girls to the Magdalene laundries whilst ride all round him Paddy is back at the farm, going to mass on the sunday as if butter wouldn't melt.
Quote from: dublinfella on January 08, 2009, 10:22:46 AM
thankfully the secular movement has marginalised bullies, cranks and nutters like POG.
Jaysus thats a bit OTT there. Lets keep it civilised.
Abortion is a tricky topic to approach, obviously there are extreme cases where people have been raped by family members etc. But I would be very much against legalising it full stop. Like it or not, there are some people out there who would have an abortion as they were promiscuous and just dont want the hassle of having a baby. While some situations are difficult many arent, and to kill a child because you just couldnt be arsed minding a baby having slept around is just plain wrong.
An individuals right to choose what actions they take would be a good way to put it were there not another indivual whose life could be ended by that decision.
The scary thing is that there are many selfish women who sleep around, couldnt be arsed with a baby, so have an abortion. As much as you may argue that some cases merit abortion, it can also be argued that many abortions cannot be justified.
Quote from: his holiness nb on January 08, 2009, 01:56:58 PM
Quote from: dublinfella on January 08, 2009, 10:22:46 AM
thankfully the secular movement has marginalised bullies, cranks and nutters like POG.
Jaysus thats a bit OTT there. Lets keep it civilised.
Abortion is a tricky topic to approach, obviously there are extreme cases where people have been raped by family members etc. But I would be very much against legalising it full stop. Like it or not, there are some people out there who would have an abortion as they were promiscuous and just dont want the hassle of having a baby. While some situations are difficult many arent, and to kill a child because you just couldnt be arsed minding a baby having slept around is just plain wrong.
An individuals right to choose what actions they take would be a good way to put it were there not another indivual whose life could be ended by that decision.
The scary thing is that there are many selfish women who sleep around, couldnt be arsed with a baby, so have an abortion. As much as you may argue that some cases merit abortion, it can also be argued that many abortions cannot be justified.
Abortion is not 'killing a child' - its an emotive way of putting it and most unheplful and not in any way accurate. It is the removal of a clump of cells that will probably develop into a foetus. By your logic cracking one off the wrist is 'killing a child'.
Quote from: dublinfella on January 08, 2009, 02:17:01 PM
Abortion is not 'killing a child' - its an emotive way of putting it and most unheplful and not in any way accurate. It is the removal of a clump of cells that will probably develop into a foetus.
removal of a clump of cells / killing a child, word it how you want.
Quote from: dublinfella on January 08, 2009, 02:17:01 PM
By your logic cracking one off the wrist is 'killing a child'.
A lot of mass murderers on here so :D
But seriously, thats just silly. Sperm doesnt develop into a child. Your "clump of cells" does.
Do you agree with my point that promiscuous people who get themselves pregnant but couldnt be arsed raising a child shouldnt be allowed an abortion?
I suppose calling the child a clump of cells makes your argument easier, but remember, you yourself are just a big clump of cells.
johnneycool I believe the father, if he supports the abortion, is just as big a **** as the mother.
Quote from: his holiness nb on January 08, 2009, 01:56:58 PM
Quote from: dublinfella on January 08, 2009, 10:22:46 AM
thankfully the secular movement has marginalised bullies, cranks and nutters like POG.
Jaysus thats a bit OTT there. Lets keep it civilised.
Abortion is a tricky topic to approach, obviously there are extreme cases where people have been raped by family members etc. But I would be very much against legalising it full stop. Like it or not, there are some people out there who would have an abortion as they were promiscuous and just dont want the hassle of having a baby. While some situations are difficult many arent, and to kill a child because you just couldnt be arsed minding a baby having slept around is just plain wrong.
An individuals right to choose what actions they take would be a good way to put it were there not another indivual whose life could be ended by that decision.
The scary thing is that there are many selfish women who sleep around, couldnt be arsed with a baby, so have an abortion. As much as you may argue that some cases merit abortion, it can also be argued that many abortions cannot be justified.
i take it you did not read the above post, as Johnneycool has pointed out, it takes two to have a kid. plenty of men out there who sleep around and don't use contraception.
as for the term of killing babies, depending on the time, it's hardly a baby after 10 weeks.
are women also killing babies if the take the morning after pill ? (you can still use the pill upto 4/5 days)
Quoteas for the term of killing babies, depending on the time, it's hardly a baby after 10 weeks.
Why not? The vial organs are formed and working after 10 weeks, the heart is beating and pumping blood around the body. at 10 weeks the baby will have it's unique fingerprint. Of course that's not a human being.
People like you make me sick, refer to the child as a foetus, clump of cells or whatever you want if that's what helps you sleep after you've killed one.
a lot of anger in you lad, were you once in the bucket?
Quote from: pintsofguinness on January 08, 2009, 08:46:38 PM
Quoteas for the term of killing babies, depending on the time, it's hardly a baby after 10 weeks.
Why not? The vial organs are formed and working after 10 weeks, the heart is beating and pumping blood around the body. at 10 weeks the baby will have it's unique fingerprint. Of course that's not a human being.
People like you make me sick, refer to the child as a foetus, clump of cells or whatever you want if that's what helps you sleep after you've killed one.
After I've killed one? Get a grip you fool.
What is wrong with caling a foetus a foetus?
And I call bullshit with your medical claims. A quick scan of the internet shows that none of the things you refer to happen until the 21st week at the earliest. Up to 11 weeks is known as the pre-natal stage for a reason.
If you have nothing to contribute to this topic other than misinformation and abuse, could you do us all a favour and not waste the bandwith?
Quote from: his holiness nb on January 08, 2009, 05:20:10 PM
removal of a clump of cells / killing a child, word it how you want.
But do you not think referring to a termination as 'killing a child' in unneccesarily emotive?
Quote from: his holiness nb on January 08, 2009, 05:20:10 PM
A lot of mass murderers on here so :D
now that is something we can agree on ;D
Quote from: his holiness nb on January 08, 2009, 05:20:10 PM
But seriously, thats just silly. Sperm doesnt develop into a child. Your "clump of cells" does.
medically both arguments have the same merit.
Quote from: his holiness nb on January 08, 2009, 05:20:10 PM
Do you agree with my point that promiscuous people who get themselves pregnant but couldnt be arsed raising a child shouldnt be allowed an abortion?
No. If you go down the road of abortion on demand as far as I'm concerned you can't have more or less deserving cases.
Quote from: his holiness nb on January 08, 2009, 05:20:10 PM
I suppose calling the child a clump of cells makes your argument easier, but remember, you yourself are just a big clump of cells.
A handsome lump of cells though.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on January 08, 2009, 07:31:13 PM
johnneycool I believe the father, if he supports the abortion, is just as big a **** as the mother.
I believe that the father, if he fucks off or takes no responsibility for his actions is every bit a culpable as the mother if abortion is deemed to be the final solution.
I personally don't agree with abortion but I can understand how an young girl whose made a mistake and has no support from her family, friends or childs father may see it as an option and there's certainly still parts of the country where a single parent would be ostracized even in this day and age and especially by the clergy.
Quote from: dublinfella on January 09, 2009, 09:35:52 AM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on January 08, 2009, 08:46:38 PM
Quoteas for the term of killing babies, depending on the time, it's hardly a baby after 10 weeks.
Why not? The vial organs are formed and working after 10 weeks, the heart is beating and pumping blood around the body. at 10 weeks the baby will have it's unique fingerprint. Of course that's not a human being.
People like you make me sick, refer to the child as a foetus, clump of cells or whatever you want if that's what helps you sleep after you've killed one.
After I've killed one? Get a grip you fool.
What is wrong with caling a foetus a foetus?
And I call bullshit with your medical claims. A quick scan of the internet shows that none of the things you refer to happen until the 21st week at the earliest. Up to 11 weeks is known as the pre-natal stage for a reason.
If you have nothing to contribute to this topic other than misinformation and abuse, could you do us all a favour and not waste the bandwith?
After 10 weeks
The fetus is only about 1.2 inches / 3 centimetres long from crown to rump and weighs less than a sixth of an ounce / 4 grams. Even so, it's busily swallowing and kicking. Each day more minute details start to appear, such as fingernails and peach-fuzzy hair.
The vital organs -- the liver, kidneys, intestines, brain, and lungs -- are fully formed and functional, while the head is almost half the length of the entire body. The forehead temporarily bulges and sits high on the head, but later will change into a more human-like feature.
If you could take a look at your baby this week, you'd be able to see the clear outline of his spine. Spinal nerves stretch out from the spinal cord.http://www.babycentre.co.uk/pregnancy/fetaldevelopment/10weeks/ (http://www.babycentre.co.uk/pregnancy/fetaldevelopment/10weeks/)
On this thread you've called me c*nt, bully, crank, nutter and now a fool and you talk about my abuse?
Fetal Development: I'm a Fetus!
Starting with this week 12, the baby is now called a fetus. The most critical part of the baby's development is over. This is a period of rapid growth, and the baby is about an inch or so in length at the beginning of the week and will be about 2 inches by the end of the week. The baby's head is about half its length. The eyelids will fuse shut, and the irises will begin to develop. Sometime during this week or the next week, blood will begin to circulate between the baby and uterus and the placenta starts to function.
it depends were you look ;)
Maybe so but 10 weeks or 12 weeks, makes no difference to me, still murder.
Quote from: milltown row on January 08, 2009, 09:09:46 PM
a lot of anger in you lad, were you once in the bucket?
FFS that's a bit uncalled for.
From a religious angle we have a Soul from the moment of conception and are therefore humans, children of God.
From a humanity standpoint I believe also that babies are babies - at 9 months, at 5 months, at 1 week at 1 day. Morning after pill is abortion, cutting a child out of the womb at 10 weeks or any time during the pregnancy is abortion and utterly wrong in my book.
Where did the humanity of the board disappear to? A little baby boy is born premature at 22 weeks and everyone is asking for him. If he had been aborted at 22 weeks without a chance would you equally shrug your shoulders and say "whatever".????
Quote from: The Iceman on January 09, 2009, 09:03:32 PM
From a religious angle we have a Soul from the moment of conception and are therefore humans, children of God.
Yeah, but you have to understand that a lot of people don't buy the whole 'soul' and 'God' thing. Bringing religion into this doesn't do anything to strengthen your argument.
Quote from: Maguire01 on January 09, 2009, 09:15:26 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on January 09, 2009, 09:03:32 PM
From a religious angle we have a Soul from the moment of conception and are therefore humans, children of God.
Yeah, but you have to understand that a lot of people don't buy the whole 'soul' and 'God' thing. Bringing religion into this doesn't do anything to strengthen your argument.
Thats why I included other arguments in my post Maguire - maybe read them too.
I can bring religion into all I want because I am giving
my opinion. What about little Miceal - what would you tell him?
Where is your comment on that one?
I did read all your comments - i only replied to the one i had issue with.
I don't know who 'Miceal' is.
Micheal is the baby billythekid asked us to say a prayer for.
Yeah I agree, enough said about that.
FAIR ENOUGH - SORRY i INCLUDED HIM IN THE ARGUMENT
but what would you say to any child - what about your own -are you a parent Maguire? I am and my child was no less special at 1 day than it was at one month or 5 months.
abortion is wrong
Iceman, the pain and sorrow I would feel now if something were to happen my daughter is incalculably more than if she hadn't made it at 10 weeks, 20 weeks or even through birth.
I'd wager you could handle losing a pregnancy ( in the early stages) easier than you could handle losing a child.
There is a subconcious reason for this of course. Fetus's are not our children. Yet.
Of course that's not to stop parents who want the child to fall in love with the fetus. I know I did. But I wasn't daft/emotive enough to not understand it for what it was. I'd say my daughter came around before birth, but certainly not by 12 weeks.
How many times does 'debate' have to happen. People have different views and wont change no matter how much abuse is fired from all sides
There are many different views.
The main problem with the start of this was calling 95% of people who had abortions selfish with no knowledge of their personal circumstances or state of mind. I don't know anyone who's had one but I would be willing to wager that 95% of people who've had abortions did not do so for selfish reasons and a lot of them would regret it too.
I'd also agree with puckoon. Surely bonds strengthen over time. I don't for one second believe that abortion is in any way right however it must get tougher as a bond forms. I'm no expert but surely it has to.
Quote
The main problem with the start of this was calling 95% of people who had abortions selfish with no knowledge of their personal circumstances or state of mind. I don't know anyone who's had one but I would be willing to wager that 95% of people who've had abortions did not do so for selfish reasons and a lot of them would regret it too.
Look at some of the links I provided earlier in the thread, half of those having abortions in the US had one before and a third in the UK had one before. Have a look at the reasons given by people, I've provided the links, and come back and repeat the above.
As for people regreting it, you seem to think that that makes it all ok, that's a reason for not allowing it in the first place.
It doesnt matter when you have a bond either. If I see a pregnant woman I dont feel a bond with the child but that doesnt mean I can take away that life.
On what grounds are women having abortions?
A majority (96.90%) of all abortions were carried out under ground C – 'the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman'
Legal grounds for abortion
Number of abortions carried out on these grounds
Number of abortions carried out on these grounds as a percentage of all abortions
A the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman greater than if the pregnancy were terminated
149
0.08
B the termination is necessary to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman
1,059
0.55
C the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman
187,740
96.90
D the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of any existing child(ren) of the family of the pregnant woman
2,753
1.42
E there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped
2,036
1.05
In an emergency, certified by one doctor as necessary:
F to save the life of the pregnant woman, or
G to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman.
0
0.00
I dont understand what that post is about miltown?
last years facts on abortion, thats all
For where? Ireland?
the great country we live in, GB
Well it can't be for GB because GB (England Scotland and Wales) allow abortion on more grounds than what's outlined there, I assume they are for Northern Irleand and I don't know what point you're trying to make but sure you probably don't know yourself ::)
it's for the UK POG
nowhere on the site did they mention that they were selfish murdering cows, i looked everywhere for it.
Ach of course, they have to pick one of the legal reasons for aborting, that explains it.
case closed then ;)
Quote from: pintsofguinness on January 09, 2009, 11:34:50 PM
Well it can't be for GB because GB (England Scotland and Wales) allow abortion on more grounds than what's outlined there, I assume they are for Northern Irleand and I don't know what point you're trying to make but sure you probably don't know yourself ::)
don't drag everyone down to your intellectual level.
Quote from: Puckoon on January 09, 2009, 10:06:55 PM
Iceman, the pain and sorrow I would feel now if something were to happen my daughter is incalculably more than if she hadn't made it at 10 weeks, 20 weeks or even through birth.
I'd wager you could handle losing a pregnancy ( in the early stages) easier than you could handle losing a child.
There is a subconcious reason for this of course. Fetus's are not our children. Yet.
Of course that's not to stop parents who want the child to fall in love with the fetus. I know I did. But I wasn't daft/emotive enough to not understand it for what it was. I'd say my daughter came around before birth, but certainly not by 12 weeks.
Let me ask you this Puck. If you had
never met your daughter and given her up for adoption at birth - never having even see her or held her and learned years later that she died - age 4 - how would you feel? Incalculably less than if she died at 4 years old and you had kept her?
Your ability to get over the loss of an abortion/miscarriage is not because of some subconscious understanding that what is growing inside your wife's womb isn't a baby - it is because you have not made the connection with the child. For a man thatconnection does not happen until later in the pregnancy when you see the baby in the scan, hear noises coming from your wife's belly or feel a kick or movement.
Ask women if they are carrying a baby or a fetus at 12 weeks and see what your answer is and it has nothing to do with being daft or emotive.
I think youve taken me up wrong there, the daft/emotive wasnt meant to be insulting.
Too many people jump on the "its a baby", "its got a soul", "its being murdered" bandwagon without any conlusive proof. All they have are their feelings and beliefs - which is all Im armed with myself.
There are many mothers who dont make a connection with a 12 week old fetus in their bodies. Some mothers never make a damn connection with their kids.
Having me ask women carrying kids wouldnt make much difference to anyones argument, as it could be argued that those who want the child, and love the child already, would say - Im carrying my baby.
Those who dont want the child, would generally say - its a fetus.
Now Im making generalizations here, but I kind of have to in order to answer your question as I cant speak for everyone.
Im not sure what your hypothetical scenario teaches me. ???
My point was you can't draw a comparison on your feelings for your daughter who is physically present and the baby growing inside your wife as grounds for whether or not the "clump of cells" as you call them is in fact a child. I think there is conclusive evidence that it is a baby. at 18 days there is a detectable heart beat - at 10 weeks you can detect the sex of the baby - the list goes on and on. but another poster is right - people are either pro life or pro choice and there is no arguing but I for one will not stop trying.
do you currently lobby your senators to stop abortion? what actions have you taken lately to "make a difference" other than come on here and knock others on their views.
I'd say Puckoon is also against abortion, as myself. all cases are different and should be viewed that way.
Quoteall cases are different and should be viewed that way.
So in what circumstances do you think abortion should be used?
Quote from: The Iceman on January 12, 2009, 07:37:21 PM
My point was you can't draw a comparison on your feelings for your daughter who is physically present and the baby growing inside your wife as grounds for whether or not the "clump of cells" as you call them is in fact a child. I think there is conclusive evidence that it is a baby. at 18 days there is a detectable heart beat - at 10 weeks you can detect the sex of the baby - the list goes on and on. but another poster is right - people are either pro life or pro choice and there is no arguing but I for one will not stop trying.
Where is this conclusive evidence? In a debate like this there is very little that is conclusive. Does detecting a heartbeat or the sex of a fetus automagically elevate it to "human baby/child" status?
Again all we are left with are our own opinions with very little in the way of real fact on which to make a decision.
Thankfully Ive lived my life in a way that doesnt stop me from sleeping at night - doesnt mean Im quick to condemn those who may wrestle with their conscience for the rest of their lives.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0717/462915-magdalene/ (http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0717/462915-magdalene/)
Minister for Justice Alan Shatter has said he cannot strip the four religious orders who owned the Magdalene Laundries of their charitable status.
It follows their refusal to contribute to the Government's multi-million euro redress scheme for survivors of the institutions.
The nuns have offered to help the women in other ways, such as caring for about 100 of them in residential settings.
You could not make this up. They want to 'help' victims of people who suffered while in their care, by offering more care!
Quote from: pintsofguinness on January 12, 2009, 10:09:28 PM
Quoteall cases are different and should be viewed that way.
So in what circumstances do you think abortion should be used?
Where the life of the mother is in peril.
I think there is a pretty high profile case of this in Galway recently. :o
Quote from: muppet on July 17, 2013, 10:49:19 AM
http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0717/462915-magdalene/ (http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0717/462915-magdalene/)
Minister for Justice Alan Shatter has said he cannot strip the four religious orders who owned the Magdalene Laundries of their charitable status.
It follows their refusal to contribute to the Government's multi-million euro redress scheme for survivors of the institutions.
The nuns have offered to help the women in other ways, such as caring for about 100 of them in residential settings.
You could not make this up. They want to 'help' victims of people who suffered while in their care, by offering more care!
I heard that this morning and thought they wouldn't be brazen enough to offer the care in their own premises. Are they not residential homes outside the control of the 4 orders involved?
Quote from: johnneycool on July 17, 2013, 10:51:54 AM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on January 12, 2009, 10:09:28 PM
Quoteall cases are different and should be viewed that way.
So in what circumstances do you think abortion should be used?
Where the life of the mother is in peril.
I think there is a pretty high profile case of this in Galway recently. :o
You are replying to a post from 4 years ago in fairness.
Quote from: AZOffaly on July 17, 2013, 01:47:17 PM
Quote from: johnneycool on July 17, 2013, 10:51:54 AM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on January 12, 2009, 10:09:28 PM
Quoteall cases are different and should be viewed that way.
So in what circumstances do you think abortion should be used?
Where the life of the mother is in peril.
I think there is a pretty high profile case of this in Galway recently. :o
You are replying to a post from 4 years ago in fairness.
I didn't even notice that.