NationStates Jolt Archive

About a week ago, an 17 year old teen's plight was made public when she was denied the right to see an abortion in Britain after the HSE acquired an injunction to prevent her from travelling. And in a show of good will, the courts have ruled in her favour, allowing for her to seek the abortion she wanted.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6639673.stm

Good to know that they came to their senses.

I am fully confident that we at NSG have helped change their minds with our reasoned arguments :D

I think some NSers owe an apology to Ireland.

yes...well....good for her.

I think some NSers owe an apology to Ireland.

Don't look at me. I was a good girl and only picked on the assholes.

Yay! That makes me happy. I actually had a nightmare about giving birth to a full-grown zombie with a huge part of its head missing. I'm glad this girl doesn't have to go through any more of this trauma.

It's also good to know that public knowledge and media can have positive effects when someone with too much power makes an absurd decision. Usually it just feels like the media does nothing or makes things worse.

About a week ago, an 17 year old teen's plight was made public when she was denied the right to see an abortion in Britain after the HSE acquired an injunction to prevent her from travelling. And in a show of good will, the courts have ruled in her favour, allowing for her to seek the abortion she wanted.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6639673.stm

I don't think it could be called a 'show of good will' since they agreed with her argument.

I don't think it could be called a 'show of good will' since they agreed with her argument.

True. Bad word choice.

Good to know that they came to their senses.Pretty late. And what about next time?
Will the stupid law be changed?

Good. Common sense prevailed. I'm not surprised though, had the case before the High Court been about abortion and not the right to travel, it would have ended differently. But with the current question, it really couldn't have gone any other way.

Pretty late. And what about next time?
Will the stupid law be changed?

It wasn't late at all. Also, there is no law preventing travel. It is constitutionally protected. That was the point.

Unless you meant 'stupid law' re: free for all abortions. Ireland has some of the most conservative abortion laws in Europe, alongside Poland.

Ireland has some of the most conservative abortion laws in Europe, alongside Poland.For what purpose?

For what purpose?

We're a fairly conservative nation. Or were, at least. Up until the late '70s the Catholic Church still held great sway over society.

For what purpose?
For what purpose, what?

What is the purpose of the laws? Why does Ireland have such laws? Why does Poland have such laws? Why did people agree to it? Do people agree with it?

Good news :)

Good news :)
Good news indeed.

if only it was Christmas...

though Ireland's still on my naughty list for having to get all the media attention before it decided to side with humanity

For what purpose, what?

What is the purpose of the laws? Why does Ireland have such laws? Why does Poland have such laws? Why did people agree to it? Do people agree with it?
Law always have a purpose. Laws are made to achieve something. So what is the purpose of laws against any form of abortion? Except being able to exercise control over the women and their bodies?

When it comes to abortion, or anything to do with a woman's body, only one person gets to decide: the woman.
Judges, the majority, and anyone else can go fuck themselves.qft

Law always have a purpose. Laws are made to achieve something. So what is the purpose of laws against any form of abortion? Except being able to exercise control over the women and their bodies?

The reason I asked was because you answered with an incomplete question. Next time specify.

Ok, we'll time travel back to 1982 when the referendum was and ask those who voted shall we? Also, we'll check the exact phrasing of the question - becuase it is never, ever as simple as "Shall we legalise abortion?"

Even referenda are political and you must look to who was in power at the time.

Good news :)What? Where are we going? Will there be cake? [/Fututama]

Law always have a purpose. Laws are made to achieve something. So what is the purpose of laws against any form of abortion? Except being able to exercise control over the women and their bodies?
To stop people from killing their unborn children, I would wager... [/devils advocate]

I was confident that it would turn out this way, I was just worried they'd take too long about it. This is good news.

Now they just need to find the idiots who actually created this problem and fire their asses from the HSE.

About a week ago, an 17 year old teen's plight was made public when she was denied the right to see an abortion in Britain after the HSE acquired an injunction to prevent her from travelling. And in a show of good will, the courts have ruled in her favour, allowing for her to seek the abortion she wanted.


YAY! She gets to kill her baby!

YAY! She gets to kill her baby!:rolleyes: and?

For what purpose?

What purpose do you think 'conseravtive abortion laws' would serve?

Hints in the question........

YAY! She gets to kill her baby!

Why shouldn't she be able to? It will give the Christopher Reeve zombie much needed food.

:rolleyes: and?


I was cheering y'all on.

Congratulations!

By this time tomorrow the "doctor" will be ramming a poison needle into the heart of an unborn child.

Why shouldn't she be able to? It will give the Christopher Reeve zombie much needed food.

ROTFLMFAO

Send a private message to my nation; r0cka.

I have a great free source for southpark videos online.

I was cheering y'all on.

Congratulations!

By this time tomorrow the "doctor" will be ramming a poison needle into the heart of an unborn child.And? What's your point?

I was cheering y'all on.

Congratulations!

By this time tomorrow the "doctor" will be ramming a poison needle into the heart of an unborn child.

Correction: An unborn parasite. And one that would be dead inside 3 days after it would be missing part of its brain and skull. But hey, life is life right?

ROTFLMFAO

Send a private message to my nation; r0cka.

I have a great free source for southpark videos online.

I have a site to get south park videos as well. Great show, especially that episode. :)

YAY! She gets to kill her baby!

Saves her the risks affiliated with giving birth, saves the child from living a maximum of three days in pain. The baby (that will be born without a brain) is doomed anyway, why risk the mother as well?

Saves her the risks affiliated with giving birth, saves the child from living a maximum of three days in pain. The baby (that will be born without a brain) is doomed anyway, why risk the mother as well?For the sake of religion and/or the oh so high morals some seem to hoard.

For the sake of the oh so high morals some seem to hoard.

A crime of which both sides are guilty, it seems.

A crime of which both sides are guilty, it seems.

How are both sides guilty?

By this time tomorrow the "doctor" will be ramming a poison needle into the heart of an unborn child.

Indeed. So why is that a bad thing ? Remember - if the pregnancy would not be terminated the "child' would be born without a brain, and die within a few days - if not already stillborn. There is absolutely nothing that can be done for it.

Do you really wish to torture the mother even more by forcing her to carry it to term ? For what purpose ?

How are both sides guilty?

Think.

The pro-life claims that it is morally repugnant to kill an unborn child,

The pro-choice claims that it is morally repugnant to take the choice away from the mother.

Both sides claim the moral high ground. It is natural to do so; one side is not more guilty than the other.

The pro-life claims that it is morally repugnant to kill an unborn child

That is the general pro-life stance. This debate however is about the question if a woman should be forced to carry a dead baby inside her for 9 months and risk infertility, for reasons noone has bothered to explain sofar.

That is the general pro-life stance. This debate however is about the question if a woman should be forced to carry a dead baby inside her for 9 months and risk infertility, for reasons noone has bothered to explain sofar.

The only possible argument is religious. By some lights, by allowing an abortion (ANY abortion, even ones that would kill the mother) the mother is damned to everlasting hell.

Thankfully, most of the world is sane instead.

That is the general pro-life stance. This debate however is about the question if a woman should be forced to carry a dead baby inside her for 9 months and risk infertility, for reasons noone has bothered to explain sofar.

Then isn't it morally upright to suggest that she not be forced to carry the child to term?

The only possible argument is religious. By some lights, by allowing an abortion (ANY abortion, even ones that would kill the mother) the mother is damned to everlasting hell.

The act of abortion itself, regardless of what gets aborted, is the reason for everlasting hell ?
If that would be true it implies Gods concern is NOT for the unborn children, but for control of the female body. Which forms of Christianity adhere to such an interpretation ?

Then isn't it morally upright to suggest that she not be forced to carry the child to term?

Depends. I still haven't heard the oppositions reasoning here. It is theoretically possible that I can be swayed.
Sofar however my stance is that torture solely for the sake of torture is wrong. I admit that is somewhat morally upright, yes.

The act of abortion itself, regardless of what gets aborted, is the reason for everlasting hell ?
If that would be true it implies Gods concern is NOT for the unborn children, but for control of the female body. Which forms of Christianity adhere to such an interpretation ?

I've encountered the statement (or a similar one) in a surprisingly wide number of denominations. These include relatively mainsteam Methodists and Anglicans, as well as Catholics, Greek Orthodox and Presbyterian tracts on the subject.

I don't know that any of those groups as a whole hold to that interpretation (which is derived from the concept that Abortion is equal to murder as a mortal sin) but certainly some of their more conservative factions do.

Hooray!

About a week ago, an 17 year old teen's plight was made public when she was denied the right to see an abortion in Britain after the HSE acquired an injunction to prevent her from travelling. And in a show of good will, the courts have ruled in her favour, allowing for her to seek the abortion she wanted.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6639673.stm

Thats so sad.

Abortion is like shooting a baby in the head

Depends. I still haven't heard the oppositions reasoning here. It is theoretically possible that I can be swayed.
Sofar however my stance is that torture solely for the sake of torture is wrong. I admit that is somewhat morally upright, yes.

Why the reticence admitting what you believe?

Now the point, such as it is, to all this is simply no side can claim the other to have incorrectly claimed the moral high ground. Morals are such subjective things, often both sides have the "high ground." Though it helps if you can persuade your minions that you, in fact, are more justified in your belief.

Of course, I am not a part of this morality stuff. I guess that makes me immoral from all points of view, eh? :D

Think.

The pro-life claims that it is morally repugnant to kill an unborn child,

The pro-choice claims that it is morally repugnant to take the choice away from the mother.

Both sides claim the moral high ground. It is natural to do so; one side is not more guilty than the other.Pro-life means actually pro-control. And yes, they are considerably more guilty than the pro-choicers.

I've encountered the statement (or a similar one) in a surprisingly wide number of denominations. These include relatively mainsteam Methodists and Anglicans, as well as Catholics, Greek Orthodox and Presbyterian tracts on the subject.

So, if a married, Christian woman gets pregnant and discovers that the fetus has died inside her and that carrying it to term means she will become infertile - she must choose infertility according to those denominations ?

Pro-life means actually pro-control. And yes, they are considerably more guilty than the pro-choicers.

And pro-choice actually means pro-death. How far should we take this?

The fact that you categorized the pro-life as pro-control suggests that you do, in fact, claim the moral high ground.

Those who seek to "control" are simply more vocal about explicitly saying they have the "moral high ground," which, from their perspective, they do.

You have just proven that actions can speak louder than words.

Why the reticence admitting what you believe?

As I said: I can in theory be swayed.

So, if a married, Christian woman gets pregnant and discovers that the fetus has died inside her and that carrying it to term means she will become infertile - she must choose infertility according to those denominations ?

That's my understanding, yes. They'd probably pass it off as "God's Will".

One of the truisms I live by: Never underestimate the willful stupidity of the believer.

And pro-choice actually means pro-death. How far should we take this?

The fact that you categorized the pro-life as pro-control suggests that you do, in fact, claim the moral high ground.

Those who seek to "control" are simply more vocal about explicitly saying they have the "moral high ground," which, from their perspective, they do.

You have just proven that actions can speak louder than words.If the pro-lifers were really pro life, they'd care for what happens to the babies after they are born. But since they don't it's pretty obvious that all they really want is to exercise control over the women in question.

Thats so sad.

Abortion is like shooting a baby in the head
No, it isn't. Especially not in this case because this baby doesn't have a head. It's anencephalic.

And pro-choice actually means pro-death. How far should we take this?
Pro-choice is also pro-life depending on the situation because you're not telling the woman what she can and can't do with her body. You're letting her decide and in the end, it may wind up being a pro-life stance because you didn't tell her that she couldn't keep the unborn child. Or if the foetus' existence in the woman's womb is a danger to her, you've saved her life so that she may go on to have a child when her body is able to sustain itself in that condition.

About a week ago, an 17 year old teen's plight was made public when she was denied the right to see an abortion in Britain after the HSE acquired an injunction to prevent her from travelling. And in a show of good will, the courts have ruled in her favour, allowing for her to seek the abortion she wanted.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6639673.stm

About time.

Pro-choice is also pro-life depending on the situation because you're not telling the woman what she can and can't do with her body. You're letting her decide and in the end, it may wind up being a pro-life stance because you didn't tell her that she couldn't keep the unborn child. Or if the foetus' existence in the woman's womb is a danger to her, you've saved her life so that she may go on to have a child when her body is able to sustain itself in that condition.

You're right.
And pro-life is thus allowing the child a chance to make its own decisions.

Perspective is everything.

You're right.
And pro-life is thus allowing the child a chance to make its own decisions.

Perspective is everything.

I challenge you to stick a microphone up a pregnant woman's vagina, ask the fetus for a decision and get one. About anything.

Did anyone else notice that the three "17 year old" threads were all right next to each other?

Before I posted this, of course.

We're a fairly conservative nation. Or were, at least. Up until the late '70s the Catholic Church still held great sway over society.

Hah, shame on you. I'm from spain, and they have little sway over here XD they say a lot of things, they still commit pedophilia, but hey, they can do nothing to you if you're not one of them.

(ANY abortion, even ones that would kill the mother)


Is it safe to assume you mean terminating pregnancies that will kill the mother, and not giving mothers abortions that will kill them?

Thats so sad.

Abortion is like shooting a baby in the head

Only different!

I think some NSers owe an apology to Ireland.
Though to be fair, if Ireland was a sensible place, they'd allow abortions on their soil so nobody would have to leave the country to have an abortion.

Thats so sad.

Abortion is like shooting a baby in the head
You didn't read the article or why this young woman was seeking an abortion did you?

I have a site to get south park videos as well. Great show, especially that episode. :)

Does yours have tons of Aqua Teen?

Mine does! I bet we're talking about the same site.

Mine does! I bet we're talking about the same site.

I think you should send me the link so I can check to make sure its legal :p

Thats so sad.

Abortion is like shooting a baby in the head

Get back under your bridge tr0ll.

No offence to the Irish, but Ireland does have a few social problems, not counting the Northern Ireland issues. I think its good that the courts a starting to rule against the church's opinion which has pretty much dominated Ireland since the day the snakes were driven out.

Thats so sad.

Abortion is like shooting a baby in the head

Or, in this case, like shooting thin air.

And pro-choice actually means pro-death. How far should we take this?

Except that it doesn't. In fact, it is perfectly possible (and fairly common) for a person to be both pro-choice and pro-life (or anti-abortion).

However, the political viewpoint generally referred to as "pro-life" takes it further than being in favor of carrying to term or against abortion. Instead, they seek to control others by enforcing that viewpoint upon them. The only thing that really sets them apart from many pro-choicers is that wish to control others.

YAY! She gets to kill her baby!

And they say that the brainless can't survive outside the womb for more than three days.

Thats so sad.

Abortion is like shooting a baby in the head

What's sad is responding without actually reading the link and understanding the story.

So, if a married, Christian woman gets pregnant and discovers that the fetus has died inside her and that carrying it to term means she will become infertile - she must choose infertility according to those denominations ?

Ridiculous. (And that's coming from a Catholic, btw.)

Ridiculous. (And that's coming from a Catholic, btw.)

Do you think we could get you elected pope?

Do you think we could get you elected pope?

Highly unlikely. I'm 'just' a woman.

Highly unlikely. I'm 'just' a woman.

I heard somewhere there's been a woman pope.


But people noticed when she got pregnant...