jump to last post 1-25 of 25 discussions (86 posts)

Abortion Nazi Selection Process Social Engineering?

  1. theirishobserver. profile image61
    theirishobserver.posted 6 years ago

    In 2010 almost 8,000 Irish Females travelled to England to have their unborn babies terminated. Some of these females were as young as 11 years old; the majority of terminations were convenience terminations, Doctors being told that the women simply did not want another child or that they were pregnant due to extra-marital affairs. However, a significant number of Irish children were taken to England in 2010 to have their unborn babies terminated the youngest recorded was an 11 year old girl.
    Many Irish women also travelled to England in 2010 to terminate the lives of their children who were found under scan to have abnormalities or disabilities.
    It is estimated that since 1980, 7/8,000 Irish women and children travel to, or are taken to England each year to have their unborn children terminated.
    In England thousands of pregnancies were terminated last year for 'abnormalities' including 500 for Down's syndrome, new figures reveal.
    In total, there were 2,290 abortions for medical problems with the foetus, with 147 performed after 24 weeks.
    The statistics for 2010 in England and Wales were released after the Department of Health yielded to a Freedom of Information Request from the Pro Life Alliance, following a five-year legal battle.
    Foetus at 24 weeks: Newly released data reveals there were 147 abortions after 24 weeks due to medical problems such as Down's syndrome
    It is the first time in nearly a decade that the Government has released data on abortions performed on the grounds of disability.
    Julia Millington, spokeswoman for the ProLife Alliance, said: 'This is a great victory for transparency and freedom of speech and we are delighted that full information about the justification for late abortions is now being made available in the same detail as it was in 2001.'
    More...Down's warning to older IVF mothers: Fertility drugs may lead to embryo problems
    More than 1,000 girls under 15 every year are having abortions
    The data reveals that in 2010, 482 foetuses were aborted for Down's syndrome, including 10 who were over 24 weeks.
    There were also 128 terminations for the nervous disorder spina bifida, including 12 after 24 weeks.

    Abortions for ‘medical conditions’ in 2010

    Total Abortions Abortions over 24wks
    All medical conditions
    2,290
    Spina Bifida
    128
    Cleft lip and palate
    7
    Musculoskeletal system (Eg, club foot)
    181
    Down's syndrome
    482
    Edwards' syndrome
    164
    Foetus affected by maternal factors
    115
    Family history of inherited disorder
    181
    Musculoskeletal problems such as club foot were the reason for 181 abortions, including eight over 24 weeks.
    There were seven terminations on the grounds of a cleft palate, rising to 40 terminations for this condition since 2002.
    It marks the end of a six-year battle between an anti-abortion group and the Government for access to the controversial data.
    In 2005, Pro Life Alliance asked that the Department of Health to publish data on foetal abnormalities for 2003, which had been suppressed.
    The Department of Health had challenged the move, saying the numbers were so low it could lead to women being identified.
    The Government then challenged successful appeals made by the anti-abortion group to The Information Commissioner and an Information Tribunal.
    A cleft lip and palate is the most common facial birth defect in the UK. There have been 40 terminations for cleft palates since 2002
    However, in April, the Department of Health finally conceded defeat after the appeal was upheld by the High Court.
    They also released figures on abortions to under-16s between 2002 and 2010. There were an astonishing 35,262 terminations during this period.
    In 2010 there were 3,718 under-16s abortions in England, including 2,676 to 15-year-olds, 906 to 14-year-olds, 134 to 13-year-olds and two to 12-year-olds.
    Ms Millington, said: 'The Pro-Life Alliance is opposed to all abortion at any stage in pregnancy, but terminating the lives of babies at gestational ages when they could survive is always particularly horrifying. 
    'We have always argued that if these abortions are permitted under law, there should be no attempt whatsoever to hide details of the numbers or justifications.'
    However, Ann Furedi, chief executive of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS), said: 'The publication of these statistics after a campaign by the anti-abortion lobby reveals little more than their own vindictiveness.
    'Abortion for foetal anomaly is legal. Behind every one of these figures are doctors and nurses who deserve our admiration and support, and a couple who have often lost a much-wanted pregnancy.'
    Abortion is legal in the first 24 weeks of pregnancy for disability reasons but also if the pregnancy poses a risk to the mother's mental health.

    After 24 weeks, an abortion is allowed only if there is substantial risk to the mother of the child, in many cases the Mother simply has to state that she would not be able to cope with a handicap child and the child is terminated.

    1. lizzieBoo profile image69
      lizzieBooposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      It is awful to consider these facts. I had a dear cousin who had Downs Syndrome. He died around 6 yrs ago aged 36. The cathedral in Cambridge was packed with mourners for his funeral , so loved was he by everyone, and he is still very much in our thoughts especially in those of his brothers and sisters. We all felt grateful to have had him in our family.
      When he was born the doctors told my aunt to forget him as weak and worthless. She, outraged, took him straight home to be part of the family.
      You're right, too many people's attitude to life is becoming more and more Nazi in its outlook. Who are we to say whose life is worth while and not?

    2. Ralph Deeds profile image66
      Ralph Deedsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      You misuse the English language. Fetuses are not "children."
      Apparently a lot of Irish women don't agree with your opposition to abortion.

  2. TMMason profile image70
    TMMasonposted 6 years ago

    That is as shameful as this nation... we have turned our daughters into murderers and spoiled lil girls with no time to help their children, or who even want to care about them at all.

    I am ashamed to even be a Human when I hear things like this... shame on us.

    And this one really makes me mad... "Cleft lip and palate
    7...40 terminations for this condition since 2002"...
    that is a joke! Abortion needs to be outlawed for all but the most serious reasons, and personal responsibility needs to be once more taught and lived.

    Shame on us all! 

    This law puts Ohio half way there...

    COLUMBUS (Reuters) - The Ohio House of Representatives on Tuesday voted to ban abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detectable, which can be as early as six weeks.

    The House voted 54 to 43 for the ban, along party lines, with most Republicans voting in favor.

    If enacted, the law would be a challenge to the U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling which upheld a woman's right to an abortion until the fetus is viable outside the womb, usually at 22-24 weeks.

    Republican Ohio House Speaker William Batchelder said he knows this bill will face a court challenge.

    "We're writing bills for courts," he said.

    The bill now goes to the Republican-dominated Ohio Senate.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/2 … 87062.html

    1. kerryg profile image91
      kerrygposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      About 99% of the way "there", I'd say, since 6 weeks is about the earliest most women even realize they're pregnant and abortions are not available on a walk-in basis. tongue

  3. theirishobserver. profile image61
    theirishobserver.posted 6 years ago

    Well said TMMason, we are turning our backs on the most vulnerable sad

    1. TMMason profile image70
      TMMasonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Yes... and we are allowing some to teach our Daughters and Society that it is, "moral", and, "acceptable".

      Teaching "immorallity", "unacceptable", and "un-natural",... as "moral", "acceptable", and "natural".

      Wow?... that sounds familiar?

      Do you see a pattern yet, TIO?

      http://agendadocumentary.com/

      I mean what happens after the moral collapse of a Society?... Anyone know?...

      I do... it has occurred over and over in History... just like when they collapse economically... or militarally... same ends... just a different means.

  4. theirishobserver. profile image61
    theirishobserver.posted 6 years ago

    The question is not easy to answer, but an answer must be found or we are destined to burn in the great furnace sad

  5. Cagsil profile image59
    Cagsilposted 6 years ago

    This thread is nothing more than someone else wanting to interfere with a woman's individual rights. How pathetically sad.

    1. TMMason profile image70
      TMMasonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      You have no individual right to commit murder, for matters of convienence.

      1. Cagsil profile image59
        Cagsilposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        And, you obviously don't know how to distinguish between murder and laws.

      2. psycheskinner profile image83
        psycheskinnerposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        You have no individual right to impose your definition of murder onto the rest of society.  Or to make the law treat women universally as children over whom they should have moral authority (i.e. "daughters").

        Funny how big government is terrible, until you want it to force people to have babies even if they are only 11 years old.  How is that better than the guy who forced her to have sex?

        1. TMMason profile image70
          TMMasonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          If killing a truly innocent child is not murder. I do not know what else you would call it?... I know it is considered nothing much in this day... but is it really?

          You want to make that argument, go ahead...

          And yes, leave it to Mason to call the abhorant and immoral... what it is. I am not required by any law, -(yet)-, to PC my speech, nor my opinions.

          Too bad.

          And we didn't need a law against Abortion till it was pushed as a Women's Right to kill the unborn. Now that you all pushed to make it legal, now we need a law to outlaw what at one time was known for the abhorant immorallity that it was.

          See how that happens, Psyche. People knew... now they are so damned polutted by PC and Leftist/Progressive agendas of immorallity. That we actually have to teach people it is wrong to kill the innocent.

          Talk about dumbing a nation down...

          1. kerryg profile image91
            kerrygposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Actually abortion was legal in the US during the Colonial and early Revolutionary period until "quickening" at around 4-5 months of pregnancy.

            It didn't become illegal until the mid-19th century, when people became concerned about falling birth rates among native-born (WASP) citizens of the US versus the exploding immigrant population. (Sound familiar?)

            1. platinumOwl4 profile image72
              platinumOwl4posted 6 years agoin reply to this

              Which is an immediate concern as we speak. WASP birthrates extremely low. See the book " Death of the West.

          2. Ralph Deeds profile image66
            Ralph Deedsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Zygotes, embryos, fetuses are not "children."

            1. TMMason profile image70
              TMMasonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              Yes they are.

              Life begins at conception.

              Science knows this...

              http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/artic … otes2.html

              Go ahead and try to tell me Princeton U. is biased in favor of the far Right Pro-Life Movement.

              "The question came up of what is an embryo, when does an embryo exist, when does it occur. I think, as you know, that in development, life is a continuum.... But I think one of the useful definitions that has come out, especially from Germany, has been the stage at which these two nuclei [from sperm and egg] come together and the membranes between the two break down."

              [Jonathan Van Blerkom of University of Colorado, expert witness on human embryology before the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel -- Panel Transcript, February 2, 1994, p. 63]


              "Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity."

              [O'Rahilly, Ronan and Müller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29. This textbook lists "pre-embryo" among "discarded and replaced terms" in modern embryology, describing it as "ill-defined and inaccurate" (p. 12}]



              "Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)... The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual."

              [Carlson, Bruce M. Patten's Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3]



              ----"[A]nimal biologists use the term embryo to describe the single cell stage, the two-cell stage, and all subsequent stages up until a time when recognizable humanlike limbs and facial features begin to appear between six to eight weeks after fertilization....

              [A] number of specialists working in the field of human reproduction have suggested that we stop using the word embryo to describe the developing entity that exists for the first two weeks after fertilization. In its place, they proposed the term pre-embryo....

              I'll let you in on a secret. The term pre-embryo has been embraced wholeheartedly by IVF practitioners for reasons that are political, not scientific. The new term is used to provide the illusion that there is something profoundly different between what we nonmedical biologists still call a six-day-old embryo and what we and everyone else call a sixteen-day-old embryo.

              The term "pre-embryo" is useful in the political arena -- where decisions are made about whether to allow early embryo (now called pre-embryo) experimentation -- as well as in the confines of a doctor's office, where it can be used to allay moral concerns that might be expressed by IVF patients. 'Don't worry,' a doctor might say, 'it's only pre-embryos that we're manipulating or freezing. They won't turn into real human embryos until after we've put them back into your body.'"---

              [Silver, Lee M. Remaking Eden: Cloning and Beyond in a Brave New World. New York: Avon Books, 1997, p. 39]

              http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/artic … otes2.html


              http://www.physiciansforlife.org/content/view/467/43/

              http://fallibleblogma.com/index.php/whe … fe-begins/


              Try again, Ralph.

              1. Ralph Deeds profile image66
                Ralph Deedsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                Check your dictionary.

                1. TMMason profile image70
                  TMMasonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  I do not have to, life begins at conception, regardless of all the, "they ain't human/People" BS, you sling, life begins at conception. Period. Science knows it, and we will use that science to over-turn Roe V Wade. The Left loves to base everything on science, reason and logic, so this should be perfectly acceptable to them.

                  1. Ralph Deeds profile image66
                    Ralph Deedsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                    Life begins at conception, but, I repeat embryos aren't children. Your use of language is incorrect and inflammatory. And not conducive to civil discussion. Of course you've proved time and again that you're incapable of or not interested in civil discussion.

  6. thisisoli profile image73
    thisisoliposted 6 years ago

    So, 5 years worth of legal battles cost the country how much, just for this piece of information?

  7. mikelong profile image73
    mikelongposted 6 years ago

    Leave it to Mason to be the spokesperson for personal/societal morality..

    For the past 15 years my mom has worked with disabled kids through the LAUSD...  Most of these youth have multiple serious physical and mental problems that will never be fixed....

    Their parents struggle financially (and will for the rest of their lives) for these youth will never be able to live independently or earn income...

    If I were having children and it became known that my unborn was not going to be suited for survival, I'd have no problem having the plug pulled...  Life can be hard enough for the healthy and strong....  I see no viable reason to keep something alive that has no ability to take care of itself... 

    There are too many struggling parents out there...  Ancient civilizations had ways of circumventing these problems....and the sacrifice of life was used to remind everyone of how important this force is....  I would rather have someone pass on then live in misery...

  8. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 6 years ago

    There used to be a website where by one's economic degree of wealth one could find out how many acres of resource it would take to support one,
    from say three to fifty and more. For every person there is less biodiversity.
    But if only people count...

  9. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 6 years ago

    "If killing a truly innocent child"
    So a fetus is a truly innocent child. Can't quite picture it myself.

  10. TMMason profile image70
    TMMasonposted 6 years ago

    Not really?... Should it?... Oh yes the Socialists and Progressives love selective breeding and aborting, "Eugenics" they called it.

    I remember now.

    Popultaion rates are a fact of a nations survival. Whats your point? I am racist who only wants to out-law white women having abortions?

    Too funny... a lot of women who have abortions are Hispanic, Africa America, Indian, and many other ethnicities.

    That is just purely ignorant and a red herring.

    I am not a Progressive, I do not condone aborting just the dark skinned people, idiot, retards, and Jewish. That would be Socialists, Communists, and Progressives, Kerry. Gee?... those would be the ones in control of our Govt. right now.

    Not I.

    I want all abortion illegal, except for, life of mother, rape, incest and sever birth defects. Nothing about that speaks to race.

    So... try again.

    1. Cagsil profile image59
      Cagsilposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      So you openly admit you don't understand individual rights, on top of it, you don't mind oppressing women's rights. Not to mention, you don't give a damn what happens to the rest of society, as what you want would ruin and/or make society worse off.

      Good to know, you haven't a clue about what you are actually saying. roll

      1. TMMason profile image70
        TMMasonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        smile

        I understand it all just fine, Cags... don't you worry about me.

        1. Cagsil profile image59
          Cagsilposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          I'm not worried about you just yet. But, apparently your use of the " smile " says my statement was accurate.

          It's nice to see you show your true colors of character. lol

          1. TMMason profile image70
            TMMasonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            smile

            Nope... just that you are always amusing.

            1. Cagsil profile image59
              Cagsilposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              Believe it or not, your response was expected. Nothing more than the usual.

              1. TMMason profile image70
                TMMasonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                Why?... Cause I know your not worth feeding?

                smile

                1. Cagsil profile image59
                  Cagsilposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  Feeding? lol lol

                  You're too funny. You're so wrapped up in yourself, you fail to see your own actions are damaging to others. And, since I'm not "worth" feeding, then why did you bother to post again? lol

  11. theirishobserver. profile image61
    theirishobserver.posted 6 years ago

    OMG a a clinic in England has terminated over 500 healthy females as their parents wanted boys sad

    1. Cagsil profile image59
      Cagsilposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      And, why are YOU so concerned about what OTHER people do with THEIR life? Worry about yourself.

  12. theirishobserver. profile image61
    theirishobserver.posted 6 years ago

    Perhaps Irish Women like so many other women around the world have fallen into the trap of beliving that it is ok to murder children simply because the child is living in their womb Murder is Murder sad

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image66
      Ralph Deedsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Check your dictionary. Your rhetoric is inflammatory. I doubt that abortion is the same as murder under the law even in a retarded country like Ireland. It certainly isn't in civilized countries.

      1. lizzieBoo profile image69
        lizzieBooposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Abortion is the willful ending of a human life. There is no ambiguity about that. No need to check the dictionary. The question is simply, is size relative to importance? Abortion can be killing under duress, but it is killing nevertheless. Infanticide at best. Abortionists kill premature humans for a living. That's a fact.
        If a pregnant woman is murdered, it is considered a double murder. If she chooses to have her baby's life 'terminated', we call it something different. I know its a harsh situation very often, who could deny that?
        The only argument can be whether or not you are ok with killing under certain circumstances.

        1. Cagsil profile image59
          Cagsilposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          It's the willful ending of a human organism, which develops into human life form. So, with that said, your statement is ambiguity as stated.

    2. Cagsil profile image59
      Cagsilposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Only ignorant people call abortion murder where it is a legal medical procedure.

      1. lizzieBoo profile image69
        lizzieBooposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Yes but this thread isn't about eliminating early pregnancies where people talk about a cluster of eggs, it's about terminating a six month pregnancy. There is no ambiguity there since premature babies can survive at this age. Aborting a six month pregnancy because of a clef-palate is surely infanticide.

  13. psycheskinner profile image83
    psycheskinnerposted 6 years ago

    If you are living in a secular civil society, life is not the basis for protection.  Being 'subject of a life' is the basis for protection. There is great debate about when one becomes 'subject of a life' but it is almost certainly not at conception.

    I get that people live by religious categories, but our shared body of law uses utilitarian categories. Therefore these are the categories for public discussion and critique of the law.

    Unless you want the country to be rules by the Christian equivalent of Sharia law? Stoning adulterers on the street and owning slaves so long as they are not from Canada etc?

    1. lizzieBoo profile image69
      lizzieBooposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      psycheskinner, I fully appreciate your point your point about belief, I do. We cannot presume to push a religious concept on a secular society. But my point is that definition is being warped to push the secular point of view: that which states a) an embrio is not a real human life, and b) that abortion isn't really killing. We cannot have a situation where we lie in order to make something easier.

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image66
        Ralph Deedsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        What we've said is that an  embryo is not a child and that aborting an embryo is not murder nor equivalent to murder as the English term is defined in common usage nor under the law.

        1. TMMason profile image70
          TMMasonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          And what I have said, is our Constitution protects "LIFE", Human life, and that begins at conception. So it is protected from that point on.

          Science knows it... and we know it.

          Simple.

          1. Cagsil profile image59
            Cagsilposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            All science has said about it and you are distorting it, is that the process begins then. Do try to get things straight.

            1. TMMason profile image70
              TMMasonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              I have it straight... life begins at conception. Do try to keep up, Cags.

              That process that is begun, is LIFE.

              1. Cagsil profile image59
                Cagsilposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                Nice rude comment. Nothing new.

                I said the process begins then, and anything you have to say on the topic is moot, because all you do is distort the truth of the matter.

                Saying "LIFE begins at conception" is a distortion of the "process begin then".

                The development process is what you're claiming and that's the bottomline.

                1. TMMason profile image70
                  TMMasonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  Life.. too bad.

                  1. Cagsil profile image59
                    Cagsilposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                    Nice try.

                    Process?

                    When the END of that process is completed, it bring a new life.

                    Too bad for you.

        2. lizzieBoo profile image69
          lizzieBooposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          You may argue that an embryo is not a child, but at at six months gestation and after....?
          Clinically it is no longer an embryo. It is indisputably a baby, and 'terminating' the life of a baby is, I'm afraid, murder.

    2. TMMason profile image70
      TMMasonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Our Cunstitution protects, "Life... not the "subject of a life".
      You all just sit around thinking these things up in some sort of think group?..

      I mean c'mon...


      That don't fly, Psyche. "Life" is what our Laws protect.

  14. Cagsil profile image59
    Cagsilposted 6 years ago

    With regards to my position, this entire post is MOOT. And, I'm now bowing out- it's not a concern of the American people and/or it's Government.

    This particular topic is about places OUTSIDE America. So, I'm done.

  15. MelissaBarrett profile image61
    MelissaBarrettposted 6 years ago

    This conversation actually makes me angry, so this is an emotional post.

    If you have never cared for a disabled child, then please refrain from judging others facing the situation. 

    You simply, simply have absolutely no understanding what is involved.  None whatsoever.  You could not possibly understand 4 months with a child in NICU.  You couldn't understand not being able to TOUCH your child until he/she was 3 months old.  You have never had to ignore the needs of one child to tend to the needs of another.  You have never had medical bills that total more than the construction of a bridge or section of highway.  You have never sat through over 15 operations praying to God that your child made it this time, but statistically knowing he or she would eventually not make it.  Finally, and this is a BIG finally.  You have never had to tell a team of doctors to stop doing CPR and let him go.  And you have never sat crying while rocking the lifeless body of your child. You have never carried their coffin to their grave.

    When you do that, then you can decide whether someone is right or wrong by terminating a pregnancy.

    Then, we will discuss what happens when the next child you have, two years after the death of another child also has a disability.

    1. lizzieBoo profile image69
      lizzieBooposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Melissa. Clearly you have suffered enormously and for that I must offer you my warmest sympathies. I have four children and the thought of loosing any one of them is...terrible. I think this thread is about making people aware of the extent to which abortion is used as a commodity rather than an attempt to point the finger at women in awful circumstances.
      Are you saying that if you had to go through things again, you would make different choices?

      1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
        MelissaBarrettposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Thank you, and obviously this is an emotional topic for me so I'm not going to be completely rational.  I also have four.

        I would absolutely not change a thing.  I wouldn't make any other choice.  But, I also wouldn't require someone to knowingly choose to go through it either.

        What isn't addressed about these "mild conditions" is that they are usually indicative of other issues.  A cleft palate is rarely just a clef palate.  Dozens of conditions, some of which are atrocious, have clef palate as a symptom.  There is currently no way to test for them.  In addition, the tests that do exist for some of those conditions are reliable only after 16-20 weeks.  Some as late as 24-26 weeks.  Close to, or past the cut off for abortion.  So the knowledge of "cleft palate" or "club foot" isn't a complete diagnosis.

        I am strongly pro life for myself.  The only tests that I had with my youngest were ones for a specific heart defect that my son had that could kill her at birth.  That was so appropriate medical personnel could be at bedside.

        However, my initial opinion still stands.  Those who don't completely understand a situation should never pass a judgement on those who are facing it.  From my end, the slippery slope is individuals without knowledge eventually being able to change laws to their perceptions.  If it is murder, that is between God and the woman. The choice should be available.

        1. lizzieBoo profile image69
          lizzieBooposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Melissa, I agree we can't judge in these matters, but we can offer support. My concern is that when something is put in place by the law, most people feel compelled to do what is right in terms of the society that makes those laws. Sometimes people will go against their instincts because they respect the rule of law more than their own feelings.
          When my cousin was expecting a baby, she found out at 3 months that it had spina bifida and could die at any time. They asked her if she wanted to abort and she asked one question: 'is it suffering?' They said no, so she decided to let it live or die in its own time. She went full term with the baby which lived for 40 minutes after birth. They baptised her, named her and had a funeral for her. It was devastating. Had they got rid of her early on, they may have had to suffer the extra anxiety of whether they were right or wrong. Whether by some accident, the doctors had been wrong, as sometimes can happen, or whatever. We cannot tell what life will throw at us and sometimes society gives us choices that we do not need.
          My friend recently lost a baby at 6 months gestation. At 42 the doctors had warned that her child could have downs syndrome and she was in a quandary as to what steps to take. Then the baby was lost naturally and only then did she realise how much she wanted it. Sometimes you just have to pray that you can deal with whatever crazy thing happens in this life.

          1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
            MelissaBarrettposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            I actually agree with every single thing you say.  I have no idea how to offer abortion services without them becoming the most acceptable option.  However, I can't go along with denying them because sometimes, for some people, they are the most acceptable option. 

            In my present situation, I have three surviving children.  One of them is severely autistic.  My finances are stretched to the limits, my marriage is stressed (still holding on though, but we are fighting more) My time is limited, my energy is limited.  Honestly, any more on my plate would be harmful to the entire family and I would not have the reserves to care for another child, especially one with severe health concerns. 

            So I don't plan on having another one.

            HOWEVER, I didn't plan on having my youngest.  I was on the pill, got a cold and didn't read the pamphlet on my anti-biotic.  My beautiful little girl arrived 10 months later.  smile 

            If I got pregant, I would have the baby... of course (for me)  However, it would probably result in worse parenting for the other children (realistically) more financial difficulties and probably divorce.  Another disabled child?  I have no idea what I would do.

            *shrugs* tough call on what would be the right choice for someone is worse shape than me...

            1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
              MelissaBarrettposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              Edit: for arguements sake, it should be noted that two weeks ago, I felt quite differently about the matter and rapidly changing circumstance will effect the decision either way.  So yes, it is possible even probable that a woman choosing to terminate will regret it latter-and likewise in the other direction as well.

            2. lizzieBoo profile image69
              lizzieBooposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              Melissa, my heart goes out to you. I really hope you start to get much more support. You have a lot to deal with. But, you know what, you don't need to present a pro-life argument. You are a pro-life argument. You are still going strong, despite such a tough situation. You're a good example of strength and love and soon your other children will be old enough to help you out. None of my children were planned and each time I thought, 'flippin heck, how will I cope?' and I just did. Try not to worry about the things you can't change. I don't know you but I'm sure you're doing a great job. big_smile

  16. theirishobserver. profile image61
    theirishobserver.posted 6 years ago

    Rational debate, perhaps that is what is needed sad

  17. TMMason profile image70
    TMMasonposted 6 years ago

    You would think one has a Human right to be born, once concieved.

    The Leftists like those, don't they?...

    The "Human Rights"... everyone gets em, don't them?

    1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
      MelissaBarrettposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      You are pro-life TM... thats cool.  I suggest you never get an abortion *nods*

  18. aware profile image70
    awareposted 6 years ago

    embryos are alive  are they not? sperm swim don't they?
    ray.

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image66
      Ralph Deedsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      True, but they aren't children or babies.

  19. theirishobserver. profile image61
    theirishobserver.posted 6 years ago

    Is it time for new legislation sad

  20. profile image50
    My neck is redposted 6 years ago

    I've got to criticize your title.

    its just a run on of words not making much sense.

    could you choose a less confusing title next time?

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image66
      Ralph Deedsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      And perhaps less provocative and confrontational. Accusing people who believe in the right to choose of being Nazis doesn't lead anywhere useful. But perhaps that's typical of someone who I assume is from a church of with a history of pretty nasty "Absolute Monarchs."

      http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/10/books … ?ref=books

  21. VENUGOPAL SIVAGNA profile image59
    VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 6 years ago

    It is utter social indiscipline which permits a boy and girl to have sex. The sufferer is the girl at last. If the parents pay the required attention on their children, there cannot be any such abortions. The home is the school which the child sees first. But when the parents themselves are not conducting themselves in a disciplined manner, the child's mind goes on the wrong way. Then when the child goes to school, the teacher must enforce strict discipline among their students. Nothing like that happens in almost all western countries. You cant hear such things in Japan, China or other Asian countries. Worst of all many muslim societies inflict death penalties on a girl who goes with a boy for extra-marital affairs. Why not the Irish enforce at least 1% of such discipline on their children?

    In Indian schools, there was a period specially meant for moral instruction per week. On that period, teachers come and educate students about moral ethics, discipline, etc. (It is another matter now that the period is not used for it... because there is no necessity).

    Even if the Irish children go to England to have termination, why do the English doctors perform such illegal things?

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image66
      Ralph Deedsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Because they aren't illegal and they get paid for doing them.

  22. theirishobserver. profile image61
    theirishobserver.posted 6 years ago

    There is an argument for most sides of any discussion, but I am not convinced by any of the arguments here in favour of pre-birth-termination sad

    1. Cagsil profile image59
      Cagsilposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Then, I suggest you get a better grasp of rights, what they are and when they begin. roll

    2. Ralph Deeds profile image66
      Ralph Deedsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      How do you feel about contraception?

    3. Uninvited Writer profile image82
      Uninvited Writerposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Luckily you won't become pregnant so won't have to make that choice.

      1. livelonger profile image95
        livelongerposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Exactly. It's easy for men to take a position on abortion that they'll never be forced to abide by.

      2. Ralph Deeds profile image66
        Ralph Deedsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Hmmh? I've assumed Irish Observer was a woman?? The profile doesn't specify.

  23. theirishobserver. profile image61
    theirishobserver.posted 6 years ago

    Surely the right to life is the gift of God and not some hairy legged feminist smile

    1. Cagsil profile image59
      Cagsilposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      What god? Why don't you keep your religious beliefs out of other peoples' life. Not everyone believes like you and they do not require to do so either.

      Fine, you believe in a god. You need to be told how to live. Good for you, if you think that is best. You above all, should know what is BEST for you. But, just because you can do that for yourself, doesn't give you the power or the right to bestow your beliefs, as though it's truth for all.

      The Right to Life? Is a man made "right". It follows man-made Laws. It does not answer to your believed god.

    2. MelissaBarrett profile image61
      MelissaBarrettposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Then God can give birth to the child and raise it.

  24. TMMason profile image70
    TMMasonposted 6 years ago

    What makes you women so sure abortion does not effect a man? And why would you think it should not? It is his child you are mudering.

  25. Ralph Deeds profile image66
    Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago

    "The Beauty Queen Who Raped a Morman Man"

    http://www.salon.com/entertainment/movi … 9_7_30_110

 
working