FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Repealed the 8th...
Repealed the 8th...
Jump to: Newest in thread
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The exit poles are certainly showing a big lean towards repealing the amendment but I thought counting had only started at 9am? Hope it does go that way though "The vote is 68 to 32 in favour of Yes and so it’s official. They announce this afternoon according to The Independent  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How it took so long I don't know " I know, right. The Catholic Church have certainly lost a lot of respect after numerous grooming and abuse reports. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The exit poles are certainly showing a big lean towards repealing the amendment but I thought counting had only started at 9am? Hope it does go that way though
The vote is 68 to 32 in favour of Yes and so it’s official. They announce this afternoon according to The Independent "Oh brilliant, great news | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The exit poles are certainly showing a big lean towards repealing the amendment but I thought counting had only started at 9am? Hope it does go that way though
The vote is 68 to 32 in favour of Yes and so it’s official. They announce this afternoon according to The Independent
Oh brilliant, great news "I could of course, be completely wrong, but hopefully not! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The exit poles are certainly showing a big lean towards repealing the amendment but I thought counting had only started at 9am? Hope it does go that way though
The vote is 68 to 32 in favour of Yes and so it’s official. They announce this afternoon according to The Independent
Oh brilliant, great news
I could of course, be completely wrong, but hopefully not! "I'm sure it'll be grand, to be sure  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 all the way to the vatican 
It's about time they came out of the dark ages | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
Now if we can have a referendum on euthanasia then we can knock off some of the elderly who inconvience us. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The exit poles are certainly showing a big lean towards repealing the amendment but I thought counting had only started at 9am? Hope it does go that way though
The vote is 68 to 32 in favour of Yes and so it’s official. They announce this afternoon according to The Independent "Brilliant news!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hurray for killing babies
Now if we can have a referendum on euthanasia then we can knock off some of the elderly who inconvience us." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hurray for killing babies
Now if we can have a referendum on euthanasia then we can knock off some of the elderly who inconvience us."We can only hope people get their choice on that one too. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hurray for killing babies
Now if we can have a referendum on euthanasia then we can knock off some of the elderly who inconvience us."I disagree strongly with your comment. In Ireland pregnant women whose babies are not going to live at all after birth due to birth defects ect, currently are forced to carry that pregnancy to full term and give birth to a dead baby. That is truly disgusting and very very distressing for all parties concerned. It's not all about killing babies you know. Also lady's commit suicide sometimes because they can't get an abortion. Whilst I disagree with abortion as a form of birth control, I think women should have a choice. Most terminations are carried out early in the pregnancy, then it's a foetus not a baby. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hurray for killing babies
Now if we can have a referendum on euthanasia then we can knock off some of the elderly who inconvience us."Always one comment like this  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hurray for killing babies
Now if we can have a referendum on euthanasia then we can knock off some of the elderly who inconvience us." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s official. Irish women now have the right to choose! Well done, Ireland " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just need Northern Ireland to stop living in the dark ages and to change their abortion law and, whilst they are at it, their law on same sex marriage. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hurray for killing babies
Now if we can have a referendum on euthanasia then we can knock off some of the elderly who inconvience us.
Always one comment like this "The poster who made the comment usually has a dry sense of sarcastic humour, I'm sure he meant it as such. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hurray for killing babies
Now if we can have a referendum on euthanasia then we can knock off some of the elderly who inconvience us.
I disagree strongly with your comment.
In Ireland pregnant women whose babies are not going to live at all after birth due to birth defects ect, currently are forced to carry that pregnancy to full term and give birth to a dead baby. That is truly disgusting and very very distressing for all parties concerned. It's not all about killing babies you know.
Also lady's commit suicide sometimes because they can't get an abortion.
Whilst I disagree with abortion as a form of birth control, I think women should have a choice. Most terminations are carried out early in the pregnancy, then it's a foetus not a baby.
"So you disagree with the 90% of abortions that don't happen due to health problems, r*pe, i*cest etc? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"About time! Hurrah!" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hurray for killing babies
Now if we can have a referendum on euthanasia then we can knock off some of the elderly who inconvience us.
Always one comment like this
The poster who made the comment usually has a dry sense of sarcastic humour, I'm sure he meant it as such. "I just can't do the mental gymnastics required to get enthusiastic about killing a 12 week old baby. Funny how most the population get upset about killing foxes too.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s amazing, proud of my country. The ‘catholic grip’ is finally disappearing. First marriage equality, now this, "It’s fabulous news. I’m so happy for you! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hurray for killing babies
Now if we can have a referendum on euthanasia then we can knock off some of the elderly who inconvience us.
We can only hope people get their choice on that one too."Well you can’t d ny that there ate just too many of them anyway ? We need to slow down the birth rate/ population busting anyway ... but that’s another story | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Proud of my little country today. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hurray for killing babies
Now if we can have a referendum on euthanasia then we can knock off some of the elderly who inconvience us.
We can only hope people get their choice on that one too.
Well you can’t d ny that there ate just too many of them anyway ? We need to slow down the birth rate/ population busting anyway ... but that’s another story "Do you know what the birth rate is in Ireland? Or the UK? Or Europe for that matter? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hurray for killing babies
Now if we can have a referendum on euthanasia then we can knock off some of the elderly who inconvience us."Years ago I was given a choice, abort a fetus or lose my wife, with that kind of attitude, I would have lost both. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hurray for killing babies
Now if we can have a referendum on euthanasia then we can knock off some of the elderly who inconvience us.
Always one comment like this
The poster who made the comment usually has a dry sense of sarcastic humour, I'm sure he meant it as such.
I just can't do the mental gymnastics required to get enthusiastic about killing a 12 week old baby. Funny how most the population get upset about killing foxes too. "You could I suggest try taking a ‘ real world’ look at it ? It is highly unlikely that people will leave it for 12 weeks ! That is in extreme cases I suggest where women simply were not aware they were pregnant . In ‘ normal’ situation it would happen much sooner and argue as much as you like but that is not a baby ! More than a collection of sperm being ejaculated is half of a one ! Neither are ‘ murdering’ anything .. simply a non sentient collection of cells and if it solves a lot of frustration or heartache then frankly am all for both of them .. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hurray for killing babies
Now if we can have a referendum on euthanasia then we can knock off some of the elderly who inconvience us. Years ago I was given a choice, abort a fetus or lose my wife, with that kind of attitude, I would have lost both."Although the law already allowed abortion in those circumstances, nor would the Catholic Church even disagree with your decision due to the principle of double effect. So non-issue I'm afraid, nobody is arguing for women to die instead of babies. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hurray for killing babies
Now if we can have a referendum on euthanasia then we can knock off some of the elderly who inconvience us.
Always one comment like this
The poster who made the comment usually has a dry sense of sarcastic humour, I'm sure he meant it as such.
I just can't do the mental gymnastics required to get enthusiastic about killing a 12 week old baby. Funny how most the population get upset about killing foxes too.
You could I suggest try taking a ‘ real world’ look at it ? It is highly unlikely that people will leave it for 12 weeks ! That is in extreme cases I suggest where women simply were not aware they were pregnant .
In ‘ normal’ situation it would happen much sooner and argue as much as you like but that is not a baby ! More than a collection of sperm being ejaculated is half of a one ! Neither are ‘ murdering’ anything .. simply a non sentient collection of cells and if it solves a lot of frustration or heartache then frankly am all for both of them .. "I'm not entirely closed to the point you are making, i do believe in a grey area that in my mind, the morning after pill deals with nicely (available and effective up to 5 days afterwards in Ireland). So you agree the UK limit of 24 weeks is too long? Where would you draw the line if not 12 weeks? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hurray for killing babies
Now if we can have a referendum on euthanasia then we can knock off some of the elderly who inconvience us.
Always one comment like this
The poster who made the comment usually has a dry sense of sarcastic humour, I'm sure he meant it as such.
I just can't do the mental gymnastics required to get enthusiastic about killing a 12 week old baby. Funny how most the population get upset about killing foxes too.
You could I suggest try taking a ‘ real world’ look at it ? It is highly unlikely that people will leave it for 12 weeks ! That is in extreme cases I suggest where women simply were not aware they were pregnant .
In ‘ normal’ situation it would happen much sooner and argue as much as you like but that is not a baby ! More than a collection of sperm being ejaculated is half of a one ! Neither are ‘ murdering’ anything .. simply a non sentient collection of cells and if it solves a lot of frustration or heartache then frankly am all for both of them ..
I'm not entirely closed to the point you are making, i do believe in a grey area that in my mind, the morning after pill deals with nicely (available and effective up to 5 days afterwards in Ireland). So you agree the UK limit of 24 weeks is too long? Where would you draw the line if not 12 weeks? "Surely it depends on circumstances. Would you force a pregnancy go full term for a rap e victim? What if scans identify a problem that means the baby would not survive to full term? Would you force a woman to carry the baby then have to give birth to a dead baby? Abortions are not handed out like contraception. You still need to prove that there is a risk to the health and/or mental well being of either the mother or the foetus. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hurray for killing babies
Now if we can have a referendum on euthanasia then we can knock off some of the elderly who inconvience us.
Always one comment like this
The poster who made the comment usually has a dry sense of sarcastic humour, I'm sure he meant it as such.
I just can't do the mental gymnastics required to get enthusiastic about killing a 12 week old baby. Funny how most the population get upset about killing foxes too.
You could I suggest try taking a ‘ real world’ look at it ? It is highly unlikely that people will leave it for 12 weeks ! That is in extreme cases I suggest where women simply were not aware they were pregnant .
In ‘ normal’ situation it would happen much sooner and argue as much as you like but that is not a baby ! More than a collection of sperm being ejaculated is half of a one ! Neither are ‘ murdering’ anything .. simply a non sentient collection of cells and if it solves a lot of frustration or heartache then frankly am all for both of them ..
I'm not entirely closed to the point you are making, i do believe in a grey area that in my mind, the morning after pill deals with nicely (available and effective up to 5 days afterwards in Ireland). So you agree the UK limit of 24 weeks is too long? Where would you draw the line if not 12 weeks?
Surely it depends on circumstances. Would you force a pregnancy go full term for a rap e victim? What if scans identify a problem that means the baby would not survive to full term? Would you force a woman to carry the baby then have to give birth to a dead baby?
Abortions are not handed out like contraception. You still need to prove that there is a risk to the health and/or mental well being of either the mother or the foetus. "I'm afraid abortions are primarily used as contraception. It's very easy to google the data on reasons for abortions and you will find that all the instances of r*pe, in*est and health problems add up to less than 10% of the reasons. No i do not wish women to carry dead babies, mothers to die in childbirth or pregnancy, or babies to be born with minimal chance of a quality of life (i do not include downs syndrome in that statement though). But let's just be honest about the majority of cases, before we drift off into the fringe ones. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I thought it was still just looking likely that we had this fantastic news, as counting would continue for some time? I've not read the thread or the news for a few hours. " If you'd looked at the betting odds this week then the result won't be surprising in the least 4/1 no, 1/7 yes last time i checked | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hurray for killing babies
Now if we can have a referendum on euthanasia then we can knock off some of the elderly who inconvience us.
Always one comment like this
The poster who made the comment usually has a dry sense of sarcastic humour, I'm sure he meant it as such.
I just can't do the mental gymnastics required to get enthusiastic about killing a 12 week old baby. Funny how most the population get upset about killing foxes too.
You could I suggest try taking a ‘ real world’ look at it ? It is highly unlikely that people will leave it for 12 weeks ! That is in extreme cases I suggest where women simply were not aware they were pregnant .
In ‘ normal’ situation it would happen much sooner and argue as much as you like but that is not a baby ! More than a collection of sperm being ejaculated is half of a one ! Neither are ‘ murdering’ anything .. simply a non sentient collection of cells and if it solves a lot of frustration or heartache then frankly am all for both of them ..
I'm not entirely closed to the point you are making, i do believe in a grey area that in my mind, the morning after pill deals with nicely (available and effective up to 5 days afterwards in Ireland). So you agree the UK limit of 24 weeks is too long? Where would you draw the line if not 12 weeks?
Surely it depends on circumstances. Would you force a pregnancy go full term for a rap e victim? What if scans identify a problem that means the baby would not survive to full term? Would you force a woman to carry the baby then have to give birth to a dead baby?
Abortions are not handed out like contraception. You still need to prove that there is a risk to the health and/or mental well being of either the mother or the foetus.
I'm afraid abortions are primarily used as contraception. It's very easy to google the data on reasons for abortions and you will find that all the instances of r*pe, in*est and health problems add up to less than 10% of the reasons.
No i do not wish women to carry dead babies, mothers to die in childbirth or pregnancy, or babies to be born with minimal chance of a quality of life (i do not include downs syndrome in that statement though). But let's just be honest about the majority of cases, before we drift off into the fringe ones. "I had an abortion as contraception. It was an accident that happened and I exercised my right to choose. I’m very happy that I did. I’m very happy that option is there for other women, and now for the women of Ireland. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hurray for killing babies
Now if we can have a referendum on euthanasia then we can knock off some of the elderly who inconvience us.
Always one comment like this
The poster who made the comment usually has a dry sense of sarcastic humour, I'm sure he meant it as such.
I just can't do the mental gymnastics required to get enthusiastic about killing a 12 week old baby. Funny how most the population get upset about killing foxes too.
You could I suggest try taking a ‘ real world’ look at it ? It is highly unlikely that people will leave it for 12 weeks ! That is in extreme cases I suggest where women simply were not aware they were pregnant .
In ‘ normal’ situation it would happen much sooner and argue as much as you like but that is not a baby ! More than a collection of sperm being ejaculated is half of a one ! Neither are ‘ murdering’ anything .. simply a non sentient collection of cells and if it solves a lot of frustration or heartache then frankly am all for both of them ..
I'm not entirely closed to the point you are making, i do believe in a grey area that in my mind, the morning after pill deals with nicely (available and effective up to 5 days afterwards in Ireland). So you agree the UK limit of 24 weeks is too long? Where would you draw the line if not 12 weeks?
Surely it depends on circumstances. Would you force a pregnancy go full term for a rap e victim? What if scans identify a problem that means the baby would not survive to full term? Would you force a woman to carry the baby then have to give birth to a dead baby?
Abortions are not handed out like contraception. You still need to prove that there is a risk to the health and/or mental well being of either the mother or the foetus.
I'm afraid abortions are primarily used as contraception. It's very easy to google the data on reasons for abortions and you will find that all the instances of r*pe, in*est and health problems add up to less than 10% of the reasons.
No i do not wish women to carry dead babies, mothers to die in childbirth or pregnancy, or babies to be born with minimal chance of a quality of life (i do not include downs syndrome in that statement though). But let's just be honest about the majority of cases, before we drift off into the fringe ones.
I had an abortion as contraception. It was an accident that happened and I exercised my right to choose. I’m very happy that I did. I’m very happy that option is there for other women, and now for the women of Ireland. "I think the job of the state is the protect the most vunerable from the tyranny of the majority. There is nothing more vunerable than the unborn. Hence i would not afford you that right and i don't think it can be morally justified. But others have and therefore, in the real world, it was your right as you say. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hurray for killing babies
Now if we can have a referendum on euthanasia then we can knock off some of the elderly who inconvience us.
Always one comment like this
The poster who made the comment usually has a dry sense of sarcastic humour, I'm sure he meant it as such.
I just can't do the mental gymnastics required to get enthusiastic about killing a 12 week old baby. Funny how most the population get upset about killing foxes too.
You could I suggest try taking a ‘ real world’ look at it ? It is highly unlikely that people will leave it for 12 weeks ! That is in extreme cases I suggest where women simply were not aware they were pregnant .
In ‘ normal’ situation it would happen much sooner and argue as much as you like but that is not a baby ! More than a collection of sperm being ejaculated is half of a one ! Neither are ‘ murdering’ anything .. simply a non sentient collection of cells and if it solves a lot of frustration or heartache then frankly am all for both of them ..
I'm not entirely closed to the point you are making, i do believe in a grey area that in my mind, the morning after pill deals with nicely (available and effective up to 5 days afterwards in Ireland). So you agree the UK limit of 24 weeks is too long? Where would you draw the line if not 12 weeks?
Surely it depends on circumstances. Would you force a pregnancy go full term for a rap e victim? What if scans identify a problem that means the baby would not survive to full term? Would you force a woman to carry the baby then have to give birth to a dead baby?
Abortions are not handed out like contraception. You still need to prove that there is a risk to the health and/or mental well being of either the mother or the foetus.
I'm afraid abortions are primarily used as contraception. It's very easy to google the data on reasons for abortions and you will find that all the instances of r*pe, in*est and health problems add up to less than 10% of the reasons.
No i do not wish women to carry dead babies, mothers to die in childbirth or pregnancy, or babies to be born with minimal chance of a quality of life (i do not include downs syndrome in that statement though). But let's just be honest about the majority of cases, before we drift off into the fringe ones.
I had an abortion as contraception. It was an accident that happened and I exercised my right to choose. I’m very happy that I did. I’m very happy that option is there for other women, and now for the women of Ireland.
I think the job of the state is the protect the most vunerable from the tyranny of the majority. There is nothing more vunerable than the unborn. Hence i would not afford you that right and i don't think it can be morally justified. But others have and therefore, in the real world, it was your right as you say. "Are you like one of those pro lifers? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hurray for killing babies
Now if we can have a referendum on euthanasia then we can knock off some of the elderly who inconvience us.
Always one comment like this
The poster who made the comment usually has a dry sense of sarcastic humour, I'm sure he meant it as such.
I just can't do the mental gymnastics required to get enthusiastic about killing a 12 week old baby. Funny how most the population get upset about killing foxes too.
You could I suggest try taking a ‘ real world’ look at it ? It is highly unlikely that people will leave it for 12 weeks ! That is in extreme cases I suggest where women simply were not aware they were pregnant .
In ‘ normal’ situation it would happen much sooner and argue as much as you like but that is not a baby ! More than a collection of sperm being ejaculated is half of a one ! Neither are ‘ murdering’ anything .. simply a non sentient collection of cells and if it solves a lot of frustration or heartache then frankly am all for both of them ..
I'm not entirely closed to the point you are making, i do believe in a grey area that in my mind, the morning after pill deals with nicely (available and effective up to 5 days afterwards in Ireland). So you agree the UK limit of 24 weeks is too long? Where would you draw the line if not 12 weeks?
Surely it depends on circumstances. Would you force a pregnancy go full term for a rap e victim? What if scans identify a problem that means the baby would not survive to full term? Would you force a woman to carry the baby then have to give birth to a dead baby?
Abortions are not handed out like contraception. You still need to prove that there is a risk to the health and/or mental well being of either the mother or the foetus.
I'm afraid abortions are primarily used as contraception. It's very easy to google the data on reasons for abortions and you will find that all the instances of r*pe, in*est and health problems add up to less than 10% of the reasons.
No i do not wish women to carry dead babies, mothers to die in childbirth or pregnancy, or babies to be born with minimal chance of a quality of life (i do not include downs syndrome in that statement though). But let's just be honest about the majority of cases, before we drift off into the fringe ones.
I had an abortion as contraception. It was an accident that happened and I exercised my right to choose. I’m very happy that I did. I’m very happy that option is there for other women, and now for the women of Ireland.
I think the job of the state is the protect the most vunerable from the tyranny of the majority. There is nothing more vunerable than the unborn. Hence i would not afford you that right and i don't think it can be morally justified. But others have and therefore, in the real world, it was your right as you say.
Are you like one of those pro lifers?"Sorry i don't do identity politics. I'll make my own position based on facts and evidence. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hurray for killing babies
Now if we can have a referendum on euthanasia then we can knock off some of the elderly who inconvience us.
Always one comment like this
The poster who made the comment usually has a dry sense of sarcastic humour, I'm sure he meant it as such.
I just can't do the mental gymnastics required to get enthusiastic about killing a 12 week old baby. Funny how most the population get upset about killing foxes too.
You could I suggest try taking a ‘ real world’ look at it ? It is highly unlikely that people will leave it for 12 weeks ! That is in extreme cases I suggest where women simply were not aware they were pregnant .
In ‘ normal’ situation it would happen much sooner and argue as much as you like but that is not a baby ! More than a collection of sperm being ejaculated is half of a one ! Neither are ‘ murdering’ anything .. simply a non sentient collection of cells and if it solves a lot of frustration or heartache then frankly am all for both of them ..
I'm not entirely closed to the point you are making, i do believe in a grey area that in my mind, the morning after pill deals with nicely (available and effective up to 5 days afterwards in Ireland). So you agree the UK limit of 24 weeks is too long? Where would you draw the line if not 12 weeks?
Surely it depends on circumstances. Would you force a pregnancy go full term for a rap e victim? What if scans identify a problem that means the baby would not survive to full term? Would you force a woman to carry the baby then have to give birth to a dead baby?
Abortions are not handed out like contraception. You still need to prove that there is a risk to the health and/or mental well being of either the mother or the foetus.
I'm afraid abortions are primarily used as contraception. It's very easy to google the data on reasons for abortions and you will find that all the instances of r*pe, in*est and health problems add up to less than 10% of the reasons.
No i do not wish women to carry dead babies, mothers to die in childbirth or pregnancy, or babies to be born with minimal chance of a quality of life (i do not include downs syndrome in that statement though). But let's just be honest about the majority of cases, before we drift off into the fringe ones. "I'm so glad the majority doesn't share your opinion | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hurray for killing babies
Now if we can have a referendum on euthanasia then we can knock off some of the elderly who inconvience us.
Always one comment like this
The poster who made the comment usually has a dry sense of sarcastic humour, I'm sure he meant it as such.
I just can't do the mental gymnastics required to get enthusiastic about killing a 12 week old baby. Funny how most the population get upset about killing foxes too.
You could I suggest try taking a ‘ real world’ look at it ? It is highly unlikely that people will leave it for 12 weeks ! That is in extreme cases I suggest where women simply were not aware they were pregnant .
In ‘ normal’ situation it would happen much sooner and argue as much as you like but that is not a baby ! More than a collection of sperm being ejaculated is half of a one ! Neither are ‘ murdering’ anything .. simply a non sentient collection of cells and if it solves a lot of frustration or heartache then frankly am all for both of them ..
I'm not entirely closed to the point you are making, i do believe in a grey area that in my mind, the morning after pill deals with nicely (available and effective up to 5 days afterwards in Ireland). So you agree the UK limit of 24 weeks is too long? Where would you draw the line if not 12 weeks?
Surely it depends on circumstances. Would you force a pregnancy go full term for a rap e victim? What if scans identify a problem that means the baby would not survive to full term? Would you force a woman to carry the baby then have to give birth to a dead baby?
Abortions are not handed out like contraception. You still need to prove that there is a risk to the health and/or mental well being of either the mother or the foetus.
I'm afraid abortions are primarily used as contraception. It's very easy to google the data on reasons for abortions and you will find that all the instances of r*pe, in*est and health problems add up to less than 10% of the reasons.
No i do not wish women to carry dead babies, mothers to die in childbirth or pregnancy, or babies to be born with minimal chance of a quality of life (i do not include downs syndrome in that statement though). But let's just be honest about the majority of cases, before we drift off into the fringe ones.
I had an abortion as contraception. It was an accident that happened and I exercised my right to choose. I’m very happy that I did. I’m very happy that option is there for other women, and now for the women of Ireland.
I think the job of the state is the protect the most vunerable from the tyranny of the majority. There is nothing more vunerable than the unborn. Hence i would not afford you that right and i don't think it can be morally justified. But others have and therefore, in the real world, it was your right as you say.
Are you like one of those pro lifers?
Sorry i don't do identity politics. I'll make my own position based on facts and evidence. "Your arrogance on an issue that affects women first and foremost is funny but not surprising. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hurray for killing babies
Now if we can have a referendum on euthanasia then we can knock off some of the elderly who inconvience us.
Always one comment like this
The poster who made the comment usually has a dry sense of sarcastic humour, I'm sure he meant it as such.
I just can't do the mental gymnastics required to get enthusiastic about killing a 12 week old baby. Funny how most the population get upset about killing foxes too.
You could I suggest try taking a ‘ real world’ look at it ? It is highly unlikely that people will leave it for 12 weeks ! That is in extreme cases I suggest where women simply were not aware they were pregnant .
In ‘ normal’ situation it would happen much sooner and argue as much as you like but that is not a baby ! More than a collection of sperm being ejaculated is half of a one ! Neither are ‘ murdering’ anything .. simply a non sentient collection of cells and if it solves a lot of frustration or heartache then frankly am all for both of them ..
I'm not entirely closed to the point you are making, i do believe in a grey area that in my mind, the morning after pill deals with nicely (available and effective up to 5 days afterwards in Ireland). So you agree the UK limit of 24 weeks is too long? Where would you draw the line if not 12 weeks?
Surely it depends on circumstances. Would you force a pregnancy go full term for a rap e victim? What if scans identify a problem that means the baby would not survive to full term? Would you force a woman to carry the baby then have to give birth to a dead baby?
Abortions are not handed out like contraception. You still need to prove that there is a risk to the health and/or mental well being of either the mother or the foetus.
I'm afraid abortions are primarily used as contraception. It's very easy to google the data on reasons for abortions and you will find that all the instances of r*pe, in*est and health problems add up to less than 10% of the reasons.
No i do not wish women to carry dead babies, mothers to die in childbirth or pregnancy, or babies to be born with minimal chance of a quality of life (i do not include downs syndrome in that statement though). But let's just be honest about the majority of cases, before we drift off into the fringe ones.
I had an abortion as contraception. It was an accident that happened and I exercised my right to choose. I’m very happy that I did. I’m very happy that option is there for other women, and now for the women of Ireland.
I think the job of the state is the protect the most vunerable from the tyranny of the majority. There is nothing more vunerable than the unborn. Hence i would not afford you that right and i don't think it can be morally justified. But others have and therefore, in the real world, it was your right as you say.
Are you like one of those pro lifers?
Sorry i don't do identity politics. I'll make my own position based on facts and evidence.
Your arrogance on an issue that affects women first and foremost is funny but not surprising. "Sometimes I do wonder if they just like having the contrary opinion. Just for the sake of it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The vote is 68 to 32 in favour of Yes and so it’s official. They announce this afternoon according to The Independent "That’s a convincing majority, too. Good stuff. I would never ‘celebrate’ an abortion. It’s an awful thing to have to do. However, on balance, it’s better for that to happen in a safe, controlled, humane way, than to force people to see it through, and cause unhappy lives. It’s for that same reason that I’m pro-euthanasia. Anti-death-penalty, anti-fox-hunting, fuck, I even capture spiders in a glass and put them out the front door. I don’t revel in death, but at times I see the argument for that difficult decision being taken. Except for moths. Death to all moths. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Perhaps you can site these sources of statistics so that we can see who interpreted them. The only site I can find after a cursory Google is a pro-life group. I'd like to be objective in my research. " Ok so start with "abortion statistics, England and Wales 2016" by the department of health because that's the most objective you'll get. As a result you sacrifice detail. The grounds for abortion are A - G with some being grounds that even the Catholic Church would agree on (A) to the contraception reasons C / D. There's a study of 1,209 abortion patients called "Reasons U.S. Women have Abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives". You may find a source biased, but I've honestly never even seen the 'pro-life' lobby contest the reasons and try to pretend that even a quarter of abortions happen for health or consent reasons. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The vote is 68 to 32 in favour of Yes and so it’s official. They announce this afternoon according to The Independent
That’s a convincing majority, too. Good stuff.
I would never ‘celebrate’ an abortion. It’s an awful thing to have to do. However, on balance, it’s better for that to happen in a safe, controlled, humane way, than to force people to see it through, and cause unhappy lives.
It’s for that same reason that I’m pro-euthanasia. Anti-death-penalty, anti-fox-hunting, fuck, I even capture spiders in a glass and put them out the front door. I don’t revel in death, but at times I see the argument for that difficult decision being taken.
Except for moths. Death to all moths."Moths actively fly at your head. They basically ask for it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Perhaps you can site these sources of statistics so that we can see who interpreted them. The only site I can find after a cursory Google is a pro-life group. I'd like to be objective in my research. Ok so start with "abortion statistics, England and Wales 2016" by the department of health because that's the most objective you'll get. As a result you sacrifice detail. The grounds for abortion are A - G with some being grounds that even the Catholic Church would agree on (A) to the contraception reasons C / D. There's a study of 1,209 abortion patients called "Reasons U.S. Women have Abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives". You may find a source biased, but I've honestly never even seen the 'pro-life' lobby contest the reasons and try to pretend that even a quarter of abortions happen for health or consent reasons. " Thanks. Will take a look later. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hurray for killing babies
Now if we can have a referendum on euthanasia then we can knock off some of the elderly who inconvience us.
Always one comment like this
The poster who made the comment usually has a dry sense of sarcastic humour, I'm sure he meant it as such.
I just can't do the mental gymnastics required to get enthusiastic about killing a 12 week old baby. Funny how most the population get upset about killing foxes too.
You could I suggest try taking a ‘ real world’ look at it ? It is highly unlikely that people will leave it for 12 weeks ! That is in extreme cases I suggest where women simply were not aware they were pregnant .
In ‘ normal’ situation it would happen much sooner and argue as much as you like but that is not a baby ! More than a collection of sperm being ejaculated is half of a one ! Neither are ‘ murdering’ anything .. simply a non sentient collection of cells and if it solves a lot of frustration or heartache then frankly am all for both of them ..
I'm not entirely closed to the point you are making, i do believe in a grey area that in my mind, the morning after pill deals with nicely (available and effective up to 5 days afterwards in Ireland). So you agree the UK limit of 24 weeks is too long? Where would you draw the line if not 12 weeks?
Surely it depends on circumstances. Would you force a pregnancy go full term for a rap e victim? What if scans identify a problem that means the baby would not survive to full term? Would you force a woman to carry the baby then have to give birth to a dead baby?
Abortions are not handed out like contraception. You still need to prove that there is a risk to the health and/or mental well being of either the mother or the foetus.
I'm afraid abortions are primarily used as contraception. It's very easy to google the data on reasons for abortions and you will find that all the instances of r*pe, in*est and health problems add up to less than 10% of the reasons.
No i do not wish women to carry dead babies, mothers to die in childbirth or pregnancy, or babies to be born with minimal chance of a quality of life (i do not include downs syndrome in that statement though). But let's just be honest about the majority of cases, before we drift off into the fringe ones.
I had an abortion as contraception. It was an accident that happened and I exercised my right to choose. I’m very happy that I did. I’m very happy that option is there for other women, and now for the women of Ireland.
I think the job of the state is the protect the most vunerable from the tyranny of the majority. There is nothing more vunerable than the unborn. Hence i would not afford you that right and i don't think it can be morally justified. But others have and therefore, in the real world, it was your right as you say.
Are you like one of those pro lifers?
Sorry i don't do identity politics. I'll make my own position based on facts and evidence.
Your arrogance on an issue that affects women first and foremost is funny but not surprising. "The opinions on this issue are not really divided by gender if you care to fact check yourself. Furthermore, a lot more girls get aborted than boys worldwide. Your poor attempts to attack my sex just show you have nothing objective to say against the points i make. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hurray for killing babies
Now if we can have a referendum on euthanasia then we can knock off some of the elderly who inconvience us.
Always one comment like this
The poster who made the comment usually has a dry sense of sarcastic humour, I'm sure he meant it as such.
I just can't do the mental gymnastics required to get enthusiastic about killing a 12 week old baby. Funny how most the population get upset about killing foxes too.
You could I suggest try taking a ‘ real world’ look at it ? It is highly unlikely that people will leave it for 12 weeks ! That is in extreme cases I suggest where women simply were not aware they were pregnant .
In ‘ normal’ situation it would happen much sooner and argue as much as you like but that is not a baby ! More than a collection of sperm being ejaculated is half of a one ! Neither are ‘ murdering’ anything .. simply a non sentient collection of cells and if it solves a lot of frustration or heartache then frankly am all for both of them ..
I'm not entirely closed to the point you are making, i do believe in a grey area that in my mind, the morning after pill deals with nicely (available and effective up to 5 days afterwards in Ireland). So you agree the UK limit of 24 weeks is too long? Where would you draw the line if not 12 weeks?
Surely it depends on circumstances. Would you force a pregnancy go full term for a rap e victim? What if scans identify a problem that means the baby would not survive to full term? Would you force a woman to carry the baby then have to give birth to a dead baby?
Abortions are not handed out like contraception. You still need to prove that there is a risk to the health and/or mental well being of either the mother or the foetus.
I'm afraid abortions are primarily used as contraception. It's very easy to google the data on reasons for abortions and you will find that all the instances of r*pe, in*est and health problems add up to less than 10% of the reasons.
No i do not wish women to carry dead babies, mothers to die in childbirth or pregnancy, or babies to be born with minimal chance of a quality of life (i do not include downs syndrome in that statement though). But let's just be honest about the majority of cases, before we drift off into the fringe ones.
I had an abortion as contraception. It was an accident that happened and I exercised my right to choose. I’m very happy that I did. I’m very happy that option is there for other women, and now for the women of Ireland.
I think the job of the state is the protect the most vunerable from the tyranny of the majority. There is nothing more vunerable than the unborn. Hence i would not afford you that right and i don't think it can be morally justified. But others have and therefore, in the real world, it was your right as you say.
Are you like one of those pro lifers?
Sorry i don't do identity politics. I'll make my own position based on facts and evidence.
Your arrogance on an issue that affects women first and foremost is funny but not surprising.
Sometimes I do wonder if they just like having the contrary opinion. Just for the sake of it. "No i this is actually a very simple moral problem. Ask yourself when a foetus becomes a human and then accept that convenience is not a moral justification for ending a human life. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hurray for killing babies
Now if we can have a referendum on euthanasia then we can knock off some of the elderly who inconvience us.
Always one comment like this
The poster who made the comment usually has a dry sense of sarcastic humour, I'm sure he meant it as such.
I just can't do the mental gymnastics required to get enthusiastic about killing a 12 week old baby. Funny how most the population get upset about killing foxes too.
You could I suggest try taking a ‘ real world’ look at it ? It is highly unlikely that people will leave it for 12 weeks ! That is in extreme cases I suggest where women simply were not aware they were pregnant .
In ‘ normal’ situation it would happen much sooner and argue as much as you like but that is not a baby ! More than a collection of sperm being ejaculated is half of a one ! Neither are ‘ murdering’ anything .. simply a non sentient collection of cells and if it solves a lot of frustration or heartache then frankly am all for both of them ..
I'm not entirely closed to the point you are making, i do believe in a grey area that in my mind, the morning after pill deals with nicely (available and effective up to 5 days afterwards in Ireland). So you agree the UK limit of 24 weeks is too long? Where would you draw the line if not 12 weeks?
Surely it depends on circumstances. Would you force a pregnancy go full term for a rap e victim? What if scans identify a problem that means the baby would not survive to full term? Would you force a woman to carry the baby then have to give birth to a dead baby?
Abortions are not handed out like contraception. You still need to prove that there is a risk to the health and/or mental well being of either the mother or the foetus.
I'm afraid abortions are primarily used as contraception. It's very easy to google the data on reasons for abortions and you will find that all the instances of r*pe, in*est and health problems add up to less than 10% of the reasons.
No i do not wish women to carry dead babies, mothers to die in childbirth or pregnancy, or babies to be born with minimal chance of a quality of life (i do not include downs syndrome in that statement though). But let's just be honest about the majority of cases, before we drift off into the fringe ones.
I had an abortion as contraception. It was an accident that happened and I exercised my right to choose. I’m very happy that I did. I’m very happy that option is there for other women, and now for the women of Ireland.
I think the job of the state is the protect the most vunerable from the tyranny of the majority. There is nothing more vunerable than the unborn. Hence i would not afford you that right and i don't think it can be morally justified. But others have and therefore, in the real world, it was your right as you say.
Are you like one of those pro lifers?
Sorry i don't do identity politics. I'll make my own position based on facts and evidence.
Your arrogance on an issue that affects women first and foremost is funny but not surprising.
The opinions on this issue are not really divided by gender if you care to fact check yourself. Furthermore, a lot more girls get aborted than boys worldwide. Your poor attempts to attack my sex just show you have nothing objective to say against the points i make. "You’re hilarious. I’m pretty sure if there was a thread about how it feels to have a vagina, you’d still feel the need to argue about something | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hurray for killing babies
Now if we can have a referendum on euthanasia then we can knock off some of the elderly who inconvience us.
Always one comment like this
The poster who made the comment usually has a dry sense of sarcastic humour, I'm sure he meant it as such.
I just can't do the mental gymnastics required to get enthusiastic about killing a 12 week old baby. Funny how most the population get upset about killing foxes too.
You could I suggest try taking a ‘ real world’ look at it ? It is highly unlikely that people will leave it for 12 weeks ! That is in extreme cases I suggest where women simply were not aware they were pregnant .
In ‘ normal’ situation it would happen much sooner and argue as much as you like but that is not a baby ! More than a collection of sperm being ejaculated is half of a one ! Neither are ‘ murdering’ anything .. simply a non sentient collection of cells and if it solves a lot of frustration or heartache then frankly am all for both of them ..
I'm not entirely closed to the point you are making, i do believe in a grey area that in my mind, the morning after pill deals with nicely (available and effective up to 5 days afterwards in Ireland). So you agree the UK limit of 24 weeks is too long? Where would you draw the line if not 12 weeks?
Surely it depends on circumstances. Would you force a pregnancy go full term for a rap e victim? What if scans identify a problem that means the baby would not survive to full term? Would you force a woman to carry the baby then have to give birth to a dead baby?
Abortions are not handed out like contraception. You still need to prove that there is a risk to the health and/or mental well being of either the mother or the foetus.
I'm afraid abortions are primarily used as contraception. It's very easy to google the data on reasons for abortions and you will find that all the instances of r*pe, in*est and health problems add up to less than 10% of the reasons.
No i do not wish women to carry dead babies, mothers to die in childbirth or pregnancy, or babies to be born with minimal chance of a quality of life (i do not include downs syndrome in that statement though). But let's just be honest about the majority of cases, before we drift off into the fringe ones.
I had an abortion as contraception. It was an accident that happened and I exercised my right to choose. I’m very happy that I did. I’m very happy that option is there for other women, and now for the women of Ireland.
I think the job of the state is the protect the most vunerable from the tyranny of the majority. There is nothing more vunerable than the unborn. Hence i would not afford you that right and i don't think it can be morally justified. But others have and therefore, in the real world, it was your right as you say.
Are you like one of those pro lifers?
Sorry i don't do identity politics. I'll make my own position based on facts and evidence.
Your arrogance on an issue that affects women first and foremost is funny but not surprising.
The opinions on this issue are not really divided by gender if you care to fact check yourself. Furthermore, a lot more girls get aborted than boys worldwide. Your poor attempts to attack my sex just show you have nothing objective to say against the points i make. "Oh, and just because more males get aborted, that does not make this a gender neutral issue. It’s very much at the forefront of women’s rights. Of course, I’m not saying men can’t have an opinion on the matter. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hurray for killing babies
Now if we can have a referendum on euthanasia then we can knock off some of the elderly who inconvience us.
Always one comment like this
The poster who made the comment usually has a dry sense of sarcastic humour, I'm sure he meant it as such.
I just can't do the mental gymnastics required to get enthusiastic about killing a 12 week old baby. Funny how most the population get upset about killing foxes too.
You could I suggest try taking a ‘ real world’ look at it ? It is highly unlikely that people will leave it for 12 weeks ! That is in extreme cases I suggest where women simply were not aware they were pregnant .
In ‘ normal’ situation it would happen much sooner and argue as much as you like but that is not a baby ! More than a collection of sperm being ejaculated is half of a one ! Neither are ‘ murdering’ anything .. simply a non sentient collection of cells and if it solves a lot of frustration or heartache then frankly am all for both of them ..
I'm not entirely closed to the point you are making, i do believe in a grey area that in my mind, the morning after pill deals with nicely (available and effective up to 5 days afterwards in Ireland). So you agree the UK limit of 24 weeks is too long? Where would you draw the line if not 12 weeks?
Surely it depends on circumstances. Would you force a pregnancy go full term for a rap e victim? What if scans identify a problem that means the baby would not survive to full term? Would you force a woman to carry the baby then have to give birth to a dead baby?
Abortions are not handed out like contraception. You still need to prove that there is a risk to the health and/or mental well being of either the mother or the foetus.
I'm afraid abortions are primarily used as contraception. It's very easy to google the data on reasons for abortions and you will find that all the instances of r*pe, in*est and health problems add up to less than 10% of the reasons.
No i do not wish women to carry dead babies, mothers to die in childbirth or pregnancy, or babies to be born with minimal chance of a quality of life (i do not include downs syndrome in that statement though). But let's just be honest about the majority of cases, before we drift off into the fringe ones.
I had an abortion as contraception. It was an accident that happened and I exercised my right to choose. I’m very happy that I did. I’m very happy that option is there for other women, and now for the women of Ireland.
I think the job of the state is the protect the most vunerable from the tyranny of the majority. There is nothing more vunerable than the unborn. Hence i would not afford you that right and i don't think it can be morally justified. But others have and therefore, in the real world, it was your right as you say.
Are you like one of those pro lifers?
Sorry i don't do identity politics. I'll make my own position based on facts and evidence.
Your arrogance on an issue that affects women first and foremost is funny but not surprising.
The opinions on this issue are not really divided by gender if you care to fact check yourself. Furthermore, a lot more girls get aborted than boys worldwide. Your poor attempts to attack my sex just show you have nothing objective to say against the points i make.
Oh, and just because more males get aborted, that does not make this a gender neutral issue. It’s very much at the forefront of women’s rights. Of course, I’m not saying men can’t have an opinion on the matter. "If you look at the proportion of men and women who do and don't support abortion, there's actually not much difference. Besides the real debate isn't 'should there be any abortions' - it's about when and the reasons. Oh and I'm fully in support of tougher sanctions on dead beat dads by the way. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hurray for killing babies
Now if we can have a referendum on euthanasia then we can knock off some of the elderly who inconvience us.
Always one comment like this
The poster who made the comment usually has a dry sense of sarcastic humour, I'm sure he meant it as such.
I just can't do the mental gymnastics required to get enthusiastic about killing a 12 week old baby. Funny how most the population get upset about killing foxes too.
You could I suggest try taking a ‘ real world’ look at it ? It is highly unlikely that people will leave it for 12 weeks ! That is in extreme cases I suggest where women simply were not aware they were pregnant .
In ‘ normal’ situation it would happen much sooner and argue as much as you like but that is not a baby ! More than a collection of sperm being ejaculated is half of a one ! Neither are ‘ murdering’ anything .. simply a non sentient collection of cells and if it solves a lot of frustration or heartache then frankly am all for both of them ..
I'm not entirely closed to the point you are making, i do believe in a grey area that in my mind, the morning after pill deals with nicely (available and effective up to 5 days afterwards in Ireland). So you agree the UK limit of 24 weeks is too long? Where would you draw the line if not 12 weeks?
Surely it depends on circumstances. Would you force a pregnancy go full term for a rap e victim? What if scans identify a problem that means the baby would not survive to full term? Would you force a woman to carry the baby then have to give birth to a dead baby?
Abortions are not handed out like contraception. You still need to prove that there is a risk to the health and/or mental well being of either the mother or the foetus.
I'm afraid abortions are primarily used as contraception. It's very easy to google the data on reasons for abortions and you will find that all the instances of r*pe, in*est and health problems add up to less than 10% of the reasons.
No i do not wish women to carry dead babies, mothers to die in childbirth or pregnancy, or babies to be born with minimal chance of a quality of life (i do not include downs syndrome in that statement though). But let's just be honest about the majority of cases, before we drift off into the fringe ones.
I had an abortion as contraception. It was an accident that happened and I exercised my right to choose. I’m very happy that I did. I’m very happy that option is there for other women, and now for the women of Ireland.
I think the job of the state is the protect the most vunerable from the tyranny of the majority. There is nothing more vunerable than the unborn. Hence i would not afford you that right and i don't think it can be morally justified. But others have and therefore, in the real world, it was your right as you say.
Are you like one of those pro lifers?
Sorry i don't do identity politics. I'll make my own position based on facts and evidence.
Your arrogance on an issue that affects women first and foremost is funny but not surprising.
The opinions on this issue are not really divided by gender if you care to fact check yourself. Furthermore, a lot more girls get aborted than boys worldwide. Your poor attempts to attack my sex just show you have nothing objective to say against the points i make.
Oh, and just because more males get aborted, that does not make this a gender neutral issue. It’s very much at the forefront of women’s rights. Of course, I’m not saying men can’t have an opinion on the matter.
If you look at the proportion of men and women who do and don't support abortion, there's actually not much difference. Besides the real debate isn't 'should there be any abortions' - it's about when and the reasons. Oh and I'm fully in support of tougher sanctions on dead beat dads by the way. "Why do you give a toss what someone else wants to do with their body and why is it your business? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hurray for killing babies
Now if we can have a referendum on euthanasia then we can knock off some of the elderly who inconvience us.
Always one comment like this
The poster who made the comment usually has a dry sense of sarcastic humour, I'm sure he meant it as such.
I just can't do the mental gymnastics required to get enthusiastic about killing a 12 week old baby. Funny how most the population get upset about killing foxes too.
You could I suggest try taking a ‘ real world’ look at it ? It is highly unlikely that people will leave it for 12 weeks ! That is in extreme cases I suggest where women simply were not aware they were pregnant .
In ‘ normal’ situation it would happen much sooner and argue as much as you like but that is not a baby ! More than a collection of sperm being ejaculated is half of a one ! Neither are ‘ murdering’ anything .. simply a non sentient collection of cells and if it solves a lot of frustration or heartache then frankly am all for both of them ..
I'm not entirely closed to the point you are making, i do believe in a grey area that in my mind, the morning after pill deals with nicely (available and effective up to 5 days afterwards in Ireland). So you agree the UK limit of 24 weeks is too long? Where would you draw the line if not 12 weeks?
Surely it depends on circumstances. Would you force a pregnancy go full term for a rap e victim? What if scans identify a problem that means the baby would not survive to full term? Would you force a woman to carry the baby then have to give birth to a dead baby?
Abortions are not handed out like contraception. You still need to prove that there is a risk to the health and/or mental well being of either the mother or the foetus.
I'm afraid abortions are primarily used as contraception. It's very easy to google the data on reasons for abortions and you will find that all the instances of r*pe, in*est and health problems add up to less than 10% of the reasons.
No i do not wish women to carry dead babies, mothers to die in childbirth or pregnancy, or babies to be born with minimal chance of a quality of life (i do not include downs syndrome in that statement though). But let's just be honest about the majority of cases, before we drift off into the fringe ones.
I had an abortion as contraception. It was an accident that happened and I exercised my right to choose. I’m very happy that I did. I’m very happy that option is there for other women, and now for the women of Ireland.
I think the job of the state is the protect the most vunerable from the tyranny of the majority. There is nothing more vunerable than the unborn. Hence i would not afford you that right and i don't think it can be morally justified. But others have and therefore, in the real world, it was your right as you say.
Are you like one of those pro lifers?
Sorry i don't do identity politics. I'll make my own position based on facts and evidence.
Your arrogance on an issue that affects women first and foremost is funny but not surprising.
The opinions on this issue are not really divided by gender if you care to fact check yourself. Furthermore, a lot more girls get aborted than boys worldwide. Your poor attempts to attack my sex just show you have nothing objective to say against the points i make.
Oh, and just because more males get aborted, that does not make this a gender neutral issue. It’s very much at the forefront of women’s rights. Of course, I’m not saying men can’t have an opinion on the matter.
If you look at the proportion of men and women who do and don't support abortion, there's actually not much difference. Besides the real debate isn't 'should there be any abortions' - it's about when and the reasons. Oh and I'm fully in support of tougher sanctions on dead beat dads by the way.
Why do you give a toss what someone else wants to do with their body and why is it your business?"Why does anyone care about human rights? Why care about anything that doesn't effect you personally. Stupid questions really. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No i this is actually a very simple moral problem. Ask yourself when a foetus becomes a human and then accept that convenience is not a moral justification for ending a human life." I agree that it’s a moral problem. I disagree that it’s a simple one. You’ve highlighted two issues already, the first of which is highly contentious, and the second of which is an oversimplification of the many arguments for and against. However, since it is a moral question, and morals are subjective, you can’t just frame it as a black and white as you have. For what it’s worth, I’m not going to tell you that I think you’re wrong for falling on the side you have. You’ve clearly made an informed decision. But I won’t ‘just accept’ that you are right, either, because I see the questions in a different light. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The votes are still being counted/verified/reported - though the overall result is looking like a Yes. " They’ve confirmed it as there’s absolutely no prospect of the Yes vote not being passed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just need Northern Ireland to stop living in the dark ages and to change their abortion law and, whilst they are at it, their law on same sex marriage. " Agreed | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hurray for killing babies
Now if we can have a referendum on euthanasia then we can knock off some of the elderly who inconvience us.
Always one comment like this
The poster who made the comment usually has a dry sense of sarcastic humour, I'm sure he meant it as such.
I just can't do the mental gymnastics required to get enthusiastic about killing a 12 week old baby. Funny how most the population get upset about killing foxes too.
You could I suggest try taking a ‘ real world’ look at it ? It is highly unlikely that people will leave it for 12 weeks ! That is in extreme cases I suggest where women simply were not aware they were pregnant .
In ‘ normal’ situation it would happen much sooner and argue as much as you like but that is not a baby ! More than a collection of sperm being ejaculated is half of a one ! Neither are ‘ murdering’ anything .. simply a non sentient collection of cells and if it solves a lot of frustration or heartache then frankly am all for both of them ..
I'm not entirely closed to the point you are making, i do believe in a grey area that in my mind, the morning after pill deals with nicely (available and effective up to 5 days afterwards in Ireland). So you agree the UK limit of 24 weeks is too long? Where would you draw the line if not 12 weeks?
Surely it depends on circumstances. Would you force a pregnancy go full term for a rap e victim? What if scans identify a problem that means the baby would not survive to full term? Would you force a woman to carry the baby then have to give birth to a dead baby?
Abortions are not handed out like contraception. You still need to prove that there is a risk to the health and/or mental well being of either the mother or the foetus.
I'm afraid abortions are primarily used as contraception. It's very easy to google the data on reasons for abortions and you will find that all the instances of r*pe, in*est and health problems add up to less than 10% of the reasons.
No i do not wish women to carry dead babies, mothers to die in childbirth or pregnancy, or babies to be born with minimal chance of a quality of life (i do not include downs syndrome in that statement though). But let's just be honest about the majority of cases, before we drift off into the fringe ones.
I had an abortion as contraception. It was an accident that happened and I exercised my right to choose. I’m very happy that I did. I’m very happy that option is there for other women, and now for the women of Ireland.
I think the job of the state is the protect the most vunerable from the tyranny of the majority. There is nothing more vunerable than the unborn. Hence i would not afford you that right and i don't think it can be morally justified. But others have and therefore, in the real world, it was your right as you say.
Are you like one of those pro lifers?
Sorry i don't do identity politics. I'll make my own position based on facts and evidence.
Your arrogance on an issue that affects women first and foremost is funny but not surprising.
The opinions on this issue are not really divided by gender if you care to fact check yourself. Furthermore, a lot more girls get aborted than boys worldwide. Your poor attempts to attack my sex just show you have nothing objective to say against the points i make.
Oh, and just because more males get aborted, that does not make this a gender neutral issue. It’s very much at the forefront of women’s rights. Of course, I’m not saying men can’t have an opinion on the matter.
If you look at the proportion of men and women who do and don't support abortion, there's actually not much difference. Besides the real debate isn't 'should there be any abortions' - it's about when and the reasons. Oh and I'm fully in support of tougher sanctions on dead beat dads by the way. "It’s still a women’s rights issue. Oh and I’m fully in support of more rights for male parents. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s official. Irish women now have the right to choose! Well done, Ireland "About bloody time | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s official. Irish women now have the right to choose! Well done, Ireland "Especially well done to the women in Ireland that fought for change. Respect! X | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hurray for killing babies
Now if we can have a referendum on euthanasia then we can knock off some of the elderly who inconvience us.
Always one comment like this
The poster who made the comment usually has a dry sense of sarcastic humour, I'm sure he meant it as such.
I just can't do the mental gymnastics required to get enthusiastic about killing a 12 week old baby. Funny how most the population get upset about killing foxes too.
You could I suggest try taking a ‘ real world’ look at it ? It is highly unlikely that people will leave it for 12 weeks ! That is in extreme cases I suggest where women simply were not aware they were pregnant .
In ‘ normal’ situation it would happen much sooner and argue as much as you like but that is not a baby ! More than a collection of sperm being ejaculated is half of a one ! Neither are ‘ murdering’ anything .. simply a non sentient collection of cells and if it solves a lot of frustration or heartache then frankly am all for both of them ..
I'm not entirely closed to the point you are making, i do believe in a grey area that in my mind, the morning after pill deals with nicely (available and effective up to 5 days afterwards in Ireland). So you agree the UK limit of 24 weeks is too long? Where would you draw the line if not 12 weeks?
Surely it depends on circumstances. Would you force a pregnancy go full term for a rap e victim? What if scans identify a problem that means the baby would not survive to full term? Would you force a woman to carry the baby then have to give birth to a dead baby?
Abortions are not handed out like contraception. You still need to prove that there is a risk to the health and/or mental well being of either the mother or the foetus.
I'm afraid abortions are primarily used as contraception. It's very easy to google the data on reasons for abortions and you will find that all the instances of r*pe, in*est and health problems add up to less than 10% of the reasons.
No i do not wish women to carry dead babies, mothers to die in childbirth or pregnancy, or babies to be born with minimal chance of a quality of life (i do not include downs syndrome in that statement though). But let's just be honest about the majority of cases, before we drift off into the fringe ones.
I had an abortion as contraception. It was an accident that happened and I exercised my right to choose. I’m very happy that I did. I’m very happy that option is there for other women, and now for the women of Ireland.
I think the job of the state is the protect the most vunerable from the tyranny of the majority. There is nothing more vunerable than the unborn. Hence i would not afford you that right and i don't think it can be morally justified. But others have and therefore, in the real world, it was your right as you say.
Are you like one of those pro lifers?
Sorry i don't do identity politics. I'll make my own position based on facts and evidence.
Your arrogance on an issue that affects women first and foremost is funny but not surprising.
The opinions on this issue are not really divided by gender if you care to fact check yourself. Furthermore, a lot more girls get aborted than boys worldwide. Your poor attempts to attack my sex just show you have nothing objective to say against the points i make.
Oh, and just because more males get aborted, that does not make this a gender neutral issue. It’s very much at the forefront of women’s rights. Of course, I’m not saying men can’t have an opinion on the matter.
If you look at the proportion of men and women who do and don't support abortion, there's actually not much difference. Besides the real debate isn't 'should there be any abortions' - it's about when and the reasons. Oh and I'm fully in support of tougher sanctions on dead beat dads by the way.
Why do you give a toss what someone else wants to do with their body and why is it your business?
Why does anyone care about human rights? Why care about anything that doesn't effect you personally. Stupid questions really. "stupid answer tbh | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No i this is actually a very simple moral problem. Ask yourself when a foetus becomes a human and then accept that convenience is not a moral justification for ending a human life. I agree that it’s a moral problem. I disagree that it’s a simple one. You’ve highlighted two issues already, the first of which is highly contentious, and the second of which is an oversimplification of the many arguments for and against. However, since it is a moral question, and morals are subjective, you can’t just frame it as a black and white as you have. For what it’s worth, I’m not going to tell you that I think you’re wrong for falling on the side you have. You’ve clearly made an informed decision. But I won’t ‘just accept’ that you are right, either, because I see the questions in a different light." I think most people think of the answer they want and then try and reverse engineer some logic. I really can't think of any system of morals that would allow one human to kill another human for convenience. So the real question is about when life starts. Having a planned child and tracking the pregnancy, literally daily, showed me that there isn't necessarily a fixed answer to that question but from my point of view it's definately not more than 12 weeks but I'd also say it's more than 1 day. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A friend of mine is in complete outage at the result she’s currently expecting with her fi st child, an accident and the father wants nothing to do with her, she’s happy as her bodyclock has ticked past 40 ! Needless to say she’s successful wealthy and solvent, she has however had numerous breakdowns and sees this as a fresh start, I wonder if she had kids younger perhaps her views would be very different, I myself have had traumatic pregnancies and had to fight to get sterilised because I was so young yet I was also told if I fell pregnant again it would most definitely kill me and the baby ! Go figure that out, thankfully on the grounds of my mental health and traumatic births and one miscarriage prior I was after a lengthy fight allowed to have my sterilisation, before I had my first child I was anti abortion but since becoming a parent and understanding the hardships and health problems I can fully support younger/older/less capable individuals who find themselves in that hard place and hope they are not judged to hard " So many of my friends tell me about how their thought processes have changed after having children | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No i this is actually a very simple moral problem. Ask yourself when a foetus becomes a human and then accept that convenience is not a moral justification for ending a human life. I agree that it’s a moral problem. I disagree that it’s a simple one. You’ve highlighted two issues already, the first of which is highly contentious, and the second of which is an oversimplification of the many arguments for and against. However, since it is a moral question, and morals are subjective, you can’t just frame it as a black and white as you have. For what it’s worth, I’m not going to tell you that I think you’re wrong for falling on the side you have. You’ve clearly made an informed decision. But I won’t ‘just accept’ that you are right, either, because I see the questions in a different light. I think most people think of the answer they want and then try and reverse engineer some logic. I really can't think of any system of morals that would allow one human to kill another human for convenience. So the real question is about when life starts. Having a planned child and tracking the pregnancy, literally daily, showed me that there isn't necessarily a fixed answer to that question but from my point of view it's definately not more than 12 weeks but I'd also say it's more than 1 day." I do wonder if 24 weeks is too late to abort, it seems very far along. However, I don’t really know enough about the development to be able to say for certain. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No i this is actually a very simple moral problem. Ask yourself when a foetus becomes a human and then accept that convenience is not a moral justification for ending a human life. I agree that it’s a moral problem. I disagree that it’s a simple one. You’ve highlighted two issues already, the first of which is highly contentious, and the second of which is an oversimplification of the many arguments for and against. However, since it is a moral question, and morals are subjective, you can’t just frame it as a black and white as you have. For what it’s worth, I’m not going to tell you that I think you’re wrong for falling on the side you have. You’ve clearly made an informed decision. But I won’t ‘just accept’ that you are right, either, because I see the questions in a different light. I think most people think of the answer they want and then try and reverse engineer some logic. I really can't think of any system of morals that would allow one human to kill another human for convenience. So the real question is about when life starts. Having a planned child and tracking the pregnancy, literally daily, showed me that there isn't necessarily a fixed answer to that question but from my point of view it's definately not more than 12 weeks but I'd also say it's more than 1 day." So if a woman becomes pregnant accidentally you think she should be forced to carry it and give birth to it against her will?? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No i this is actually a very simple moral problem. Ask yourself when a foetus becomes a human and then accept that convenience is not a moral justification for ending a human life. I agree that it’s a moral problem. I disagree that it’s a simple one. You’ve highlighted two issues already, the first of which is highly contentious, and the second of which is an oversimplification of the many arguments for and against. However, since it is a moral question, and morals are subjective, you can’t just frame it as a black and white as you have. For what it’s worth, I’m not going to tell you that I think you’re wrong for falling on the side you have. You’ve clearly made an informed decision. But I won’t ‘just accept’ that you are right, either, because I see the questions in a different light. I think most people think of the answer they want and then try and reverse engineer some logic. I really can't think of any system of morals that would allow one human to kill another human for convenience. So the real question is about when life starts. Having a planned child and tracking the pregnancy, literally daily, showed me that there isn't necessarily a fixed answer to that question but from my point of view it's definately not more than 12 weeks but I'd also say it's more than 1 day. I do wonder if 24 weeks is too late to abort, it seems very far along. However, I don’t really know enough about the development to be able to say for certain. " The 24 week cut off is important as a lot of abnormalities don't get picked up until the 20 week scan. I think very few terminations at this stage would be for anything other than medical reasons | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No i this is actually a very simple moral problem. Ask yourself when a foetus becomes a human and then accept that convenience is not a moral justification for ending a human life. I agree that it’s a moral problem. I disagree that it’s a simple one. You’ve highlighted two issues already, the first of which is highly contentious, and the second of which is an oversimplification of the many arguments for and against. However, since it is a moral question, and morals are subjective, you can’t just frame it as a black and white as you have. For what it’s worth, I’m not going to tell you that I think you’re wrong for falling on the side you have. You’ve clearly made an informed decision. But I won’t ‘just accept’ that you are right, either, because I see the questions in a different light. I think most people think of the answer they want and then try and reverse engineer some logic. I really can't think of any system of morals that would allow one human to kill another human for convenience. So the real question is about when life starts. Having a planned child and tracking the pregnancy, literally daily, showed me that there isn't necessarily a fixed answer to that question but from my point of view it's definately not more than 12 weeks but I'd also say it's more than 1 day. I do wonder if 24 weeks is too late to abort, it seems very far along. However, I don’t really know enough about the development to be able to say for certain. The 24 week cut off is important as a lot of abnormalities don't get picked up until the 20 week scan. I think very few terminations at this stage would be for anything other than medical reasons" Yes, of course. I forgot about the 20 week scan being so important | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No i this is actually a very simple moral problem. Ask yourself when a foetus becomes a human and then accept that convenience is not a moral justification for ending a human life. I agree that it’s a moral problem. I disagree that it’s a simple one. You’ve highlighted two issues already, the first of which is highly contentious, and the second of which is an oversimplification of the many arguments for and against. However, since it is a moral question, and morals are subjective, you can’t just frame it as a black and white as you have. For what it’s worth, I’m not going to tell you that I think you’re wrong for falling on the side you have. You’ve clearly made an informed decision. But I won’t ‘just accept’ that you are right, either, because I see the questions in a different light. I think most people think of the answer they want and then try and reverse engineer some logic. I really can't think of any system of morals that would allow one human to kill another human for convenience. So the real question is about when life starts. Having a planned child and tracking the pregnancy, literally daily, showed me that there isn't necessarily a fixed answer to that question but from my point of view it's definately not more than 12 weeks but I'd also say it's more than 1 day. I do wonder if 24 weeks is too late to abort, it seems very far along. However, I don’t really know enough about the development to be able to say for certain. " 24 weeks is a baby that would be more likely than not, to survive outside the womb. So the logic in support of that abortion at that age must be that you're not a human if someone elses skin is surrounding you. I don't find that convincing. I knew the gender of my child age 9 weeks. At 12 weeks they have a heart beat, look pretty human and are moving around in there. However i do accept that there is a very high rate of natural miscarriage between 0-12 weeks. Nobody knows for sure but somewhere between 20-50% of pregnancies. Therefore, i think that saying the morning after pill is an abortion or a murder is over extending the claim because there's a reasonably high probably that no life would have ever occurred. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No i this is actually a very simple moral problem. Ask yourself when a foetus becomes a human and then accept that convenience is not a moral justification for ending a human life. I agree that it’s a moral problem. I disagree that it’s a simple one. You’ve highlighted two issues already, the first of which is highly contentious, and the second of which is an oversimplification of the many arguments for and against. However, since it is a moral question, and morals are subjective, you can’t just frame it as a black and white as you have. For what it’s worth, I’m not going to tell you that I think you’re wrong for falling on the side you have. You’ve clearly made an informed decision. But I won’t ‘just accept’ that you are right, either, because I see the questions in a different light. I think most people think of the answer they want and then try and reverse engineer some logic. I really can't think of any system of morals that would allow one human to kill another human for convenience. So the real question is about when life starts. Having a planned child and tracking the pregnancy, literally daily, showed me that there isn't necessarily a fixed answer to that question but from my point of view it's definately not more than 12 weeks but I'd also say it's more than 1 day. So if a woman becomes pregnant accidentally you think she should be forced to carry it and give birth to it against her will??" Do you really expect me to believe it takes 12 weeks to find out you are 'accidentally pregnant'? Give me a break and reply to what I've actually said rather than a strawman. I said the debate is about reasons and timing, even the Catholic Church doesn't argue against 100% of abortions. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No i this is actually a very simple moral problem. Ask yourself when a foetus becomes a human and then accept that convenience is not a moral justification for ending a human life. I agree that it’s a moral problem. I disagree that it’s a simple one. You’ve highlighted two issues already, the first of which is highly contentious, and the second of which is an oversimplification of the many arguments for and against. However, since it is a moral question, and morals are subjective, you can’t just frame it as a black and white as you have. For what it’s worth, I’m not going to tell you that I think you’re wrong for falling on the side you have. You’ve clearly made an informed decision. But I won’t ‘just accept’ that you are right, either, because I see the questions in a different light. I think most people think of the answer they want and then try and reverse engineer some logic. I really can't think of any system of morals that would allow one human to kill another human for convenience. So the real question is about when life starts. Having a planned child and tracking the pregnancy, literally daily, showed me that there isn't necessarily a fixed answer to that question but from my point of view it's definately not more than 12 weeks but I'd also say it's more than 1 day. I do wonder if 24 weeks is too late to abort, it seems very far along. However, I don’t really know enough about the development to be able to say for certain. 24 weeks is a baby that would be more likely than not, to survive outside the womb. So the logic in support of that abortion at that age must be that you're not a human if someone elses skin is surrounding you. I don't find that convincing. I knew the gender of my child age 9 weeks. At 12 weeks they have a heart beat, look pretty human and are moving around in there. However i do accept that there is a very high rate of natural miscarriage between 0-12 weeks. Nobody knows for sure but somewhere between 20-50% of pregnancies. Therefore, i think that saying the morning after pill is an abortion or a murder is over extending the claim because there's a reasonably high probably that no life would have ever occurred. " I’m guessing to survive, it would more than probably need medical intervention though? If so, I’m wondering if it can actually be claimed that they’d survive. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No i this is actually a very simple moral problem. Ask yourself when a foetus becomes a human and then accept that convenience is not a moral justification for ending a human life. I agree that it’s a moral problem. I disagree that it’s a simple one. You’ve highlighted two issues already, the first of which is highly contentious, and the second of which is an oversimplification of the many arguments for and against. However, since it is a moral question, and morals are subjective, you can’t just frame it as a black and white as you have. For what it’s worth, I’m not going to tell you that I think you’re wrong for falling on the side you have. You’ve clearly made an informed decision. But I won’t ‘just accept’ that you are right, either, because I see the questions in a different light. I think most people think of the answer they want and then try and reverse engineer some logic. I really can't think of any system of morals that would allow one human to kill another human for convenience. So the real question is about when life starts. Having a planned child and tracking the pregnancy, literally daily, showed me that there isn't necessarily a fixed answer to that question but from my point of view it's definately not more than 12 weeks but I'd also say it's more than 1 day. So if a woman becomes pregnant accidentally you think she should be forced to carry it and give birth to it against her will?? Do you really expect me to believe it takes 12 weeks to find out you are 'accidentally pregnant'? Give me a break and reply to what I've actually said rather than a strawman. I said the debate is about reasons and timing, even the Catholic Church doesn't argue against 100% of abortions. " It's quite clear that what you believe isn't the same as others. But yes people can go to 12 weeks without realising. And let's not get into what the Catholic church agree with. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No i this is actually a very simple moral problem. Ask yourself when a foetus becomes a human and then accept that convenience is not a moral justification for ending a human life. I agree that it’s a moral problem. I disagree that it’s a simple one. You’ve highlighted two issues already, the first of which is highly contentious, and the second of which is an oversimplification of the many arguments for and against. However, since it is a moral question, and morals are subjective, you can’t just frame it as a black and white as you have. For what it’s worth, I’m not going to tell you that I think you’re wrong for falling on the side you have. You’ve clearly made an informed decision. But I won’t ‘just accept’ that you are right, either, because I see the questions in a different light. I think most people think of the answer they want and then try and reverse engineer some logic. I really can't think of any system of morals that would allow one human to kill another human for convenience. So the real question is about when life starts. Having a planned child and tracking the pregnancy, literally daily, showed me that there isn't necessarily a fixed answer to that question but from my point of view it's definately not more than 12 weeks but I'd also say it's more than 1 day. I do wonder if 24 weeks is too late to abort, it seems very far along. However, I don’t really know enough about the development to be able to say for certain. The 24 week cut off is important as a lot of abnormalities don't get picked up until the 20 week scan. I think very few terminations at this stage would be for anything other than medical reasons" Well you thought wrong. In england and wales 2016, there were 3,033 babies killed / aborted after 20 weeks. A fetal abnormality abortion is a grounds E, which represented 1,069 of those (35%). The mothers being in any serious danger of dying 27 (0.9%). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No i this is actually a very simple moral problem. Ask yourself when a foetus becomes a human and then accept that convenience is not a moral justification for ending a human life. I agree that it’s a moral problem. I disagree that it’s a simple one. You’ve highlighted two issues already, the first of which is highly contentious, and the second of which is an oversimplification of the many arguments for and against. However, since it is a moral question, and morals are subjective, you can’t just frame it as a black and white as you have. For what it’s worth, I’m not going to tell you that I think you’re wrong for falling on the side you have. You’ve clearly made an informed decision. But I won’t ‘just accept’ that you are right, either, because I see the questions in a different light. I think most people think of the answer they want and then try and reverse engineer some logic. I really can't think of any system of morals that would allow one human to kill another human for convenience. So the real question is about when life starts. Having a planned child and tracking the pregnancy, literally daily, showed me that there isn't necessarily a fixed answer to that question but from my point of view it's definately not more than 12 weeks but I'd also say it's more than 1 day. I do wonder if 24 weeks is too late to abort, it seems very far along. However, I don’t really know enough about the development to be able to say for certain. 24 weeks is a baby that would be more likely than not, to survive outside the womb. So the logic in support of that abortion at that age must be that you're not a human if someone elses skin is surrounding you. I don't find that convincing. I knew the gender of my child age 9 weeks. At 12 weeks they have a heart beat, look pretty human and are moving around in there. However i do accept that there is a very high rate of natural miscarriage between 0-12 weeks. Nobody knows for sure but somewhere between 20-50% of pregnancies. Therefore, i think that saying the morning after pill is an abortion or a murder is over extending the claim because there's a reasonably high probably that no life would have ever occurred. I’m guessing to survive, it would more than probably need medical intervention though? If so, I’m wondering if it can actually be claimed that they’d survive. " Because there are real premature births that actually happen at that age. The earliest surviving baby was 21 weeks. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think most people think of the answer they want and then try and reverse engineer some logic. I really can't think of any system of morals that would allow one human to kill another human for convenience. So the real question is about when life starts. Having a planned child and tracking the pregnancy, literally daily, showed me that there isn't necessarily a fixed answer to that question but from my point of view it's definately not more than 12 weeks but I'd also say it's more than 1 day." In the U.K., you’re not legally a human until you’re born. I’m not saying that’s the definitive answer, but it’s one that’s been reached after numerous debates. I fully understand why people reach different answers. For the sake of argument, there are systems of morals that allow the killing of whole groups of people ‘for convenience’. They’re not systems of morals that most of us agree with, but they’re there. Again, though, I think that it’s oversimplification to just label it as ‘convenience’. While I’m sure most made the right decision, I doubt many women would find the physical, emotional and psychological process ‘convenient’. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No i this is actually a very simple moral problem. Ask yourself when a foetus becomes a human and then accept that convenience is not a moral justification for ending a human life. I agree that it’s a moral problem. I disagree that it’s a simple one. You’ve highlighted two issues already, the first of which is highly contentious, and the second of which is an oversimplification of the many arguments for and against. However, since it is a moral question, and morals are subjective, you can’t just frame it as a black and white as you have. For what it’s worth, I’m not going to tell you that I think you’re wrong for falling on the side you have. You’ve clearly made an informed decision. But I won’t ‘just accept’ that you are right, either, because I see the questions in a different light. I think most people think of the answer they want and then try and reverse engineer some logic. I really can't think of any system of morals that would allow one human to kill another human for convenience. So the real question is about when life starts. Having a planned child and tracking the pregnancy, literally daily, showed me that there isn't necessarily a fixed answer to that question but from my point of view it's definately not more than 12 weeks but I'd also say it's more than 1 day. I do wonder if 24 weeks is too late to abort, it seems very far along. However, I don’t really know enough about the development to be able to say for certain. 24 weeks is a baby that would be more likely than not, to survive outside the womb. So the logic in support of that abortion at that age must be that you're not a human if someone elses skin is surrounding you. I don't find that convincing. I knew the gender of my child age 9 weeks. At 12 weeks they have a heart beat, look pretty human and are moving around in there. However i do accept that there is a very high rate of natural miscarriage between 0-12 weeks. Nobody knows for sure but somewhere between 20-50% of pregnancies. Therefore, i think that saying the morning after pill is an abortion or a murder is over extending the claim because there's a reasonably high probably that no life would have ever occurred. I’m guessing to survive, it would more than probably need medical intervention though? If so, I’m wondering if it can actually be claimed that they’d survive. Because there are real premature births that actually happen at that age. The earliest surviving baby was 21 weeks. " I’m guessing they need medical intervention though? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think most people think of the answer they want and then try and reverse engineer some logic. I really can't think of any system of morals that would allow one human to kill another human for convenience. So the real question is about when life starts. Having a planned child and tracking the pregnancy, literally daily, showed me that there isn't necessarily a fixed answer to that question but from my point of view it's definately not more than 12 weeks but I'd also say it's more than 1 day. In the U.K., you’re not legally a human until you’re born. I’m not saying that’s the definitive answer, but it’s one that’s been reached after numerous debates. I fully understand why people reach different answers. For the sake of argument, there are systems of morals that allow the killing of whole groups of people ‘for convenience’. They’re not systems of morals that most of us agree with, but they’re there. Again, though, I think that it’s oversimplification to just label it as ‘convenience’. While I’m sure most made the right decision, I doubt many women would find the physical, emotional and psychological process ‘convenient’." Sorry but that's factually incorrect. The term you need to research is "child destruction". There are convictions for men who kicked pregnant women in the stomach, for example. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No i this is actually a very simple moral problem. Ask yourself when a foetus becomes a human and then accept that convenience is not a moral justification for ending a human life. I agree that it’s a moral problem. I disagree that it’s a simple one. You’ve highlighted two issues already, the first of which is highly contentious, and the second of which is an oversimplification of the many arguments for and against. However, since it is a moral question, and morals are subjective, you can’t just frame it as a black and white as you have. For what it’s worth, I’m not going to tell you that I think you’re wrong for falling on the side you have. You’ve clearly made an informed decision. But I won’t ‘just accept’ that you are right, either, because I see the questions in a different light. I think most people think of the answer they want and then try and reverse engineer some logic. I really can't think of any system of morals that would allow one human to kill another human for convenience. So the real question is about when life starts. Having a planned child and tracking the pregnancy, literally daily, showed me that there isn't necessarily a fixed answer to that question but from my point of view it's definately not more than 12 weeks but I'd also say it's more than 1 day. I do wonder if 24 weeks is too late to abort, it seems very far along. However, I don’t really know enough about the development to be able to say for certain. 24 weeks is a baby that would be more likely than not, to survive outside the womb. So the logic in support of that abortion at that age must be that you're not a human if someone elses skin is surrounding you. I don't find that convincing. I knew the gender of my child age 9 weeks. At 12 weeks they have a heart beat, look pretty human and are moving around in there. However i do accept that there is a very high rate of natural miscarriage between 0-12 weeks. Nobody knows for sure but somewhere between 20-50% of pregnancies. Therefore, i think that saying the morning after pill is an abortion or a murder is over extending the claim because there's a reasonably high probably that no life would have ever occurred. I’m guessing to survive, it would more than probably need medical intervention though? If so, I’m wondering if it can actually be claimed that they’d survive. Because there are real premature births that actually happen at that age. The earliest surviving baby was 21 weeks. I’m guessing they need medical intervention though? " Yes but i don't find that a very important point. No baby is going to survive without round the clock care from someone. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No i this is actually a very simple moral problem. Ask yourself when a foetus becomes a human and then accept that convenience is not a moral justification for ending a human life. I agree that it’s a moral problem. I disagree that it’s a simple one. You’ve highlighted two issues already, the first of which is highly contentious, and the second of which is an oversimplification of the many arguments for and against. However, since it is a moral question, and morals are subjective, you can’t just frame it as a black and white as you have. For what it’s worth, I’m not going to tell you that I think you’re wrong for falling on the side you have. You’ve clearly made an informed decision. But I won’t ‘just accept’ that you are right, either, because I see the questions in a different light. I think most people think of the answer they want and then try and reverse engineer some logic. I really can't think of any system of morals that would allow one human to kill another human for convenience. So the real question is about when life starts. Having a planned child and tracking the pregnancy, literally daily, showed me that there isn't necessarily a fixed answer to that question but from my point of view it's definately not more than 12 weeks but I'd also say it's more than 1 day. I do wonder if 24 weeks is too late to abort, it seems very far along. However, I don’t really know enough about the development to be able to say for certain. The 24 week cut off is important as a lot of abnormalities don't get picked up until the 20 week scan. I think very few terminations at this stage would be for anything other than medical reasons Well you thought wrong. In england and wales 2016, there were 3,033 babies killed / aborted after 20 weeks. A fetal abnormality abortion is a grounds E, which represented 1,069 of those (35%). The mothers being in any serious danger of dying 27 (0.9%). " Thankyou for those stats What gestation would you like to see it reduced to? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" In the U.K., you’re not legally a human until you’re born. " So terminating a pregnancy is not murder in any shape or form then?? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No i this is actually a very simple moral problem. Ask yourself when a foetus becomes a human and then accept that convenience is not a moral justification for ending a human life. I agree that it’s a moral problem. I disagree that it’s a simple one. You’ve highlighted two issues already, the first of which is highly contentious, and the second of which is an oversimplification of the many arguments for and against. However, since it is a moral question, and morals are subjective, you can’t just frame it as a black and white as you have. For what it’s worth, I’m not going to tell you that I think you’re wrong for falling on the side you have. You’ve clearly made an informed decision. But I won’t ‘just accept’ that you are right, either, because I see the questions in a different light. I think most people think of the answer they want and then try and reverse engineer some logic. I really can't think of any system of morals that would allow one human to kill another human for convenience. So the real question is about when life starts. Having a planned child and tracking the pregnancy, literally daily, showed me that there isn't necessarily a fixed answer to that question but from my point of view it's definately not more than 12 weeks but I'd also say it's more than 1 day. I do wonder if 24 weeks is too late to abort, it seems very far along. However, I don’t really know enough about the development to be able to say for certain. 24 weeks is a baby that would be more likely than not, to survive outside the womb. So the logic in support of that abortion at that age must be that you're not a human if someone elses skin is surrounding you. I don't find that convincing. I knew the gender of my child age 9 weeks. At 12 weeks they have a heart beat, look pretty human and are moving around in there. However i do accept that there is a very high rate of natural miscarriage between 0-12 weeks. Nobody knows for sure but somewhere between 20-50% of pregnancies. Therefore, i think that saying the morning after pill is an abortion or a murder is over extending the claim because there's a reasonably high probably that no life would have ever occurred. I’m guessing to survive, it would more than probably need medical intervention though? If so, I’m wondering if it can actually be claimed that they’d survive. Because there are real premature births that actually happen at that age. The earliest surviving baby was 21 weeks. I’m guessing they need medical intervention though? Yes but i don't find that a very important point. No baby is going to survive without round the clock care from someone. " Medical intervention to survive is very different to keeping a baby alive via feeding and nurturing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No i this is actually a very simple moral problem. Ask yourself when a foetus becomes a human and then accept that convenience is not a moral justification for ending a human life. I agree that it’s a moral problem. I disagree that it’s a simple one. You’ve highlighted two issues already, the first of which is highly contentious, and the second of which is an oversimplification of the many arguments for and against. However, since it is a moral question, and morals are subjective, you can’t just frame it as a black and white as you have. For what it’s worth, I’m not going to tell you that I think you’re wrong for falling on the side you have. You’ve clearly made an informed decision. But I won’t ‘just accept’ that you are right, either, because I see the questions in a different light. I think most people think of the answer they want and then try and reverse engineer some logic. I really can't think of any system of morals that would allow one human to kill another human for convenience. So the real question is about when life starts. Having a planned child and tracking the pregnancy, literally daily, showed me that there isn't necessarily a fixed answer to that question but from my point of view it's definately not more than 12 weeks but I'd also say it's more than 1 day. I do wonder if 24 weeks is too late to abort, it seems very far along. However, I don’t really know enough about the development to be able to say for certain. 24 weeks is a baby that would be more likely than not, to survive outside the womb. So the logic in support of that abortion at that age must be that you're not a human if someone elses skin is surrounding you. I don't find that convincing. I knew the gender of my child age 9 weeks. At 12 weeks they have a heart beat, look pretty human and are moving around in there. However i do accept that there is a very high rate of natural miscarriage between 0-12 weeks. Nobody knows for sure but somewhere between 20-50% of pregnancies. Therefore, i think that saying the morning after pill is an abortion or a murder is over extending the claim because there's a reasonably high probably that no life would have ever occurred. I’m guessing to survive, it would more than probably need medical intervention though? If so, I’m wondering if it can actually be claimed that they’d survive. Because there are real premature births that actually happen at that age. The earliest surviving baby was 21 weeks. I’m guessing they need medical intervention though? Yes but i don't find that a very important point. No baby is going to survive without round the clock care from someone. Medical intervention to survive is very different to keeping a baby alive via feeding and nurturing. " It's pointless arguing with the anti-choice viewpoint They can dislike abortion and rant and rave about it as much as they like. They will never influence the law. It is a womans right to have an abortion whether they like it or not | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No i this is actually a very simple moral problem. Ask yourself when a foetus becomes a human and then accept that convenience is not a moral justification for ending a human life. I agree that it’s a moral problem. I disagree that it’s a simple one. You’ve highlighted two issues already, the first of which is highly contentious, and the second of which is an oversimplification of the many arguments for and against. However, since it is a moral question, and morals are subjective, you can’t just frame it as a black and white as you have. For what it’s worth, I’m not going to tell you that I think you’re wrong for falling on the side you have. You’ve clearly made an informed decision. But I won’t ‘just accept’ that you are right, either, because I see the questions in a different light. I think most people think of the answer they want and then try and reverse engineer some logic. I really can't think of any system of morals that would allow one human to kill another human for convenience. So the real question is about when life starts. Having a planned child and tracking the pregnancy, literally daily, showed me that there isn't necessarily a fixed answer to that question but from my point of view it's definately not more than 12 weeks but I'd also say it's more than 1 day. So if a woman becomes pregnant accidentally you think she should be forced to carry it and give birth to it against her will?? Do you really expect me to believe it takes 12 weeks to find out you are 'accidentally pregnant'? Give me a break and reply to what I've actually said rather than a strawman. I said the debate is about reasons and timing, even the Catholic Church doesn't argue against 100% of abortions. " I know at least 3 people who havent known they were pregnant until quite far gone. It does happen. Just because you don't believe it or haven't experienced it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No i this is actually a very simple moral problem. Ask yourself when a foetus becomes a human and then accept that convenience is not a moral justification for ending a human life. I agree that it’s a moral problem. I disagree that it’s a simple one. You’ve highlighted two issues already, the first of which is highly contentious, and the second of which is an oversimplification of the many arguments for and against. However, since it is a moral question, and morals are subjective, you can’t just frame it as a black and white as you have. For what it’s worth, I’m not going to tell you that I think you’re wrong for falling on the side you have. You’ve clearly made an informed decision. But I won’t ‘just accept’ that you are right, either, because I see the questions in a different light. I think most people think of the answer they want and then try and reverse engineer some logic. I really can't think of any system of morals that would allow one human to kill another human for convenience. So the real question is about when life starts. Having a planned child and tracking the pregnancy, literally daily, showed me that there isn't necessarily a fixed answer to that question but from my point of view it's definately not more than 12 weeks but I'd also say it's more than 1 day. I do wonder if 24 weeks is too late to abort, it seems very far along. However, I don’t really know enough about the development to be able to say for certain. 24 weeks is a baby that would be more likely than not, to survive outside the womb. So the logic in support of that abortion at that age must be that you're not a human if someone elses skin is surrounding you. I don't find that convincing. I knew the gender of my child age 9 weeks. At 12 weeks they have a heart beat, look pretty human and are moving around in there. However i do accept that there is a very high rate of natural miscarriage between 0-12 weeks. Nobody knows for sure but somewhere between 20-50% of pregnancies. Therefore, i think that saying the morning after pill is an abortion or a murder is over extending the claim because there's a reasonably high probably that no life would have ever occurred. I’m guessing to survive, it would more than probably need medical intervention though? If so, I’m wondering if it can actually be claimed that they’d survive. Because there are real premature births that actually happen at that age. The earliest surviving baby was 21 weeks. I’m guessing they need medical intervention though? Yes but i don't find that a very important point. No baby is going to survive without round the clock care from someone. Medical intervention to survive is very different to keeping a baby alive via feeding and nurturing. It's pointless arguing with the anti-choice viewpoint They can dislike abortion and rant and rave about it as much as they like. They will never influence the law. It is a womans right to have an abortion whether they like it or not "But it's only a right because people argued for it. If it had been argued that they have no right to it you would be the one ranting and raving. Informed debate about this issue should be welcomed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sorry but that's factually incorrect. The term you need to research is "child destruction". There are convictions for men who kicked pregnant women in the stomach, for example. " Yes, there are, I know, but they are not convicted of murder, in which the definition of a ‘person’ is someone where they are no longer attached by umbilical chord and are surviving independently of the mother. You just need to look at the fact that Human Rights; most notably (and aptly, in this instance) Article 2, does not extend to unborn babies. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No i this is actually a very simple moral problem. Ask yourself when a foetus becomes a human and then accept that convenience is not a moral justification for ending a human life. I agree that it’s a moral problem. I disagree that it’s a simple one. You’ve highlighted two issues already, the first of which is highly contentious, and the second of which is an oversimplification of the many arguments for and against. However, since it is a moral question, and morals are subjective, you can’t just frame it as a black and white as you have. For what it’s worth, I’m not going to tell you that I think you’re wrong for falling on the side you have. You’ve clearly made an informed decision. But I won’t ‘just accept’ that you are right, either, because I see the questions in a different light. I think most people think of the answer they want and then try and reverse engineer some logic. I really can't think of any system of morals that would allow one human to kill another human for convenience. So the real question is about when life starts. Having a planned child and tracking the pregnancy, literally daily, showed me that there isn't necessarily a fixed answer to that question but from my point of view it's definately not more than 12 weeks but I'd also say it's more than 1 day. I do wonder if 24 weeks is too late to abort, it seems very far along. However, I don’t really know enough about the development to be able to say for certain. The 24 week cut off is important as a lot of abnormalities don't get picked up until the 20 week scan. I think very few terminations at this stage would be for anything other than medical reasons Well you thought wrong. In england and wales 2016, there were 3,033 babies killed / aborted after 20 weeks. A fetal abnormality abortion is a grounds E, which represented 1,069 of those (35%). The mothers being in any serious danger of dying 27 (0.9%). "
What were the remaining reasons? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In the U.K., you’re not legally a human until you’re born. So terminating a pregnancy is not murder in any shape or form then??" Not murder, according to the legal definition of murder, no. Now that’s not to say that an unborn child can’t be unlawfully killed, but it’s a vital differentiation in the eyes of the law. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No i this is actually a very simple moral problem. Ask yourself when a foetus becomes a human and then accept that convenience is not a moral justification for ending a human life. I agree that it’s a moral problem. I disagree that it’s a simple one. You’ve highlighted two issues already, the first of which is highly contentious, and the second of which is an oversimplification of the many arguments for and against. However, since it is a moral question, and morals are subjective, you can’t just frame it as a black and white as you have. For what it’s worth, I’m not going to tell you that I think you’re wrong for falling on the side you have. You’ve clearly made an informed decision. But I won’t ‘just accept’ that you are right, either, because I see the questions in a different light. I think most people think of the answer they want and then try and reverse engineer some logic. I really can't think of any system of morals that would allow one human to kill another human for convenience. So the real question is about when life starts. Having a planned child and tracking the pregnancy, literally daily, showed me that there isn't necessarily a fixed answer to that question but from my point of view it's definately not more than 12 weeks but I'd also say it's more than 1 day. I do wonder if 24 weeks is too late to abort, it seems very far along. However, I don’t really know enough about the development to be able to say for certain. The 24 week cut off is important as a lot of abnormalities don't get picked up until the 20 week scan. I think very few terminations at this stage would be for anything other than medical reasons Well you thought wrong. In england and wales 2016, there were 3,033 babies killed / aborted after 20 weeks. A fetal abnormality abortion is a grounds E, which represented 1,069 of those (35%). The mothers being in any serious danger of dying 27 (0.9%). Thankyou for those stats What gestation would you like to see it reduced to?" Well that's the million dollar question isn't it. There's my personal answer as a private citizen who is a nobody, which is lower than what I'd honestly push for if i was an MP making the law, which would be 8 weeks for a ground C abortion (97% of them) of which 82% already happen before 9 weeks anyway. Grounds A and E, i wouldn't change. I find 8 weeks to be enough shades of grey morally and to give people with genuine acciental pregnancies sufficient time. A pregnancy test is a few quid and accurate after 10 days. However, i also believe it's something that can't be done in isolation. For example, meaning that there would also need to be better adoption services for women who did not wish to raise the baby after pregnancy. I'd also like to see much harsher treatement of men that don't pay their child maintenance. What time limit would you put on it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No i this is actually a very simple moral problem. Ask yourself when a foetus becomes a human and then accept that convenience is not a moral justification for ending a human life. I agree that it’s a moral problem. I disagree that it’s a simple one. You’ve highlighted two issues already, the first of which is highly contentious, and the second of which is an oversimplification of the many arguments for and against. However, since it is a moral question, and morals are subjective, you can’t just frame it as a black and white as you have. For what it’s worth, I’m not going to tell you that I think you’re wrong for falling on the side you have. You’ve clearly made an informed decision. But I won’t ‘just accept’ that you are right, either, because I see the questions in a different light. I think most people think of the answer they want and then try and reverse engineer some logic. I really can't think of any system of morals that would allow one human to kill another human for convenience. So the real question is about when life starts. Having a planned child and tracking the pregnancy, literally daily, showed me that there isn't necessarily a fixed answer to that question but from my point of view it's definately not more than 12 weeks but I'd also say it's more than 1 day. I do wonder if 24 weeks is too late to abort, it seems very far along. However, I don’t really know enough about the development to be able to say for certain. 24 weeks is a baby that would be more likely than not, to survive outside the womb. So the logic in support of that abortion at that age must be that you're not a human if someone elses skin is surrounding you. I don't find that convincing. I knew the gender of my child age 9 weeks. At 12 weeks they have a heart beat, look pretty human and are moving around in there. However i do accept that there is a very high rate of natural miscarriage between 0-12 weeks. Nobody knows for sure but somewhere between 20-50% of pregnancies. Therefore, i think that saying the morning after pill is an abortion or a murder is over extending the claim because there's a reasonably high probably that no life would have ever occurred. I’m guessing to survive, it would more than probably need medical intervention though? If so, I’m wondering if it can actually be claimed that they’d survive. Because there are real premature births that actually happen at that age. The earliest surviving baby was 21 weeks. I’m guessing they need medical intervention though? Yes but i don't find that a very important point. No baby is going to survive without round the clock care from someone. Medical intervention to survive is very different to keeping a baby alive via feeding and nurturing. " Why? Are old people any less human when we prolong their lives with medical interventions? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No i this is actually a very simple moral problem. Ask yourself when a foetus becomes a human and then accept that convenience is not a moral justification for ending a human life. I agree that it’s a moral problem. I disagree that it’s a simple one. You’ve highlighted two issues already, the first of which is highly contentious, and the second of which is an oversimplification of the many arguments for and against. However, since it is a moral question, and morals are subjective, you can’t just frame it as a black and white as you have. For what it’s worth, I’m not going to tell you that I think you’re wrong for falling on the side you have. You’ve clearly made an informed decision. But I won’t ‘just accept’ that you are right, either, because I see the questions in a different light. I think most people think of the answer they want and then try and reverse engineer some logic. I really can't think of any system of morals that would allow one human to kill another human for convenience. So the real question is about when life starts. Having a planned child and tracking the pregnancy, literally daily, showed me that there isn't necessarily a fixed answer to that question but from my point of view it's definately not more than 12 weeks but I'd also say it's more than 1 day. I do wonder if 24 weeks is too late to abort, it seems very far along. However, I don’t really know enough about the development to be able to say for certain. 24 weeks is a baby that would be more likely than not, to survive outside the womb. So the logic in support of that abortion at that age must be that you're not a human if someone elses skin is surrounding you. I don't find that convincing. I knew the gender of my child age 9 weeks. At 12 weeks they have a heart beat, look pretty human and are moving around in there. However i do accept that there is a very high rate of natural miscarriage between 0-12 weeks. Nobody knows for sure but somewhere between 20-50% of pregnancies. Therefore, i think that saying the morning after pill is an abortion or a murder is over extending the claim because there's a reasonably high probably that no life would have ever occurred. I’m guessing to survive, it would more than probably need medical intervention though? If so, I’m wondering if it can actually be claimed that they’d survive. Because there are real premature births that actually happen at that age. The earliest surviving baby was 21 weeks. I’m guessing they need medical intervention though? Yes but i don't find that a very important point. No baby is going to survive without round the clock care from someone. Medical intervention to survive is very different to keeping a baby alive via feeding and nurturing. It's pointless arguing with the anti-choice viewpoint They can dislike abortion and rant and rave about it as much as they like. They will never influence the law. It is a womans right to have an abortion whether they like it or not
But it's only a right because people argued for it. If it had been argued that they have no right to it you would be the one ranting and raving. Informed debate about this issue should be welcomed. "And argued correctly for it supported by scientific and medical research. It wasn't a simply for versus against debate. Informed debate is a bit like banging your head against a brick wall for the anti-choice camp I would imagine. Trying to make women feel bad by using infactial terms seems the best they can come up with. That is not informed debate. The majority of women who have had a termination are totally comfortable with their choice so trying to bully them or make them feel in some way guilty is futile really | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No i this is actually a very simple moral problem. Ask yourself when a foetus becomes a human and then accept that convenience is not a moral justification for ending a human life. I agree that it’s a moral problem. I disagree that it’s a simple one. You’ve highlighted two issues already, the first of which is highly contentious, and the second of which is an oversimplification of the many arguments for and against. However, since it is a moral question, and morals are subjective, you can’t just frame it as a black and white as you have. For what it’s worth, I’m not going to tell you that I think you’re wrong for falling on the side you have. You’ve clearly made an informed decision. But I won’t ‘just accept’ that you are right, either, because I see the questions in a different light. I think most people think of the answer they want and then try and reverse engineer some logic. I really can't think of any system of morals that would allow one human to kill another human for convenience. So the real question is about when life starts. Having a planned child and tracking the pregnancy, literally daily, showed me that there isn't necessarily a fixed answer to that question but from my point of view it's definately not more than 12 weeks but I'd also say it's more than 1 day. So if a woman becomes pregnant accidentally you think she should be forced to carry it and give birth to it against her will?? Do you really expect me to believe it takes 12 weeks to find out you are 'accidentally pregnant'? Give me a break and reply to what I've actually said rather than a strawman. I said the debate is about reasons and timing, even the Catholic Church doesn't argue against 100% of abortions. I know at least 3 people who havent known they were pregnant until quite far gone. It does happen. Just because you don't believe it or haven't experienced it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. " I know it happens, i just don't think it's morally justifiable to set the law around them. It's not exactly difficult to take a pregnancy test if you've had unprotected sex or missed a period. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No i this is actually a very simple moral problem. Ask yourself when a foetus becomes a human and then accept that convenience is not a moral justification for ending a human life. I agree that it’s a moral problem. I disagree that it’s a simple one. You’ve highlighted two issues already, the first of which is highly contentious, and the second of which is an oversimplification of the many arguments for and against. However, since it is a moral question, and morals are subjective, you can’t just frame it as a black and white as you have. For what it’s worth, I’m not going to tell you that I think you’re wrong for falling on the side you have. You’ve clearly made an informed decision. But I won’t ‘just accept’ that you are right, either, because I see the questions in a different light. I think most people think of the answer they want and then try and reverse engineer some logic. I really can't think of any system of morals that would allow one human to kill another human for convenience. So the real question is about when life starts. Having a planned child and tracking the pregnancy, literally daily, showed me that there isn't necessarily a fixed answer to that question but from my point of view it's definately not more than 12 weeks but I'd also say it's more than 1 day. So if a woman becomes pregnant accidentally you think she should be forced to carry it and give birth to it against her will?? Do you really expect me to believe it takes 12 weeks to find out you are 'accidentally pregnant'? Give me a break and reply to what I've actually said rather than a strawman. I said the debate is about reasons and timing, even the Catholic Church doesn't argue against 100% of abortions. I know at least 3 people who havent known they were pregnant until quite far gone. It does happen. Just because you don't believe it or haven't experienced it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. I know it happens, i just don't think it's morally justifiable to set the law around them. It's not exactly difficult to take a pregnancy test if you've had unprotected sex or missed a period. " I don't think the law is set around "them" or is there evidence to show otherwise?? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No i this is actually a very simple moral problem. Ask yourself when a foetus becomes a human and then accept that convenience is not a moral justification for ending a human life. I agree that it’s a moral problem. I disagree that it’s a simple one. You’ve highlighted two issues already, the first of which is highly contentious, and the second of which is an oversimplification of the many arguments for and against. However, since it is a moral question, and morals are subjective, you can’t just frame it as a black and white as you have. For what it’s worth, I’m not going to tell you that I think you’re wrong for falling on the side you have. You’ve clearly made an informed decision. But I won’t ‘just accept’ that you are right, either, because I see the questions in a different light. I think most people think of the answer they want and then try and reverse engineer some logic. I really can't think of any system of morals that would allow one human to kill another human for convenience. So the real question is about when life starts. Having a planned child and tracking the pregnancy, literally daily, showed me that there isn't necessarily a fixed answer to that question but from my point of view it's definately not more than 12 weeks but I'd also say it's more than 1 day. I do wonder if 24 weeks is too late to abort, it seems very far along. However, I don’t really know enough about the development to be able to say for certain. The 24 week cut off is important as a lot of abnormalities don't get picked up until the 20 week scan. I think very few terminations at this stage would be for anything other than medical reasons Well you thought wrong. In england and wales 2016, there were 3,033 babies killed / aborted after 20 weeks. A fetal abnormality abortion is a grounds E, which represented 1,069 of those (35%). The mothers being in any serious danger of dying 27 (0.9%).
What were the remaining reasons?"The UK data doesn't demand a reason per se, grounds C is basically a catch all term for 'the mother doesn't want it' which translates to 'it's bad for her mental health'. Try disproving that. If you look at american studies where they explicitly asked a reason then ~90% of abortions are primarily because the baby is some sort of inconvenience to the mother. Which i find odd because nobody is arguing that the mother should be forced to raise the child. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No i this is actually a very simple moral problem. Ask yourself when a foetus becomes a human and then accept that convenience is not a moral justification for ending a human life. I agree that it’s a moral problem. I disagree that it’s a simple one. You’ve highlighted two issues already, the first of which is highly contentious, and the second of which is an oversimplification of the many arguments for and against. However, since it is a moral question, and morals are subjective, you can’t just frame it as a black and white as you have. For what it’s worth, I’m not going to tell you that I think you’re wrong for falling on the side you have. You’ve clearly made an informed decision. But I won’t ‘just accept’ that you are right, either, because I see the questions in a different light. I think most people think of the answer they want and then try and reverse engineer some logic. I really can't think of any system of morals that would allow one human to kill another human for convenience. So the real question is about when life starts. Having a planned child and tracking the pregnancy, literally daily, showed me that there isn't necessarily a fixed answer to that question but from my point of view it's definately not more than 12 weeks but I'd also say it's more than 1 day. I do wonder if 24 weeks is too late to abort, it seems very far along. However, I don’t really know enough about the development to be able to say for certain. The 24 week cut off is important as a lot of abnormalities don't get picked up until the 20 week scan. I think very few terminations at this stage would be for anything other than medical reasons Well you thought wrong. In england and wales 2016, there were 3,033 babies killed / aborted after 20 weeks. A fetal abnormality abortion is a grounds E, which represented 1,069 of those (35%). The mothers being in any serious danger of dying 27 (0.9%). Thankyou for those stats What gestation would you like to see it reduced to? Well that's the million dollar question isn't it. There's my personal answer as a private citizen who is a nobody, which is lower than what I'd honestly push for if i was an MP making the law, which would be 8 weeks for a ground C abortion (97% of them) of which 82% already happen before 9 weeks anyway. Grounds A and E, i wouldn't change. I find 8 weeks to be enough shades of grey morally and to give people with genuine acciental pregnancies sufficient time. A pregnancy test is a few quid and accurate after 10 days. However, i also believe it's something that can't be done in isolation. For example, meaning that there would also need to be better adoption services for women who did not wish to raise the baby after pregnancy. I'd also like to see much harsher treatement of men that don't pay their child maintenance. What time limit would you put on it? " 24 weeks | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No i this is actually a very simple moral problem. Ask yourself when a foetus becomes a human and then accept that convenience is not a moral justification for ending a human life. I agree that it’s a moral problem. I disagree that it’s a simple one. You’ve highlighted two issues already, the first of which is highly contentious, and the second of which is an oversimplification of the many arguments for and against. However, since it is a moral question, and morals are subjective, you can’t just frame it as a black and white as you have. For what it’s worth, I’m not going to tell you that I think you’re wrong for falling on the side you have. You’ve clearly made an informed decision. But I won’t ‘just accept’ that you are right, either, because I see the questions in a different light. I think most people think of the answer they want and then try and reverse engineer some logic. I really can't think of any system of morals that would allow one human to kill another human for convenience. So the real question is about when life starts. Having a planned child and tracking the pregnancy, literally daily, showed me that there isn't necessarily a fixed answer to that question but from my point of view it's definately not more than 12 weeks but I'd also say it's more than 1 day. I do wonder if 24 weeks is too late to abort, it seems very far along. However, I don’t really know enough about the development to be able to say for certain. The 24 week cut off is important as a lot of abnormalities don't get picked up until the 20 week scan. I think very few terminations at this stage would be for anything other than medical reasons Well you thought wrong. In england and wales 2016, there were 3,033 babies killed / aborted after 20 weeks. A fetal abnormality abortion is a grounds E, which represented 1,069 of those (35%). The mothers being in any serious danger of dying 27 (0.9%). Thankyou for those stats What gestation would you like to see it reduced to? Well that's the million dollar question isn't it. There's my personal answer as a private citizen who is a nobody, which is lower than what I'd honestly push for if i was an MP making the law, which would be 8 weeks for a ground C abortion (97% of them) of which 82% already happen before 9 weeks anyway. Grounds A and E, i wouldn't change. I find 8 weeks to be enough shades of grey morally and to give people with genuine acciental pregnancies sufficient time. A pregnancy test is a few quid and accurate after 10 days. However, i also believe it's something that can't be done in isolation. For example, meaning that there would also need to be better adoption services for women who did not wish to raise the baby after pregnancy. I'd also like to see much harsher treatement of men that don't pay their child maintenance. What time limit would you put on it? 24 weeks" Is there any logic to that point you could share? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hurray for killing babies
Now if we can have a referendum on euthanasia then we can knock off some of the elderly who inconvience us.
Always one comment like this
The poster who made the comment usually has a dry sense of sarcastic humour, I'm sure he meant it as such.
I just can't do the mental gymnastics required to get enthusiastic about killing a 12 week old baby. Funny how most the population get upset about killing foxes too.
You could I suggest try taking a ‘ real world’ look at it ? It is highly unlikely that people will leave it for 12 weeks ! That is in extreme cases I suggest where women simply were not aware they were pregnant .
In ‘ normal’ situation it would happen much sooner and argue as much as you like but that is not a baby ! More than a collection of sperm being ejaculated is half of a one ! Neither are ‘ murdering’ anything .. simply a non sentient collection of cells and if it solves a lot of frustration or heartache then frankly am all for both of them .. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you look at american studies where they explicitly asked a reason then ~90% of abortions are primarily because the baby is some sort of inconvenience to the mother." Now, that’s an interpretation and description weighted by prejudice, if ever I read one. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Adoption is not a solution to an unwanted pregnancy "It is. Don't sell the lie that most women are going to walk away from a 12+ week abortion with no issues. By allowing someone to adopt your baby you are doing a wonderful thing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you look at american studies where they explicitly asked a reason then ~90% of abortions are primarily because the baby is some sort of inconvenience to the mother. Now, that’s an interpretation and description weighted by prejudice, if ever I read one." Yup, just like the term "pro-choice" which i find disgusting. But here are the most common reasons, verbatim: "Having a baby would dramatically change my life" "Can't afford a baby right now" "Don't want to be a single mother or having relationship problems" "Have completed my childbearing" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Adoption is not a solution to an unwanted pregnancy
It is. Don't sell the lie that most women are going to walk away from a 12+ week abortion with no issues. By allowing someone to adopt your baby you are doing a wonderful thing. "It's not If a woman does not want to be pregnant, carrying the baby to term and delivering it is not a solution. Can you not understand that?? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you look at american studies where they explicitly asked a reason then ~90% of abortions are primarily because the baby is some sort of inconvenience to the mother. Now, that’s an interpretation and description weighted by prejudice, if ever I read one. Yup, just like the term "pro-choice" which i find disgusting. But here are the most common reasons, verbatim: "Having a baby would dramatically change my life" "Can't afford a baby right now" "Don't want to be a single mother or having relationship problems" "Have completed my childbearing"" Other people's reasons are their right whether you like it or not. It's not worth getting angry over as it will have no impact on anyone other than yourself | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Adoption is not a solution to an unwanted pregnancy
It is. Don't sell the lie that most women are going to walk away from a 12+ week abortion with no issues. By allowing someone to adopt your baby you are doing a wonderful thing.
It's not
If a woman does not want to be pregnant, carrying the baby to term and delivering it is not a solution. Can you not understand that??"No i cannot understand how any moral code can justify one human killing another because they find them inconvenient. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you look at american studies where they explicitly asked a reason then ~90% of abortions are primarily because the baby is some sort of inconvenience to the mother. Now, that’s an interpretation and description weighted by prejudice, if ever I read one." Never let facts get in the way of a good anti-choice rant | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Adoption is not a solution to an unwanted pregnancy
It is. Don't sell the lie that most women are going to walk away from a 12+ week abortion with no issues. By allowing someone to adopt your baby you are doing a wonderful thing.
It's not
If a woman does not want to be pregnant, carrying the baby to term and delivering it is not a solution. Can you not understand that??
No i cannot understand how any moral code can justify one human killing another because they find them inconvenient. "Factually incorrect again Oh dear | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Adoption is not a solution to an unwanted pregnancy
It is. Don't sell the lie that most women are going to walk away from a 12+ week abortion with no issues. By allowing someone to adopt your baby you are doing a wonderful thing.
It's not
If a woman does not want to be pregnant, carrying the baby to term and delivering it is not a solution. Can you not understand that??
No i cannot understand how any moral code can justify one human killing another because they find them inconvenient. "If you are trying to upset or offend people I don't think you're doing very well here | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you look at american studies where they explicitly asked a reason then ~90% of abortions are primarily because the baby is some sort of inconvenience to the mother. Now, that’s an interpretation and description weighted by prejudice, if ever I read one. Yup, just like the term "pro-choice" which i find disgusting. But here are the most common reasons, verbatim: "Having a baby would dramatically change my life" "Can't afford a baby right now" "Don't want to be a single mother or having relationship problems" "Have completed my childbearing" Other people's reasons are their right whether you like it or not. It's not worth getting angry over as it will have no impact on anyone other than yourself" Actually i feel very sorry for women who have abortions, especially after 8 weeks. I think they have been fed a bunch of lies and half truths, as is evident from this thread. It's not like anyone is actually using facts and figures against me. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Adoption is not a solution to an unwanted pregnancy
It is. Don't sell the lie that most women are going to walk away from a 12+ week abortion with no issues. By allowing someone to adopt your baby you are doing a wonderful thing.
It's not
If a woman does not want to be pregnant, carrying the baby to term and delivering it is not a solution. Can you not understand that??
No i cannot understand how any moral code can justify one human killing another because they find them inconvenient.
If you are trying to upset or offend people I don't think you're doing very well here"No, if i were trolling you then I'd make personal attacks and emotive claims. I'm the one citing facts and data. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you look at american studies where they explicitly asked a reason then ~90% of abortions are primarily because the baby is some sort of inconvenience to the mother. Now, that’s an interpretation and description weighted by prejudice, if ever I read one. Yup, just like the term "pro-choice" which i find disgusting. But here are the most common reasons, verbatim: "Having a baby would dramatically change my life" "Can't afford a baby right now" "Don't want to be a single mother or having relationship problems" "Have completed my childbearing"" So there are no hungry children in the world, no neglected, abused, unwanted children! Someone making an informed choice prior to giving birth is a responsible one. Have a read of the statistics of what happened to the children that went into the care of religious order's and digest those facts. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yup, just like the term "pro-choice" which i find disgusting. But here are the most common reasons, verbatim:" I haven’t used the term, although disgusting is not a phrase I would use. I’m guessing it’s because the foetus / unborn baby doesn’t have a choice. It’s also incapable of making a choice. As for the reasons, even those four sentences are massively simplified representations of people’s lives and circumstances. There quite possibly are people out there callous xnd shallow enough to lightheartedly have an abortion just for the sake of it, but for a cynical arsehole who hates the world, I’ve also got more faith in most people making this decision. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's not like anyone is actually using facts and figures against me. " It’s not a topic on ehich there are many facts ‘for’ and ‘against’. There’s data, and there’s interpretation of that data. Being the one quoting the facts doesn’t make you the one in the right. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you look at american studies where they explicitly asked a reason then ~90% of abortions are primarily because the baby is some sort of inconvenience to the mother. Now, that’s an interpretation and description weighted by prejudice, if ever I read one. Yup, just like the term "pro-choice" which i find disgusting. But here are the most common reasons, verbatim: "Having a baby would dramatically change my life" "Can't afford a baby right now" "Don't want to be a single mother or having relationship problems" "Have completed my childbearing" So there are no hungry children in the world, no neglected, abused, unwanted children! Someone making an informed choice prior to giving birth is a responsible one. Have a read of the statistics of what happened to the children that went into the care of religious order's and digest those facts." Valid points, which is why i said you can't look at this in isolation. The majority of adoptions are successful and that's in a world where most adoptions aren't voluntary. Logically, if there were more voluntary adoptions then the vast majority would be successful. Institutional care is almost always a disaster, i agree. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's not like anyone is actually using facts and figures against me. It’s not a topic on ehich there are many facts ‘for’ and ‘against’. There’s data, and there’s interpretation of that data. Being the one quoting the facts doesn’t make you the one in the right." The facts are that the overwhelming majority of abortions are not cases of ra*e, in*est or health problems. There is no interpretation required for that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yup, just like the term "pro-choice" which i find disgusting. But here are the most common reasons, verbatim: I haven’t used the term, although disgusting is not a phrase I would use. I’m guessing it’s because the foetus / unborn baby doesn’t have a choice. It’s also incapable of making a choice. As for the reasons, even those four sentences are massively simplified representations of people’s lives and circumstances. There quite possibly are people out there callous xnd shallow enough to lightheartedly have an abortion just for the sake of it, but for a cynical arsehole who hates the world, I’ve also got more faith in most people making this decision." 38% of women having an abortion have had one before. How many times does lightening stike in the same place. I haven't argued to stop all abortions and let people suffer, i think human life is not something to be so easily discarded. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Adoption is not a solution to an unwanted pregnancy
It is. Don't sell the lie that most women are going to walk away from a 12+ week abortion with no issues. By allowing someone to adopt your baby you are doing a wonderful thing.
It's not
If a woman does not want to be pregnant, carrying the baby to term and delivering it is not a solution. Can you not understand that??
No i cannot understand how any moral code can justify one human killing another because they find them inconvenient.
If you are trying to upset or offend people I don't think you're doing very well here
No, if i were trolling you then I'd make personal attacks and emotive claims. I'm the one citing facts and data. "I didn't mention trolling me You just seem to feel the need to use typical anti choice terminology which is usually used as a bullying tactic And well done on the figures Now we know you can use Google too | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Adoption is not a solution to an unwanted pregnancy
It is. Don't sell the lie that most women are going to walk away from a 12+ week abortion with no issues. By allowing someone to adopt your baby you are doing a wonderful thing.
It's not
If a woman does not want to be pregnant, carrying the baby to term and delivering it is not a solution. Can you not understand that??
No i cannot understand how any moral code can justify one human killing another because they find them inconvenient.
If you are trying to upset or offend people I don't think you're doing very well here
No, if i were trolling you then I'd make personal attacks and emotive claims. I'm the one citing facts and data.
I didn't mention trolling me
You just seem to feel the need to use typical anti choice terminology which is usually used as a bullying tactic
And well done on the figures
Now we know you can use Google too "No, bullying tactics would be to try and get you to look at dead foetus pictures rather than present you with facts and logic. You're just playing the victim card now. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you look at american studies where they explicitly asked a reason then ~90% of abortions are primarily because the baby is some sort of inconvenience to the mother. Now, that’s an interpretation and description weighted by prejudice, if ever I read one. Yup, just like the term "pro-choice" which i find disgusting. But here are the most common reasons, verbatim: "Having a baby would dramatically change my life" "Can't afford a baby right now" "Don't want to be a single mother or having relationship problems" "Have completed my childbearing" So there are no hungry children in the world, no neglected, abused, unwanted children! Someone making an informed choice prior to giving birth is a responsible one. Have a read of the statistics of what happened to the children that went into the care of religious order's and digest those facts. Valid points, which is why i said you can't look at this in isolation. The majority of adoptions are successful and that's in a world where most adoptions aren't voluntary. Logically, if there were more voluntary adoptions then the vast majority would be successful. Institutional care is almost always a disaster, i agree. " Where are the facts to back up the statement of successful adoption. I agree institution state based care is not a solution. I have seen first hand heart breaking examples of unsuccessful adoptions and fostering due to a system that isn't working well, has poor supports but more importantly is flooded with cases of children that can not be accommodated. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Adoption is not a solution to an unwanted pregnancy
It is. Don't sell the lie that most women are going to walk away from a 12+ week abortion with no issues. By allowing someone to adopt your baby you are doing a wonderful thing.
It's not
If a woman does not want to be pregnant, carrying the baby to term and delivering it is not a solution. Can you not understand that??
No i cannot understand how any moral code can justify one human killing another because they find them inconvenient.
If you are trying to upset or offend people I don't think you're doing very well here
No, if i were trolling you then I'd make personal attacks and emotive claims. I'm the one citing facts and data.
I didn't mention trolling me
You just seem to feel the need to use typical anti choice terminology which is usually used as a bullying tactic
And well done on the figures
Now we know you can use Google too
No, bullying tactics would be to try and get you to look at dead foetus pictures rather than present you with facts and logic. You're just playing the victim card now. "Victim?? Victim of what?? What impact do you think seeing a photo of an aborted foetus would have?? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No i this is actually a very simple moral problem. Ask yourself when a foetus becomes a human and then accept that convenience is not a moral justification for ending a human life. I agree that it’s a moral problem. I disagree that it’s a simple one. You’ve highlighted two issues already, the first of which is highly contentious, and the second of which is an oversimplification of the many arguments for and against. However, since it is a moral question, and morals are subjective, you can’t just frame it as a black and white as you have. For what it’s worth, I’m not going to tell you that I think you’re wrong for falling on the side you have. You’ve clearly made an informed decision. But I won’t ‘just accept’ that you are right, either, because I see the questions in a different light. I think most people think of the answer they want and then try and reverse engineer some logic. I really can't think of any system of morals that would allow one human to kill another human for convenience. So the real question is about when life starts. Having a planned child and tracking the pregnancy, literally daily, showed me that there isn't necessarily a fixed answer to that question but from my point of view it's definately not more than 12 weeks but I'd also say it's more than 1 day. I do wonder if 24 weeks is too late to abort, it seems very far along. However, I don’t really know enough about the development to be able to say for certain. The 24 week cut off is important as a lot of abnormalities don't get picked up until the 20 week scan. I think very few terminations at this stage would be for anything other than medical reasons Yes, of course. I forgot about the 20 week scan being so important "My sisters doing her masters in psychology and counselling and some other letters that I can't remember but part of her placement for uni is she works for new pathways both in the sexual assault referral centre and in window to the womb. In window to the womb she has to tell expectant mothers about any anomalies they've picked up and give them their choices, like downs is not easy but a lot of women still choose to have the baby but some of the birth defects they don't have a choice, missing limbs and organs and serious things like brains growning outside the skull and stuff, it's heartbreaking I can only imagine but it is your understanding that they would only ever let you abort at 24 weeks for reasons as serious as that cos in this day in a age you really would notice if you were pregnant before that time and could deal with it earlier. My friends baby was severely prem, 26 weeks and was in scbu for months but she's now 10 years old and you would never know. I was 9 weeks when I had my termination and I was only 21 and doing my pregnancy after that with my daughter and checking on babycentre every week for the development as I knew from 5 weeks, that was hard but no one has the right other than the pregnant person to decide what they are and aren't capable of doing. All the pro life stuff is bollocks. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's not like anyone is actually using facts and figures against me. It’s not a topic on ehich there are many facts ‘for’ and ‘against’. There’s data, and there’s interpretation of that data. Being the one quoting the facts doesn’t make you the one in the right. The facts are that the overwhelming majority of abortions are not cases of ra*e, in*est or health problems. There is no interpretation required for that. " But you've just said that the reason doesn't have to be recorded and that option C is a catchall. How can you rely on data that is possibly inaccurate? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In the last couple of minutes it’s actually official. 66.4% in favour
"Fantastic Just a shame it is far too late to undo the suffering of many but at least going forward Irish women will now be treated with the dignity they deserve | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Adoption is not a solution to an unwanted pregnancy
It is. Don't sell the lie that most women are going to walk away from a 12+ week abortion with no issues. By allowing someone to adopt your baby you are doing a wonderful thing.
It's not
If a woman does not want to be pregnant, carrying the baby to term and delivering it is not a solution. Can you not understand that??
No i cannot understand how any moral code can justify one human killing another because they find them inconvenient.
If you are trying to upset or offend people I don't think you're doing very well here
No, if i were trolling you then I'd make personal attacks and emotive claims. I'm the one citing facts and data. "You’re making completely emotive claims. If your reasoning isn’t coming from a very personal place, then I really don’t understand why you’re so intent on arguing with everyone. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In the last couple of minutes it’s actually official. 66.4% in favour
Fantastic
Just a shame it is far too late to undo the suffering of many but at least going forward Irish women will now be treated with the dignity they deserve "A brilliant and decisive result. Well done all those who campaigned and fought for this | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In the last couple of minutes it’s actually official. 66.4% in favour
"So much | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No i this is actually a very simple moral problem. Ask yourself when a foetus becomes a human and then accept that convenience is not a moral justification for ending a human life. I agree that it’s a moral problem. I disagree that it’s a simple one. You’ve highlighted two issues already, the first of which is highly contentious, and the second of which is an oversimplification of the many arguments for and against. However, since it is a moral question, and morals are subjective, you can’t just frame it as a black and white as you have. For what it’s worth, I’m not going to tell you that I think you’re wrong for falling on the side you have. You’ve clearly made an informed decision. But I won’t ‘just accept’ that you are right, either, because I see the questions in a different light. I think most people think of the answer they want and then try and reverse engineer some logic. I really can't think of any system of morals that would allow one human to kill another human for convenience. So the real question is about when life starts. Having a planned child and tracking the pregnancy, literally daily, showed me that there isn't necessarily a fixed answer to that question but from my point of view it's definately not more than 12 weeks but I'd also say it's more than 1 day. I do wonder if 24 weeks is too late to abort, it seems very far along. However, I don’t really know enough about the development to be able to say for certain. The 24 week cut off is important as a lot of abnormalities don't get picked up until the 20 week scan. I think very few terminations at this stage would be for anything other than medical reasons Yes, of course. I forgot about the 20 week scan being so important
My sisters doing her masters in psychology and counselling and some other letters that I can't remember but part of her placement for uni is she works for new pathways both in the sexual assault referral centre and in window to the womb. In window to the womb she has to tell expectant mothers about any anomalies they've picked up and give them their choices, like downs is not easy but a lot of women still choose to have the baby but some of the birth defects they don't have a choice, missing limbs and organs and serious things like brains growning outside the skull and stuff, it's heartbreaking I can only imagine but it is your understanding that they would only ever let you abort at 24 weeks for reasons as serious as that cos in this day in a age you really would notice if you were pregnant before that time and could deal with it earlier. My friends baby was severely prem, 26 weeks and was in scbu for months but she's now 10 years old and you would never know. I was 9 weeks when I had my termination and I was only 21 and doing my pregnancy after that with my daughter and checking on babycentre every week for the development as I knew from 5 weeks, that was hard but no one has the right other than the pregnant person to decide what they are and aren't capable of doing.
All the pro life stuff is bollocks. "What's bollocks is the statement you just made which i have already debunked with official statistics on this thread. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Adoption is not a solution to an unwanted pregnancy
It is. Don't sell the lie that most women are going to walk away from a 12+ week abortion with no issues. By allowing someone to adopt your baby you are doing a wonderful thing.
It's not
If a woman does not want to be pregnant, carrying the baby to term and delivering it is not a solution. Can you not understand that??
No i cannot understand how any moral code can justify one human killing another because they find them inconvenient.
If you are trying to upset or offend people I don't think you're doing very well here
No, if i were trolling you then I'd make personal attacks and emotive claims. I'm the one citing facts and data.
You’re making completely emotive claims. If your reasoning isn’t coming from a very personal place, then I really don’t understand why you’re so intent on arguing with everyone.
"I've made zero emotive claims unless you think human rights is just an emotive claim | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The facts are that the overwhelming majority of abortions are not cases of ra*e, in*est or health problems. There is no interpretation required for that. " I don’t particularly care about that one. It has next to no bearing on my general stance on abortion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How can one differentiate between a baby and fetus? Both have beating hearts, limbs, a head n body, even a brain. At what point is a fetus a baby? Don't for get, both are a human being!" A foetus legally becomes a human being when it's born. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No i this is actually a very simple moral problem. Ask yourself when a foetus becomes a human and then accept that convenience is not a moral justification for ending a human life. I agree that it’s a moral problem. I disagree that it’s a simple one. You’ve highlighted two issues already, the first of which is highly contentious, and the second of which is an oversimplification of the many arguments for and against. However, since it is a moral question, and morals are subjective, you can’t just frame it as a black and white as you have. For what it’s worth, I’m not going to tell you that I think you’re wrong for falling on the side you have. You’ve clearly made an informed decision. But I won’t ‘just accept’ that you are right, either, because I see the questions in a different light. I think most people think of the answer they want and then try and reverse engineer some logic. I really can't think of any system of morals that would allow one human to kill another human for convenience. So the real question is about when life starts. Having a planned child and tracking the pregnancy, literally daily, showed me that there isn't necessarily a fixed answer to that question but from my point of view it's definately not more than 12 weeks but I'd also say it's more than 1 day. I do wonder if 24 weeks is too late to abort, it seems very far along. However, I don’t really know enough about the development to be able to say for certain. The 24 week cut off is important as a lot of abnormalities don't get picked up until the 20 week scan. I think very few terminations at this stage would be for anything other than medical reasons Yes, of course. I forgot about the 20 week scan being so important
My sisters doing her masters in psychology and counselling and some other letters that I can't remember but part of her placement for uni is she works for new pathways both in the sexual assault referral centre and in window to the womb. In window to the womb she has to tell expectant mothers about any anomalies they've picked up and give them their choices, like downs is not easy but a lot of women still choose to have the baby but some of the birth defects they don't have a choice, missing limbs and organs and serious things like brains growning outside the skull and stuff, it's heartbreaking I can only imagine but it is your understanding that they would only ever let you abort at 24 weeks for reasons as serious as that cos in this day in a age you really would notice if you were pregnant before that time and could deal with it earlier. My friends baby was severely prem, 26 weeks and was in scbu for months but she's now 10 years old and you would never know. I was 9 weeks when I had my termination and I was only 21 and doing my pregnancy after that with my daughter and checking on babycentre every week for the development as I knew from 5 weeks, that was hard but no one has the right other than the pregnant person to decide what they are and aren't capable of doing.
All the pro life stuff is bollocks.
What's bollocks is the statement you just made which i have already debunked with official statistics on this thread. "What's bollock about what I just said. My sister works in window to the worm her primary job is 4d scanning women who have been referred as having suspected anomalies with previous scans and with the technology they use they can see what they are. When the baby is downs it will still be a lovely baby and women still choose to continue the pregnancy but some defects are so severe that there's no chance the baby would live so they have to abort, or carry a dying or dead baby to term and then give birth to a still born which would be even more horrific. I don't know what part is bollocks? I knew what I was capable of when I was 21 and having a baby then I wouldn't have coped. That's my cross to bare. I don't really understand how you are in a position to say that I should have had that baby when you don't know the circumstances. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Adoption is not a solution to an unwanted pregnancy
It is. Don't sell the lie that most women are going to walk away from a 12+ week abortion with no issues. By allowing someone to adopt your baby you are doing a wonderful thing.
It's not
If a woman does not want to be pregnant, carrying the baby to term and delivering it is not a solution. Can you not understand that??
No i cannot understand how any moral code can justify one human killing another because they find them inconvenient.
If you are trying to upset or offend people I don't think you're doing very well here
No, if i were trolling you then I'd make personal attacks and emotive claims. I'm the one citing facts and data.
You’re making completely emotive claims. If your reasoning isn’t coming from a very personal place, then I really don’t understand why you’re so intent on arguing with everyone.
I've made zero emotive claims unless you think human rights is just an emotive claim "I definitely think human rights can be an emotive. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No i this is actually a very simple moral problem. Ask yourself when a foetus becomes a human and then accept that convenience is not a moral justification for ending a human life. I agree that it’s a moral problem. I disagree that it’s a simple one. You’ve highlighted two issues already, the first of which is highly contentious, and the second of which is an oversimplification of the many arguments for and against. However, since it is a moral question, and morals are subjective, you can’t just frame it as a black and white as you have. For what it’s worth, I’m not going to tell you that I think you’re wrong for falling on the side you have. You’ve clearly made an informed decision. But I won’t ‘just accept’ that you are right, either, because I see the questions in a different light. I think most people think of the answer they want and then try and reverse engineer some logic. I really can't think of any system of morals that would allow one human to kill another human for convenience. So the real question is about when life starts. Having a planned child and tracking the pregnancy, literally daily, showed me that there isn't necessarily a fixed answer to that question but from my point of view it's definately not more than 12 weeks but I'd also say it's more than 1 day. I do wonder if 24 weeks is too late to abort, it seems very far along. However, I don’t really know enough about the development to be able to say for certain. The 24 week cut off is important as a lot of abnormalities don't get picked up until the 20 week scan. I think very few terminations at this stage would be for anything other than medical reasons Yes, of course. I forgot about the 20 week scan being so important
My sisters doing her masters in psychology and counselling and some other letters that I can't remember but part of her placement for uni is she works for new pathways both in the sexual assault referral centre and in window to the womb. In window to the womb she has to tell expectant mothers about any anomalies they've picked up and give them their choices, like downs is not easy but a lot of women still choose to have the baby but some of the birth defects they don't have a choice, missing limbs and organs and serious things like brains growning outside the skull and stuff, it's heartbreaking I can only imagine but it is your understanding that they would only ever let you abort at 24 weeks for reasons as serious as that cos in this day in a age you really would notice if you were pregnant before that time and could deal with it earlier. My friends baby was severely prem, 26 weeks and was in scbu for months but she's now 10 years old and you would never know. I was 9 weeks when I had my termination and I was only 21 and doing my pregnancy after that with my daughter and checking on babycentre every week for the development as I knew from 5 weeks, that was hard but no one has the right other than the pregnant person to decide what they are and aren't capable of doing.
All the pro life stuff is bollocks.
What's bollocks is the statement you just made which i have already debunked with official statistics on this thread.
What's bollock about what I just said. My sister works in window to the worm her primary job is 4d scanning women who have been referred as having suspected anomalies with previous scans and with the technology they use they can see what they are. When the baby is downs it will still be a lovely baby and women still choose to continue the pregnancy but some defects are so severe that there's no chance the baby would live so they have to abort, or carry a dying or dead baby to term and then give birth to a still born which would be even more horrific.
I don't know what part is bollocks?
I knew what I was capable of when I was 21 and having a baby then I wouldn't have coped. That's my cross to bare. I don't really understand how you are in a position to say that I should have had that baby when you don't know the circumstances. "The part about they only let you do a late abortion for serious reasons is bollocks. I already provided the stats on that and it was 36% serious reasons. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No i this is actually a very simple moral problem. Ask yourself when a foetus becomes a human and then accept that convenience is not a moral justification for ending a human life. I agree that it’s a moral problem. I disagree that it’s a simple one. You’ve highlighted two issues already, the first of which is highly contentious, and the second of which is an oversimplification of the many arguments for and against. However, since it is a moral question, and morals are subjective, you can’t just frame it as a black and white as you have. For what it’s worth, I’m not going to tell you that I think you’re wrong for falling on the side you have. You’ve clearly made an informed decision. But I won’t ‘just accept’ that you are right, either, because I see the questions in a different light. I think most people think of the answer they want and then try and reverse engineer some logic. I really can't think of any system of morals that would allow one human to kill another human for convenience. So the real question is about when life starts. Having a planned child and tracking the pregnancy, literally daily, showed me that there isn't necessarily a fixed answer to that question but from my point of view it's definately not more than 12 weeks but I'd also say it's more than 1 day. I do wonder if 24 weeks is too late to abort, it seems very far along. However, I don’t really know enough about the development to be able to say for certain. The 24 week cut off is important as a lot of abnormalities don't get picked up until the 20 week scan. I think very few terminations at this stage would be for anything other than medical reasons Yes, of course. I forgot about the 20 week scan being so important
My sisters doing her masters in psychology and counselling and some other letters that I can't remember but part of her placement for uni is she works for new pathways both in the sexual assault referral centre and in window to the womb. In window to the womb she has to tell expectant mothers about any anomalies they've picked up and give them their choices, like downs is not easy but a lot of women still choose to have the baby but some of the birth defects they don't have a choice, missing limbs and organs and serious things like brains growning outside the skull and stuff, it's heartbreaking I can only imagine but it is your understanding that they would only ever let you abort at 24 weeks for reasons as serious as that cos in this day in a age you really would notice if you were pregnant before that time and could deal with it earlier. My friends baby was severely prem, 26 weeks and was in scbu for months but she's now 10 years old and you would never know. I was 9 weeks when I had my termination and I was only 21 and doing my pregnancy after that with my daughter and checking on babycentre every week for the development as I knew from 5 weeks, that was hard but no one has the right other than the pregnant person to decide what they are and aren't capable of doing.
All the pro life stuff is bollocks.
What's bollocks is the statement you just made which i have already debunked with official statistics on this thread. "Hey, BrokenBrilliance - It’s totally possible to have a debate without being so aggressive and insolent. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I've made zero emotive claims unless you think human rights is just an emotive claim " It could be argued that applying human rights to a being which has no human rights is emotive. "How can one differentiate between a baby and fetus? Both have beating hearts, limbs, a head n body, even a brain. At what point is a fetus a baby? Don't for get, both are a human being!" Well, not in the eyes of the law. Nobody is saying that it’s not a difficult question. Is a newly fertilised egg a human being? Most agree that it isn’t. Deciding when it is, as you’ve rightly identified, isn’t easy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
