17 yr old girl not allowed an abortion

nesf

taconnol wrote:

Not so. The main force behind the anti-abortion or 'pro life' side is the catholic church, a mysogynistic influence if ever there was one.

Just because it is a misogynistic organisation doesn't mean that every act it performs is made on misogynistic grounds.

beanyb

Fair play to the judge. He made the right decision in the end.

Stark

nesf wrote:

Just because it is a misogynistic organisation doesn't mean that every act it performs is made on misogynistic grounds.

Some of them are peformed on homophobic grounds

Macha

Stark wrote:

Some of them are peformed on homophobic grounds

Hi-larious

Sam Vimes

Stark wrote:

Some of them are peformed on homophobic grounds

and some were performed on school grounds

Tar.Aldarion

taconnol wrote:

Hallelujah

For once the rights of a foetus won't be put ahead those of a fully grown woman.

I wonder would the law on abortion be different if men could get pregnant? No doubt

No, I imagine it may stop woimen coming out with idiot lines like this however.
'18:53 <+Anon> you're not a woman, you can't carry a child, you can't even IMAGINE how it must feel to lose a child directly after birth'

That's one sweet argument!

Time Magazine

You pro-death crew can scream and cheer all ye want, but the decision was based on the poor girl's right to travel (and the HSE's lack of right to hold her) rather than her right to have an abortion. Conclusion: status quo.

Lemming

nesf wrote:

Just because it is a misogynistic organisation doesn't mean that every act it performs is made on misogynistic grounds.

Actually ... I seem to recall mention in a similar thread on this in the Christianity forum that the church's "view" on abortion was introduced a couple of hundred years ago.

Interesting eh? In short, for a very long time it was permissable (or at least not a "sin"). So looks like God didn't make that particular decision now did he?

You're quite right that not every act it peforms is done so on misogynistic grounds, but by the same token, a lot of its acts really didn't consider women either. Perhaps not misogynistic by intent, but misogynistic by implication might be a better way to put it.

humanji

Ibid wrote:

You pro-death crew can scream and cheer all ye want, but the decision was based on the poor girl's right to travel (and the HSE's lack of right to hold her) rather than her right to have an abortion. Conclusion: status quo.

Bitter, much?

Boston

humanji wrote:

Bitter, much?

Well if you're not pro-life you must either be neutral or pro death.

seamus

Boston wrote:

Well if you're not pro-life you must either be neutral or pro death.

That assumes that there are only three standpoints. The issue is so infinitely grey that you can't really box most people, I reckon.

Being pro-something assumes that you believe that the "something" is superior to all other options. So to say someone is pro-death is to say that they believe that every child should be killed before birth. This is why the term pro-choice is used.

Of course, many people are neither pro-life or pro-choice. Few are completely neutral either. I would say that most people are either in the "Pro-life, except..." or "Pro-choice, except..." camps. Which makes them neither pro-life, neutral, or pro-choice.

Marksie

The judge severely critiscised the HSE, once again they have been shown to be a totally inept bunch.

Ibid is right in one aspect, it was about the right to travel rather than the abortion issue per se.

Still the pro choice banner in the papers with "keep your rosaries of my ovaries" was interesting.

In the end the judge made the correct decision.

I think if you look at this case on its own and what the outcome for the foetus was. It would have been cruel in the extreme to have forced it to its conclusion.
Those claiming the possibility of some miracle cure happening which would suddenly be made available and therefore have made termination a useless act, really had their heads up their own arses.

WindSock

Boston wrote:

Well if you're not pro-life you must either be neutral or pro death.

Thats just like me saying- Well if you're not pro-choice you must be either neutral or pro-controlling over ones business which has no direct effect on yours.

Boston

boreds wrote:

Thats just like me saying- Well if you're not pro-choice you must be either neutral or pro-controlling over ones business which has no direct effect on yours.

Thats an arguement regularly used, in fact it's been used several times in this thread that pro-life men just want to keep women down.

WindSock

Boston wrote:

Thats an arguement regularly used, in fact it's been used several times in this thread that pro-life men just want to keep women down.

I never bought the issue of Gender and Inequality up in my last post.

Boston

boreds wrote:

I never bought the issue of Gender and Inequality up in my last post.

irrelavent comment. Gender control is a general case of controlling and is often an accusation thrown about the place.

humanji

Boston wrote:

irrelavent comment. Gender control is a general case of controlling and is often an accusation thrown about the place.

And is often valid.

Boston

humanji wrote:

And is often valid.

You've not got a penis, any opinions you may have on the motivations or rights/wrongs of male actions are therefore invalid.

PeakOutput

Ibid wrote:

You pro-death crew can scream and cheer all ye want, but the decision was based on the poor girl's right to travel (and the HSE's lack of right to hold her) rather than her right to have an abortion. Conclusion: status quo.

while people decided to take it upon themseleves to argue for and against abortion in this thread the issue was always her right to travel............get with the programme

Boston

PeakOutput wrote:

while people decided to take it upon themseleves to argue for and against abortion in this thread the issue was always her right to travel............get with the programme

Bah, you where all down with the pro death crew at the start.

WindSock

Boston wrote:

irrelavent comment. Gender control is a general case of controlling and is often an accusation thrown about the place.

Irrelevant? You are the one putting words in my mouth. I didnt bring up Gender at all, that is something you are doing and while doing so referring to someone elses argument. I have my own Ideas of Gender control and Inequality but I am not discussing it in this case.
My post was simply countering your previous one about non pro lifers=pro death. You pulled that one out of your arse by using the opposite of life, I used the same method to say not being able to choose is a method of anothers control. The Gender of the controller however is irrelevant to that particular discussion.

humanji

Boston wrote:

You've not got a penis, any opinions you may have on the motivations or rights/wrongs of male actions are therefore invalid.

You may have to search for it, but I can assure you, my penis is there!

Seriously though, what's up with you? You quote a comment and then reply with something completely irrelevant and then say that the original comment was irrelevant.

Time Magazine

humanji wrote:

Bitter, much?

Not at all. I tend to refer to the camps as either pro-death bitches or anti-choice bitches. Less of yer PC round here! The moral arguments remain the same no matter what they're called.

PeakOutput wrote:

while people decided to take it upon themseleves to argue for and against abortion in this thread the issue was always her right to travel

Not quite. There was an issue of whether the severely disabled (i.e. practically dead) child could be aborted. Furthermore my point was to those who were in the "rosaries off my ovaries" brigade.

............get with the programme

Lol. Whatevs! :rolleyes:

humanji

Ibid wrote:

Less of yer PC round here!

lol that's what I like to hear

Boston

boreds wrote:

Irrelevant? You are the one putting words in my mouth. I didnt bring up Gender at all, that is something you are doing and while doing so referring to someone elses argument. I have my own Ideas of Gender control and Inequality but I am not discussing it in this case.
My post was simply countering your previous one about non pro lifers=pro death. You pulled that one out of your arse by using the opposite of life, I used the same method to say not being able to choose is a method of anothers control. The Gender of the controller however is irrelevant to that particular discussion.

You said

Well if you're not pro-choice you must be either neutral or pro-controlling over ones business which has no direct effect on yours.

Now the pro-life = pro-controlling argument is often used and has been used in this thread. It has been used in relation to men just desiring to control women. whether or not you personally used the argument is irrelevant to my assertion that it is in fact used by some. I really can't put it in simpler terms then that, I suggest if you can't follow the line or argument you switch off your computer and place it safety in a bath tub of water, then drown yourself in same bath tub, you pro-death hippy.

humanji - Prove it

Ibid - Less of your Progressive Democrats Bull****. Ibid believes in eugenics everybody. Feicing Nazi...

JC 2K3

Commander Vimes wrote:

and some were performed on school grounds

Witty and worthy of quotation.

Ibid wrote:

You pro-death crew can scream and cheer all ye want, but the decision was based on the poor girl's right to travel (and the HSE's lack of right to hold her) rather than her right to have an abortion. Conclusion: status quo.

A death is a death to us, no matter what the circumstances it's always a reason for celebration.

*Adds one more to death tally.

(because that's the way all us pro-choicers think)

WindSock

Boston wrote:

Now the pro-life = pro-controlling argument is often used and has been used in this thread. It has been used in relation to men just desiring to control women. whether or not you personally used the argument is irrelevant to my assertion that it is in fact used by some. I really can't put it in simpler terms then that, I suggest if you can't follow the line or argument you switch off your computer and place it safety in a bath tub of water, then drown yourself in same bath tub, you pro-death hippy.

Quoting a line of mine out of context then regarding it as irrelevant just because you decided to put another face on it unbeknownst to me that it was your standing viewpoint on previous arguments made by others, is no basis for an argument and no reason to condescend me with an ironic insult.

Boston

boreds wrote:

Quoting a line of mine out of context then regarding it as irrelevant just because you decided to put another face on it unbeknownst to me that it was your standing viewpoint on previous arguments made by others, is no basis for an argument and no reason to condescend me with an ironic insult.

It's plenty of basis