Ireland- say you wanna kill yourself and you can abort up until birth!!!!

Right? Especially when it comes to the conflicts up in Northern Ireland between Protestants and Catholics. Talk about some crazy (*)(*)(*)(*) and complete disrespect for human life. So many people killed because of that.

 

Since we are talking about Ireland......and the tremendous respect that they have for 'defenceless life'- at least until they are born.....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-tank-at-former-irish-home-for-unwed-mothers/

In a town in western Ireland, where castle ruins pepper green landscapes, there’s a six-foot stone wall that once surrounded a place called the Home. Between 1925 and 1961, thousands of “fallen women” and their “illegitimate” children passed through the Home, run by the Bon Secours nuns in Tuam.

Many of the women, after paying a penance of indentured servitude for their out-of-wedlock pregnancy, left the Home for work and lives in other parts of Ireland and beyond. Some of their children were not so fortunate.

More than five decades after the Home was closed and destroyed — where a housing development and children’s playground now stands — what happened to nearly 800 of those abandoned children has perhaps now emerged: Their bodies were piled into a massive septic tank sitting in the back of the structure and forgotten, with neither gravestones nor coffins. (In PostEverything: “Philomena” author Martin Sixsmith writes, “Sadly, the mass grave at Tuam is probably not unique

 

I'm still very interested in knowing what the true purpose of freedom and liberty is if it's not to have the license to do as one pleases, because when I looked up the definitions that's EXACTLY what it means.

 

Okie dokie.

It's always sad when the "will of the people" involves telling other people they are worth less and don't deserve rights.

Agreed, though I'm not sure why you mention this since I didn't say that it does.

If a woman doesn't want to have children, she should be able to choose whatever options are available to her. That decision is absolutely none of your business and certainly not the business of anyone who doesn't even know her. A hysterectomy is one way to go, sure. Tubal ligation is another. Then we have birth control, abstinence, and finally, abortion. These are all options that should be available to women so they can make their own decisions. When you prevent a woman from controlling her body, you're telling her that she doesn't deserve that right, that for whatever reason you and people who agree with you have decided that she simply cannot make these decisions herself and requires you to make them for her based on your own personal version of what you consider right and wrong to be. Sadly, this type of thing happens quite often in Democracies, but it never means that it isn't what it is, a blatant disregard for the autonomy of an individual.

Legal abortion is not rewarding irresponsible behavior. Even suggesting that means you really have no understanding whatsoever of why women have abortions. You're out of your league son, speaking about things for which you have no real understanding and limited to no experience.

By the way, there are laws against drinking and driving because drunk drivers endanger other individuals and their rights. Making abortion illegal does not provide a similar function.

 

To strive to do better, help fellow man or better ourselves. Also to do none of those things but to go with the flow. However one need to remember everyone is a part of society and being a part of a society restricts relative freedom of the individual. Meaning some things are unacceptable.

 

Wrong.

However you are correct that there are restrictions on freedom. You are given the license to do anything you want to do within reason, do no harm unto others, do not steal from others, etc. However when it comes to having full medical authority over our own bodies, yeah we still get to make those choices. Being pregnant does not strip a woman of this right, nor should it.

 

"That decision is absolutely none of your business and certainly not the business of anyone who doesn't even know her."
As long as people are a part of a society not some utopia it is everybody business.
"When you prevent a woman from controlling her body",
Why you Americans are obsessed with all this "preventing a woman from controlling her body". Excuse me, she can do whatever she pleases with her body - up to the point. If she became pregnant against her will it tell you she never controlled her body in the first place.
Now, she would like to pretend that by killing a new life she is in control again. In fact she is not, it is only a mopping action and refusal to pay the price for loosing control and for being irresponsible.
Should men be excused from paying child welfare just because they didn't plan or want a child?

 

How Am I wrong? Quotes from the internet are not a decisive authority.

 

That's not a quote from the Internet, it is the actual definitions of the words. Feel free to check your own dictionary if you'd like.

Also, do me a favor and try to use the quote function a bit more correctly. When you quote me, i.e. click on 'Reply with Quote' it should include my username and alert me that you have quoted me. Thanks.

 

Pro choicers who argue "it's the woman's buisness", are just using an evasion arguement to avoid the main issue of the debate. Do you agree with me?

 

Actually no it is not. I see you live in another country but where I live and most of the free world has rights to privacy and especially rights to medical privacy. Here in the states we have HIPAA which protects our medical privacy. http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/

So in other words she loses her rights as a person under the law due to being pregnant?

And yes, we do have the right to maintain full medical authority over our own bodies under the law. Our uteruses belong to us, not the fetus. We are not slaves to the state, we are not required to incubate or sustain the life of another at the expense of our rights and autonomy.

What does that mean?

You call it irresponsible I call it responsible. Making a decision, any decision including the choice to abort and the choice to give birth, is a responsible thing to do.

Yes.

 

Not all rights. Just the right to have an abortion. Pregnant women, even in countries where abortion is illegal, are still allowed to have the majority of basic human rights everybody else has.

The fetus's right to life is more important than the woman's right to "not want to be an incubator".

 

What "right to life"? A fetus isn't capable of even exercising a right to life.

 

Having only some rights and losing others due to the status of our wombs makes us second class citizens. This is inherently wrong and you know it.

No it is not.

 

At least fetuses arent selfish.

- - - Updated - - -

The only reason pro lifers want to take away the rights of women when they become pregnant, is because they care about the fetus's right to life.

- - - Updated - - -

What does "exercising the right to life" mean?

 

I could say the same about an average woman, without comfort of the country and society, alone in the wilderness, without any tools. Nine out of ten wouldn't make it. Should they be terminated?

 

Most women having abortions are actually doing it out of selflessness for the child-that-would-be knowing they cannot care for it or that they would be bringing it into a cruel and monstrous world.

Whereas most people who have children only do so for purely selfish reasons. Shocking I know.

And that is inherently wrong and you know it is.

- - - Updated - - -

Are they inside the body of another person or infringing on someone else's rights?

See that's where the problem lies when it comes to the woman and the fetus. If you give both equal rights one will always have rights that infringe on the others due to the current relationship they have (i.e. one is inside the body of the other either with permission or against that person's will).

 

What rights? Right to kill? Just because that life is depending on woman for some time? Ruthless and selfish, maybe with a such attitude would be better for everyone if women really became second class citizens[

 

Exactly.

Despite our different views on this issue, do you agree with me that the abortion issue is about whose rights are more important?

 

Your quote function still isn't working right.

Code:

 [quote=Pasithea]......[/ quote] 

just remove space between / and quote.

Anyways, no not the right to kill, the right to remove the unwanted entity/person from your own body because it is putting your life and health at risk and in jeopardy. The right to self-determination. The right to make all decisions regarding your own autonomy. I know this is really hard for people to understand, but it is a right we all have. The right to self defense against unwanted persons/entities/anything within our own bodies. We do not lose this right simply because of the status of our uteruses.

I see. I feel nothing else needs to be said as you have made the misogyny of your views quite clear.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, it essentially boils down to this.

 

He is not being misogynistic. He is simply saying that he believes women who have abortions are selfish. Also, he's just being sarcastic.

- - - Updated - - -

Okay, at least we agree on that.

So why do you believe the woman's rights are more important? It could be argued that the fetus's rights are more important, because it has no responsibility for its actions, etc.

 

I disagree. I think Wolf45 is being completely serious about wanting to make women second class citizens and strip them of their rights.

Many reasons. She was born first, she already has been granted all rights and personhood. She is the one who must put her health and life at risk to bring the child into the world and she should not be forced to put herself at risk for anyone. To force someone to do something against their wills is the epitome of a tyranny and completely undermines the foundation of freedom, liberty and self-determination.

Other reasons are more individual situation based including that she may already have children to care for and having another would put them all in jeopardy. Perhaps she is on her deathbed and needs a life-saving abortion, she should always be saved before the fetus for without her there would be no fetus to begin with (unless she requests otherwise). If the fetus dies now she will still more than likely become pregnant again at a later time when it is more suitable and have a child or more than one child, etc., etc., etc.

I could go on and on for the reasons but those are some of the main ones.

 

That is totally irrelevant. Very few abortions are done to save a woman's life. Why do you bring up the exception to justify the rule?

- - - Updated - - -

If the fetus is a person, one might argue that that arguement is also irrelevant.

 

You asked for the reasons behind why I am pro-choice Sam so I gave them to you. If you think it's irrelevant then only respond to that which you believe is relevant instead of focusing on the irrelevant stuff. Here respond to this portion instead.

"Many reasons. She was born first, she already has been granted all rights and personhood. She is the one who must put her health and life at risk to bring the child into the world and she should not be forced to put herself at risk for anyone. To force someone to do something against their wills is the epitome of a tyranny and completely undermines the foundation of freedom, liberty and self-determination. Other reasons including she may already have children to care for and having another would put them all in jeopardy.

If the fetus dies now she will still more than likely become pregnant again at a later time when it is more suitable and have a child or more than one child, etc., etc., etc."