Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Prolife Campaign on Protection of Life in Pregnancy Bill Superthread

Options
1…1415171920…24

Comments

  • Options
    #482
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,765 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Zulu wrote: »
    Fat lot of good that is to your child! You say it's nonsense, but supporting or not supporting her decision is a small consolation where your childs life is under threat.
    Depending where she is in the pregnancy, a child may not exist. No brain = no child IMHO.
    This all comes back to how you view the unborn child. If one views it as "a clump of cells", then that's fine. But, if one views it as their son/daughter...

    I get where you have problems with this logic, but that doesn't detract from my point: "pro-choice" is as an inaccurate a title as "pro-life", that "pro-choice" does not consider the choice of the father or of the child but only the choice of the mother.

    Indeed, so it's not "pro-choice" at all, but rather "pro mothers choice"
    Whoever suggested it wasn't the womans choice? A basic understanding of human biology would clear the confusion up. The male can't possibly be given control over a woman purely because she's pregnant.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #483
    jaja321
    Registered Users Posts: 793 ✭✭✭jaja321


    Zulu - if the man wanted the woman to abort the pregnancy and the woman didn't want to - would you still say she should listen to his wishes, or would it then become her choice?


  • Options
    #484
    Zulu
    Registered Users Posts: 10,965 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


    koth wrote: »
    Whoever suggested it wasn't the womans choice? A basic understanding of human biology would clear the confusion up.
    You can keep dancing around it, but the point remains: "pro choice" is not pro the choice of the father; "pro choice" is not pro the choice of the child; "pro choice" is only pro the choice of the mother.

    "pro choice" is every bit as poor a title as "pro life". "pro or anti abortion" is really what it's all about.
    jaja321 wrote: »
    Zulu - if the man wanted the woman to abort the pregnancy and the woman didn't want to - would you still say she should listen to his wishes, or would it then become her choice?
    You know I'm anti abortion right? Your example is fundamentally erroneous.


  • Options
    #485
    jaja321
    Registered Users Posts: 793 ✭✭✭jaja321



    You know I'm anti abortion right? Your example is fundamentally erroneous.

    I know you're anti choice. So the herring about it being the man's or woman's choice is meaningless - you don't think anyone should have a choice.


  • Options
    #486
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,765 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Zulu wrote: »
    You can keep dancing around it, but the point remains: "pro choice" is not pro the choice of the father; "pro choice" is not pro the choice of the child; "pro choice" is only pro the choice of the mother.

    "pro choice" is every bit as poor a title as "pro life". "pro or anti abortion" is really what it's all about.

    You know I'm anti abortion right? Your example is fundamentally erroneous.
    No one ever claimed it was. You're the only one saying that pro-choice must mean equal parity of choice for the man and woman. A situation which is biologically impossible.

    If you want to explain what scenario would meet your own defintion of pro-choice, fire ahead. And the important part is what happens when there isn't agreement between the two?

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #487
    Zulu
    Registered Users Posts: 10,965 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


    koth wrote: »
    No one ever claimed it was.
    :confused: Then we are arguing different things.
    You're the only one saying that pro-choice must mean equal parity of choice for the man and woman.
    I'm simply pointing out that the term "pro-choice" is as inaccurate as the term "pro-life". Clearly you feel otherwise, but I guess this only highlights how divisive the topic is.


  • Options
    #488
    Carlos Orange
    Registered Users Posts: 2,499 ✭✭✭Carlos Orange


    koth wrote: »
    No one ever claimed it was. You're the only one saying that pro-choice must mean equal parity of choice for the man and woman. A situation which is biologically impossible.

    How is equal choice biologically impossible?


  • Options
    #489
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,765 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    psinno wrote: »
    How is equal choice biologically impossible?
    A pregnant woman wants an abortion but the man doesn't want her to have one. How do you allow both to get what they want?

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #490
    gobnaitolunacy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,073 ✭✭✭gobnaitolunacy


    The Pro lifers must have some serious money, every place is plastered with posters in the last week or so.


  • Options
    #491
    B0jangles
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,951 ✭✭✭B0jangles


    psinno wrote: »
    How is equal choice biologically impossible?

    If we agree that the ultimate decision of whether or not to carry on with a pregnancy has to be made by the individual who is pregnant, and we also agree that 100% of pregnant people are women, then surely it follows that it is biologically impossible for men to have an equal choice in the matter.

    One day perhaps we'll have fully artificial wombs capable of supporting pregnancy from fertilization to birth - at that point I think we could reach full equality of choice for both men and women.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #492
    Laneyh
    Registered Users Posts: 756 ✭✭✭Laneyh


    psinno wrote: »
    How is equal choice biologically impossible?

    You cannot control someone else's biology


  • Options
    #493
    St.Spodo
    Registered Users Posts: 1,027 ✭✭✭St.Spodo


    gobnaitolunacy wrote: »
    The Pro lifers must have some serious money, every place is plastered with posters in the last week or so.

    It is mostly coming from the United States. Look at the opinion polls and referenda we have had in the last twenty years. Most people in this country believe a woman should be allowed have an abortion if she is suicidal. Youth Defence are completely skewing public discourse with their posters that few people agree with.


  • Options
    #494
    humanji
    Registered Users Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    Zulu wrote: »
    Hardly considering that the "pro-choice" lobby assume that the child chooses to die, and that the father can have a choice, but only when he agrees with the mother.

    The pro-choice lobby want the choice to be there. The decision to have an abortion is a different matter.


  • Options
    #495
    Carlos Orange
    Registered Users Posts: 2,499 ✭✭✭Carlos Orange


    koth wrote: »
    A pregnant woman wants an abortion but the man doesn't want her to have one. How do you allow both to get what they want?

    That is a feature of decision making when there are an even number of votes not a biological limitation.


  • Options
    #496
    B0jangles
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,951 ✭✭✭B0jangles


    psinno wrote: »
    That is a feature of decision making when there are an even number of votes not a biological limitation.

    Are you suggesting there is no biological difference between men and women when it comes to pregnancy? :confused:


  • Options
    #497
    Carlos Orange
    Registered Users Posts: 2,499 ✭✭✭Carlos Orange


    B0jangles wrote: »
    Are you suggesting there is no biological difference between men and women when it comes to pregnancy? :confused:

    Not at all. Just that there is a difference between impractical and biologically impossible. It might not even be desirable depending on your perspective but that doesn't make it impossible.


  • Options
    #498
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,765 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    psinno wrote: »
    That is a feature of decision making when there are an even number of votes not a biological limitation.

    That's an evasion not an answer. There will always be an even number of votes because it takes one man and one woman to make a baby.

    So would you like to answer the question posed?

    A pregnant woman wants an abortion but the man doesn't want her to have one. How do you allow both to get what they want?

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #499
    B0jangles
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,951 ✭✭✭B0jangles


    psinno wrote: »
    Not at all. Just that there is a difference between impractical and biologically impossible. It might not even be desirable depending on your perspective but that doesn't make it impossible.

    But do you not agree that it is biologically impossible, not simply impractical for a man* to be pregnant?

    (*Not including trans men who still have functional female reproductive systems)


  • Options
    #500
    Carlos Orange
    Registered Users Posts: 2,499 ✭✭✭Carlos Orange


    koth wrote: »
    That's an evasion not an answer. There will always be an even number of votes because it takes one man and one woman to make a baby.

    So would you like to answer the question posed?

    A pregnant woman wants an abortion but the man doesn't want her to have one. How do you allow both to get what they want?

    I think they legalized creating babies with 3 parents (2 mums and a dad iirc) last week in the UK. Even without that sometimes the woman who carries the baby isn't the generic mother.

    It isn't evasion. You could set a default position (everyone aborts or nobody does) or somebody else has the role of makes the deciding vote. An equal choice doesn't mean everyone gets what they want. It means everyones choice is given equal weight in the outcome.


  • Options
    #501
    Pherekydes
    Registered Users Posts: 16,164 ✭✭✭✭Pherekydes


    Zulu wrote: »
    Hardly considering that the "pro-choice" lobby assume that the child chooses to die...

    The pro-choice 'lobby' doesn't assume anything about the embryo or foetus. They certainly don't assume it has a choice. It doesn't of course. And it isn't a child, either.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #502
    Zulu
    Registered Users Posts: 10,965 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


    Pherekydes wrote: »
    It doesn't of course. And it isn't a child, either.
    Oh? Is it an aeroplane? A typewriter? :rolleyes:

    It is a child.
    (Child: An unborn infant; a fetus.)

    So it seems I'm correctly using the English language... One thing that really pisses me off, is people refusing to acknowledge what's actually being discussed.

    At least have the courage to honestly address the subject.


  • Options
    #503
    B0jangles
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,951 ✭✭✭B0jangles


    Zulu wrote: »
    Oh? Is it an aeroplane? A typewriter? :rolleyes:

    It is a child.
    (Child: An unborn infant; a fetus.)

    So it seems I'm correctly using the English language... One thing that really pisses me off, is people refusing to acknowledge what's actually being discussed.

    At least have the courage to honestly address the subject.

    Serious question: Do you consider this to be indisguishable from this?


  • Options
    #504
    Zulu
    Registered Users Posts: 10,965 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


    B0jangles wrote: »
    Serious question: ...
    If you are looking for serious answers, don't ask silly questions. The two pictures are different. I can tell by some of the pixels. It's probably a photoshop job.

    Serious question: why do you have a problem with me using the word "child" correctly?


  • Options
    #505
    B0jangles
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,951 ✭✭✭B0jangles


    Zulu wrote: »
    Serious question: why do you have a problem with me using the word "child" correctly?

    Sorry, I asked first.


    The first image is of an implanted blastocyst - the stage you chose as being the point where you believe a fetus acquires equal rights with a born child (shown in second image). By your response it seems that while you might choose to call them both children, you acknowledge that there are massive differences between the two.

    You've even just said it was silly to even compare the two - that seems odd to me.


  • Options
    #506
    Mardy Bum
    Registered Users Posts: 3,674 ✭✭✭Mardy Bum


    Zulu wrote: »
    If you are looking for serious answers, don't ask silly questions. The two pictures are different. I can tell by some of the pixels. It's probably a photoshop job.

    Serious question: why do you have a problem with me using the word "child" correctly?

    I love the way pro lifers are terrified of answering that question when shown pictures. It just highlights the linguistic and intellectual dishonesty that characterises the pro life campaign. This dishonesty is used to get those too young (all those children at pro life rallies) to understand the difference between zygote, embryo, fetus and baby to become pro life.


  • Options
    #507
    Zulu
    Registered Users Posts: 10,965 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


    B0jangles wrote: »
    Sorry, I asked first.
    And I answered your question. You dodged mine though, why?
    you acknowledge that there are massive differences between the two.
    There are obviously differences between the two. But then, there are obvious differences between me and the person sitting beside me. However, those differences don't somehow make their life any less deserving of protection.

    So why do you have a problem with me using the word "child" as per its definition? Why do you insist on refusing to refer to the unborn foetus as a child??

    It would appear from your refusal, that you lack the courage to be honest.


  • Options
    #508
    endacl
    Registered Users Posts: 22,291 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    gobnaitolunacy wrote: »
    The Pro lifers must have some serious money, every place is plastered with posters in the last week or so.

    I know. I've been taking them down at a rate of 10-15 a day round my way. The auld recycling bin's gonna be busy over the next while...


  • Options
    #509
    Zulu
    Registered Users Posts: 10,965 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


    Mardy Bum wrote: »
    I love the way pro lifers are terrified of answering that question when shown pictures.
    I'm not afraid to answer it.
    It just highlights the linguistic and intellectual dishonesty ... used to get those too young ... to become pro life.
    Sigh, who's being dishonest? You infer that pro-life can't make up their own mind. Frankly your attitude smacks of an arrogance that all too common. If you refuse to respect the view of others, you can't expect anyone to respect yours.


  • Options
    #510
    Mardy Bum
    Registered Users Posts: 3,674 ✭✭✭Mardy Bum


    Zulu wrote: »
    There are obviously differences between the two.
    Understatement of the century?
    But then, there are obvious differences between me and the person sitting beside me. However, those differences don't somehow make their life any less deserving of protection.
    Can you explain these differences and how they are as profound as the ones in the picture?
    So why do you have a problem with me using the word "child" as per its definition? Why do you insist on refusing to refer to the unborn foetus as a child??

    Mainly because it is not a child nor a person.
    It would appear from your refusal, that you lack the courage to be honest.

    I would be amazed if somebody who has any third level education could say this without any hint of irony.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #511
    B0jangles
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,951 ✭✭✭B0jangles


    Zulu wrote: »
    And I answered your question. You dodged mine though, why?

    There are obviously differences between the two. But then, there are obvious differences between me and the person sitting beside me. However, those differences don't somehow make their life any less deserving of protection.

    So why do you have a problem with me using the word "child" as per its definition? Why do you insist on refusing to refer to the unborn foetus as a child??

    It would appear from your refusal, that you lack the courage to be honest.

    I didn't dodge it, you changed your post.

    Because it is more accurate to refer to the stages between conception and birth by the names which are proper to them.

    Anyone at any stage of their lives could be called a "child". I'm in my '30's, but I could still be referred to as my parents' child with perfect accuracy. However, most people commonly use the word "child" to refer to a human from birth to around puberty.

    Insisting on using it to refer to the unborn from the moment of implantation is an obvious appeal to emotion in the face of observable facts - you yourself scoff at the idea of mistaking a blastocyst for a infant, yet you insist on equating the two in every other way.


Advertisement