Prolife Campaign on Protection of Life in Pregnancy Bill Superthread

The_Valeyard

Why oh why must ever thread about abortion descend into religious bickering and slagging.

Phill Ewinn

Nodin wrote: »

...they don't get a PPSN at conception. The protection afforded by the constitution is the result of a political campaign, not some statement of universal truth.

Ah right, thats the reason "they" should be denied any basic human right.

looking_around

to me, a pregnancy would be the same as being inflicted with a parasite .. it would feed "off" me afterall, change me physically, make me ill, and grow .........>_>
__

Choice is where it should be at...

Nodin

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Ah right, thats the reason "they" should be denied any basic human right.

.....for a large part of the pregnancy they aren't human.

Why are you putting "they" in quotes?

Phill Ewinn

Nodin wrote: »

.....for a large part of the pregnancy they aren't human.

Why are you putting "they" in quotes?

Why do you refer to them in the regard you do? Why do you insist on denying a living feteous any rights at all. What is going on here?

Nodin

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Why do you refer to them in the regard you do? Why do you insist on denying a living feteous any rights at all. What is going on here?

...because I put the woman first. Mad idea I know.

Now - why were you putting "they" in quotes?

looking_around

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Why do you refer to them in the regard you do? Why do you insist on denying a living feteous any rights at all. What is going on here?

Plants are alive too, do you live in a brick house that killed all those living organisms.
Why is that ok?

Th point is their life is coming from anothers body. That other, gets the rights..and the foetus doesn't until it's no longer attached,

Phill Ewinn

looking_around wrote: »

Plants are alive too, do you live in a brick house that killed all those living organisms.
Why is that ok?

Th point is their life is coming from anothers body. That other, gets the rights..and the foetus doesn't until it's no longer attached,

Thats it, dehumanize them. Next step is the removal of human rights, then there's segregation etc...

Go ahead and push that agenda. See how many march then.

/"

Nodin

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Thats it, dehumanize them. Next step is the removal of human rights, then there's segregation etc...

Go ahead and push that agenda. See how many march then.

/"

....if you can segregate foeti you may well be in for a Nobel prize.

Why did you put "they" in quotes? I find it odd I should have to pursue you for an answer to this.

Delirium

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Thats it, dehumanize them. Next step is the removal of human rights, then there's segregation etc...

Go ahead and push that agenda. See how many march then.

/"

To reduce humanity to nothing more than the genetics inherited from parents is also dehumanizing.

Phill Ewinn

Nodin wrote: »

....if you can segregate foeti you may well be in for a Nobel prize.

Why did you put "they" in quotes? I find it odd I should have to pursue you for an answer to this.

I'm not putting them in quotes. I'm not trying to rationalise abortion on demand, pro-choice, whatever. This is what you are doing. Seperating and segragating "them" from us. Trying to remove their rights and entitlements.

And whats it to you? What benefit to you is there.

StinkyMunkey

Fact is, if an Irish woman wants an abortion she can just travel to get one. Alot of Irish women do. I know women who have travelled to get it done, the whole process sounds quiet nasty tbh (not just the actual procedure).

Im pro choice, but believe there should be strict guidelines and restrictions in place.

With the amount of lunacy that is happening in our "civilised society" these days, i think its more important to protect the people who have been actually born over a few week old fetus.

These scum who park a truck outside a rape crisis centre should be brought out and publicly flogged. As if a woman who has been raped has not suffered enough trauma without these scum ramming thier opinions down the victims throats.

Woman will continue to travel to abort, its quiet simple.

Nodin

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

I'm not putting them in quotes. I'm not trying to rationalise abortion on demand, pro-choice, whatever. This is what you are doing. Seperating and segragating "them" from us. Trying to remove their rights and entitlements. .

....why would a foetus have a right that overrides that of a woman?

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

And whats it to you? What benefit to you is there.

I don't see women as second class citizens that must be reduced to involuntary incubators when the occasion arises.

Phill Ewinn

Nodin wrote: »

....why would a foetus have a right that overrides that of a woman?




I don't see women as second class citizens that must be reduced to involuntary incubators when the occasion arises.

You're fine with taking rights from the defenceless? You're fine with huge numbers of abortions relative to live birth rates? You're fine with dragging us back to the dark ages. But you draw the line with 'something to do with wimminz' because that's cool huh?

dark crystal

Nodin wrote: »

I don't see women as second class citizens that must be reduced to involuntary incubators when the occasion arises.

Just how many pregnancies would you say are involuntary?

CuriousG

Just to say, there are people that are Pro Life outside youth defence that are allowed their opinion aswell.. I can understand why people are angry at YD buy don't lump us all in with them, please. We are all entitled to think what we want.

Nodin

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

You're fine with taking rights from the defenceless??

....I don't see why a foetus should have any right that overrides the mothers autonomy?

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

You're fine with huge numbers of abortions relative to live birth rates?
?

If women want an abortion, that's up to them.

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

You're fine with dragging us back to the dark ages. But you draw the line with 'something to do with wimminz' because that's cool huh?

I've already explained that I believe the womans rights and freedom are pre-eminent. That's quite explicit.

You'll have to explain what you mean by "dragging us back to the dark ages".....in that period women generally couldn't own property separate from their husband and had few rights.

Mardy Bum

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

You're fine with taking rights from the defenceless? You're fine with huge numbers of abortions relative to live birth rates? You're fine with dragging us back to the dark ages. But you draw the line with 'something to do with wimminz' because that's cool huh?

Once again; is an embryo a child?

Reekwind

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

You're fine with huge numbers of abortions relative to live birth rates?

Why should the choice of an individual woman be at all affected by the national birth rate? That's a very short step from reactionary pro-natalism

Nodin

dark crystal wrote: »

Just how many pregnancies would you say are involuntary?

I stated "involuntary incubators". When a woman becomes pregnant in this state she has (virtually) no right to end the condition, regardless of how she became pregnant, or the likely outcome of the pregnancy.

Phill Ewinn

Nodin wrote: »

I stated "involuntary incubators". When a woman becomes pregnant in this state she has (virtually) no right to end the condition, regardless of how she became pregnant, or the likely outcome of the pregnancy.

The condition? Its human life not a pimple.

Nodin

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

The condition? Its human life not a pimple.

It's certainly not a human life for a large part of the pregnancy.

Now - would you care to explain what you mean by "dragging us back to the dark ages"?

endacl

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

Fact is, if an Irish woman wants an abortion she can just travel to get one. Alot of Irish women do.

Woman will continue to travel to abort, its quiet simple.

That's fine for those in a position to do so, and to pay for it. The fact is though, the 'travel for it' solution is so much more difficult for say, an unemployed single woman living in a small town miles from an airport than it would be for somebody living close by the m50 in Dublin. I know that in the case of the latter access to any service is probably going to be more straightforward, but when you add the difficulty of arranging and travelling to a consultation with say, Marie stopes in Dublin (where she'd be met by placard carrying youth defence arseholery) transport to the airport, the cost of flights and accomodation, and the procedure itself, and the sheer loneliness of having to to this all by herself, the Irish solution of 'sure we don't need it here, they can get it there' is revealed as the sham it is. It's time we stopped outsourcing our problems and faced up to reality.

dark crystal

Nodin wrote: »

I stated "involuntary incubators". When a woman becomes pregnant in this state she has (virtually) no right to end the condition, regardless of how she became pregnant, or the likely outcome of the pregnancy.

Let me just state, I am largely pro-choice. I believe it is inherently wrong to force a woman to carry a terminally sick child to term. I believe it is inherently wrong to force a woman to carry a child to term if it will seriously harm her own health.

Now, saying that, I'm very wary of the term 'involuntary incubator' in relation to the vast majority of unwanted pregnancies. I'm wary of labelling such women as mere victims of circumstance.
Of course, shit happens, people fuck up and get pregnant even if they really don't mean to. Most people are aware of the risks (I'm not talking about rape or incest, but consensual sex between two adults) when they engage in intercourse. This is where the term 'involuntary' bugs me somewhat.

Also, many people don't view pregnancy as scientifically as many pro-choicers do. They don't view the fetus merely as a parasite, or a useless clump of cells. It may have nothing to do with religion at all, just a personal ethical belief.
As repulsive as YD's language appears to you and I in many cases, terms such as parasite and forced incubator can tend to offend those who hold a different view of the unborn just as much.
This is why these debates never go anywhere except tit-for-tat insults and accusations thrown on both sides with nobody ever actually changing their initial point of view.

Nodin

dark crystal wrote: »

Let me just state, I am largely pro-choice. I believe it is inherently wrong to force a woman to carry a terminally sick child to term. I believe it is inherently wrong to force a woman to carry a child to term if it will seriously harm her own health.

Now, saying that, I'm very wary of the term 'involuntary incubator' in relation to the vast majority of unwanted pregnancies. I'm wary of labelling such women as mere victims of circumstance.
Of course, shit happens, people fuck up and get pregnant even if they really don't mean to. Most people are aware of the risks (I'm not talking about rape or incest, but consensual sex between two adults) when they engage in intercourse. This is where the term 'involuntary' bugs me somewhat.
.........

well, if they're pregnant, and have no way out of it and no wish to be pregnant, that strikes me as fairly involuntary tbh.

StinkyMunkey

endacl wrote: »

That's fine for those in a position to do so, and to pay for it. The fact is though, the 'travel for it' solution is so much more difficult for say, an unemployed single woman living in a small town miles from an airport than it would be for somebody living close by the m50 in Dublin. I know that in the case of the latter access to any service is probably going to be more straightforward, but when you add the difficulty of arranging and travelling to a consultation with say, Marie stopes in Dublin (where she'd be met by placard carrying youth defence arseholery) transport to the airport, the cost of flights and accomodation, and the procedure itself, and the sheer loneliness of having to to this all by herself, the Irish solution of 'sure we don't need it here, they can get it there' is revealed as the sham it is. It's time we stopped outsourcing our problems and faced up to reality.

Couldnt agree with you more tbh. For me the questions should be "should women have to travel for abortions". As ive said, from what ive been told, the whole experience is very nasty from start to finish.

And ironically the people who cant afford them are the ones who will most likely come from a disavantaged area where the kid risks a life of poverty and crime.

Phill Ewinn

Nodin wrote: »

It's certainly not a human life for a large part of the pregnancy.

Now - would you care to explain what you mean by "dragging us back to the dark ages"?

Thats what you say. As asked before whats it to you? Why do you want the removal of human rights? Why do you want to takes us back to the dark ages by bringing to us this barbaric practice of abortion on demand.

Bannasidhe

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Thats what you say. As asked before whats it to you? Why do you want the removal of human rights? Why do you want to takes us back to the dark ages by bringing to us this barbaric practice of abortion on demand.

When exactly in the 'Dark Ages' was abortion on demand available?

RDM_83 again

Bannasidhe wrote: »

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.

Is What we've got here is (a) failure to communicate, I'm not implying that you have a blanket support of feminism, your view on that is irrelevant

I'm accusing you of using an argument based on "whataboutery" in the posts of yours I initially quoted from this thread, When you yourself have a problem with "whataboutery" when it used as an argument against movements you support (in this case feminism).

Therefore I think your being hypocritical.

Its nothing to do with feminism or your disagreement with YD per se but rather the fact that you use a posting/debating tactic that you condemn in others.

If you disagree please show me how those posts of yours aren't based on whataboutery, or I am misinterpreting your views expressed about "whataboutery" on other threads please correct me.

endacl

Bannasidhe wrote: »

When exactly in the 'Dark Ages' was abortion on demand available?

Tuesdays.