|
YES!
May 31, 2018 2:59:22 GMT
Post by clusium on May 31, 2018 2:59:22 GMT
It does not result in more abortions. Yes, it does. The abortion rate is 37 per 1,000 women in countries that prohibit abortion altogether or allow it only to save a woman’s life, and 34 per 1,000 in countries that allow abortion without restriction. It's not a terribly significant difference, but it certainly demonstrates that criminalising abortion does absolutely nothing to stop it - if anything, it increases it. So you keep saying. And yet, you support a course of action that would not prevent it, but would in fact encourage it. No it doesn't. Pro-abortion advocates often cite the fact that back when abortion was illegal, women used to go & have backstreet abortions, & right on this topic thread, was no exception. What people tend to overlook was the reason WHY those poor women sought out those backstreet abortions: Because the men--no; THE PIGS (men is too good a word for these scumbags)--that got these women pregnant, would abandon them, after doing so. These poor ladies would tell them that they are having their child, & they would curse them outright, calling them whores, etc., & refuse to take responsibility for their unborn children. The women then felt they had no other option than to kill their unborn children. Do you people actually believe that by legalizing abortion you are helping women?!?! Guess what?!?! Legalized abortion only helps those afore-mentioned pigs, because now, when the girls whom they got pregnant come to them, they just tell them go & make an appointment for an abortion. Coerced Abortions
|
|
|
Post by goz on May 31, 2018 5:01:14 GMT
Wow! Those people who agree with you on matters of life and death are pretty slack then!!! They MUST feel pretty strongly, right? Or do you have a better explanation of the overwhelming Yes vote in Ireland? Presumably they are all sinners and will burn in hell? Yes, I agree. Such a shame isn't it? We were talking to my Irish relatives earlier this week, & they told us, they didn't go out to vote (they're against abortion). They said it was mainly the young people in Ireland that voted last week. Well, all I can say is if YOUR relatives didn't bother to vote against something then it doesn't say much about their commitment to the cause nor the current validity of such a cause. You said before that to have an abortion is an act of desperation. I agree, and because it is that, women need to have this desperation eased and facilitated with free, legal and medically safe treatment.
|
|
|
YES!
May 31, 2018 9:01:13 GMT
Post by phludowin on May 31, 2018 9:01:13 GMT
You know what these coerced abortion supporters and the so-called "pro-life" movement in various countries have in common? They are anti-choice. People who are really enlightened realize that the decision whether to have an abortion or not should be the mother's decision, and hers alone. To paraphrase a sentence I read on a message board: Being pro choice means that the mother can choose whether she has an abortion or not. Not that somebody else makes the choice for her. So, thanks for posting that link, and confirming that anti-choicers are scum. All of them. Whether they are anti or pro abortion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2018 10:42:34 GMT
Yes, it does. The abortion rate is 37 per 1,000 women in countries that prohibit abortion altogether or allow it only to save a woman’s life, and 34 per 1,000 in countries that allow abortion without restriction. It's not a terribly significant difference, but it certainly demonstrates that criminalising abortion does absolutely nothing to stop it - if anything, it increases it. So you keep saying. And yet, you support a course of action that would not prevent it, but would in fact encourage it. No it doesn't. Yes, it does. The figures I quoted were not from "back in the day". They are what is happening right now. Right now, countries with anti-abortion laws have more abortions than countries that do not have those laws. And this would continue to happen if anti-abortion laws were passed today. Only it would happen more so. You claim to not want abortions, but in fact the course you advocate would encourage them.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on May 31, 2018 13:00:33 GMT
Yes, I agree. Such a shame isn't it? We were talking to my Irish relatives earlier this week, & they told us, they didn't go out to vote (they're against abortion). They said it was mainly the young people in Ireland that voted last week. Well, all I can say is if YOUR relatives didn't bother to vote against something then it doesn't say much about their commitment to the cause nor the current validity of such a cause. You said before that to have an abortion is an act of desperation. I agree, and because it is that, women need to have this desperation eased and facilitated with free, legal and medically safe treatment. No. Women that are in that kind of desperation need help to bring this child into the world, & ways to raise him/her. If that is not possible, then she should be given the option of giving the baby up for adoption. There is no difference between killing one's own unborn child, & killing the child right after birth.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on May 31, 2018 13:03:49 GMT
You know what these coerced abortion supporters and the so-called "pro-life" movement in various countries have in common? They are anti-choice. People who are really enlightened realize that the decision whether to have an abortion or not should be the mother's decision, and hers alone. To paraphrase a sentence I read on a message board: Being pro choice means that the mother can choose whether she has an abortion or not. Not that somebody else makes the choice for her. So, thanks for posting that link, and confirming that anti-choicers are scum. All of them. Whether they are anti or pro abortion. The point is, by legalizing abortion, society places women in a position where they can be coerced into having an abortion by the men who got them pregnant, just like the days of back alley abortions.
|
|
|
YES!
May 31, 2018 13:23:16 GMT
Post by phludowin on May 31, 2018 13:23:16 GMT
The point is, by legalizing abortion, society places women in a position where they can be coerced into having an abortion by the men who got them pregnant, just like the days of back alley abortions. And by legalizing driving, society places pedestrians in a position where they can be run over by cars. So what? Anyway, I wouldn't be surprised if societies with more restrictive abortion laws have more coerced abortions than societies with liberal abortion laws. Feel free to prove me wrong, if you can. But just like with women supposedly being more anti-abortion than men, I don't think you have a case.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on May 31, 2018 13:48:23 GMT
The point is, by legalizing abortion, society places women in a position where they can be coerced into having an abortion by the men who got them pregnant, just like the days of back alley abortions. And by legalizing driving, society places pedestrians in a position where they can be run over by cars. So what? Anyway, I wouldn't be surprised if societies with more restrictive abortion laws have more coerced abortions than societies with liberal abortion laws. Feel free to prove me wrong, if you can. But just like with women supposedly being more anti-abortion than men, I don't think you have a case. Yeah!!! Because those same swine that would drop a woman after impregnating her, would also march off to the back street for the abortion, just like he would send her off to an abortion clinic in states where it is legal!!!
|
|
|
Post by goz on May 31, 2018 21:28:23 GMT
Well, all I can say is if YOUR relatives didn't bother to vote against something then it doesn't say much about their commitment to the cause nor the current validity of such a cause. You said before that to have an abortion is an act of desperation. I agree, and because it is that, women need to have this desperation eased and facilitated with free, legal and medically safe treatment. No. Women that are in that kind of desperation need help to bring this child into the world, & ways to raise him/her. If that is not possible, then she should be given the option of giving the baby up for adoption. There is no difference between killing one's own unborn child, & killing the child right after birth.Women in that kind of desperation are that desperate for a multitude of reasons that God bothering do-gooders might have no idea about. There may be heath reasons there may be financial reasons there may be an infinite number of complex reasons that ONLY THAT woman can judge what is her overall best course of action in those particular circumstances. It is no-one else's business .(not even the father though he can have an input if she wants) It is really counter productive for the Pro-Life crowd to add further to what is a difficult decision and also quite cruel. Let me tell you also from a personal perspective exactly what the differences are between a newborn baby and the sliding scale that is a developing foetus. There is absolutely NO comparison between holding a newborn baby in your arms and undergoing like I did, at least 5 miscarriages, one at 20 weeks, 4 at 12 weeks and several 'late periods' followed by heavy bleeding and clotting. I can assure you that my feelings and reactions were in direct proportion to the length of the pregnancy hence the development of the foetus with the mid term one where the foetus died as devastating the twelve week ones as sad and disappointing and the early ones there was mild disappointment due solely to the stage and age of the foetus. There is a HUGE difference between the born and the unborn, as I keep saying, on a sliding scale of development. THIS is why I am a proponent of any abortion being as early as possible and mid to later term ONLY being at risk of life to the mother. I think this is a reasonable stance due to my personal experiences and the joy I had holding live full term babies in my arms after all these trials and pain. IMHO the religious have a myopic view of God given life which is inaccurate and misguided on the biology of the whole process. It is a fact that the foetus cannot live outside the mother and as the 'host' it is her body and her life and MUST remain solely her decision. There is no use in having a 'holier than though' blanket ban. I know I got personal, however from the hard line views that you proclaim on this subject I would be very doubtful whether any of these issues have directly affected you. All the more reason, if so, not to be judgmental of others. In this day and age women should have a choice what kind of life they lead and what sexual and procreative paths they follow. Accidents happen, rape happens, and accidental pregnancies are another fact of life. They always have been and they always will. We are lucky to have the technology to be able to make the best and safest decision in the individual circumstances. Prevention is best, and when that fails an abortion at the very earliest opportunity may be the best solution in a woman's life for her at that time.
|
|
|
YES!
Jun 1, 2018 0:05:56 GMT
Post by clusium on Jun 1, 2018 0:05:56 GMT
No. Women that are in that kind of desperation need help to bring this child into the world, & ways to raise him/her. If that is not possible, then she should be given the option of giving the baby up for adoption. There is no difference between killing one's own unborn child, & killing the child right after birth.Women in that kind of desperation are that desperate for a multitude of reasons that God bothering do-gooders might have no idea about. There may be heath reasons there may be financial reasons there may be an infinite number of complex reasons that ONLY THAT woman can judge what is her overall best course of action in those particular circumstances. It is no-one else's business .(not even the father though he can have an input if she wants) It is really counter productive for the Pro-Life crowd to add further to what is a difficult decision and also quite cruel. Let me tell you also from a personal perspective exactly what the differences are between a newborn baby and the sliding scale that is a developing foetus. There is absolutely NO comparison between holding a newborn baby in your arms and undergoing like I did, at least 5 miscarriages, one at 20 weeks, 4 at 12 weeks and several 'late periods' followed by heavy bleeding and clotting. I can assure you that my feelings and reactions were in direct proportion to the length of the pregnancy hence the development of the foetus with the mid term one where the foetus died as devastating the twelve week ones as sad and disappointing and the early ones there was mild disappointment due solely to the stage and age of the foetus. There is a HUGE difference between the born and the unborn, as I keep saying, on a sliding scale of development. THIS is why I am a proponent of any abortion being as early as possible and mid to later term ONLY being at risk of life to the mother. I think this is a reasonable stance due to my personal experiences and the joy I had holding live full term babies in my arms after all these trials and pain. IMHO the religious have a myopic view of God given life which is inaccurate and misguided on the biology of the whole process. It is a fact that the foetus cannot live outside the mother and as the 'host' it is her body and her life and MUST remain solely her decision. There is no use in having a 'holier than though' blanket ban. I know I got personal, however from the hard line views that you proclaim on this subject I would be very doubtful whether any of these issues have directly affected you. All the more reason, if so, not to be judgmental of others. In this day and age women should have a choice what kind of life they lead and what sexual and procreative paths they follow. Accidents happen, rape happens, and accidental pregnancies are another fact of life. They always have been and they always will. We are lucky to have the technology to be able to make the best and safest decision in the individual circumstances. Prevention is best, and when that fails an abortion at the very earliest opportunity may be the best solution in a woman's life for her at that time. I'm very sorry for the losses of your unborn children, Goz. It is already legal in most countries (Ireland included) for abortion for a woman if it endangers her life. There are plenty of options for women that are in crisis pregnancies, so having an abortion, outside of saving her life, should not be an option. A child has a heartbeat only a few weeks after conception. It is an individual being: a human life. A lot of women who have had abortions have deeply regretted the action afterwards. Women Who Regret Their Abortions
Woman Shares Heartbreaking Story Of Abortion RegretPoint of fact: The woman who made abortion legal in the USA, even changed her mind on it: Norma McCorey: Jane Roe Of Roe vs Wade
Also, there is the story of Rebecca Kiessling: Rebecca Kiessling
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Jun 1, 2018 0:13:26 GMT
No. Women that are in that kind of desperation need help to bring this child into the world, & ways to raise him/her. If that is not possible, then she should be given the option of giving the baby up for adoption. There is no difference between killing one's own unborn child, & killing the child right after birth. Why should a a female have to go through a term of pregnancy, if it is something she doesn't want to do? It's not your life or your body. That's right!!! It is the BABY'S life & body, that is a separate sentient being from the mother!!! The baby has as much a right to life as you, & me, and everyone in the entire world!!!!!
|
|
|
YES!
Jun 1, 2018 2:30:33 GMT
Post by clusium on Jun 1, 2018 2:30:33 GMT
That's right!!! It is the BABY'S life & body, that is a separate sentient being from the mother!!! The baby has as much a right to life as you, & me, and everyone in the entire world!!!!! Until the baby is birthed, it IS NOT a "separate" sentient being. It is reliant on it's host for survival. The mother will decide that for herself and it is none of mine, yours or anyone else's concern, except the mother and the father. Ultimately, I feel it is the mother's final decision though.
I'm sorry you are getting a hard time over your stance on this thread, but you are beating your head against a brick wall and that will only hurt and bruise in the end. Please re-read goz recent post to you. That was very honest and even courageous of her to share her experience and she is using common sense. She has even stated earlier, that she is not so much pro-abortion, but pro-choice and for logical reasoning. You don't have to buy into anything, but all it is proving, is how obtuse and obstinate you are sounding. I'm not disputing that Goz's post to me was honest & even courageous. However, I still disagree with her stance & yours. I have also, in turn shared links from other women's experiences that are also honest & courageous. Abortion is infanticide. It is the murder of an unborn child. Life begins right at the very moment of conception. That it is legal in many parts of the world is very tragic.
|
|
|
YES!
Jun 1, 2018 2:34:37 GMT
Post by clusium on Jun 1, 2018 2:34:37 GMT
I'm very sorry for the losses of your unborn children, Goz. It is already legal in most countries (Ireland included) for abortion for a woman if it endangers her life. There are plenty of options for women that are in crisis pregnancies, so having an abortion, outside of saving her life, should not be an option. A child has a heartbeat only a few weeks after conception. It is an individual being: a human life. A lot of women who have had abortions have deeply regretted the action afterwards. That is the pointless argument though, because women are still having abortions in clinics, where it is technically deemed illegal, because ultimately it is her choice and "option" in the end. Even in Ireland, the establishment knows it cannot contravene human rights and societal issues, over outdated and archaic religious dogma. The law really only exists for long term pregnancies, and these are an anomaly anyway, because most women would know after 12 weeks if they want to keep the fetus that is forming inside them. Any abortions after that, would be for health concerns regarding the mother. You are arguing for total and absolute control over another persons own personal dignity and life. That is very troubling, not to mention judgemental over something that you have no right to be.
This abortion issue is just another ruse, used by the government and the media to distract from more other important issues anyway, like what a disloyal and disingenuous job they are doing with running the economy and keeping their own greedy hands in the honeypot to retain the status quo.
The Right to Life is a human right. I'm not the one who is arguing for the total & absolute control over personal dignity & life. Rather, those that are for abortion are the ones that are arguing for total & absolute control over the dignity & life of another. That is, of a defenceless baby. The child that is inside of his/her mother is not part of his/her mother. The child is an entirely separate human being, & deserves to be treated as no less.
|
|
|
YES!
Jun 1, 2018 4:37:48 GMT
Post by goz on Jun 1, 2018 4:37:48 GMT
That is the pointless argument though, because women are still having abortions in clinics, where it is technically deemed illegal, because ultimately it is her choice and "option" in the end. Even in Ireland, the establishment knows it cannot contravene human rights and societal issues, over outdated and archaic religious dogma. The law really only exists for long term pregnancies, and these are an anomaly anyway, because most women would know after 12 weeks if they want to keep the fetus that is forming inside them. Any abortions after that, would be for health concerns regarding the mother. You are arguing for total and absolute control over another persons own personal dignity and life. That is very troubling, not to mention judgemental over something that you have no right to be.
This abortion issue is just another ruse, used by the government and the media to distract from more other important issues anyway, like what a disloyal and disingenuous job they are doing with running the economy and keeping their own greedy hands in the honeypot to retain the status quo.
The Right to Life is a human right. I'm not the one who is arguing for the total & absolute control over personal dignity & life. Rather, those that are for abortion are the ones that are arguing for total & absolute control over the dignity & life of another. That is, of a defenceless baby. The child that is inside of his/her mother is not part of his/her mother. The child is an entirely separate human being, & deserves to be treated as no less. What about the ones that abort spontaneously or die in utero? Like mine? If God gives life to a foetus from the moment of conception, why does he then take it away? If YOUR God can do it, why not a mother who is in dire straits in her personal life? Not that simple, I hear you say? Well, maybe, just maybe you can get your head around some shades of grey on this difficult topic. My view is a pragmatic one butt let me tell you that after waiting two weeks between ultrasounds when my baby was dying it had not died and yet was going to be irreparably harmed or deformed with a miserable outcome, I would have got an abortion legal or otherwise. Fortunately it did not come to that butt even so, my doctor had to fudge the paperwork even to do a curette on a dead baby as ostensibly I was over 20 weeks pregnant. Women need legal medical and moral support at such times and not poe faced god botherers telling them that they are sinning or immoral or killing their 'baby'.
|
|
|
YES!
Jun 1, 2018 6:00:17 GMT
Post by phludowin on Jun 1, 2018 6:00:17 GMT
|
|
|
Post by maya55555 on Jun 1, 2018 6:59:36 GMT
gozzy
I am tired of your interjections of your personal experiences, yet to pose to speak for the average woman. You have had zero training in obstetrics, yet speak with authority on this subject. This must stop on your part. As usual you are blowing hot air and are void of any knowledge on the subject.
In other words, SHUT UP!
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Jun 1, 2018 11:41:12 GMT
The Right to Life is a human right. I'm not the one who is arguing for the total & absolute control over personal dignity & life. Rather, those that are for abortion are the ones that are arguing for total & absolute control over the dignity & life of another. That is, of a defenceless baby. The child that is inside of his/her mother is not part of his/her mother. The child is an entirely separate human being, & deserves to be treated as no less. What about the ones that abort spontaneously or die in utero? Like mine? If God gives life to a foetus from the moment of conception, why does he then take it away? If YOUR God can do it, why not a mother who is in dire straits in her personal life? Not that simple, I hear you say? Well, maybe, just maybe you can get your head around some shades of grey on this difficult topic. My view is a pragmatic one butt let me tell you that after waiting two weeks between ultrasounds when my baby was dying it had not died and yet was going to be irreparably harmed or deformed with a miserable outcome, I would have got an abortion legal or otherwise. Fortunately it did not come to that butt even so, my doctor had to fudge the paperwork even to do a curette on a dead baby as ostensibly I was over 20 weeks pregnant. Women need legal medical and moral support at such times and not poe faced god botherers telling them that they are sinning or immoral or killing their 'baby'. God May also Take the life of the child after birth. If God can Do that, why can't the parents? Your own personal experience are passed miscarriages (again, I'm deeply sorry for the loss of your children). My own personal experiences is that I have very painful menstrual cramps, to the point of excruciating torture!!! I cannot barely function when I have my period, & I cannot count the number of times, I have been ill (vomiting) during my period. From what I have heard, labour pains are 100 times more painful than menstrual cramps, & I would not be surprised if & when I should ever become pregnant that a doctor would probably tell me that I would die in labour (of course; I'm just basing that purely on how purely agonizing my periods are).
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jun 1, 2018 11:58:51 GMT
That's right!!! It is the BABY'S life & body, that is a separate sentient being from the mother!!! The baby has as much a right to life as you, & me, and everyone in the entire world!!!!! Until the baby is birthed, it IS NOT a "separate" sentient being. It is reliant on it's host for survival. The mother will decide that for herself and it is none of mine, yours or anyone else's concern, except the mother and the father. Ultimately, I feel it is the mother's final decision though.
I'm sorry you are getting a hard time over your stance on this thread, but you are beating your head against a brick wall and that will only hurt and bruise in the end. Please re-read goz recent post to you. That was very honest and even courageous of her to share her experience and she is using common sense. She has even stated earlier, that she is not so much pro-abortion, but pro-choice and for logical reasoning. You don't have to buy into anything, but all it is proving, is how obtuse and obstinate you are sounding. Its host? So it's a parasite....a parasite that becomes a sentient human being if the "host" doesn't decide to kill it? This may be the sickest thing I ever read on the Internet. You're a sick freak, TC.
|
|
|
YES!
Jun 1, 2018 12:16:21 GMT
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 1, 2018 12:16:21 GMT
Until the baby is birthed, it IS NOT a "separate" sentient being. It is reliant on it's host for survival. The mother will decide that for herself and it is none of mine, yours or anyone else's concern, except the mother and the father. Ultimately, I feel it is the mother's final decision though.
I'm sorry you are getting a hard time over your stance on this thread, but you are beating your head against a brick wall and that will only hurt and bruise in the end. Please re-read goz recent post to you. That was very honest and even courageous of her to share her experience and she is using common sense. She has even stated earlier, that she is not so much pro-abortion, but pro-choice and for logical reasoning. You don't have to buy into anything, but all it is proving, is how obtuse and obstinate you are sounding. Its host? So it's a parasite....a parasite that becomes a sentient human being if the "host" doesn't decide to kill it? This may be the sickest thing I ever read on the Internet. You're a sick freak, TC. Typically, the earliest a premature baby can survive outside the mother is 22 weeks. That's why that age, or thereabouts, often forms the boundary between legal and illegal abortions. And the word 'parasite' is entirely yours, one notes.
|
|
|
YES!
Jun 1, 2018 12:25:41 GMT
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jun 1, 2018 12:25:41 GMT
Its host? So it's a parasite....a parasite that becomes a sentient human being if the "host" doesn't decide to kill it? This may be the sickest thing I ever read on the Internet. You're a sick freak, TC. Typically, the earliest a premature baby can survive outside the mother is 22 weeks. That's why that age, or thereabouts, often forms the boundary between legal and illegal abortions. And the word 'parasite' is entirely yours, one notes. One can note all one likes, for all the difference it makes.
|
|