Prolife Campaign on Protection of Life in Pregnancy Bill Superthread

Bannasidhe

RDM_83 again wrote: »

I was addressing the topic of this thread in that I was pointing out how your criticism of YD is either invalid or hypocritical due to your expressed views on the treatment of other topics, how is that not addressing the topic of the thread or can posts not be challenged

The fact you haven't engaged or refuted my point in relation to this would lead me to conclude your just arguing from a hypocritical stand point because of your personal beliefs, which is a disappointment as I would have thought that rationality rather than belief would be central to you?

PS expecting consistency in relation to the Irish civil service is asking a lot, Social Welfare can judge you as a def facto married couple where as Revenue will not.

Should a feminist organisation make a statement I disagree with I can, will and have stated that - unless you can prove otherwise you are really just using this as an excuse to attack me rather than debate this issue.

So either prove I am being hypocritical or withdraw that remark.

jill_valentine

robman60 wrote: »

Absolutely not! I would always prioritise the mother's life over the fetus' life.

I don't follow Youth Defence so I'm not positive, but I'm pretty sure their position is to save both lives if possible, but allow medically necessary interventions which may lead to the unborn's death.

As far as I can tell, their position is to pretend that there can be no circumstances in which abortion can save a woman's life in the first place.

"It's never necessary", apparently.

Zulu

Bannasidhe wrote: »

...So either prove I am being hypocritical or withdraw that remark.

While you're here, I'm still eager to hear where your child benefit strawman was going...

SV

Pro life campaigners (Anti-Choice) and westboro baptist church seem to act very much the same and campaign in pretty much the same way, anyone else find that strange? No? Just me then.

Bannasidhe

Zulu wrote: »

While you're here, I'm still eager to hear where your child benefit strawman was going...

No strawman.

I simply asked if, as you believe an embryo is a 'child' and of equal status to a born child whether you also believe Child benefit should be paid from the moment of implantation.
As it is a payment designed to aid parents with the costs associated with children - and there are costs associated with being pregnant outside of medical ones - it seems logical that this should happen.
Might be tricky as, as far as I am aware but I am open to correction on this, people are not considered 'parents' until after a live birth.

Of course, this does raise the issue of what happens should the pregnancy not come to full term for whatever reason...would any monies paid have to be returned?

Phill Ewinn

Zulu wrote: »

Then you will realise that the counter argument to this is that killing children isn't the answer either?

Thankfully someone has sense.

robman60

jill_valentine wrote: »

As far as I can tell, their position is to pretend that there can be no circumstances in which abortion can save a woman's life in the first place.

"It's never necessary", apparently.

I thought it was more that they differentiate between abortion (deliberate killing of the unborn) and necessary medical intervention. The necessary medical intervention may lead to miscarriage though. In that sense, abortion isn't ever necessary.

What they do isn't really misleading, in fact it's probably more correct than the assertion I've seen that "abortion saves women's lives".

Phill Ewinn

Bannasidhe wrote: »

No strawman.

I simply asked if, as you believe an embryo is a 'child' and of equal status to a born child.......

Here we go again. If the embryo wasn't alive it wouldn't last long in the womb. Anyone who's had dificulty concieving could tell you all about it probably.

conorhal

robman60 wrote: »

I think that's an accurate assertion. The media don't do the pro-life side many favours either by interviewing bishops on abortion issues either.

I'd love to see a secular approach on the pro-life side, as there's definitely merit to being pro-life with purely scientific evidence, unlike being against gay marriage, for example. I think groups like Secular Pro-Life are gaining greater traction in the US than in years gone by, so perhaps we could see the same thing here.

I'm secular and Pro-Life, but it seems clear to me that a ballanced debate wouldn't suit the governments agenda.
I notice that whenever the media promote a 'ballanced debate' they jsut grab the 'go to wingnut' for interviews
.
During the Lisbon treaty I was tearing my hair out with every reptition of the notion that all the no side were about was loony disinformation like the claim that 'your children will be draughted into an EU army if you vote yes'. Who was claiming that? I saw one old biddy mention it in an on street vox pop and heard it litterally nowhere else except from the yes side condemning it, it was just used as a rod to beat the no side with and avoid any real debate.
Noted athiest campaigner Christoper Hitchens was very vocally pro-life BTW.

The media and the govermnent consider the likes of Youth Defence to be 'useful idiots' and tend to focus stories on their antics in an attempt to avoid real debate.
Wheeling out John Waters is the RTE equivilent of the Sky News stock footage of nuns voting they wheel out every time they cover an Irish election.
We have a real immaturity about debate in this country, and our government prefer to spin rather then debate

Bannasidhe

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Here we go again. If the embryo wasn't alive it wouldn't last long in the womb. Anyone who's had dificulty concieving could tell you all about it probably.

'Alive' does not mean = child.

A person on life support is also 'alive' but not capable of independent living. We do allow life support machines to be turned off when a person is deemed to be 'brain dead' or in other words their brain is not functional. An embryo's brain has not developed so it is also not functional.

If being alive - no matter if that life is only viable when being supported by an outside independent force (woman's body/life support machines)- is the only criteria than surely no life support machine should ever be turned off? Particularly when that decision is made by the next of kin.

Zulu

Bannasidhe wrote: »

An embryo's brain has not developed so it is also not functional.

"Not developed" does not equal "not functional"; we can all play semantics.

Phill Ewinn

Bannasidhe wrote: »

'Alive' does not mean = child.

A person on life support is also 'alive' but not capable of independent living. We do allow life support machines to be turned off when a person is deemed to be 'brain dead' or in other words their brain is not functional. An embryo's brain has not developed so it is also not functional.

If being alive - no matter if that life is only viable when being supported by an outside independent force (woman's body/life support machines)- is the only criteria than surely no life support machine should ever be turned off? Particularly when that decision is made by the next of kin.

Whatever makes you feel better about it. Go ahead and believe that.

I'll stick with reserving the nuclear option for use as the last resort. Anyone from positive opions posting on here???

Bannasidhe

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Whatever makes you feel better about it. Go ahead and believe that.

I'll stick with reserving the nuclear option for use as the last resort. Anyone from positive opions posting on here???

Feel better about what?

Believing a woman has the right to decide for herself what happens to her own body?

I feel just fine about that.

Phill Ewinn

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Feel better about what?

Believing a woman has the right to decide for herself what happens to her own body?

I feel just fine about that.

Since when is an embryo part of your body. According to your ealier post it is distinct from you and according to some posters some kind of parasite. Who are we to believe so?

Zulu

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Believing a woman has the right to decide for herself what happens to her own body?

...and the babies body, best not to forget about that.

Pherekydes

conorhal wrote: »

We have a real immaturity about debate in this country, and our government prefer to spin rather then debate

How ironic:

conorhal wrote: »

I was merely mocking her suggestion that an early delivery by c-section is the same thing as an abortion, which that trolling fool was attempting to claim.

Reekwind

Zulu wrote: »

You misunderstand, did you overlook the example I gave of my 6 month old?

Legally your child is not in a position to make such a decision. Which is where the whole concept of guardianship comes in

robman60 wrote:

I don't think Zulu is claiming the unborn can actually make a decision. It's more a case of no one would choose to be killed in that situation, so it's safe to say the unborn's "choice" would be to live.

"Choice" implies free will or at least the ability to make such a decision. Where that ability is lacking there can be no choice. It's no good saying that 'if it could make the choice then it would choose to live' because that very inability signifies that there is no choice

But that's not particularly central to the topic. Just a note on Zulu's anti-'pro-choice' post

jill_valentine

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Since when is an embryo part of your body. According to your ealier post it is distinct from you and according to some posters some kind of parasite. Who are we to believe so?

The dramatic breadth by which you misinterpreted her comment confirms to me that you're not very well versed in what a pregnancy actually entails.

Bannasidhe

Zulu wrote: »

"Not developed" does not equal "not functional"; we can all play semantics.

A just implanted embryo - which pro-lifers would have us believe is a child -doesn't even have a brain - it has the potential to develop one, but this is by no means guaranteed. Brain development begins around the 7th week but you would have us believe there is no difference between a new born, fully developed baby and a literally brainless 4 week old embryo.

Zulu

Reekwind wrote: »

"Choice" implies free will or at least the ability to make such a decision.

And considering that no choice is offered to the father, but only to the mother, "pro-choice" is a fallacy.

Phill Ewinn

jill_valentine wrote: »

The dramatic breadth by which you misinterpreted her comment confirms to me that you're not very well versed in what a pregnancy actually entails.

It stikes me that you don't care what pregnancy entails.

Zulu

Bannasidhe wrote: »

A just implanted embryo - which pro-lifers would have us believe is a child -doesn't even have a brain....

And if we were talking about only having abortions at that point, I'd suggest far more people would support it (hell I would) - but we aren't.

Those in favour of abortions wish to make them available a good deal later. Don't they?

Bannasidhe

Zulu wrote: »

And considering that no choice is offered to the father, but only to the mother, "pro-choice" is a fallacy.

I think this may be the real issue for you.

Womb- envy.

jaja321

Zulu wrote: »

And considering that no choice is offered to the father, but only to the mother, "pro-choice" is a fallacy.

If a man wanted to keep a child and the woman didn't but was forced to - where would her choice be? Its cannot be an equal choice, its ultimately has to be her choice as she is carrying it.

Zulu

jaja321 wrote: »

If a man wanted to keep a child and the woman didn't but was forced to - where would her choice be? Its cannot be an equal choice, its ultimately has to be her choice as she is carrying it.

So ultimately it's not "pro-choice", but rather "pro-womans choice" and to hell with anyone else.

jill_valentine

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

It stikes me that you don't care what pregnancy entails.

wat?

jaja321

Zulu wrote: »

So ultimately it's not "pro-choice", but rather "pro-womans choice" and to hell with anyone else.

I believe its the woman's choice yes. If I were in that situation, I would consult with my partner. But I would be making the final decision. Nobody could force me to do something with my body that I didn't want to do.

Zulu

jaja321 wrote: »

I believe its the woman's choice yes. If I were in that situation, I would consult with my partner. But I would be making the final decision. Nobody could force me to do something with my body that I didn't want to do.

Why bother? If he said "no" you'd just ignore his wishes.

Nodin

Zulu wrote: »

So ultimately it's not "pro-choice", but rather "pro-womans choice" and to hell with anyone else.

...if that's what you want to read it as. Personally I view it as a matter of the right of a person for autonomy over their own body.

Zulu

Nodin wrote: »

...if that's what you want to read it as. Personally I view it as a matter of the right of a person for autonomy over their own body.

...and the childs body. Lets try not forget that.