At Least 25,000 Attend Anti-Abortion Vigil

Grayson

Chipboard wrote: »

The position of the pro choice side must rank as the least valid argument ever espoused;

I believe that all pregnant women should have the right to abort the baby developing inside them even though I was once a baby developing inside a pregnant woman and would not be able to make this argument at all if my mother had sought to exercise the right which I am now fighting so vehemently for.

It's like something from a Monty Python film, the scene in The Life of Brian where they are all queuing up for crucifixion maybe.

Pro choice people have repeatedly posted nasty comments about the age profile of the pro life side and statements that they are all religious zealots. I don't agree as I saw plenty of people of all ages at the recent vigil but I would counter that if the average age of the pro life side is any higher than the pro choice side it is because as people get older they see more friends and relations sick and dying and they experience more struggle and as a result they come to appreciate how precious life is. I suspect that it is also the case that a higher proportion of older people are religious but it doesn't follow from this that the people who are pro life are so because of their religious beliefs. Indeed I think Catholicism is the most a la carte religion in existence (look how many people who are practicing Catholics but don't subscribe to the Catholic Churches teachings on gay marriage, women priests, purgatory, confession...the list goes on) so how can anyone say that it is their religion that shapes the views of the pro life side.

I have always been pro life but recently someone close to me became ill and for a while it wasn't looking good but they survived. It was an horrendous time and it is only natural that I have a heightened awareness of how precious human life is after going through it. It is obvious from comments made in some posts that the posters are very young. Many young people don't have the life experience to make an informed decision about this. Instead they go for the 'me fein' option; have sex without taking precautions, hope for the best and if it doesn't work out resort to whatever means are required to solve the problem with absolute disregard for the consequences (note the italics because its a problem that 99 times out of a hundred has a fantastic outcome if left alone). I recognize that it may not be easy to go through with but everyone has struggle in their lives at one point or another and many people have a lot worse than an unwanted pregnancy. Just because medical science has found a way to make it all better doesn't mean we should all sign up to it.

Besides the bit slandering the pro choice group (Ironic since you started saying that they make wide sweeping assumptions).....

The bit in italics makes no sense. If my parents hadn't had sex, I wouldn't be here. If any of a infinite number of causal actions hadn't happened I wouldn't be here. In fact, by not going out tonight, I am in fact not possibly meeting a girl and not possibly impregnating her. Or would you refuse me that choice or the choice to avail of contraception.

and you never answered this
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=82817578&postcount=562
the reason I bring that up is because an embryo is not a baby. It's like the seed, but it's not a baby. And yes, we were all once seeds. But refusing a seed the chance to grow is not the same as uprooting a sapling.

As for Catholicism being a la carte, you're half right. There are many lapsed Catholics or young Catholics who attend mass at xmas and weddings. But the young are drifting farther away and that's why the number of people who are pro choice is increasing. The catholic church in ireland is finding the demographic of their flocks getting older and older.

And I don't see how you can say that a) there are a load of older people in the pro life group. and b) older people are more likely to be Catholics and not make a connection between a & b. For many many years the church dictated policy to it's flock and they dutifully followed, but now younger people are making their minds up for themselves and they're finding it harder and harder to believe fairytales told by old men in dresses. Men who will never have a family or children (Unless they break a few rules).

Grayson

btw, I think we can all agree that Mrs Browns boys is ****e.

smash

Chipboard wrote: »

How come so many pro choice people feel the need to attack pro life people for their views.

I don't think pro choice attack pro life for the sake of it. It's just very frustrating to hear you lot dismiss someone else's freedom of choice because of something you believe.

Magenta

smash wrote: »

But your claims were rubbish, you twisted a lot to make your case. You compared a very basic undeveloped life form to its fully mature counterpart purely on the basis that it retains it's primary DNA strand. It's like saying that an acorn is an oak tree... It isn't.

Next he'll be saying that sperm are human too and that men who masturbate are murderers.

Magenta

Chipboard wrote: »

The position of the pro choice side must rank as the least valid argument ever espoused;

Many young people don't have the life experience to make an informed decision about this. Instead they go for the 'me fein' option; have sex without taking precautions, hope for the best and if it doesn't work out resort to whatever means are required to solve the problem with absolute disregard for the consequences (note the italics because its a problem that 99 times out of a hundred has a fantastic outcome if left alone).

Here we go, the usual. Women who want abortions are just sluts who had unprotected sex.

What about rape victims, what about fatal foetal abnormalities, what about people who DID use contraception but it didn't work!

jaffacakesyum

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

Is abortion a legally recognised human right? Is it enshrined in the UN Declaration of Human Rights?

Why didn't you quote my whole post I wonder? Is it because I said this:

"In my opinion, having control over your own body is a human right"

It is my opinion that having control over my own body is a human right. It's not that shocking either. How would you feel if your sister or daughter was forced to do something to her own body that she didn't want, to go through the physical trials of pregnancy and giving birth; all for a baby she may not have had a choice in, all for a baby she does not want or cannot provide for?

And for the record, with a bit of luck, the UN may introduce this as a human right
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/un-human-rights-council-attempts-to-create-abortion-right

The thing is, I am pro-choice but I don't think I personally would have an abortion. But that is my choice. If you don't want an abortion, don't have one. Don't tell other people what to do with their lives.

Pompey Magnus

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

It is my opinion that having control over my own body is a human right. It's not that shocking either.

In your opinion should everyone have the right of complete control to do whatever they wish with their own body at whatever time they wish? In my opinion I am perfectly happy living in a society which denies everyone, myself included, of complete autonomy over our own bodies. Society has set limits on what you can do with your body and that limit is passed when your intention harms, or threatens to harm, another individual. It doesn't even have to be physical harm, for example you cannot begin to masturbate as you sit in a public park, you can't walk down Grafton Street in the nude and you can't urinate in the Frozen Food section of Dunnes. These are all examples of when every member of this society has been denied a certain amount of autonomy over their body in exchange for accepting the protection and benefits the loss of those rights to everyone else brings to them.

I do not regard the denial of abortion as being a double standard which discriminates against women in particular. As far as I am concerned any woman can have the right to allow another person insert a pair of forceps inside her uterus and have them twist it violently around as often as they like - provided the action does not harm another individual.

So don't give me that whole "Don't tell other people what to do with their lives".

Czarcasm

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

In your opinion should everyone have the right of complete control to do whatever they wish with their own body at whatever time they wish?

Pompey you have a habit of muddying the waters and shifting the goalposts by posing hypothetical and off topic questions which are completely unnecessary and only serve to deflect instead of answering the question posed. It's a classic spin doctor technique used to confuse.

In my opinion I am perfectly happy living in a society which denies everyone, myself included, of complete autonomy over our own bodies. Society has set limits on what you can do with your body and that limit is passed when your intention harms, or threatens to harm, another individual. It doesn't even have to be physical harm, for example you cannot begin to masturbate as you sit in a public park, you can't walk down Grafton Street in the nude and you can't urinate in the Frozen Food section of Dunnes. These are all examples of when every member of this society has been denied a certain amount of autonomy over their body in exchange for accepting the protection and benefits the loss of those rights to everyone else brings to them.

It's the state, not society, that sets limits on what you can and cannot do in return for the protection of the state. Society does not stop you doing any of these things. You can masturbate in public all you want, as long as you understand the consequences of your actions, which can include prosecution by the state under laws laid down by the state.

I do not regard the denial of abortion as being a double standard which discriminates against women in particular. As far as I am concerned any woman can have the right to allow another person insert a pair of forceps inside her uterus and have them twist it violently around as often as they like - provided the action does not harm another individual.

Using your logic then, which regards the unborn foetus as an individual, the developing foetus causes changes to a woman's body which many women consider harmful and unwanted consequences. Quite literally the chicken and egg scenario you've got for yourself there, and so the woman's rights should take precedence over the rights of the foetus, seeing as she existed before the foetus.

So don't give me that whole "Don't tell other people what to do with their lives".

I won't, you're perfectly entitled to your opinion, but you shouldn't expect that others should be happy to live by your moral standards. People are entitled to campaign for the state to change a law which they consider unjust. Successive governments have faffed about and played political football with the issue of abortion in the last 20 years since the X case and offered referendum after referendum in a "are you sure sure?" delaying tactic fashion, and the majority of the people in the state, society, if you will, exercised their rights by saying on numerous occasions and voted yes, yes we ARE sure.

To which successive governments have responded by coming back with "alright so, we'll just form another committee to draft up new legislation again", meanwhile women continue to travel abroad and take the risk of putting themselves outside the protection of the state, for a procedure that by your own definition, should be a right afforded to them in this country by the state.

OCorcrainn

Do not understand how being anti-abortion equates to being religious, a devout Catholic etc. Many atheists would be anti-abortion.

Pompey Magnus

Czarcasm wrote: »

Pompey you have a habit of muddying the waters and shifting the goalposts by posing hypothetical and off topic questions which are completely unnecessary and only serve to deflect instead of answering the question posed. It's a classic spin doctor technique used to confuse.

The only one's muddying the waters are those who continue to imply that pregnant women are somehow the only people who have restrictions set on what they chose to do with their bodies.

Using your logic then, which regards the unborn foetus as an individual, the developing foetus causes changes to a woman's body which many women consider harmful and unwanted consequences. Quite literally the chicken and egg scenario you've got for yourself there, and so the woman's rights should take precedence over the rights of the foetus, seeing as she existed before the foetus.

You are quite correct in pointing this out, I did leave myself open to that reply. I really should have been more careful and said "intentionally harm".

If you wish you can put this down as me moving the goalposts and I can't complain as it was my fault for not being specific enough even though I would hope you don't really suspect that I believe unintentional harming of another is viewed as being identical to intentional harming.

OCorcrainn wrote:

Do not understand how being anti-abortion equates to being religious, a devout Catholic etc. Many atheists would be anti-abortion.

The two don't equate, it is just beneficial to tar the anti-abortion side as being mindless followers of a Bronze Age morality and abortion as being the all new, clean and easy product of the Enlightenment. Personally I would argue that with the development of foetal imaging such as sonogram and the discovery of genetics, science has made it harder for a rationalist to argue for the dehumanising of a foetus than it would have been a few hundred years ago.

Lingua Franca

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

I do not regard the denial of abortion as being a double standard which discriminates against women in particular. As far as I am concerned any woman can have the right to allow another person insert a pair of forceps inside her uterus and have them twist it violently around as often as they like - provided the action does not harm another individual

What about the right of a woman to take a pill that will induce a miscarriage, since that is how the overwhelming majority of abortions occur these days, rather than the very vivid and inaccurate picture you're painting there. Even after that it's suction. The more accurate picture is not just manipulative enough for your purposes, I suppose, and there's always the risk of offending women who have had miscarriages.

Here, read up a wee bit: http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-uterine-forceps.htm Uterine forceps are used for removing polyps and fibroids and performing hysterectomies.

Pompey Magnus

Lingua Franca wrote: »

What about the right of a woman to take a pill that will induce a miscarriage, since that is how the overwhelming majority of abortions occur these days, rather than the very vivid and inaccurate picture you're painting there.

If your example had provided some kind of subtle exception to my argument that you managed to spot which would require clarification I would discuss it, but as it doesn't I won't.

Here, read up a wee bit: http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-uterine-forceps.htm Uterine forceps are used for removing polyps and fibroids and performing hysterectomies.

Thanks for providing that link, not sure what the purpose was though. I didn't deny they are also used for those purposes.

Lingua Franca

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

If your example had provided some kind of subtle exception to my argument that you managed to spot which would require clarification I would discuss it, but as it doesn't I won't.

What? This actually reads like you telling me you're not speaking to me!

I asked you about a woman's right to induce a miscarriage, and at the same time pointed out that you were using the most florid example with violent imagery to evoke an emotional response because the reality is too mundane for your purposes.

Pompey Magnus

Lingua Franca wrote: »

What? This actually reads like you telling me you're not speaking to me!

I'm more than happy to speak to you, what I was saying is that I'm not going to repeat myself anymore. This thread is getting increasingly tiresome with all the repetition, misquoting, misrepresentation and "Go back to your Bible" slurs so I am simply telling you that I have already made my answer clear and am not repeating it any more.

I asked you about a woman's right to induce a miscarriage, and at the same time pointed out that you were using the most florid example with violent imagery to evoke an emotional response because the reality is too mundane for your purposes.

I guess your definition of reality and mine must be two different things.

I don't deny my use of the example of the forceps dismembering the foetus was particularly stark, but I don't believe that makes it invalid, just as how your use of the abortion pill example should not be deemed invalid simply because it is found at the other extreme.

smash

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

I guess your definition of reality and mine must be two different things.

I don't deny my use of the example of the forceps dismembering the foetus was particularly stark, but I don't believe that makes it invalid, just as how your use of the abortion pill example should not be deemed invalid simply because it is found at the other extreme.

It is not another extreme. It's the normal way that the majority of abortions are carried out these days!

Czarcasm

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

The only one's muddying the waters are those who continue to imply that pregnant women are somehow the only people who have restrictions set on what they chose to do with their bodies.

But pregnant women and the damage done to their bodies is the subject of this discussion. Other people and their issues are a discussion for another thread.

You are quite correct in pointing this out, I did leave myself open to that reply. I really should have been more careful and said "intentionally harm".

If you wish you can put this down as me moving the goalposts and I can't complain as it was my fault for not being specific enough even though I would hope you don't really suspect that I believe unintentional harming of another is viewed as being identical to intentional harming.

I understood the context in which you meant it, it was just such a glaring faux pas on your part that I couldn't let it go unnoticed. I'm no wordsmith myself and I have no wish to turn the discussion into a pedants paradise.

I would also ask you to extend me the same courtesy in that I would not equate unintentional harming with intentional harming. That, if you remember, was a key characteristic of human development found in normal post birth development, that is not found in pre-birth development-

Czarcasm wrote: »

There actually IS one key characteristic found in normal post birth human development that is not found in normal pre-birth human development-

The ability to determine whether or not to sacrifice one's own life to save the life of another.

It depends on your own perspective whether or not you choose to believe that a woman who chooses to have an abortion, takes the decision as lightly as the anti-abortion campaign wants to make out. Using emotive language like that in your last post, and anti-abortion groups referring to abortion as murder, doesn't make a woman's decision any easier, hence why there is often the need for counselling afterwards. Counselling and support services I might add that lack the enormous resources available to anti-abortion groups.

The two don't equate, it is just beneficial to tar the anti-abortion side as being mindless followers of a Bronze Age morality and abortion as being the all new, clean and easy product of the Enlightenment. Personally I would argue that with the development of foetal imaging such as sonogram and the discovery of genetics, science has made it harder for a rationalist to argue for the dehumanising of a foetus than it would have been a few hundred years ago.

I don't think that's a fair assessment Pompey when BOTH lobby groups are guilty of dismissing the other side as morally bankrupt and murderers, etc.

From my own perspective, information brings enlightenment. An informed decision is better than both a knee-jerk panic reaction, or burying ones head in the sand and "letting nature take it's course".

Personally speaking a foetus has to become a human being first, before it can be dehumanised. Again at what point that stage of human development happens depends upon your perspective. I happen to believe that denying a woman the right to choose whether or not to continue or terminate a pregnancy she does not want, is the very definition of dehumanising, demoting her worth to nothing more than merely a reproductive organism.

That's not even to mention how dehumanising it is for a child to know they were merely the product of an unwanted pregnancy.

Loafing Oaf

OCorcrainn wrote: »

Do not understand how being anti-abortion equates to being religious, a devout Catholic etc. Many atheists would be anti-abortion.

Name me one prominent Irish pro-life activist who is an avowed atheist/agnostic.

old hippy

OCorcrainn wrote: »

Do not understand how being anti-abortion equates to being religious, a devout Catholic etc. Many atheists would be anti-abortion.

I've never met one, myself. I'm not saying that there aren't of course.