Abortion Law Change in Ireland

[faraway saint]

A landslide win to change the current abortion laws in Ireland.

66.4% voted for change, no doubt the feeling for the law to be repealed. 

That'll have an effect on travel from Ireland to mainland UK. 

[ReturnOf isma is god]

5 minutes ago, helpmaboab said:

What is the point of this thread? 

You looking for a comment?

Like.....who cares. It's just a rule change. So now abortion is legal in Ireland. Big deal.

So now no need to go outside Ireland for an abortion.

How about don't get pregnant if you don't want a kid.

"a woman's body is her own property".....yeah?

how about the unborn child's body is its property.

and don't give me that 'age of the foetus' BS

everyone reading this was 'the age of the foetus' once

......all those that would have been happy to be aborted put up your hand.

friggin hypocrites..... 

abortion, nice word.

"I'm going to have an abortion".   /    "Really, good for you, well done"

"I'm going to kill my unborn baby"   /    You're f**kin kidding, right?"

You alright pal

[StuD]

On 5/27/2018 at 8:17 AM, faraway saint said:

A landslide win to change the current abortion laws in Ireland.

66.4% voted for change, no doubt the feeling for the law to be repealed. 

That'll have an effect on travel from Ireland to mainland UK. 

I'm not a huge fan of Richard Littlejohn but I thought his editorial this week was actually quite thought provoking about some of the response to this vote. 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-5780725/RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN-Shameless-Shamis-contempt-democracy.html

I have never really had strong opinions on the abortion debate. I settled on the view that aborting a pregnancy was better than having a child grow up in a bad household where it was unloved. I still have that opinion, but I'd agree with Littlejohn, celebrating winning the right to abort childrens lives seems in poor taste. And trying to impose a change in the law on a subject as emotive as abortion on a country where there has never been a democratic mandate for that law change, is really a bad idea. 

[oaksoft]

This isn't just about abortion.

This is about women having the right to decide what happens to their own bodies.

Their bodies, their choice.

Just like men.

Until a baby is born, precedence lies with the women.

Just as it should do.

[oaksoft]

4 hours ago, helpmaboab said:

Rubbish, you choose to miss the right of the unborn child.

No I didn't.

The unborn child has fewer rights than the mother.

I thought I made that quite clear when I said "Until a baby is born, precedence lies with the women".

Perhaps my use of a word with 3 syllables confused you.

[Cornwall_Saint]

50 minutes ago, helpmaboab said:

The life of a human baby begins at conception. I guess fundamentally that's where we disagree.

The woman is the caretaker of this human life until it is born.

I don't think it should be aborted with the same indifference as excrement just as a matter of 'convenience'.

I realise there is little point debating this issue with those who have the mindset to condone abortion.

I try and avoid fraternising with such people. I hope karma deals their just deserts.

It's one of those things where I'd probably vote to make it legal, but with many reservations.

 

Like you say, I believe life begins at conception because that wee sperm-egg combo is going to become the baby. I agree that in cases of rape, incest, complications where the baby is likely to die but potentially kill the mother too, abortion is an option that should be open to these people. It's awkward regarding people who don't want kids because they should have been preventing this to begin with, so that it doesn't come to this situation. Life could be hell for the child growing up unwanted and unloved. Alternatively the child could be passed on to care at birth, but again prevention at the start would elimate this necessity, and care isn't exactly the greatest experience for kids - but at least they'd have a chance to live. It shouldn't be getting used as another form of contraception. 

One of my major concerns is parents who want the "perfect baby" for instance. Parents are offered a test to see if there is a high risk or low risk of their child having Down's Syndrome. Some parents just want to know the level of risk so if it's high, they can prepare for the possibility. Unfortunately other parents will abort if it's high risk and I think that's a major downside to this.

I think there are right and wrong ways to use abortion, and I'd vote to legalise it, but with major concerns.

[pod]

1 hour ago, helpmaboab said:

The life of a human baby begins at conception. I guess fundamentally that's where we disagree.

The woman is the caretaker of this human life until it is born.

I don't think it should be aborted with the same indifference as excrement just as a matter of 'convenience'.

I realise there is little point debating this issue with those who have the mindset to condone abortion.

I try and avoid fraternising with such people. I hope karma deals their just deserts.

Is that including a 11 year old who was raped and wasn't allowed to leave her country for an abortion or any other woman under same circumstances. 

[oaksoft]

2 hours ago, helpmaboab said:

The life of a human baby begins at conception. I guess fundamentally that's where we disagree.

The woman is the caretaker of this human life until it is born.

I don't think it should be aborted with the same indifference as excrement just as a matter of 'convenience'.

I realise there is little point debating this issue with those who have the mindset to condone abortion.

I try and avoid fraternising with such people. I hope karma deals their just deserts.

Thanks for the biology lesson. I don't think there is a single person who doesn't believe that a baby begins when fertilisation occurs.

Where we differ is that you believe a 5 second old fertilised egg has the same rights as a fully functional adult.

Only a religious nutter could possibly hold that view.

Also, I don't think there is a woman alive who would use the word "indifference" to describe going through an abortion.

You are a man. You don't get to have a say on what happens to a woman's body. Live with it.

Edited June 4, 2018 by oaksoft

[oaksoft]

1 hour ago, Cornwall_Saint said:

It's one of those things where I'd probably vote to make it legal, but with many reservations.

 

Like you say, I believe life begins at conception because that wee sperm-egg combo is going to become the baby. I agree that in cases of rape, incest, complications where the baby is likely to die but potentially kill the mother too, abortion is an option that should be open to these people. It's awkward regarding people who don't want kids because they should have been preventing this to begin with, so that it doesn't come to this situation. Life could be hell for the child growing up unwanted and unloved. Alternatively the child could be passed on to care at birth, but again prevention at the start would elimate this necessity, and care isn't exactly the greatest experience for kids - but at least they'd have a chance to live. It shouldn't be getting used as another form of contraception. 

One of my major concerns is parents who want the "perfect baby" for instance. Parents are offered a test to see if there is a high risk or low risk of their child having Down's Syndrome. Some parents just want to know the level of risk so if it's high, they can prepare for the possibility. Unfortunately other parents will abort if it's high risk and I think that's a major downside to this.

I think there are right and wrong ways to use abortion, and I'd vote to legalise it, but with major concerns.

I genuinely don't understand why you feel any of this is your concern whatsoever.

It has absolutely nothing to do with you.

Haven't you got enough stuff going on with your own life without handwringing over someone else's life choices?

Apart from religion, what other possible reason could there be for equating the rights of a fertilised egg with that of a fully functioning human?

Edited June 4, 2018 by oaksoft

[oaksoft]

1 hour ago, helpmaboab said:

Fundamentally YES........

The tearful forty four year old laid the wreath on his mothers grave wondering how the love she gave him can ever be truly acknowledged. He takes some comfort knowing that neither can it be or need it be. Mothers don't ask for anything, they give life knowing that is enough. For that we are all indebted. Thank you.

You are perfectly entitled to hold this viewpoint.

And we are perfectly entitled to laugh at how ridiculous it is.

Fortunately people like you no longer have enough influence to have the power to force 11 year old rape victims to retain their babies to term.

[Cornwall_Saint]

11 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

I genuinely don't understand why you feel any of this is your concern whatsoever.

It has absolutely nothing to do with you.

Haven't you got enough stuff going on with your own life without handwringing over someone else's life choices?

Apart from religion, what other possible reason could there be for equating the rights of a fertilised egg with that of a fully functioning human?

The topic created was always going to lead to this type of discussion. Why should some of us have to refrain from giving our viewpoints? 

[Cornwall_Saint]

7 minutes ago, helpmaboab said:

 

Only a religious nutter could possibly hold that view.

Well that statement is incorrect as I'm not the slightest bit religious as you would know if you had read some of my other posts.

I'm not a nutter either, simply a person who thinks the that the preservation of human life is sacrosanct.

Lets agree to disagree as predictably this is going nowhere.

Likewise I am not in any way religious. Neither was the mother of my two wee boys. However, both of us believed their lives began in the womb. 

[StuD]

 

15 hours ago, oaksoft said:

This isn't just about abortion.

This is about women having the right to decide what happens to their own bodies.

Their bodies, their choice.

Just like men.

Until a baby is born, precedence lies with the women.

Just as it should do.

What about the right to life though Oaksoft? 

In the UK we allow legal abortions up to 24 weeks into a pregnancy yet advances in medicine and technology means at 24 weeks a premature baby would have a 66% - 80% chance of survival and at 26 weeks the chance of survival rises to 90%. Surely that element of the current law in Scotland, England and Wales has to be amended? 

And would you too impose your will on this subject on the people of Northern Ireland who up to now have shown no wish to legalise abortions? 

[ReturnOf isma is god]

To many cunts kicking about any way just hink we should kill half the population and that’ll solve and lot of problems 

[ReturnOf isma is god]

1 hour ago, helpmaboab said:

Ok, you go first.

Kind of undermined your whole every life is precious there buddy 

[oaksoft]

Until men start carrying babies through a pregnancy they need to understand that they have no say in any of this.

I really don't know how to make this any easier.

[oaksoft]

2 hours ago, StuD said:

 

What about the right to life though Oaksoft? 

In the UK we allow legal abortions up to 24 weeks into a pregnancy yet advances in medicine and technology means at 24 weeks a premature baby would have a 66% - 80% chance of survival and at 26 weeks the chance of survival rises to 90%. Surely that element of the current law in Scotland, England and Wales has to be amended? 

And would you too impose your will on this subject on the people of Northern Ireland who up to now have shown no wish to legalise abortions? 

I am not usually one for repeating myself but I will do so once. The woman's right completely outweigh that of a ferrtilised egg. End of story.

I am not trying to impose my will on anyone. I am saying that men and religious fruitcakes should recognise that neither has any right to have a view on the matter. This is a matter entirely left to the woman involved. They have the sole right to determine what happens to their own bodies.

[melmac]

Its good to see Ireland slowly separating the church from the state.

[StuD]

56 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

I am not usually one for repeating myself but I will do so once. The woman's right completely outweigh that of a ferrtilised egg. End of story.

I am not trying to impose my will on anyone. I am saying that men and religious fruitcakes should recognise that neither has any right to have a view on the matter. This is a matter entirely left to the woman involved. They have the sole right to determine what happens to their own bodies.

As I said yesterday I don't have a particular strong view either way Oaksoft but 24 weeks is way too far into the pregnancy, don't you agree? 

When it comes to deciding what to do with your own body do you also extend that to euthanasia? Or to expensive cosmetic surgery on the NHS? 

[smcc]

When did the NHS start doing expensive cosmetic surgery and why do you chose to compare this with therapeutic abortion?

[oaksoft]

4 hours ago, StuD said:

As I said yesterday I don't have a particular strong view either way Oaksoft but 24 weeks is way too far into the pregnancy, don't you agree? 

When it comes to deciding what to do with your own body do you also extend that to euthanasia? Or to expensive cosmetic surgery on the NHS? 

Of course I extend it to euthanasia. Again, what business is it of yours what individuals choose to do with their own lives. People should be free to make that sort of choice and should not have to justify their decision to you, me or anyone else. Euthanasia should also not be limited to the terminally ill. Anyone should be free to elect to do it for whatever reason they choose providing they can find a willing doctor.

I am not commenting on your cosmetic surgery sentence because it bears no relevance to the point.

[StuD]

8 hours ago, oaksoft said:

Of course I extend it to euthanasia. Again, what business is it of yours what individuals choose to do with their own lives. People should be free to make that sort of choice and should not have to justify their decision to you, me or anyone else. Euthanasia should also not be limited to the terminally ill. Anyone should be free to elect to do it for whatever reason they choose providing they can find a willing doctor.

I am not commenting on your cosmetic surgery sentence because it bears no relevance to the point.

Ofcourse its relevant.

Your argument is that people should be allowed to do whatever they want with their bodies. Yet there is a cost implication to us all.

The taxpayer picks up the tab when the NHS does a breast enhancement op to boost a womans confidence. The taxpayer picks up the tab when a woman who has ignored all the other contraceptive options decides to abort the life inside her. And I presume when you talk about getting a doctor to perform the euthanasia you mean it would be available on the NHS.

As I've said I have no strong views on the abortion topic but I do feel quite strongly that taxpayers shouldn't have to pick up the tab for people's lifestyle choices. 

[Cornwall_Saint]

14 hours ago, oaksoft said:

Until men start carrying babies through a pregnancy they need to understand that they have no say in any of this.

I really don't know how to make this any easier.

And if the man is the father of that child? 

[oaksoft]

5 hours ago, StuD said:

Ofcourse its relevant.

Your argument is that people should be allowed to do whatever they want with their bodies. Yet there is a cost implication to us all.

The taxpayer picks up the tab when the NHS does a breast enhancement op to boost a womans confidence. The taxpayer picks up the tab when a woman who has ignored all the other contraceptive options decides to abort the life inside her. And I presume when you talk about getting a doctor to perform the euthanasia you mean it would be available on the NHS.

As I've said I have no strong views on the abortion topic but I do feel quite strongly that taxpayers shouldn't have to pick up the tab for people's lifestyle choices. 

You are comparing abortion with breast implants. That sentence above in bold is so disgraceful that for both reasons I am now bailing from discussing this with you. You can chat with Cornwall Saint.

It's a shame really because I'd like to discuss why you believe finance is the key deciding factor in everything but I simply can't waste my time with people who witter. Don't worry, you are not the only one on here doing that.

Edited June 5, 2018 by oaksoft

[oaksoft]

5 hours ago, Cornwall_Saint said:

And if the man is the father of that child? 

His opinion is worth considerably less than the woman's because it is not him who has to put his body through the dangers of a pregnancy.

I would never have considered forcing my wife to go through a pregnancy if she genuinely hadn't wanted a baby. I may well have found a wife who WOULD want to keep one but I'd never force ANY woman to have a baby of mine. The very idea sends a shiver down my spine.

According to the Lancet, 8.2 out of every 100,000 pregnancies in the UK result in death for the mother. That's not including life changing health problems.

I think it would help the debate if men were generally better informed about exactly what they are asking women to go through on their behalf.

Edited June 5, 2018 by oaksoft