What do yis think?
This place looks like a hand grenade for our politicians.
Another outlet in central Belfast named after a woman alongside Marie Curie,Dorothy Perkins
Easyjet and Flybe will be lobbying government to try and put a stop to this abomination
Its unlikely that they can operate within the law as it applies here and still make money, they will have to push the boundaries, and that will lead to legal challenges, which will be costly for them. Hopefully we will be rid of them sooner rather than later, they are an abomination
What is the Shinner position on this? Representative of Irish-Catholic opposition or simply ignore the issue and adopt the opposite approach to the DUP, who no doubt also oppose it?
Quote from: T Fearon on October 18, 2012, 09:54:15 PM
Another outlet in central Belfast named after a woman alongside Marie Curie,Dorothy Perkins
In fairness to those two they weren't racist, fascist eugenicists who wholeheartedly supported Hitlers sterlization of undesirables and cleansing the gene pool of all others who didn't measure up to exacting Ayran standards - Catholics and Jews in particular being at the top of her hate list.
Quote from: T Fearon on October 18, 2012, 09:54:15 PM
Another outlet in central Belfast named after a woman alongside Marie Curie,Dorothy Perkins
...Ann Summers.
In an act of uncanny telepathy, I just thought of Ann Summers myself!
In fact, how appropriate would a campaign warning against unwanted pregnancy be in using the strapline "Careful that a visit to Ann Summers doesn't lead ultimately to a visit to Marie Stopes!" ;D
I passed the protest yesterday and must admit I found some of the images very disturbing to the extent I wasn't able to get two posters in particular out of my head all night. One linked below (don't click if you are squeamish):
http://cdn.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/multimedia/dynamic/00720/nic_protest_24_720002s.jpg (http://cdn.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/multimedia/dynamic/00720/nic_protest_24_720002s.jpg)
Anyhow, in general principle I'd be anti-abortion but generally sympathetic to the emotions and conflict a woman must have to go through when considering it. In some ways I was kind of annoyed with the protesters for using those images yesterday but Jude Collins wrote a blog this morning which has caused me to reconsider:
That clinic on Great Victoria Street, Belfast
The establishment of the Marie Stopes clinic in Great Victoria Street has blown into flame again the abortion debate, and if there's one thing I don't understand it's the whole abortion thing. Questions? I've got plenty of those. Unfortunately answers are in short supply. It's a bit like the national question: a lot of people dance around the central issue rather than tackle it directly.
For example? Well, let's try this. Pro-abortion people get indignant if you refer to them as pro-abortionists. We're not pro-abortion, they say. We're pro-choice. We want women to have abortion as an option, and we appreciate that the decision to have an abortion is an agonising one and is never taken lightly by a woman.
Eh? If you are pro-choice/pro-abortion, presumably you regard what's in the woman's womb as a bunch of tissue, not a human being. In which case what's to agonise about? Getting rid of a foetus should need no more soul-searching than blowing your nose or trimming your toenails. Yet pro-choice/pro-abortion people insist that abortion is a soul-searching decision for any woman to make.
And here's another abortion-baffler. There are those who are opposed to abortion - pro-life people, as they prefer to be called - who say that abortion should never be used, except the mother's life is at risk or it's a case of rape or incest.
OK with that first one, I get it.The mother's life is at risk if the child is not aborted, so to save the mother's life actions are taken that result in an abortion. Fair enough. That is a truly difficult decision - which life is it better to save, that of the mother or the child? But I can see how many people would come down on the side of the mother.
But the stunner that leaves me cross-eyed is the no-abortion-except-in-cases-of-rape-or-incest argument. Rape and/or incest are indeed vile, cruel actions, and the thought of carrying the baby of a man who has violated you must be truly harrowing. But even when you concede that the child inside the woman has been forced on her, and that every second of her pregnancy must remind her of the horror she's suffered, the awkward, painful fact remains that the foetus inside her remains human, every bit as much as if had been conceived by a loving couple. To say that the answer to pregnancy brought about through rape or incest is abortion looks suspiciously like passing a death sentence on the child in the womb for the foul actions of the rapist or incest-inflictor.
Just two more and I'm done. There were a lot of picketers outside the Marie Stopes clinic the other day. Some people say there should be no pickets, others that it's OK providing the picketing is "tastefully done". What they're getting at here, I suspect, are those pickets carrying placards showing what a child in the womb looks like and/or what happened to it when it's aborted. But if that's what it actually looks like and that's what actually happens, shouldn't everyone involved in an abortion be reminded of what happens?
And lastly: some people say this is a women's issue, men should have no say in it. Mmm. So should women have no say in how the medical world deals with prostate cancer?
Questions, questions. How I envy those with certitude.
-----------
Re the question about SF, I can understand why they are going to try to avoid this one like the plague as I can remember the division in the ranks when they were briefly pro-abortion in the early 80's. There is a very active lobby within the Party pushing hard for a return to this policy which were effectively silenced at the recent Ard Fheis and on the other hand there was a councillor down the country reprimanded for speaking at a pro-life meeting "in a personal capacity". Can't ride two horses forever I'd imagine.
scraping the barrell if you ask me.
Normally I quite like reading Jude Collins but that is a load of bollocks.
Quote from: Ulick on October 19, 2012, 12:19:47 PM
I passed the protest yesterday and must admit I found some of the images very disturbing to the extent I wasn't able to get two posters in particular out of my head all night. One linked below (don't click if you are squeamish):
http://cdn.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/multimedia/dynamic/00720/nic_protest_24_720002s.jpg (http://cdn.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/multimedia/dynamic/00720/nic_protest_24_720002s.jpg)
Anyhow, in general principle I'd be anti-abortion but generally sympathetic to the emotions and conflict a woman must have to go through when considering it. In some ways I was kind of annoyed with the protesters for using those images yesterday but Jude Collins wrote a blog this morning which has caused me to reconsider:
That clinic on Great Victoria Street, Belfast
The establishment of the Marie Stopes clinic in Great Victoria Street has blown into flame again the abortion debate, and if there's one thing I don't understand it's the whole abortion thing. Questions? I've got plenty of those. Unfortunately answers are in short supply. It's a bit like the national question: a lot of people dance around the central issue rather than tackle it directly.
For example? Well, let's try this. Pro-abortion people get indignant if you refer to them as pro-abortionists. We're not pro-abortion, they say. We're pro-choice. We want women to have abortion as an option, and we appreciate that the decision to have an abortion is an agonising one and is never taken lightly by a woman.
Eh? If you are pro-choice/pro-abortion, presumably you regard what's in the woman's womb as a bunch of tissue, not a human being. In which case what's to agonise about? Getting rid of a foetus should need no more soul-searching than blowing your nose or trimming your toenails. Yet pro-choice/pro-abortion people insist that abortion is a soul-searching decision for any woman to make.
And here's another abortion-baffler. There are those who are opposed to abortion - pro-life people, as they prefer to be called - who say that abortion should never be used, except the mother's life is at risk or it's a case of rape or incest.
OK with that first one, I get it.The mother's life is at risk if the child is not aborted, so to save the mother's life actions are taken that result in an abortion. Fair enough. That is a truly difficult decision - which life is it better to save, that of the mother or the child? But I can see how many people would come down on the side of the mother.
But the stunner that leaves me cross-eyed is the no-abortion-except-in-cases-of-rape-or-incest argument. Rape and/or incest are indeed vile, cruel actions, and the thought of carrying the baby of a man who has violated you must be truly harrowing. But even when you concede that the child inside the woman has been forced on her, and that every second of her pregnancy must remind her of the horror she's suffered, the awkward, painful fact remains that the foetus inside her remains human, every bit as much as if had been conceived by a loving couple. To say that the answer to pregnancy brought about through rape or incest is abortion looks suspiciously like passing a death sentence on the child in the womb for the foul actions of the rapist or incest-inflictor.
Just two more and I'm done. There were a lot of picketers outside the Marie Stopes clinic the other day. Some people say there should be no pickets, others that it's OK providing the picketing is "tastefully done". What they're getting at here, I suspect, are those pickets carrying placards showing what a child in the womb looks like and/or what happened to it when it's aborted. But if that's what it actually looks like and that's what actually happens, shouldn't everyone involved in an abortion be reminded of what happens?
And lastly: some people say this is a women's issue, men should have no say in it. Mmm. So should women have no say in how the medical world deals with prostate cancer?
Questions, questions. How I envy those with certitude.
-----------
Re the question about SF, I can understand why they are going to try to avoid this one like the plague as I can remember the division in the ranks when they were briefly pro-abortion in the early 80's. There is a very active lobby within the Party pushing hard for a return to this policy which were effectively silenced at the recent Ard Fheis and on the other hand there was a councillor down the country reprimanded for speaking at a pro-life meeting "in a personal capacity". Can't ride two horses forever I'd imagine.
Cheers Ulick. It is a stinker alright as it polarises opinion - not exactly great for a politician or party.
Thats a particularly poor and oversimplistic effort from Jude Collins, which clearly shows there is more than just one thing he doesnt understand. Particularly crass comment to suggest that if a woman decides to take the choice then it should cause her no more concern than blowing her nose or trimming her nails.
QuoteAnd lastly: some people say this is a women's issue, men should have no say in it. Mmm.
No prizes for guessing the gender of a writer who could come out with this...
QuoteRape and/or incest are indeed vile, cruel actions, and the thought of carrying the baby of a man who has violated you must be truly harrowing (wait for it folks......). But....
I want to stress is that I am NOT judging women who have abortions. It is not an easy "choice" to make and I understand that sometimes women feel there is no other choice. But there are, there are so many more. And what is concerning about Marie Stopes is they are not providing anything that isn't already available in the North. So it may on the surface look like a fantastic opportunity (and let me make it clear I don't think it is ) that such a clinic has arrived there, but they are going to charge women £450 for an abortion that the NHS already provides for free, and has done for some time. The guidelines and the laws that they work under are exactly the same. There is no need or demand for Maries Stopes. The 1000+ women that travel to the UK every year for an abortion will still have to travel over, because their abortion would never, and please God, will never be legal at home. And, furthermore, the number of women travelling for these abortions is actually decreasing, so the demand is even smaller.
With regards women who are raped, I can't agree that aborting the baby is the right option. Two wrongs don't make a right. Not only is the woman going to have to deal with the trauma of being sexually assaulted, but she is also going to have to deal with the trauma of the abortion. An unborn child, created in a moment of violence, is no less of a human being that you or I. Yes, it is harrowing circumstances in which the child is conceived, but that does not make their life any less worth living...
In terms of disability, the doctor can never be certain of what they are saying. Tim Tebow is a famous case where the Mother was told to abort him based on 100% chance he was severely disabled...thankfully the mother refused and the Jets now have two QB's. Furthermore, I have a cousin in her thirties, who cannot walk or talk, can do absolutely nothing for herself, and never could, yet she is one of the happiest people you will ever meet, and she brings her family so much joy and happiness. We cannot attempt to measure what we think is a quality of life, or dare to suggest that disability automatically doesn't make a life worth living. I mean look at the paraolympics and the Special Olympics, those athletes are so elite and excel at their sports. Yet it makes sense to abort them before me? Only 1.1% of Abortions carried out last year in Britain where because the child was disabled and there are absolutely no statistics on Abortions after rape, because they are so rare!
The thing with abortion is that everything IS black and white. If you abort, a baby dies; if you don't abort, a baby lives. It is that simple. Ireland is the safest country IN THE WORLD to have a baby, it has the lowest maternal mortality rate. The doctors there do everything in their power to ensure mother AND baby can survive. Why do we need to have a service that exploits the vulnerability of women? Why do we need a service that promotes the culture of death? Why do we need a service that is already available for FREE on the NHS?
Quote from: Pangurban on October 19, 2012, 03:03:41 AM
Its unlikely that they can operate within the law as it applies here and still make money, they will have to push the boundaries, and that will lead to legal challenges, which will be costly for them. Hopefully we will be rid of them sooner rather than later, they are an abomination
An abomination? is that you Iris?
Anyway, it doesn't have to make money - it's a not-for-profit organisation. As for legal challenges, given how grey the law is, it's difficult to know what way such challenges would go.
I'd imagine that there's a distinct possibility that rulings based on the current law (and lack of guidance for doctors) could lead to increased numbers of abortions here - it's quite possible that until now, doctors here have gone nowhere near the boundaries, never mind push them.
I would say Dawn Purvis will be some asset to that place.
Quote from: Ulick on October 19, 2012, 12:19:47 PM
Re the question about SF, I can understand why they are going to try to avoid this one like the plague as I can remember the division in the ranks when they were briefly pro-abortion in the early 80's. There is a very active lobby within the Party pushing hard for a return to this policy which were effectively silenced at the recent Ard Fheis and on the other hand there was a councillor down the country reprimanded for speaking at a pro-life meeting "in a personal capacity". Can't ride two horses forever I'd imagine.
But they'll try - here's Sue Ramsey:
"Sinn Fein is not in favour of abortion nor do we believe that the 1967 British Abortion Act should be extended to the six counties. We believe where a woman's life or mental health is at risk or in grave danger that the final decision rests with the woman." In general it doesn't look like too many politicians are going to stick their head above the parapet - Anna Lo is the only one i've heard to date - has there been anyone else?
Quote from: Ulick on October 19, 2012, 12:19:47 PM
I passed the protest yesterday and must admit I found some of the images very disturbing to the extent I wasn't able to get two posters in particular out of my head all night. One linked below (don't click if you are squeamish):
Worth noting that a lot of the pictures on those posters aren't from medical abortions under 9 weeks, so they have little relevance to the clinic in Belfast, as the law stands.
Quote from: The Iceman on October 19, 2012, 04:30:16 PM
The thing with abortion is that everything IS black and white. If you abort, a baby dies; if you don't abort, a baby lives. It is that simple.
Everything is black and white? That's
one thing that you say is black and white, and it's surrounded by a lot of grey. Also, "if you don't abort", a baby may still die.
Quote from: The Iceman on October 19, 2012, 04:30:16 PM
With regards women who are raped, I can't agree that aborting the baby is the right option. Two wrongs don't make a right. Not only is the woman going to have to deal with the trauma of being sexually assaulted, but she is also going to have to deal with the trauma of the abortion.
Maybe the trauma of the abortion is less of a trauma than continuing with the pregnancy. It's not always as simple as you might like to portray.
The fact is that thousands of Irish women have abortions anyway every year. It is immature to ignore this and pretend Ireland is different. That shite about Ireland being more moral than perfidious England was never true either. CF child abuse.
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 19, 2012, 05:57:22 PM
Quote from: Ulick on October 19, 2012, 12:19:47 PM
I passed the protest yesterday and must admit I found some of the images very disturbing to the extent I wasn't able to get two posters in particular out of my head all night. One linked below (don't click if you are squeamish):
Worth noting that a lot of the pictures on those posters aren't from medical abortions under 9 weeks, so they have little relevance to the clinic in Belfast, as the law stands.
The Stokes clinic favours abortion on demand no matter what time from conception and they lobby for that to happen. So IMO if someone wants to protest against them setting up shop here the posters are relevant.
its well worth noting that the handful of women travelling to the uk for abortions from the six counties wouldnt pay the rent of that building in belfast if they were to avail of the stopes' services. in truth stopes are here to service the whole island and will infact make a fortune from private patients from south of the border probably setting their rates slighty below the cost of a plane ticket and acommodation in the uk.
Quote from: lawnseed on October 19, 2012, 06:48:56 PM
its well worth noting that the handful of women travelling to the uk for abortions from the six counties wouldnt pay the rent of that building in belfast if they were to avail of the stopes' services. in truth stopes are here to service the whole island and will infact make a fortune from private patients from south of the border probably setting their rates slighty below the cost of a plane ticket and acommodation in the uk.
On the basis that Marie Stopes is a not-for-profit organisation, your post makes no sense.
And as for the 'handful' of women who travel from NI, as far as i'm aware, it's just under 1,000 a year.
Even "not-for-profit" organizations, especially political campaigning ones like Stopes have to make money.
Quote from: Ulick on October 19, 2012, 07:55:33 PM
Even "not-for-profit" organizations, especially political campaigning ones like Stopes have to make money.
But not necessarily from each clinic. I doubt the set-up in Belfast, small and with no surgical element, would be too costly for an organisation of that size.
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 19, 2012, 08:08:32 PM
Quote from: Ulick on October 19, 2012, 07:55:33 PM
Even "not-for-profit" organizations, especially political campaigning ones like Stopes have to make money.
But not necessarily from each clinic. I doubt the set-up in Belfast, small and with no surgical element, would be too costly for an organisation of that size.
The way I see it there is merit to what lawnseed has said. On the one hand they've already announced their intention to push the perimeters of the law in the north, so that'll be abortions on demand for anyone under nine weeks. Everyone else gets referrals to their clinics in Liverpool, Manchester or wherever. That should tie up the "Irish market" nicely for them.
Quote from: Ulick on October 19, 2012, 08:17:33 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 19, 2012, 08:08:32 PM
Quote from: Ulick on October 19, 2012, 07:55:33 PM
Even "not-for-profit" organizations, especially political campaigning ones like Stopes have to make money.
But not necessarily from each clinic. I doubt the set-up in Belfast, small and with no surgical element, would be too costly for an organisation of that size.
The way I see it there is merit to what lawnseed has said. On the one hand they've already announced their intention to push the perimeters of the law in the north, so that'll be abortions on demand for anyone under nine weeks. Everyone else gets referrals to their clinics in Liverpool, Manchester or wherever. That should tie up the "Irish market" nicely for them.
Is the bulk of their work for dolls that get caught short after a night out? An extreme version of the morning after pill. I remember reading previously about dolls having multiple abortions. Should be locked up.
Quote from: Tony Baloney on October 19, 2012, 08:32:43 PM
Quote from: Ulick on October 19, 2012, 08:17:33 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 19, 2012, 08:08:32 PM
Quote from: Ulick on October 19, 2012, 07:55:33 PM
Even "not-for-profit" organizations, especially political campaigning ones like Stopes have to make money.
But not necessarily from each clinic. I doubt the set-up in Belfast, small and with no surgical element, would be too costly for an organisation of that size.
The way I see it there is merit to what lawnseed has said. On the one hand they've already announced their intention to push the perimeters of the law in the north, so that'll be abortions on demand for anyone under nine weeks. Everyone else gets referrals to their clinics in Liverpool, Manchester or wherever. That should tie up the "Irish market" nicely for them.
Is the bulk of their work for dolls that get caught short after a night out? An extreme version of the morning after pill. I remember reading previously about dolls having multiple abortions. Should be locked up.
Yes or stoned!
Quote from: tyssam5 on October 19, 2012, 09:12:58 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on October 19, 2012, 08:32:43 PM
Quote from: Ulick on October 19, 2012, 08:17:33 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 19, 2012, 08:08:32 PM
Quote from: Ulick on October 19, 2012, 07:55:33 PM
Even "not-for-profit" organizations, especially political campaigning ones like Stopes have to make money.
But not necessarily from each clinic. I doubt the set-up in Belfast, small and with no surgical element, would be too costly for an organisation of that size.
The way I see it there is merit to what lawnseed has said. On the one hand they've already announced their intention to push the perimeters of the law in the north, so that'll be abortions on demand for anyone under nine weeks. Everyone else gets referrals to their clinics in Liverpool, Manchester or wherever. That should tie up the "Irish market" nicely for them.
Is the bulk of their work for dolls that get caught short after a night out? An extreme version of the morning after pill. I remember reading previously about dolls having multiple abortions. Should be locked up.
Yes or stoned!
They must have been to repeatedly forget to use contraception.
its a money racket plain and simple. this office is a base from which to carry out abortions under 9wks and or to direct women to other stopes clinics in the uk. the only reason stopes dont want a counter demo is because the prolifers are giving them all the free publicity they need. if however the present demo begins to decline then they'll organise a counter demo.
How can it be a money racket for a not-for-profit organisation?
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 19, 2012, 10:09:48 PM
How can it be a money racket for a not-for-profit organisation?
Why bother then when it is offering services available a few minutes walk away in the City Hospital?
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 19, 2012, 10:09:48 PM
How can it be a money racket for a not-for-profit organisation?
your pro abortion maguire aren't you. you dont have a problem with killing an unborn child. read your posts on this thread why dont you just say it
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 19, 2012, 10:09:48 PM
How can it be a money racket for a not-for-profit organisation?
Not-for-profit organisations wouldn't exist if they didn't make money and if they don't exist they can't promote their agenda and pay the salaries of those that work for them.
On an aside, I was on a residential course last year along with the NI & Irish directors of 5 of the biggest international NGO "charities" in this part of the world and they were all freely admitting (in confidence) that they operate corporate structures geared towards one thing - pulling in money. Their jobs were all performance related and benchmarked against the amount of cash they raked in (including bonuses).
Quote from: lawnseed on October 19, 2012, 10:44:40 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 19, 2012, 10:09:48 PM
How can it be a money racket for a not-for-profit organisation?
your pro abortion maguire aren't you. you dont have a problem with killing an unborn child. read your posts on this thread why dont you just say it
I've said it before - I thought it would have been obvious. I'm pro-choice - I wouldn't necessarily make such decisions myself, but I support a woman's right to choose.
Seen a tv show one night where a young 15 year old girl was violently raped in America and became pregnant as a result. With the consent of her parents she had an abortion. I wouldn't call myself pro-abortion but if this was my daughter I think I would have to agree with the parents here,
Any opinions on a situation like this?
Quote from: lawnseed on October 19, 2012, 06:48:56 PM
its well worth noting that the handful of women travelling to the uk for abortions from the six counties wouldnt pay the rent of that building in belfast if they were to avail of the stopes' services. in truth stopes are here to service the whole island and will infact make a fortune from private patients from south of the border probably setting their rates slighty below the cost of a plane ticket and acommodation in the uk.
Handful of women from each GP practice in each small town/ village each and every year more like.
Quote from: Onion Bag on October 20, 2012, 12:47:34 PM
Seen a tv show one night where a young 15 year old girl was violently raped in America and became pregnant as a result. With the consent of her parents she had an abortion. I wouldn't call myself pro-abortion but if this was my daughter I think I would have to agree with the parents here,
Any opinions on a situation like this?
Never mind that situation. I have a fourteen yr old daughter. In a couple of years time she makes a mistake and ends up pregnant. She does not want the baby, her decision, some of you say tough, she has to have the baby, others say she has to go to England to have the termination. I say why does she not have the same rights a Londoner, or a Scouser.
I don't think anyone here would respond "tough". I think if you are worried about it now then do something about it. 2 years from now she is 16. If you think she will be sexually active at 16 and you're ok with that then you should also be prepared to deal with the consequences. If you think it would be a mistake for her to have sex, then what are you doing to prevent that? How are you educating her and helping her to understand?
I have a daughter and I understand your worries but I would do something about it now.
I firmly believe the "mistakes" children make are the fault of the parents....
Quote from: The Iceman on October 22, 2012, 01:32:17 PM
I don't think anyone here would respond "tough". I think if you are worried about it now then do something about it. 2 years from now she is 16. If you think she will be sexually active at 16 and you're ok with that then you should also be prepared to deal with the consequences. If you think it would be a mistake for her to have sex, then what are you doing to prevent that? How are you educating her and helping her to understand?
I have a daughter and I understand your worries but I would do something about it now.
I firmly believe the "mistakes" children make are the fault of the parents....
So the children are blameless then?? I think thats bullshit, kids make mistakes and neither me nor my wife had anything to do with the mistakes my girls made, they made decisions that were immature and it bit them, just like I made when I was young, I never once even thought of blaming my parents, nor did they blame me.
Is it really bullshit Stew or are you just picking a fight because I disagree with you on other things?
If you didn't educate and teach your child or guide them then how would they make decisions? Based on what they see on TV? Or what they read in the papers?
It is your responsibility as a parent to educate and guide your child. If they are goodun's or bad'uns, surely you have to take some responsibility?
Quote from: The Iceman on October 22, 2012, 01:32:17 PM
I don't think anyone here would respond "tough". I think if you are worried about it now then do something about it. 2 years from now she is 16. If you think she will be sexually active at 16 and you're ok with that then you should also be prepared to deal with the consequences. If you think it would be a mistake for her to have sex, then what are you doing to prevent that? How are you educating her and helping her to understand?
I have a daughter and I understand your worries but I would do something about it now.
I firmly believe the "mistakes" children make are the fault of the parents....
Everything really is so black and white in your world.
That is a ridiculous statement.
I have to be honest here Iceman and suggest that I thought your initial post was a little bit askew.
The world is littered with people whose parents taught them well, and taught them the right and the wrong choices to make. To suggest that once thats done if a young girl or boy makes a mistake that it is the parents fault is far from my take on it.
There are plenty of girls out there who know how to not get pregnant, and there are plenty of girls out there who know they shouldnt maybe be doing what they are doing - but it doesnt stop them.
I hope that you wouldnt be this hard on yourself if one of your children ended up in a situation like this down the line. A parent can only do so much. You can't literally put chastity devices on teenagers any more.
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 22, 2012, 05:51:11 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on October 22, 2012, 01:32:17 PM
I don't think anyone here would respond "tough". I think if you are worried about it now then do something about it. 2 years from now she is 16. If you think she will be sexually active at 16 and you're ok with that then you should also be prepared to deal with the consequences. If you think it would be a mistake for her to have sex, then what are you doing to prevent that? How are you educating her and helping her to understand?
I have a daughter and I understand your worries but I would do something about it now.
I firmly believe the "mistakes" children make are the fault of the parents....
Everything really is so black and white in your world.
That is a ridiculous statement.
Maybe I need to re-read my posts. I oftentimes write like I would normally speak in a conversation and my delivery isn't always perfect -I don't intend to be so black and white. I do believe all parents have to take some responsibility for these "mistakes". Yes there will be exceptions - you will have kids who are just bad'uns in some cases and yes we all do make mistakes but for the most part we are molded mostly by our home environment and the environments our parents expose us to outside of the home. The choices and decisions we make are heavily influenced by who we are and the examples given by our parents.
If you think your 16 year old daughter is having sex and you are ok with that and want to only address the consequences rather than the actions then I think better parenting skills are required. They're going to do it anyway isn't the best response in my opinion. I'm not saying you have to agree with that either. I think it is very possible to have a young daughter or son in today's world who isn't sexually active and I'm prepared to work harder than the next man to help with that.
Maybe you think my hopes are naive or unrealistic but I am willing to put the work in. If things go wrong or mistakes are made I will take responsibility as a parent for not doing better.
I agree that parents play a huge part in influencing the choices their children may make, but I don't think you appreciate the limits to their role. Your reference to "bad'uns" misses the point spectacularly. The best behaved children/teens can make wrong choices.
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 22, 2012, 07:26:09 PM
I agree that parents play a huge part in influencing the choices their children may make, but I don't think you appreciate the limits to their role. Your reference to "bad'uns" misses the point spectacularly. The best behaved children/teens can make wrong choices.
Come on then, you are itching to tell us!
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 22, 2012, 07:26:09 PM
I agree that parents play a huge part in influencing the choices their children may make, but I don't think you appreciate the limits to their role. Your reference to "bad'uns" misses the point spectacularly. The best behaved children/teens can make wrong choices.
They do, I agreed we all make mistakes. My kids will too - but the gravest mistakes will hopefully be minimised by the time and effort I put in.
Quote from: Tony Baloney on October 22, 2012, 07:31:39 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 22, 2012, 07:26:09 PM
I agree that parents play a huge part in influencing the choices their children may make, but I don't think you appreciate the limits to their role. Your reference to "bad'uns" misses the point spectacularly. The best behaved children/teens can make wrong choices.
Come on then, you are itching to tell us!
Eh?
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 19, 2012, 07:43:32 PM
Quote from: lawnseed on October 19, 2012, 06:48:56 PM
its well worth noting that the handful of women travelling to the UK for abortions from the six counties wouldn't pay the rent of that building in Belfast if they were to avail of the stopes' services. in truth stopes are here to service the whole island and will infact make a fortune from private patients from south of the border probably setting their rates slightly below the cost of a plane ticket and accommodation in the UK.
On the basis that Marie Stopes is a not-for-profit organisation, your post makes no sense.
And as for the 'handful' of women who travel from NI, as far as I'm aware, it's just under 1,000 a year.
maguire its £450 for "guidance" from stopes. even if all of the 1000 nordies use the service thats only 450 grand it wouldn't pay the wages,rent,electric etc.. like i said they're banking on 'guiding' quite a few Mexicans
An interesting perspective:
ALEX KANE: Key questions in abortion debate
Published on Monday 22 October 2012 09:29
LET me tell you a little about Lilah-Liberty, the younger of my two girls. She was three a couple of weeks ago and has just started play school. She knows what she likes and doesn't like when it comes to food, clothes and television.
She can throw a tantrum of epic proportions if she doesn't get her own way (a trait she inherits from her mum), yet melt an iceberg with a smile.
She crawls into our bed in the middle of the night, sleeps sideways, kicks the covers down, knees me in the small of the back and then snores like a mouse with a hangover. She is, in fact, much the same as every other three-year-old: a complex bundle of physical, mental and chemical elements working away to let her develop and grow.
It may be a trite thing to say – and regular readers will know that I'm not particularly sentimental – but Lilah and her 14-year-old sister, Megan, really do make life worth living.
OK, I'm a doting dad, so what? Well, maybe the age difference between the girls will give you a clue. Megan was born on October 7, 1998, after a trouble-free, uncomplicated pregnancy. Lilah-Liberty was born on October 9, 2009, after four miscarriages and a pregnancy where every unexplained ache, twitch and sensation was a source of huge anguish for her mum and me.
In every one of those miscarriages we saw our baby; saw the gentle flashing beep of a heartbeat. We knew that they were alive: not just a collection of bits and bobs that would become 'life' nine months later. Believe me, no one could ever come close to explaining the nature, let alone the scale, of the loss you feel or grief you carry when told that the heart has stopped beating.
You have lost a baby: lost the life being carried and nurtured in the womb. At that moment you rage against the world, often believing you are unique in your loss and often believing that you are somehow, in some way, to blame.
And then, particularly if it is your first miscarriage, you discover an awful, often unspoken truth. About one in four pregnancies ends in miscarriage. In the vast majority of those cases it is nothing to do with either parent: it is just nature, red in tooth and claw, stepping in and making yet another brutal decision.
Most women who miscarry (even those who have had multiple miscarriages) will go on and have children and quite often more than one. Indeed, so common is miscarriage that consultants don't usually even bother to do tests or express any concerns until the second or third one: and even then, unless something very obvious is wrong, their advice is usually to "just carry on trying".
I don't think there is a day passes when something doesn't remind me about the 'missing' members of the family: Milly-Mandy, Conan, April and Eve.
And yes, I'm only too aware of the fact that if Milly-Mandy and Conan had been born then we wouldn't now have Lilah-Liberty. But that does nothing to lessen an ongoing sense of loss.
I still cry when I think of Conan: he miscarried at 17 weeks and we cremated him and scattered his ashes in the grounds of Stormont.
So, as you can probably imagine, I have huge problems with abortion. Every single fibre and instinct of my being rebels against abortion: rebels against the calculated, deliberate decision to terminate a life. And yet I have no idea what I would have done if told that childbirth would almost certainly have resulted in Kerri's death.
I have no idea how I would have reacted if we had been told that the pregnancy was viable but that the baby would have multiple physical and mental handicaps and never be capable of living an independent life.
I have no idea how I would react if Kerri or the girls were ever raped and became pregnant as a consequence. I have no idea how I would react if Megan or Lilah-Liberty were pregnant in a few years' time and told that there was a risk to either their own lives or the babies they were carrying.
And because I have no idea how I would feel – and, more importantly, because I couldn't ever be pregnant – I don't believe I should have the right to tell Kerri, Megan or Lilah-Liberty what they should do in those cases.
Ultimately, it has to be their personal choice: but a choice I would hope they would make after talking to those of us who love them and want only the best for them.
Where I do have difficulties, though, is when abortion seems to be a form of delayed contraception. The vast majority of pregnancies are the consequence of consensual sex between people over the age of 18.
Some of them may have been drunk at the time, or carried away by 'the moment', but does that really justify aborting what may well be a healthy pregnancy? One of the things we need to learn in life is the necessity of living with the consequences of our actions, not running away from them or getting rid of them.
Back in the mid-1960s, in the run-up to the 1967 Abortion Act, proponents argued that it would help in cases of specific medical/mental threats to the mother and child; eliminate 'backstreet' abortions and encourage proper sex education to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.
Since the Act became law there have been almost seven million abortions performed in Great Britain, almost all of them for 'social reasons'. That is a truly awful statistic.
Life is precious. I don't want to repeal the 1967 Act, though, but I really do think we need to ask one very simple question: what, exactly, is an 'unwanted' pregnancy and why are there still so many of them at a time when contraceptives have never been more easily available?
http://www.newsletter.co.uk/community/columnists/alex-kane-key-questions-in-abortion-debate-1-4395235
That article would reflect my own feelings.
it must be ok to kill a child as long as its in a nice office by someone well eduacated wearing a white coat using big words in a soft voice.. "now i'm just going to give you these wee pills and your little problem will disappear'
Quote from: Tony Baloney on October 22, 2012, 09:15:17 PM
That article would reflect my own feelings.
It's pretty close to where I am on the issue as well.
For me, that article illustrates how pro-choice doesn't necessarily equate to pro-abortion.
Quote from: lawnseed on October 22, 2012, 09:20:10 PM
it must be ok to kill a child as long as its in a nice office by someone well eduacated wearing a white coat using big words in a soft voice.. "now i'm just going to give you these wee pills and your little problem will disappear'
I assume you're just as opposed to the morning after pill?
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 22, 2012, 09:25:34 PM
Quote from: lawnseed on October 22, 2012, 09:20:10 PM
it must be ok to kill a child as long as its in a nice office by someone well eduacated wearing a white coat using big words in a soft voice.. "now i'm just going to give you these wee pills and your little problem will disappear'
I assume you're just as opposed to the morning after pill?
theres nothing wrong with the night before pill. apart from the exceptional circumstances mentioned before most of these 'little problems' are easily avoided. women/men a hundred years ago didnt have half the gear to hand to avoid unwanted pregnancies and yet they managed without stopes.
Quote from: lawnseed on October 22, 2012, 10:06:38 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 22, 2012, 09:25:34 PM
Quote from: lawnseed on October 22, 2012, 09:20:10 PM
it must be ok to kill a child as long as its in a nice office by someone well eduacated wearing a white coat using big words in a soft voice.. "now i'm just going to give you these wee pills and your little problem will disappear'
I assume you're just as opposed to the morning after pill?
theres nothing wrong with the night before pill. apart from the exceptional circumstances mentioned before most of these 'little problems' are easily avoided. women/men a hundred years ago didnt have half the gear to hand to avoid unwanted pregnancies and yet they managed without stopes.
yes , they had the luxury to fall back on the parish priest to sort out the young mothers and babies.
Quote from: lawnseed on October 22, 2012, 10:06:38 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 22, 2012, 09:25:34 PM
Quote from: lawnseed on October 22, 2012, 09:20:10 PM
it must be ok to kill a child as long as its in a nice office by someone well eduacated wearing a white coat using big words in a soft voice.. "now i'm just going to give you these wee pills and your little problem will disappear'
I assume you're just as opposed to the morning after pill?
theres nothing wrong with the night before pill. apart from the exceptional circumstances mentioned before most of these 'little problems' are easily avoided.
What about the morning after pill though?
Quote from: ludermor on October 22, 2012, 10:28:57 PM
Quote from: lawnseed on October 22, 2012, 10:06:38 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 22, 2012, 09:25:34 PM
Quote from: lawnseed on October 22, 2012, 09:20:10 PM
it must be ok to kill a child as long as its in a nice office by someone well eduacated wearing a white coat using big words in a soft voice.. "now i'm just going to give you these wee pills and your little problem will disappear'
I assume you're just as opposed to the morning after pill?
theres nothing wrong with the night before pill. apart from the exceptional circumstances mentioned before most of these 'little problems' are easily avoided. women/men a hundred years ago didnt have half the gear to hand to avoid unwanted pregnancies and yet they managed without stopes.
yes , they had the luxury to fall back on the parish priest to sort out the young mothers and babies.
and now they have social services and the housing exec. i think the trick is to use any of the endless methods of contraception. the word mean contra.. against or anti and ception part of the word conception. no conception.. no child to kill. you know that they kill the baby then mutilate the body so it passes from the mothers womb.. but theyve got medical degrees and white coats so its ok
Quote from: lawnseed on October 22, 2012, 10:06:38 PM
women/men a hundred years ago didnt have half the gear to hand to avoid unwanted pregnancies and yet they managed without stopes.
Clueless. Do you know how many women died from unsafe abortions a hundred years ago? Do you know how many still die?
According to the World Health Organisation, approximately 68,000 women die annually as a result of complications of unsafe abortion; and between two million and seven million women each year survive unsafe abortion but sustain long-term damage or disease.
Stopes didn't invent abortion.
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 22, 2012, 10:31:00 PM
Quote from: lawnseed on October 22, 2012, 10:06:38 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 22, 2012, 09:25:34 PM
Quote from: lawnseed on October 22, 2012, 09:20:10 PM
it must be ok to kill a child as long as its in a nice office by someone well eduacated wearing a white coat using big words in a soft voice.. "now i'm just going to give you these wee pills and your little problem will disappear'
I assume you're just as opposed to the morning after pill?
theres nothing wrong with the night before pill. apart from the exceptional circumstances mentioned before most of these 'little problems' are easily avoided.
What about the morning after pill though?
does this pill prevent conception..? i dont know. i'm in favour of precautions lots of them. no point looking for reverse etc
Quote from: lawnseed on October 22, 2012, 10:42:58 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 22, 2012, 10:31:00 PM
Quote from: lawnseed on October 22, 2012, 10:06:38 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 22, 2012, 09:25:34 PM
Quote from: lawnseed on October 22, 2012, 09:20:10 PM
it must be ok to kill a child as long as its in a nice office by someone well eduacated wearing a white coat using big words in a soft voice.. "now i'm just going to give you these wee pills and your little problem will disappear'
I assume you're just as opposed to the morning after pill?
theres nothing wrong with the night before pill. apart from the exceptional circumstances mentioned before most of these 'little problems' are easily avoided.
What about the morning after pill though?
does this pill prevent conception..? i dont know. i'm in favour of precautions lots of them. no point looking for reverse etc
It can stop a fertilised egg settling in the womb. It's perfectly legal, widely used and available north and south.
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 22, 2012, 10:40:12 PM
Quote from: lawnseed on October 22, 2012, 10:06:38 PM
women/men a hundred years ago didnt have half the gear to hand to avoid unwanted pregnancies and yet they managed without stopes.
Clueless. Do you know how many women died from unsafe abortions a hundred years ago? Do you know how many still die?
According to the World Health Organisation, approximately 68,000 women die annually as a result of complications of unsafe abortion; and between two million and seven million women each year survive unsafe abortion but sustain long-term damage or disease.
Stopes didn't invent abortion.
world heath organisation? theyre talking about people in counties where they havent got a crust of bread. not teenagers pissed in nightclubs with condom machines in the toilet or 24hr chemists in nearly every town.
Quote from: lawnseed on October 22, 2012, 09:20:10 PM
it must be ok to kill a child as long as its in a nice office by someone well eduacated wearing a white coat using big words in a soft voice.. "now i'm just going to give you these wee pills and your little problem will disappear'
Do you consider what is still a cluster of cells after, say, a few days pregnancy, to be a "child"?
And do you also believe that doctors who provide abortions are all so callous and cynical etc as you imply?
I should add that I only ask since this is an issue about which I have many doubts and problems etc, whereas you seem so certain as to appear to consider yourself unquestionable.
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 22, 2012, 10:40:12 PM
Quote from: lawnseed on October 22, 2012, 10:06:38 PM
women/men a hundred years ago didnt have half the gear to hand to avoid unwanted pregnancies and yet they managed without stopes.
Clueless. Do you know how many women died from unsafe abortions a hundred years ago? Do you know how many still die?
According to the World Health Organisation, approximately 68,000 women die annually as a result of complications of unsafe abortion; and between two million and seven million women each year survive unsafe abortion but sustain long-term damage or disease.
Stopes didn't invent abortion.
Not only did Stopes (the organisation) not invent abortion, but abortion advice and provision is only a part of what they do, both in the UK and worldwide, for example:
http://www.mariestopes.org/what-we-do
In fact, by providing effective contraceptive and sexual health services in Third World countries etc, they undoubtedly prevent countless abortions taking place (as well as caring for mothers who are suffering as a result of having undergone backstreet/illegal abortions which were nothing to do with Stopes).
And for the record, Marie Stopes herself was opposed to abortion, since she felt that with access to proper contraceptive and health-care services, there should be no need for it.
Quote from: lawnseed on October 22, 2012, 11:16:31 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 22, 2012, 10:40:12 PM
Quote from: lawnseed on October 22, 2012, 10:06:38 PM
women/men a hundred years ago didnt have half the gear to hand to avoid unwanted pregnancies and yet they managed without stopes.
Clueless. Do you know how many women died from unsafe abortions a hundred years ago? Do you know how many still die?
According to the World Health Organisation, approximately 68,000 women die annually as a result of complications of unsafe abortion; and between two million and seven million women each year survive unsafe abortion but sustain long-term damage or disease.
Stopes didn't invent abortion.
world heath organisation? theyre talking about people in counties where they havent got a crust of bread. not teenagers pissed in nightclubs with condom machines in the toilet or 24hr chemists in nearly every town.
They're talking about countries where there is no access to safe abortion.
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 23, 2012, 07:12:30 AM
Quote from: lawnseed on October 22, 2012, 11:16:31 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 22, 2012, 10:40:12 PM
Quote from: lawnseed on October 22, 2012, 10:06:38 PM
women/men a hundred years ago didnt have half the gear to hand to avoid unwanted pregnancies and yet they managed without stopes.
Clueless. Do you know how many women died from unsafe abortions a hundred years ago? Do you know how many still die?
According to the World Health Organisation, approximately 68,000 women die annually as a result of complications of unsafe abortion; and between two million and seven million women each year survive unsafe abortion but sustain long-term damage or disease.
Stopes didn't invent abortion.
world heath organisation? theyre talking about people in counties where they havent got a crust of bread. not teenagers pissed in nightclubs with condom machines in the toilet or 24hr chemists in nearly every town.
They're talking about countries where there is no access to safe abortion.
maguire and eg. go ahead abort your kids infact abort as many as you like. but dont try to tell this forum that this crowd work for free.
Quote from: lawnseed on October 23, 2012, 08:24:54 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 23, 2012, 07:12:30 AM
Quote from: lawnseed on October 22, 2012, 11:16:31 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 22, 2012, 10:40:12 PM
Quote from: lawnseed on October 22, 2012, 10:06:38 PM
women/men a hundred years ago didnt have half the gear to hand to avoid unwanted pregnancies and yet they managed without stopes.
Clueless. Do you know how many women died from unsafe abortions a hundred years ago? Do you know how many still die?
According to the World Health Organisation, approximately 68,000 women die annually as a result of complications of unsafe abortion; and between two million and seven million women each year survive unsafe abortion but sustain long-term damage or disease.
Stopes didn't invent abortion.
world heath organisation? theyre talking about people in counties where they havent got a crust of bread. not teenagers pissed in nightclubs with condom machines in the toilet or 24hr chemists in nearly every town.
They're talking about countries where there is no access to safe abortion.
maguire and eg. go ahead abort your kids infact abort as many as you like. but dont try to tell this forum that this crowd work for free.
That would surely be up to lady they hypothetically impregnated no?
Quote from: lawnseed on October 23, 2012, 08:24:54 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 23, 2012, 07:12:30 AM
Quote from: lawnseed on October 22, 2012, 11:16:31 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 22, 2012, 10:40:12 PM
Quote from: lawnseed on October 22, 2012, 10:06:38 PM
women/men a hundred years ago didnt have half the gear to hand to avoid unwanted pregnancies and yet they managed without stopes.
Clueless. Do you know how many women died from unsafe abortions a hundred years ago? Do you know how many still die?
According to the World Health Organisation, approximately 68,000 women die annually as a result of complications of unsafe abortion; and between two million and seven million women each year survive unsafe abortion but sustain long-term damage or disease.
Stopes didn't invent abortion.
world heath organisation? theyre talking about people in counties where they havent got a crust of bread. not teenagers pissed in nightclubs with condom machines in the toilet or 24hr chemists in nearly every town.
They're talking about countries where there is no access to safe abortion.
maguire and eg. go ahead abort your kids infact abort as many as you like. but dont try to tell this forum that this crowd work for free.
Are you totally incapable of grown-up debate?
And who claimed they work for free? People pay for their services here - in turn they provide free or subsidised services is developing countries. It's a not-for-profit organisation, so I don't know who you think is creaming a 'profit'.
Quote from: lawnseed on October 23, 2012, 08:24:54 PMmaguire and eg. go ahead abort your kids infact abort as many as you like. but dont try to tell this forum that this crowd work for free.
I concur with Maguire's reply to your latter point [
bold] (and will ignore the offensive implication in your opening remark).
Meanwhile, back in the Land of Reasoned Debate, I am still awaiting a reply to my questions in #64:
"Do you consider what is still a cluster of cells after, say, a few days pregnancy, to be a 'child'?
And do you also believe that doctors who provide abortions are all so callous and cynical etc as you imply?"Btw, when it comes to the latter question, I will refer once more to the link I provided to the wider work of Marie Stopes, since I doubt if you gave it any serious consideration previously:
http://www.mariestopes.org/what-we-do
I work in Tax. I deal with large multinational 'not for profits' who have revenues in the 400 Million - 1 billion per year. they have a 'not for profit' status but they are very much in the business of "profit" and making money.
your link to Marie Stopes is of course going to say what they want the world to believe. The same as any company - but how much of it is really true?
[Edited by Mod3. Iceman, please. That's a very disturbing and upsetting image.
Quote from: The Iceman on October 24, 2012, 01:58:25 PM
I work in Tax. I deal with large multinational 'not for profits' who have revenues in the 400 Million - 1 billion per year. they have a 'not for profit' status but they are very much in the business of "profit" and making money.
I assume the Internal Revenue taxes NFP organisations on a different (i.e. lower rate) basis from regular Corporate entities. And I can't imagine that the US Government willingly foregoes additional tax-raising for no reason. Therefore there must be a substantive difference between what NFP organisations and regular Corporations do, and their "reward" for doing so.
Which is only the point which Maguire01 and I were making in response to claims that Stopes are only in it for the money etc
Quote from: The Iceman on October 24, 2012, 01:58:25 PMyour link to Marie Stopes is of course going to say what they want the world to believe. The same as any company - but how much of it is really true?
Of course Stopes will present the picture of their organisation which best suits their purpose. As for how much of it is "true", I leave it for others to make up their own mind.
However, much of what they do is incontrovertable fact-wise. And not only that, but activity such as eg providing basic sexual health and educational services free of charge for desperately poor people in the Third World must be very difficult for anti-Abortionists in the First World to criticise for being "sinful" or "immoral" etc.
Yet in their haste to seize the moral high ground, invariably they wilfully ignore the rest of the picture.
Quote from: The Iceman on October 24, 2012, 01:58:25 PMI seen this once and immediately though of it when you posted the link EG:
You may think this topic is fit for crude, propagandistic polemic, but I prefer intelligent, informed and rational debate.
Quote from: The Iceman on October 24, 2012, 01:58:25 PM
I work in Tax. I deal with large multinational 'not for profits' who have revenues in the 400 Million - 1 billion per year. they have a 'not for profit' status but they are very much in the business of "profit" and making money.
I'd call it a surplus, rather than profit - the important point being that the surplus goes back into the organisation, rather than to shareholders. And that distinction is important for some posters here to understand, given that they're implying that someone is getting rich off this.
Iceman, please take that picture down.
For f**k sake Iceman take that down. You're not qualified to offer an opinion on a woman's right to choose, as far as I'm aware you don't possess a uterus.
Quote from: Harold Disgracey on October 24, 2012, 06:14:58 PM
For f**k sake Iceman take that down. You're not qualified to offer an opinion on a woman's right to choose, as far as I'm aware you don't possess a uterus.
Abortion is the only event that modern liberals think to violent and obscene to portray on TV/facebook and now the GAA Board. Not because they are squeamish or prudish but because if people knew what abortion really looked like it would destroy their pretense that it is a civilized answer to the problem of what to do with unwanted babies.
Quote from: The Iceman on October 24, 2012, 06:44:55 PM
Quote from: Harold Disgracey on October 24, 2012, 06:14:58 PM
For f**k sake Iceman take that down. You're not qualified to offer an opinion on a woman's right to choose, as far as I'm aware you don't possess a uterus.
Abortion is the only event that modern liberals think to violent and obscene to portray on TV/facebook and now the GAA Board. Not because they are squeamish or prudish but because if people knew what abortion really looked like it would destroy their pretense that it is a civilized answer to the problem of what to do with unwanted babies.
I don't think that is true, there are plenty of other examples. Glad I wasn't eating my dinner when I came across your image though.
I think the vast majority of people think less abortions would be great. Unfortunately many religious bodies opposed to abortion are also opposed decent (i.e. not abstinence only) sex education and contraception. I see a flaw in that logic.
Quote from: The Iceman on October 24, 2012, 06:44:55 PM
Quote from: Harold Disgracey on October 24, 2012, 06:14:58 PM
For f**k sake Iceman take that down. You're not qualified to offer an opinion on a woman's right to choose, as far as I'm aware you don't possess a uterus.
Abortion is the only event that modern liberals think to violent and obscene to portray on TV/facebook and now the GAA Board. Not because they are squeamish or prudish but because if people knew what abortion really looked like it would destroy their pretense that it is a civilized answer to the problem of what to do with unwanted babies.
You think they people don't know what it looks like?
Like many things Maguire it's harder to come to terms with when it's in your face.
Like it's easier to press a bottom that kills people 100 miles away that you never have to see or to pull a trigger and shoot the man in front of you....
Like this little story:
A woman went to see her doctor and said 'doctor I need your help, my baby is not even a year old and I am pregnant again' the doctor nodded and said 'I see, and what do you need help with?' The woman looked at him and said 'I can't handle another baby right now, I want you to end my pregnancy'. After a while the doctor looked at her and said 'I have a better solution, it will be easier on your body'. The woman smiled thinking the doctor had accepted her choice. The doctor then said 'How about we kill the baby in your arms , that way your body will not be put through anything and you will get to have a few months rest before the baby arrives'. The woman held her baby tighter and said 'Doctor you're insane, I'm not killing my baby'. The doctor nodded and said 'I rest my case , there will be no babies killed today'.
You and your black and white world.
Oh, and I think you've told your story wrong.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/1024/breaking28.html?via=mr
A Republican US senate candidate has said pregnancy caused by rape is something "God intended" and not a situation that justifies an abortion.
Indiana candidate Richard Mourdock's comment came in response to a question toward the end of a debate last night with his opponents, Democrat Joe Donnelly and Libertarian Andrew Horning. It comes amid a tight race and less than two weeks before the election.
"I've struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize that life is that gift from God," said Mourdock,.
"And, I think, even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen."
Mr Mourdock, described his position on abortion as believing that "life begins at conception,".
Mr Mourdock (61), has the endorsement of Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney. However a Romney spokeswoman said the presidential nominee "disagrees with Richard Mourdock's comments, and they do not reflect his views".
Mr Mourdock made his remark two months after Missouri Senate Republican candidate Todd Akin said that "legitimate rape" rarely leads to pregnancy.
Mr Akin later apologised while rejecting calls from fellow Republicans to withdraw from the Missouri race.
The Indiana contest is among the most closely watched in the US Senate, along with races in Massachusetts, Missouri and Virginia.
Republicans must hold all five of their competitive seats in the November 6th election and pick up four seats to win control of the Senate.
A Tea Party favourite, Mr Mourdock, defeated six-term Republican incumbent Richard Lugar by 20 percentage points in a May primary with an anti-tax, anti-Washington message.
During last night's debate in New Albany, Indiana, Mr Mourdock said he knows that some people disagree with his abortion stance and that he respects their point of view.
"The only exception I have to have an abortion is in that case of the life of the mother," he said.
Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a Florida Democrat and chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, assailed Mr Mourdock's remark. "Richard Mourdock's rape comments are outrageous and demeaning to women," she said.
"Unfortunately, they've become part and parcel of the modern Republican party's platform toward women's health."
If you consider life to start at fertilisation and up to 70% of pregnancies miscarry from this stage should all instances of 'life' be noted, registered, named etc??
http://miscarriage.about.com/od/pregnancyafterloss/f/70percent.htm
QuoteIf you consider life to start at fertilisation and up to 70% of pregnancies miscarry from this stage should all instances of 'life' be noted, registered, named etc??
http://miscarriage.about.com/od/pregnancyafterloss/f/70percent.htm
I know plenty of people who have lost children this way and have given them names and had funerals for them
Quote from: Declan on October 25, 2012, 12:16:20 PM
QuoteIf you consider life to start at fertilisation and up to 70% of pregnancies miscarry from this stage should all instances of 'life' be noted, registered, named etc??
http://miscarriage.about.com/od/pregnancyafterloss/f/70percent.htm
I know plenty of people who have lost children this way and have given them names and had funerals for them
So do I, and weren't allowed to bury them on consecrated ground as they hadn't been baptised...
QuoteSo do I, and weren't allowed to bury them on consecrated ground as they hadn't been baptised...
That's changed now from personal experience
Some bird married to the Windsor boyo is preggers. I wonder how the loyal subjects would feel if she now decided to have it aborted. Is it any different from any other unborn baby? The reason I ask is because the british press have already declared that it is third in line to the english throne.
I think this is what the debate often boils down to: how important is this life? Obviously the world already believes that this Windsor baby is much more important than the 100 babies that just got aborted while you read this......
All this talk about Marie Stopes is bad etc. etc.
I thought the law states that they are not allowed to perform an abortion unless the mother's life or mental health is at serious risk? Is the creation of this clinic now going to start a stampede of abortions in Northern Ireland?
Personally I don't agree with abortion in the sense that a woman makes a mistake and doesn't want to live with it. However if a woman is raped and has to raise a child out of that surely it is no life for either mother or child. If the mother's life is at risk surely the child should have to be aborted.
I know it's not clear cut but I'm sure that's how a lot of people on here feel about the subject and iceman's crudeness in trying to get across the "Abortion is bad" argument isn't helping things. Most of us agree with that!
Quote from: screenexile on December 04, 2012, 04:27:16 PM
All this talk about Marie Stopes is bad etc. etc.
I thought the law states that they are not allowed to perform an abortion unless the mother's life or mental health is at serious risk? Is the creation of this clinic now going to start a stampede of abortions in Northern Ireland?
Personally I don't agree with abortion in the sense that a woman makes a mistake and doesn't want to live with it.
Here it takes two to tango, luckily for us men we can run out on the responsibility unlike the women. All that alot of these women want is to follow the actions of their "partners" and find a way out of raising a kid. I'm not involved either way in this debate but you can't just label women as the only ones making a mistake here.
Quote from: trileacman on December 04, 2012, 05:14:20 PM
Quote from: screenexile on December 04, 2012, 04:27:16 PM
All this talk about Marie Stopes is bad etc. etc.
I thought the law states that they are not allowed to perform an abortion unless the mother's life or mental health is at serious risk? Is the creation of this clinic now going to start a stampede of abortions in Northern Ireland?
Personally I don't agree with abortion in the sense that a woman makes a mistake and doesn't want to live with it.
Here it takes two to tango, luckily for us men we can run out on the responsibility unlike the women. All that alot of these women want is to follow the actions of their "partners" and find a way out of raising a kid. I'm not involved either way in this debate but you can't just label women as the only ones making a mistake here.
Fair enough and I take your point. I'm not trying to defend any 'deadbeat' Dads in any shape or form. I believe that if you make a mistake then you have to accept the consequences and that goes for both parties involved.
Quote from: The Iceman on December 04, 2012, 04:07:25 PM
Obviously the world already believes that this Windsor baby is much more important than the 100 babies that just got aborted while you read this......
Yeah, thats just nonsense. C-.
Quote from: screenexile on December 04, 2012, 05:19:57 PM
Quote from: trileacman on December 04, 2012, 05:14:20 PM
Quote from: screenexile on December 04, 2012, 04:27:16 PM
All this talk about Marie Stopes is bad etc. etc.
I thought the law states that they are not allowed to perform an abortion unless the mother's life or mental health is at serious risk? Is the creation of this clinic now going to start a stampede of abortions in Northern Ireland?
Personally I don't agree with abortion in the sense that a woman makes a mistake and doesn't want to live with it.
Here it takes two to tango, luckily for us men we can run out on the responsibility unlike the women. All that alot of these women want is to follow the actions of their "partners" and find a way out of raising a kid. I'm not involved either way in this debate but you can't just label women as the only ones making a mistake here.
Fair enough and I take your point. I'm not trying to defend any 'deadbeat' Dads in any shape or form. I believe that if you make a mistake then you have to accept the consequences and that goes for both parties involved.
I knew you probably didn't mean it like that but I just wanted to make that point.
Quote from: Puckoon on December 04, 2012, 06:05:34 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on December 04, 2012, 04:07:25 PM
Obviously the world already believes that this Windsor baby is much more important than the 100 babies that just got aborted while you read this......
Yeah, thats just nonsense. C-.
why is it just nonsense?
In many arguments from other folks on the opposite side - its just a fetus, a collection of cells
the media have already announced this "fetus" is 3rd in line to the throne.....
Seen a tv show one night where a young 15 year old girl was violently raped in America and became pregnant as a result. With the consent of her parents she had an abortion. I wouldn't call myself pro-abortion but if this was my daughter I think I would have to agree with the parents here,
Any opinions on a situation like this?
Quote from: Onion Bag on December 05, 2012, 12:00:31 AM
Seen a tv show one night where a young 15 year old girl was violently raped in America and became pregnant as a result. With the consent of her parents she had an abortion. I wouldn't call myself pro-abortion but if this was my daughter I think I would have to agree with the parents here,
Any opinions on a situation like this?
Whatever opinions/beliefs you have on a decision made in a situation like that, why should they have an impact on the decision whether to terminate or not terminate the pregnancy?
Ludermor earlier posted an interesting quote from a Republican US politician called Mourdock "I've struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize that life is that gift from God," "And, I think, even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen." Mr Mourdock, described his position on abortion as believing that "life begins at conception,".
If we are to understand this attitude, once there is life, then that's what God intended to happen regardless of the circumstances of conception. Mourdock's argument is twofold.
A. there is life
B. God's intention.
Yes there is life, once there is conception, a new human life is in process. Therefore in his opinion a decision taken to end that life is regarded as murder. This big question has been the subject of the great legal debates in constitutional law in the US.
It's only murder if the law say so. Murder is defined by law.
The 'God's intention' part is an example of extreme religious dogma being selective about what God supposedly intends.
If a person is to believe that God intended the life, even in the horrible circumstances of rape, then does that person not believe God intended the
rape which caused the conception? and does that person not believe that God intended a decision taken to terminate the pregnancy?
What we have is some person making arbitrary judgements over God's intentions, deciding between what God intended and what God didn't intend.
Possibly what we have here is a person having a duality, a split personality, a belief in God and a belief in the Devil.
and some great interpreter exists on the planet to discriminate between what God intends and what the Devil intends.
Is this not a form of madness?
Quote from: Main Street on December 05, 2012, 08:20:50 AM
Quote from: Onion Bag on December 05, 2012, 12:00:31 AM
Seen a tv show one night where a young 15 year old girl was violently raped in America and became pregnant as a result. With the consent of her parents she had an abortion. I wouldn't call myself pro-abortion but if this was my daughter I think I would have to agree with the parents here,
Any opinions on a situation like this?
Whatever opinions/beliefs you have on a decision made in a situation like that, why should they have an impact on the decision whether to terminate or not terminate the pregnancy?
Ludermor earlier posted an interesting quote from a Republican US politician called Mourdock "I've struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize that life is that gift from God," "And, I think, even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen." Mr Mourdock, described his position on abortion as believing that "life begins at conception,".
If we are to understand this attitude, once there is life, then that's what God intended to happen regardless of the circumstances of conception. Mourdock's argument is twofold.
A. there is life
B. God's intention.
Yes there is life, once there is conception, a new human life is in process. Therefore in his opinion a decision taken to end that life is regarded as murder. This big question has been the subject of the great legal debates in constitutional law in the US.
It's only murder if the law say so. Murder is defined by law.
The 'God's intention' part is an example of extreme religious dogma being selective about what God supposedly intends.
If a person is to believe that God intended the life, even in the horrible circumstances of rape, then does that person not believe God intended the
rape which caused the conception? and does that person not believe that God intended a decision taken to terminate the pregnancy?
What we have is some person making arbitrary judgements over God's intentions, deciding between what God intended and what God didn't intend.
Possibly what we have here is a person having a duality, a split personality, a belief in God and a belief in the Devil.
and some great interpreter exists on the planet to discriminate between what God intends and what the Devil intends.
Is this not a form of madness?
That's the thing about the abortion row. Do you believe in God or not? If you have a strong Christian faith abortion is a complete no no. If you're an atheist then there really are no consequences to abortion.
Quote from: Onion Bag on December 05, 2012, 12:00:31 AM
Seen a tv show one night where a young 15 year old girl was violently raped in America and became pregnant as a result. With the consent of her parents she had an abortion. I wouldn't call myself pro-abortion but if this was my daughter I think I would have to agree with the parents here,
Any opinions on a situation like this?
I have a friend who was violently raped in Africa and became pregnant with an obviously black child. She originally chose to put the child up for adoption then when the baby was born decided to keep it and couldn't be happier. You never really know how you will feel about something like this until it happens - but there is always options.
Quote from: The Iceman on December 04, 2012, 08:39:17 PM
Quote from: Puckoon on December 04, 2012, 06:05:34 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on December 04, 2012, 04:07:25 PM
Obviously the world already believes that this Windsor baby is much more important than the 100 babies that just got aborted while you read this......
Yeah, thats just nonsense. C-.
why is it just nonsense?
the media have already announced this "fetus" is 3rd in line to the throne.....
The media article does not equate to "the world already believes".
Quote from: The Iceman on December 05, 2012, 02:07:30 PM
Quote from: Onion Bag on December 05, 2012, 12:00:31 AM
Seen a tv show one night where a young 15 year old girl was violently raped in America and became pregnant as a result. With the consent of her parents she had an abortion. I wouldn't call myself pro-abortion but if this was my daughter I think I would have to agree with the parents here,
Any opinions on a situation like this?
I have a friend who was violently raped in Africa and became pregnant with an obviously black child. She originally chose to put the child up for adoption then when the baby was born decided to keep it and couldn't be happier. You never really know how you will feel about something like this until it happens - but there is always options.
Good that it worked out like that. If she'd felt a lot differently and wanted to terminate but that was illegal, so she killed herself instead that would have been less good.
Afaiu,
those women who are either, forced due to pressure of fundamentalists (Koran/ Bible), or just voluntarily want to have their baby as mother nature intended, will not visit the Marie Stopes clinic, will never darken that door.
And those who do want to have their pregnancy terminated, will consult, make their appointment to visit the Marie Stopes clinic and terminate the pregnancy.
Where exactly is the problem with this arrangement?
Afaiu, previously, women had to travel to the real UK, in order to have terminations.
Quote from: Puckoon on December 05, 2012, 05:48:22 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on December 04, 2012, 08:39:17 PM
Quote from: Puckoon on December 04, 2012, 06:05:34 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on December 04, 2012, 04:07:25 PM
Obviously the world already believes that this Windsor baby is much more important than the 100 babies that just got aborted while you read this......
Yeah, thats just nonsense. C-.
why is it just nonsense?
the media have already announced this "fetus" is 3rd in line to the throne.....
The media article does not equate to "the world already believes".
Well most news sites I've visited over here are covering the story, FB is covered in posts about it and the media in UK and Ireland seem to be lapping it up. I'm sorry my sweeping terminology was too sweeping for you :) My point was this baby has already been given more importance than most and because it is important - its a baby and not a collection of cells.....
Our politicians, progressive as ever. Difficult to see this not passing, given the nature of our elected representatives.
'Abortions only via NHS' law change bid by two MLAs
Two Northern Ireland assembly members are attempting to change the law to make it illegal to perform an abortion outside the NHS.
The DUP's Paul Givan and the SDLP's Alban Maginness have unveiled a joint amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill.
They said they were confident it would win sufficient support to pass into law in Northern Ireland this year.
They added they were closing a loophole in the law that appeared with the opening of private clinic Marie Stopes.
The plan to amend the law, revealed to the BBC, comes after the opening of a private abortion and family planning clinic in Belfast last autumn.
Marie Stopes International has said it operates within the current law in Northern Ireland, which is different from the rest of the UK as it only allows for abortion when the mother's physical or mental health is in danger.
Mr Givan, who chairs the assembly's justice committee, said there are concerns it is not sufficiently regulated and the amendment would ensure that only the NHS could carry out abortions in Northern Ireland
"We're responding to the challenge that was presented when the Marie Stopes clinic opened in Northern Ireland and that revealed a loophole that private clinics are wholly unregulated, there's no form of accountability, no transparency," he said.
"Obviously on something as important as abortion, which is a criminal offence in Northern Ireland, we need to be satisfied that that issue is subject to the highest level of scrutiny.
"We believe the National Health Service is best placed to do that."
Mr Maginness said that if the amendment passed into law anyone carrying out an abortion outside the NHS could face a new sentence of up to 10 years in prison or a fine.
Another committee member, Ulster Unionist Tom Elliott, has also signed the amendment.
The amendment was tabled with the assembly's bills office on Wednesday morning.
The Criminal Justice Bill is due for its "further consideration" stage on Tuesday when the amendment will be debated.
In a joint statement they said they had grave concerns about the ability of a private clinic such as Marie Stopes to carry out abortion procedures without "any form of transparency, oversight or accountability".
The law governing abortion in Northern Ireland is different to the rest of the UK.
"Further it is dangerous that any organisation should receive financial reward from carrying out abortions."
They also pointed out that the NHS is subject to "the most rigorous levels of scrutiny through management structures to boards to the minister".
Mr Givan said that, regardless of one's view on abortion, this was about accountability and that it was not right that a private clinic could perform abortions without being regulated.
Mr Maginness added: "The net effect of the amendment is to ensure private clinics can't carry out abortion practices."
He also said the amendment had been worked on for some time and the MLAs had taken advice from a range of sources including the Attorney General.
The Marie Stopes clinic opened in Belfast in October, amid protests from pro-life groups.
Abortions are not illegal in NI but are very strictly controlled.
Tracey McNeill, director of Marie Stopes International, told the justice committee in January that while they are not required to be regulated they want to work within the legal framework in Northern Ireland.
'Strict assessment'
Abortions can be carried out in Northern Ireland only to preserve the life of the mother or if continuing the pregnancy would have other serious, permanent physical or mental health effects.
There is strict assessment regarding any impact on mental well-being and the woman must consult with two clinicians.
But Attorney General John Larkin - who is the chief legal advisor to the Stormont executive - wrote to the Stormont Justice Committee inviting them to investigate the operations of the Belfast clinic.
The Marie Stopes clinic has said it will carry out medical, not surgical, procedures only up to nine weeks gestation and only within the existing legal framework.
It said that the health professionals in the clinic will be from Northern Ireland and that they will make the assessments, although the views of the woman's own GP will be taken into consideration.
A 24-week limit for abortion applies in England, Wales and Scotland, where abortions are allowed under certain conditions, including that continuing with the pregnancy would involve a greater risk to the physical or mental health of the woman, or her existing children, than having a termination. The permission of two doctors - or one in an emergency - is also needed.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-21601908
Fair play to Catriona Ruane (did I actually just type that :P) and also Anna Lo, for speaking out against this. Looking more unlikely to be passed by the Assembly. It will be interesting to see just who signs the petition of concern.