Ireland about to progress?

smalltime said: ↑
If the lady doesn't want the child, is the FATHER asked of HE wants the child?

If not, why not.""""""""""""""""""""""""


FoxHastings RESPONDED: ↑
Not.
Because no one owns a woman because they made her pregnant.""""""

Ugh, duh, try to follow along especially if all ya got is rantings...(see above )

WHO is "they" in your irrelevant comment?

Are "they" the people who OWN pregnant women?

And it was a stupid comment since even if women WANT a hysterectomy a doctor won't give them one for no good reason.


I noted that you think women who get pregnant are stupid (twice)

 

Only stupid if you plan to not have kids but you get pregnant and require an abortion. Which part of that do you find tricky?

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
smalltime said: ↑
If the lady doesn't want the child, is the FATHER asked of HE wants the child?

If not, why not.""""""""""""""""""""""""


FoxHastings RESPONDED: ↑
Not.
Because no one owns a woman because they made her pregnant.""""""





Ugh, duh, try to follow along especially if all ya got is rantings...(see above )

WHO is "they" in your irrelevant comment?

Are "they" the people who OWN pregnant women?

And it was a stupid comment since even if women WANT a hysterectomy a doctor won't give them one for no good reason.


I noted that you think women who get pregnant are stupid (twice)

You found my posts so tricky you couldn't address much at all....


You sure have a low opinion of women who get pregnant....first, accidents happen, and no one is obliged to use birth control....if they have an unwanted pregnancy they can get an abortion. That does not make a woman stupid.

Denying women the right to their own body IS stupid...and cruel, barbaric and illegal....(much worse than "stupid")

Babbling over and over again how humans should just stop having sex is also quite stupid since it's very obvious it hasn't, and doesn't, work...

 

So you want what you consider stupid people to raise children....AGAIN, I ask, don't you like children?


Even if every woman who had an unwanted pregnancy was stupid (and it's far from true) why should abortion be outlawed....being stupid isn't a crime or anyone who had more than two kids should be in jail (because I think that's stupid)…..

 

Some males, when the people overwhelmingly recognize the right of a woman over that of the State to make decisions regarding her body (up to the point of gestation when a person has developed, of course) believe they should still dictate to women in lieu of the patriarchic government.

If and when those males are impregnated, they can exercise such control over themselves.

Good luck with that.

 

Late term abortions, extremely rare, are invariably tragic, involving a wanted, non-viable baby and/or an imminent threat to the life of the mother.

It is a matter for medical professionals, not politicians.

That there are fanatics who lie about the heart-rending circumstances is disgusting.

 

Well certainly the child could be induced at this stage but if the child was born alive nobody would be killing them. Yes, late abortions are usually due to some severe health problem with the baby, sometimes Mum but once the child is capable of surviving on her own, then no one is going to kill a live baby or that would be murder. I know in the UK we reduced the age at which people could have abortions simply because of the earlier age of viability with medical advances.

Edit: just checked on that because I remembered that if Mom's life is in danger or the child will be severely damaged these can be done later, though I would think in that case there still would be every effort put in to save a healthy child.

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/abortion/

I t seems that some people believe that it is better that the mother die or that the woman should carry to term a child with no hope of survival.

 

Again, it is far preferable to allow the woman, in consultation with her medical professionals, spiritual advisors, and loved ones, to confront the crisis, not be dictated to by politicians who have no familiarity with her or her personal circumstances.

Your point concerning medical advances allowing an earlier stage of viability reinforces the point that those with medical expertise are to be trusted over bureaucrats.

 

Yes and having a think for a moment I edited that post as if the mother's life is at risk or the child would be born with a severe disability then they can have a later abortion.

I think our politicians were asked to reduce the age again and decided against. In the UK they always vote on conscience not party lines on things like this.

I do hear what you are saying about it being a medical decision and yes it is.

 

No they should be put in wash rooms and beaten by nuns, the children should be forceably removed from any women who has a child out of wedlock and of course never allowed to see the disgusting whore who got pregnant.

 

And the WOMAN's wishes and decisions placed above all.

It is HER decision, not the doctors or her loved ones or her husband's or politicians or nosy parkers who have control issues....just the pregnant woman's...


...and viability is still 23-24 weeks, fetuses do not grow any faster now than they ever have....younger fetuses need extra help to survive so they are not viable..

 

This is a confusing sentence """ I know in the UK we reduced the age at which people could have abortions (?) simply because of the earlier age of viability with medical advances.""

Did you mean reduce the age of the fetus because viability is earlier?

Still wrong......viability is still 23-24 weeks, fetuses do not grow any faster now than they ever have....younger fetuses need extra help to survive so they are not viable..

 

And often a very painful one that demands personal empathy, not a impersonal set of instructions from a faceless bureaucracy.

 

YUP, we all own our own body parts...even pregnant women !

Along with the Supreme Court and most of the world...even Catholic Ireland

No, you seem confused, it is a legal person when it's born, when it no longer depends on the woman for survival.

Then you'd be wrong and made a statement based on nothing.

Please show the long list or line of people just waiting to kill fetuses at nine months ...WHERE are they?

Show proof ...where is it....

Where are all these women you claim are so stupid and barbaric that they go through the "joy" of 8 1/2 months of pregnancy just for the "fun" of an abortion..

.WHERE ARE THEY?

Clearly those against women having rights value the life in her womb more than the life of the woman, an actual BORN person whose life they don't think is precious at all since they do NOT want her to have the same rights they do.

TSK TSK....is this where you CLAIM you are against all war and not killing immigrants crossing the desert and LOVE spending as much as possible to help poor children ?

 

Yes, I was meaning the age of the fetus. I think it used to be 28 weeks but they can in exceptional circumstances be kept alive as young as 20 weeks now due to our medical advances. Basically you cannot kill a child who has a chance of surviving. You can bring the child into the world before it is ready but later than the top age for abortion if the Mother's life is in danger or if it is known that the baby has some major defect - usually would not live.

What I said never was suggesting that children progress quicker n the womb now than they used to and that ought to have been obvious by my saying 'with medical advances'.

To bring a child into the world which is capable of sustaining life and deliberately kill it is...well murder. Hence if it is capable of sustaining life that will happen and then the child will be adopted if the parents do not want it. Equally the Mother who has to bring her child into the world early for the safety of her own life will almost always be more than delighted if medical advances save her child.

I know also there are arguments as to how young it is medically acceptable to try and keep babies alive as the younger they are the more likely this is to result in lifetime problems but that is a medical decision possibly decided with the parents. This would be unlikely to be an issue with a late term abortion due to some serious defect.

 

Still wrong......viability is still 23-24 weeks, fetuses do not grow any faster now than they ever have....younger fetuses need extra help with artificial aids to survive so they are not "viable" in the legal sense

That is "viable" without artificial aids.

If a fetus is born at 20-21 weeks or less it needs artificial means to keep it alive. A 23-24 week fetus often can survive on it's own...hence the compromise within abortion laws.

A child is NOT "brought into this world" until birth...until them it's in the woman meaning it's part of HER body, no one else's. .

Abortion is not murder, it is a legal medical procedure. Only "persons" can be murdered.

If a fetus can be grown in a test tube that doesn't mean it's a legal "person" from the start.

 

I didn't say they grew faster than they did before. You appear to be deliberately twisting what I said. What age they work to keep babies alive at now I an not sure but I know that even when I had a child 37 years ago they were trying to do this from 20 weeks - I know because I was taken into hospital with bleeding at 20 weeks and they told me this.

You can play with words all you want.

I do not know what your issue is. I am pro abortion. You seem to be being deliberately difficult and possible have some fanatical views on this and yes bringing a child into this world who is capable of surviving and either suffocating it or refusing to and care for it till it dies is murder. Given that you continue to twist and misrepresent what I say, consider this conversation over.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
Still wrong......viability is still 23-24 weeks, fetuses do not grow any faster now than they ever have....younger fetuses need extra help with artificial aids to survive so they are not "viable" in the legal sense

That is "viable" without artificial aids.

If a fetus is born at 20-21 weeks or less it needs artificial means to keep it alive. A 23-24 week fetus often can survive on it's own...hence the compromise within abortion laws.

A child is NOT "brought into this world" until birth...until them it's in the woman .

Abortion is not murder, it is a legal medical procedure. Only "persons" can be murdered.

If a fetus can be grown in a test tube that doesn't mean it's a legal "person" from the start.

I twisted nothing....and if you think I did then explain.

I explained what "viability" is and what it is not.....

It is not what age a fetus can be kept alive through artificial means which is what you said.


You say you are "pro-abortion"....(I'm not, I'm Pro-Choice. ) yet you call abortion murder. Can't you see where that would be confusing?

 

Westminster needs to run the UK.

No devolved government, but a federal UK with one single currency.

That way Northern Ireland would be in line with the rest of the UK.

 

The people of Northern Ireland should be allowed to determine their own fate. Many wish to remain a member of the EU like their southern neighbour.

The "soft" border has allowed for open commerce and had been economically and culturally beneficial for the people of both the republic and Northern Ireland.

In any event, forcing one isolated region of the UK to endure a suppression of reproductive rights that neither Ireland nor the UK impose upon their people is not viable.

 

Yeah, I'm all for a federal UK, one currency, one capital (Westminster)...
It just makes sense to become federalised from London.
It is the UK of GB and NI as a country.

I think people should recognise and understand Westminster.