Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

bumper234

eireannBEAR wrote: »

this is fiction and no i love boards.ie and im amazed out of all the threads i have seen that this is the only one thats out of control.

its constitutes online bullying,to many posters cant behave themselves.

It seems to be doing quite well and is moderated fairly but toughly. Maybe it's because you are a minority poster in a heated emotional debate that you feel this way. Personally i see that you bring a lot of it down on your own head but i am sure you will twist that into something it's not.

Anyway it's saturday night i have a hot date with a young lady, money in my pocket and a 3 pack of condoms (just in case:D) so i will bow out and leave you all to it. Play nice and stay safe.

Doctor Strange

bumper234 wrote: »

It seems to be doing quite well and is moderated fairly but toughly. Maybe it's because you are a minority poster in a heated emotional debate that you feel this way. Personally i see that you bring a lot of it down on your own head but i am sure you will twist that into something it's not.

Anyway it's saturday night i have a hot date with a young lady, money in my pocket and a 3 pack of condoms (just in case:D) so i will bow out and leave you all to it. Play nice and stay safe.

Date with Pam and her five sisters, aye? :pac:

Turtwig

eireannBEAR wrote: »

jernal i answered this question,i dont believe in abortion in rape cases.

can you remove this comment its untrue not to mention he names me in his post of false accusations.

Have to say it's not a very constructive answer as the poster wants more detail.
Nope, not going to delete it. Nothing inflammatory, defamatory or personal in it.

In future, don't make any posts asking for stuff to be moderate. Discussion of moderation is to be kept out of thread as it just stifles discussion. If you have an issue with a post report it.

Also this thread is going no where. Given the sensitive nature of the debate and strong claim both sides feel towards human rights, the thread has been excellent.

Turtwig

No more discussion of moderation in this particular thread.

_rebelkid

Moving on, am I the only one not surprised that the anti-abortion side dropped Lucinda Creighton like a hot turd when she voted for the legislation?

Secondly, the ammendants that have been proposed; bar one by LC which lowers prison sentence from 14 to 5 years, all basically strip the legislation of its intended power. One basically says the foetus must be put first.

On mobile, so will link in later post

The Black Oil

Re the march today, must be great to have so many professionally printed posters, etc.

Breda O' Brien said Lucinda was inspiring and articulate...

TheChizler

_rebelkid wrote: »

Moving on, am I the only one not surprised that the anti-abortion side dropped Lucinda Creighton like a hot turd when she voted for the legislation?

Secondly, the ammendants that have been proposed; bar one by LC which lowers prison sentence from 14 to 5 years, all basically strip the legislation of its intended power. One basically says the foetus must be put first.

On mobile, so will link in later post

'We're ok with this legislation as long as we remove the entire point of this legislation'

Corkfeen

Lucinda is liable to vote against it at a later stage so voting yes isn't really support.

Chattastrophe!

antiskeptic wrote: »

And so, in the case of a woman pregnant by rape, if nothing at all is done by anybody and the child is nevertheless being carried, then there can be no talk of forcing.

The only work being done is the work done by force of nature. It is insisting the woman carry the child.

Same as cancer, left untreated, will kill a person. Another force of nature.

Do you think people should be denied the option to receive medical treatment for cancer?

antiskeptic

Tlachtga wrote: »

Same as cancer, left untreated, will kill a person. Another force of nature.

Indeed

Do you think people should be denied the option to receive medical treatment for cancer?

No.

What has that to do with incorrect use of the term force?

antiskeptic

IT-Guy wrote: »

Wow, status quo bias and an appeal to nature all in one post! Nature doesn't 'insist' on anything outside of the confines of your viewpoint, the fact that a pregnancy may arise from a rape is no reason that said pregnancy must be seen through. Have you problems with anything else that's 'unnatural' or is it just abortion?

Denying access to abortion services that are widely available in other countries may not qualify as exerting force but it is actively obstructing access in a deliberate fashion. A very typical passive aggressive attitude towards something that people can't or don't want to deal with, in this instance abortion.

I was merely pointing out that incorrect use of terms makes for poor debating. There are enough angles of approach for the pro choice side without using an erroneous one.

antiskeptic

The Black Oil wrote: »

Re the march today, must be great to have so many professionally printed posters, etc.

Breda O' Brien said Lucinda was inspiring and articulate...

Indeed. It prevents the kind of nonsense you sometimes see (such as a sign from the pro choice demonstration talking off how the legislation "protects life" when it clearly is a bit more nuanced than that)

Nodin

antiskeptic wrote: »

I was merely pointing out that incorrect use of terms makes for poor debating. There are enough angles of approach for the pro choice side without using an erroneous one.

No, as far as I can tell you're indulging in sophistry. A woman who is not allowed terminate her pregnancy is de facto being forced to continue it. I trust you're familiar with such expressions as 'By force of law' etc?

Brown Bomber

Is anyone else familiar with the work of Dr Bernard Nathanson? He was a leading pro-life activist and American medical doctor who had carried out 10s of thousands of abortions. With the advent of the ultrasound he came to the conclusion that he had been murdering unborn children.

I read a book of his belonging to my grandfather when I was staying with in my teens and it was what convinced me that abortion is wrong.

While I was googling to try and find something that would help me recall his name I found this film involving him. Warning: Graphic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gON-8PP6zgQ

The Silent Scream Complete Version - Abortion as Infanticide

Dr. Bernard Nathanson's classic video that shocked the world. He explains the procedure of a suction abortion, followed by an actual first trimester abortion as seen through ultrasound. The viewer can see the child's pathetic attempts to escape the suction curette as her heart rate doubles, and a "silent scream" as her body is torn apart.

Doctor Strange

He came to an incorrect conclusion if he was carrying out pre-12 week abortions. The foetus has no brain until that point, so referring to it as a child is biologically incorrect.

antiskeptic

Unforgettable _ Fire wrote: »

He came to an incorrect conclusion if he was carrying out pre-12 week abortions. The foetus has no brain until that point, so referring to it as a child is biologically incorrect.

Probably what is going to matter most is whether his is constitutionally correct. In which case child/person/human being .. they'll all do here.

antiskeptic

Nodin wrote: »

No, as far as I can tell you're indulging in sophistry. A woman who is not allowed terminate her pregnancy is de facto being forced to continue it.

No one is saying she is not allowed to terminate it. What is (or has up to date been said) is that the State isn't going to provide that service for her or allow individuals to carry out that service in the state. The charge of sophistry is a lazy way of saying you don't like the difference.

I trust you're familiar with such expressions as 'By force of law' etc?

No. But if it has application here then by all means make a point.

Corkfeen

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Is anyone else familiar with the work of Dr Bernard Nathanson? He was a leading pro-life activist and American medical doctor who had carried out 10s of thousands of abortions. With the advent of the ultrasound he came to the conclusion that he had been murdering unborn children.

I read a book of his belonging to my grandfather when I was staying with in my teens and it was what convinced me that abortion is wrong.

While I was googling to try and find something that would help me recall his name I found this film involving him. Warning: Graphic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gON-8PP6zgQ

The silent scream is viewed to be a propaganda film at this point and has been debunked in its dishonest depiction. It just got adopted by pro-life groups and was claimed to be absolute fact but hasn't been taken seriously since.

http://articles.latimes.com/1985-08-17/entertainment/ca-2276_1_silent-scream

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1985/3/11/manipulative-silent-scream-pbto-the-editors/

Nodin

antiskeptic wrote: »

No one is saying she is not allowed to terminate it. What is (or has up to date been said) is that the State isn't going to provide that service to here. The charge of sophistry is a lazy way of saying you don't like the difference..

No, the charge of sophistry is because that's exactly what it is.

Not only does the state not provide the service, it uses force of law to prevent that service being provided. It will enact penalties against those who do so.

IT-Guy

I remember being shown Silent Scream when I was 14 by a family friend. I being young and fairly innocent became vehemently anti-abortion for a few years. Thankfully with exposure to the other side of the debate in college and conversations with many people I slowly saw how the pro-choice side was correct. Looking back on Silent Scream, what stands out to me now was the misogyny of the guy who made me watch it (not just for showing me the video, his whole attitude was anti-women) but there's probably no connection there...:pac:

Brown Bomber

Unforgettable _ Fire wrote: »

He came to an incorrect conclusion if he was carrying out pre-12 week abortions. The foetus has no brain until that point, so referring to it as a child is biologically incorrect.

His opinion was that life began at conception. He also carried out thousands and thousands of abortions on demand after and much after this time.

Doctor Strange

Brown Bomber wrote: »

His opinion was that life began at conception. He also carried out thousands and thousands of abortions on demand after and much after this time.

Well, to be frank, his opinion is wrong. How can something without any form of nervous system be considered alive?

Brown Bomber

Corkfeen wrote: »

The silent scream is viewed to be a propaganda film at this point and has been debunked in its dishonest depiction. It just got adopted by pro-life groups and was claimed to be absolute fact but hasn't been taken seriously since.

http://articles.latimes.com/1985-08-17/entertainment/ca-2276_1_silent-scream

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1985/3/11/manipulative-silent-scream-pbto-the-editors/

With respect, I am not going to just take your word for it. Could you be more specific?

Brown Bomber

Unforgettable _ Fire wrote: »

Well, to be frank, his opinion is wrong. How can something without any form of nervous system be considered alive?

I can't speak for him but he has spoken for himself.

THE THIRD KEY TACTIC WAS THE DENIGRATION AND SUPPRESSION OF ALL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE THAT LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION

I am often asked what made me change my mind. How did I change from prominent abortionist to pro-life advocate? In 1973, I became director of obstetrics of a large hospital in New York City and had to set up a prenatal research unit, just at the start of a great new technology which we now use every day to study the foetus in the womb. A favourite pro- abortion tactic is to insist that the definition of when life begins is impossible; that the question is a theological or moral or philosophical one, anything but a scientific one. Foetology makes it undeniably evident that life begins at conception and requires all the protection and safeguards that any of us enjoy. Why, you may well ask, do some American doctors who are privy to the findings of foetology, discredit themselves by carrying out abortions? Simple arithmetic at $300 a time, 1.55 million abortions means an industry generating $500,000,000 annually, of which most goes into the pocket of the physician doing the abortion. It is clear that permissive abortion is purposeful destruction of what is undeniably human life. It is an impermissible act of deadly violence. One must concede that unplanned pregnancy is a wrenchingly difficult dilemma, but to look for its solution in a deliberate act of destruction is to trash the vast resourcefulness of human ingenuity, and to surrender the public weal to the classic utilitarian answer to social problems.

antiskeptic

Nodin wrote: »

Not only does the state not provide the service, it uses force of law to prevent that service being provided. It will enact penalties against those who do so.

Which still doesn't force a woman to carry the child. I'm afraid.

Corkfeen

Brown Bomber wrote: »

With respect, I am not going to just take your word for it. Could you be more specific?

Eh, you could read the links which I provided that detail the issues. But I'll detail it sure....

• He shows late term stillbirths etc but implies that it is equivalant of a 12 week abortion
• Low resolution cameras are used so a narrative of pain and anguish is easier to create, obstreticians struggled to reach same conclusions as narrator
• A twelve or fourteen week foetus is not capable of feeling pain
• Fetal movements are portrayed as pain when it's more of a reflex.
• It's an emotive piece that doesn't rely on any actual facts. There is no silent scream or anything of the sort....

IT-Guy

antiskeptic wrote: »

I was merely pointing out that incorrect use of terms makes for poor debating. There are enough angles of approach for the pro choice side without using an erroneous one.

And you did this in a post filled with fallacies whilst berating other people for incorrect use of terms. Not doing anything where there is more than a reasonable argument TO do something (in this case enact legislation as voted for by the people in 2 referenda) at no risk to yourself is either laziness or moral cowardice. Neither are attributes worthy of a modern supposedly secular democracy but given the church's influence in state affairs over the years, unsurprising and unwelcome. The current status quo you claim is not exerting force is anti-women and pro birth at all costs. I'd like to hear an honest argument from you to the contrary.

Turtwig

antiskeptic wrote: »

Which still doesn't force a woman to carry the child. I'm afraid.

But she has been raped, she is pregnant and the law is requiring her to see that pregnancy through to its conclusion.

smokingman

With regard to something that was touched on in the earlier "obfuscation", I am of the opinion that some, if not many of the anti-choice gang actually do, genuinely think that pro-choice people want to make people have abortions.
I suppose it's easier to paint that side as "evil" and all that makey-uppy stuff used to demonize other human beings by absolutists, when they picture a pro-choice group pushing women into abortion clinics and performing the surgery themselves.

I personally think it's the institutionalized lack of personal responsibility that incites this view. If you can get to this heaven gaff by saying a few words in your head to get off the hook, surely this makes it easy for them to project their given absolutist morals to a situation without any real consideration of the actual complications, intricacies and repercussions in the first place.....sure say a prayer and everything resets. Although maybe the lack of personal responsibility makes real personal responsibility abhorrent/incomprehensible?

_rebelkid

RTE article on amendments

http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0705/460729-abortion-legislation