Prolife Campaign on Protection of Life in Pregnancy Bill Superthread

Obliq · 28-06-2013 5:18pm

My goodness. What a lot of knickers are getting twisted over this, and nobody seeks to untwist them either. There are two sides to this that will never agree to differ unless we seek understanding from each other.

To my mind, the basis for the disagreement is not whether an embryo is human or not, it's the rights we are prepared to give/take away from that human (tiny though it is), right?

Some people believe these rights are literally set in stone (if there's a religious basis for their opinion),

Others believe they're just right the way they're set (and I have yet to hear why, from anyone who takes that pro-life stance who isn't religious) -

Still others believe those rights are movable by consensus (which is how those rights got into the constitution in the first place).

What is stopping us from being allowed to vote on the 8th amendment again? Well, obviously the Pro-life groups and the RCC, and the "flying by the seat of their pants already" Government. Does that mean the question shouldn't be asked of us? No. But the pro-life side are actively stopping the (possible) majority from having a say, because they are convinced they are more right than the pro-choice side, and scared of the result. As a pro-choice individual, I'd like to ask (particularly the non-religious) pro-lifers who let you drive?

...and can I get off at the next stop please?

Nodin · 28-06-2013 5:19pm

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Thats what you say. As asked before whats it to you? .

As I stated earlier, I believe women should be pre-eminent in any considerations with regards availability to abortion. I don't understand why you're asking "whats it to you".....I might ask the same about you and the foetus, if we want to go down Silly Crap lane.

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Why do you want the removal of human rights?.

I don't regard the foetus as human for a good deal of its development. Secondly I regard the mothers right to control over her own body as pre-eminent.

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Why do you want to takes us back to the dark ages by bringing to us this barbaric practice of abortion on demand.

...they didn't have abortion on demand in the dark ages, so again - why do you bring this period up?

RDM_83 again · 28-06-2013 5:20pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

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

Well skip back a few centuries and they did have Silphium (possibly Ferula tingitana), But saying going back to the classical period doesn't have the same ring

Obliq · 28-06-2013 5:26pm

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Well skip back a few centuries and they did have Silphium (possibly Ferula tingitana), But saying going back to the classical period doesn't have the same ring

There are many plants that will do the job - native to every different country I imagine. One from here is easy to get hold of and will regulate difficult menstruation over time (as it brings it on). I've helped a relative to use it (actually, in order to create a better chance of conceiving) to regulate her periods after prolonged pill use. Highly illegal, but interesting....

PopePalpatine · 28-06-2013 5:28pm

Nodin wrote: »

...they didn't have abortion on demand in the dark ages, so again - why do you bring this period up?

It seems a lot more medieval to let a pregnant woman die because of her pregnancy.

Phill Ewinn · 28-06-2013 5:35pm

Nodin wrote: »

As I stated earlier, I believe women should be pre-eminent in any considerations with regards availability to abortion. I don't understand why you're asking "whats it to you".....I might ask the same about you and the foetus, if we want to go down Silly Crap lane.

I don't regard the foetus as human for a good deal of its development. Secondly I regard the mothers right to control over her own body as pre-eminent.

...they didn't have abortion on demand in the dark ages, so again - why do you bring this period up?

We will have abortion on demand in the dark age you're trying to take us to. In what way to you imagine the abortion of thousands of viable lives be anything other than a dark age?

Nodin · 28-06-2013 5:40pm

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

We will have abortion on demand in the dark age you're trying to take us to.

Ahh so its just a dodgy analogy. Oddly removing the choice to terminate a pregnancy is a bit more "dark age" in mentality than anything I propose. And of course in those days - denied access to either contraception or abortion - infanticide was far from unknown.

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

In what way to you imagine the abortion of thousands of viable lives be anything other than a dark age?

Bit of an emotional argument there. Thousands of pregnancies end yearly via miscarriage in any instance. I'd regard an age where a woman has full control over her body as an enlightened one meself. Fair enough it will mean having to occasionally get the tea meself, but still..

Phill Ewinn · 28-06-2013 5:48pm

Nodin wrote: »

Ahh so its just a dodgy analogy. Oddly removing the choice to terminate a pregnancy is a bit more "dark age" in mentality than anything I propose. And of course in those days - denied access to either contraception or abortion - infanticide was far from unknown.

Bit of an emotional argument there. Thousands of pregnancies end yearly via miscarriage in any instance. I'd regard an age where a woman has full control over her body as an enlightened one meself. Fair enough it will mean having to occasionally get the tea meself, but still..

Full control of her body and the body of another who's rights you want removed. When would you like these rights to begin btw? At what age will you allow people have rights under the constitution you propose? Will you let people have rights at all. Will you dehumanise us all for a finish?

Mardy Bum · 28-06-2013 5:49pm

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

We will have abortion on demand in the dark age you're trying to take us to. In what way to you imagine the abortion of thousands of viable lives be anything other than a dark age?

Dark ages this and barbaric that, such a load of anti intellectual rhetoric which YD would be proud of. Is an embryo a child? Third time lucky or are you tentatve about answering?

Obliq · 28-06-2013 5:51pm

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

We will have abortion on demand in the dark age you're trying to take us to. In what way to you imagine the abortion of thousands of viable lives be anything other than a dark age?

I imagine it to be the same as it always was Phill. Similar amount of women deciding they shouldn't be pregnant now and taking steps to finish the pregnancy. Much though you must hate it, we will take the decision if we feel we have to. I haven't had to, I felt I could bring a child into the world, twice, but that makes no difference.

I think you need to calm down about all "those thousands of viable lives" - You'll give yourself a coronary.

Nodin · 28-06-2013 5:52pm

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Full control of her body and the body of another who's rights you want removed. When would you like these rights to begin btw? At what age will you allow people have rights under the constitution you propose? Will you let people have rights at all. Will you dehumanise us all for a finish?

Again the notion that's theres another - certainly for a large part of the pregnancy - is fallacious.

27 or 28 weeks maybe. Always with the mothers pre-eminent, however.

Any more rhetorical outrage?

Cody Pomeray · 28-06-2013 5:54pm

The debate that never went away.

From well before many of us were born:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLWnoQjTNiw

Phill Ewinn · 28-06-2013 6:08pm

Nodin wrote: »

Again the notion that's theres another - certainly for a large part of the pregnancy - is fallacious.

27 or 28 weeks maybe. Always with the mothers pre-eminent, however.
;
Any more rhetorical outrage?

Children are born into this world at 22 weeks and are fine. You know that. You're deciding and playing God here so I'll play along with you dehumanising life up to 27 weeks. Is that when you will allow them basic human rights? Or is there another cluase in this constitution of yours?

As I've said already if a feteous wasn't alive it wouldn't last long in the womb, so picking some arbitrary point and deciding when to take that life is pointless, and probably pointless to the people who wrote the constitution and completely pointless to the life of the unborn.

Thankfully we have a constitution that protects the unborn. Not Nodins constitution. The same one that protects children (female and male children) over and under 22 weeks.

shruikan2553 · 28-06-2013 6:26pm

Are people who are pro life against the morning after pill and that bar thing women get inside of them to prevent the fertilised egg implanting?

and if answered yes to above, what is the difference between it implanting and not implanting that magically creates life?

Nodin · 28-06-2013 6:32pm

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Children are born into this world at 22 weeks and are fine. You know that. You're deciding and playing God here so I'll play along with you dehumanising life up to 27 weeks. Is that when you will allow them basic human rights? Or is there another cluase in this constitution of yours? .

Roughly. And again, subservient to those of the woman.

Tell me, under what conditions would you permit a woman to have an abortion?

looking_around · 28-06-2013 8:08pm

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Children are born into this world at 22 weeks and are fine. You know that. You're deciding and playing God here so I'll play along with you dehumanising life up to 27 weeks. Is that when you will allow them basic human rights? Or is there another cluase in this constitution of yours?
.

Funny that, and I thought those that DID survive at 22 weeks, do so by medical equipment etc. There's also alot of risks and possible development issues at that time.

Btw "at 22 weeks it has a 0-10% survival rate". That's really not all that much and shows how rare it is.

It would be impossible if wasn't for the medical advances.

So it's playing god to kill, but not to save? :rolleyes:
funny how that is :cool:

Obliq · 28-06-2013 9:31pm

looking_around wrote: »

So it's playing god to kill, but not to save? :rolleyes:
funny how that is :cool:

Great point. Never sussed it myself :cool:

looking_around · 28-06-2013 9:53pm

Obliq wrote: »

Great point. Never sussed it myself :cool:

I just hate when the pro-liers(I don't like the term it's saying the foetus is alive when it's not really)
When they bring up god. They seem to ignore how much medicine goes against "gods choice" when it suits them >.>

edit: I meant lifers, but that works too :P

Pherekydes · 28-06-2013 9:56pm

looking_around wrote: »

I just hate when the pro-liers(I don't like the term it's saying the foetus is alive when it's not really)

The term pro-life is incorrect anyway. Its use would imply that its opponents are pro-death, which is a vile insult.

The correct term(s) are pro-choice and anti-choice.

Phill Ewinn · 28-06-2013 9:59pm

looking_around wrote: »

Funny that, and I thought those that DID survive at 22 weeks, do so by medical equipment etc. There's also alot of risks and possible development issues at that time.

Btw "at 22 weeks it has a 0-10% survival rate". That's really not all that much and shows how rare it is.

It would be impossible if wasn't for the medical advances.

So it's playing god to kill, but not to save? :rolleyes:
funny how that is :cool:

don't get the joke.

endacl · 28-06-2013 10:02pm

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

don't get the joke.

I don't think the poster meant 'funny ha-ha'. More like funny 'exactly what might be expected of them, almost ironic'.

I tend to agree with them.

Hope this cleared any confusion up for ya!

bodice ripper · 28-06-2013 10:10pm

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

We will have abortion on demand in the dark age you're trying to take us to. In what way to you imagine the abortion of thousands of viable lives be anything other than a dark age?

We are all full of hundreds of "viable lives", so what?

Shall we prosecute every time a woman menstruates and/or a guy jacks off? Think of all the extra people we could have that we *really* don't need....

Phill Ewinn · 28-06-2013 10:16pm

bodice ripper wrote: »

We are all full of hundreds of "viable lives", so what?

Shall we prosecute every time a woman menstruates and/or a guy jacks off? Think of all the extra people we could have that we *really* don't need....

I don't follow. Are you suggesting your sheets are alive or something?

endacl · 28-06-2013 10:18pm

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

I don't follow. Are you suggesting your sheets are alive or something?

I think she may be suggesting...

Bertser · 28-06-2013 10:19pm

Pherekydes wrote: »

The term pro-life is incorrect anyway. Its use would imply that its opponents are pro-death, which is a vile insult.

The correct term(s) are pro-choice and anti-choice.

Pro-life really is a term that doesn't apply to some of the anti-choice people (those who'd rather see the mother suffer), it's closer to pro-foetus.

endacl · 28-06-2013 10:22pm

Bertser wrote: »

Pro-life really is a term that doesn't apply to some of the anti-choice people (those who'd rather see the mother suffer), it's closer to pro-foetus.

You're not suggesting that by extension some anti-choice folks might accurately be described as .... ... .. . 'anti-woman'?

Are you?!?

:eek:

Nodin · 28-06-2013 10:25pm

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

don't get the joke.

Hi Phill. Seeing as I've answered your questions to the best of my ability, you might be as good as to return the favour...under what conditions would you permit a woman to have an abortion?

St.Spodo · 28-06-2013 10:31pm

Zulu wrote: »

I'm surprised people would change their opinions based on a billboard. Perhaps it just sparked them into having a good think about their position... Perhaps the billboard campaign served some purpose in the end.

What irks me is people refusing to acknowledge that a foetus is a human child (albeit at an earlier stage of development).

I don't think anyone necessarily changed their position, but it raised people's level of consciousness. I don't think those billboards helped you one bit.

Phill Ewinn · 28-06-2013 11:32pm

Nodin wrote: »

Hi Phill. Seeing as I've answered your questions to the best of my ability, you might be as good as to return the favour...under what conditions would you permit a woman to have an abortion?

Why would you ask me. You're the one playing God and re-writing the constitution.

Better get that done fast, before the trendy liberals change their minds.

endacl · 28-06-2013 11:34pm

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Why would you ask me.

:rolleyes:

Prolife Campaign on Protection of Life in Pregnancy Bill Superthread

Comments