Prolife Campaign on Protection of Life in Pregnancy Bill Superthread

Zulu

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Mainly because it is not a child nor a person.

I'm using english, how about you? Child.

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

I've a first class MSc, but does it really matter?

Mardy Bum

Zulu wrote: »

I'm using english, how about you? Child.

I've a first class MSc, but does it really matter?

I hope you don't classify chemicals with the same dishonesty so or there could be an accident in the lab.

Child was the word used before science showed differences in development. Although people still affectionately use the term when describing their pregnancy which I see nothing wrong with.

However when you are shown a picture of an zygote, embryo or fetus and describe it as a child it is incorrect.

looking_around

psinno wrote: »

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.

Sure, when the can transfer the foetus into a some kind of "medical" womb.
Til then, It's the WOMANS body it changes and affects.
YOu can't make that choice equal no matter how you try and look at it.

Sarky

Zulu wrote: »

I'm using english, how about you? Child.

I've a first class MSc, but does it really matter?

Oh hey, I have one of those too. And a couple of other qualifications we won't go into here, and a pretty sweet job as a research microbiologist.

I can appeal to my own authority too. Check this sh*t out:

You're wrong.

Bam!

endacl

I also have an Msc, and I approve the above post.

Zulu

Mardy Bum wrote: »

However when you are shown a picture of an zygote, embryo or fetus and describe it as a child it is incorrect.

Thats nice and all, but please point out where I said that.
I've simply been saying that an unborn foetus is a child.

I don't attribute opinions to you incorrectly, so I'd appreciate it if you'd extend the same courtesy to me.

Sarky wrote: »

Oh hey, I have one of those too. And a couple of other qualifications we won't go into here, and a pretty sweet job as a research microbiologist.

I can appeal to my own authority too. Check this sh*t out:

You're wrong.

Bam!

Hi Sarky, thanks for jumping in, but if you bothered to read the post I was replying to, my point wasn't what type of education I had or it's relevance, but rather that it didn't matter. It was in fact Mardy Bum (here) that made the retort re education that I was replying to.
But you know, hey, jump in there swinging anyway. :rolleyes:


...I think it's clear now that no one left is interested in a civil conversation anymore, but eager for a superiority circlejerk.

Pherekydes

Zulu wrote: »

Thats nice...circlejerk.

Anyways, back to those pesky wimminz and their ectopic pregnancies: do you agree with the removal of these little citizens or do you prefer the alternative?

Zulu

Pherekydes wrote: »

Anyways, back to those pesky wimminz and their ectopic pregnancies: do you agree with the removal of these little citizens or do you prefer the alternative?

pesky wimminz Your tone only clarifies and highlights my point.

I take it that you haven't bothered to read my previous post: the one where I clearly pointed out my position? It's trite to continually point out different circumstances when the answer has already been given. I can assume you are only looking for a stick to beat me with, which is unnecessary considering that my abortion stance should be enough.

Bannasidhe

Zulu wrote: »

pesky wimminz Your tone only clarifies and highlights my point.

I take it that you haven't bothered to read my previous post: the one where I clearly pointed out my position? It's trite to continually point out different circumstances when the answer has already been given. I can assume you are only looking for a stick to beat me with, which is unnecessary considering that my abortion stance should be enough.

Your position is very clear.

You believe that women should be forced to continue with unwanted, dangerous or nonviable pregnancies.

You also believe that a man should have the right to dictate what should happen with a woman's body.

You believe what a man wants trumps a woman's right to control over her own body.

Seems to me you don't care much for women.

Zulu

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Your position is very clear.

You believe that women should be forced to continue with unwanted,

Correct.

dangerous

Incorrect.

or nonviable pregnancies.

Incorrect.

You also believe that a man should have the right to dictate what should happen with a woman's body.

Correct, to an extent.

You believe what a man wants trumps a woman's right to control over her own body.

Incorrect.

Seems to me you don't care much for women.

Incorrect.

Seeing as we are making accusations: you are a liar. I have never stated some of the above positions you have laid out for me. And frankly I don't care much for what you are so quick to accuse me of.

As I stated before, none of you wish for civil conversation. This accusatory post confirms that. You do not want conversation; you want someone to hate. I have no further interest in your bile Bannasidhe.

Bannasidhe

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.

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"

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.

Zulu wrote: »

Correct.


Seeing as we are making accusations: you are a liar. I have never stated some of the above positions you have laid out for me. And frankly I don't care much for what you are so quick to accuse me of.

As I stated before, none of you wish for civil conversation. This accusatory post confirms that. You do not want conversation; you want someone to hate. I have no further interest in your bile Bannasidhe.

Resorting to an attack on the poster now not the post?

A quick look back over just the last two pages brought up two examples of where you insist a man should be able to insist a woman have a child she doesn't want.

How is that anything other than a belief that what a man wants trumps what a woman wants when it concerns what happens with her body?

Obliq

Zulu wrote: »

As I stated before, none of you wish for civil conversation. This accusatory post confirms that. You do not want conversation; you want someone to hate. I have no further interest in your bile Bannasidhe.

Right. First bolded sentence - you are saying something untrue, therefore you are lying.

Second bolded sentence - it is becoming very difficult not to hate someone who would force me to remain pregnant against my will.

Third bolded part - I'm only glad Bann has the energy right now to try and stand up to your dreadful sense of entitlement (which become's more clear every post you make) over women's choices to have/not have an abortion. It is quite sick-making, so while I can't speak for Bann, I can certainly tell you my bile is rising alright.

What kind of morality assumes that they are more correct than the millions of women who have always/will always take their own moral decision regarding an abortion? What makes you a better judge than the woman who will have to carry, give birth to and raise the resulting child?

General Zod

Of course it's not pro the choice of the father. The father isn't the one who has to risk his life to carry the foetus to term.

Zulu

Bannasidhe wrote: »

How is that anything other than a belief that what a man wants trumps what a woman wants when it concerns what happens with her body?

I never said what a man wants "trumps" what a woman wants. What I said, REPEATEDLY, was that "pro-choice" was as inaccurate a term as "pro-life".

Obliq wrote: »

What kind of morality assumes that they are more correct than the millions of women who have always/will always take their own moral decision regarding an abortion? What makes you a better judge than the woman who will have to carry, give birth to and raise the resulting child?

I not saying I'm more correct; I'm not saying I'm a better judge. I'm saying that my opinion is valid. I'm saying I'm entitled to use my vote to reflect that. I not trying to silence anyone, or say their opinion is lesser.

General Zod wrote: »

Of course it's not pro the choice of the father. The father isn't the one who has to risk his life to carry the foetus to term.

Exactly. Thank you for kindly using sense.

Zulu

Obliq wrote: »

... I can certainly tell you my bile is rising alright.

How dare a man have an opinion, right?

jaja321

Zulu wrote: »

I never said what a man wants "trumps" what a woman wants. What I said, REPEATEDLY, was that "pro-choice" was as inaccurate a term as "pro-life".

Seriously Zulu - choice is about having options - that's what pro-choice means. You're very fond of the English dictionary so if you look it up you'll find reference to an 'alternative' i.e. there is another choice. Simple really.

Obliq

Zulu wrote: »

I not saying I'm more correct; I'm not saying I'm a better judge. I'm saying that my opinion is valid. I'm saying I'm entitled to use my vote to reflect that. I not trying to silence anyone, or say their opinion is lesser.

By your support of the 8th amendment, which states that an unborn foetus has equal rights to life as that of a grown woman, you continue to deny me my opinion. You're right, in that you can't silence me, and it's your right to vote and give your opinion, but you are mistaken if you think that your opinion does not constitute imposing your judgement on people who disagree with you. That is the nature of this "British solution to an Irish problem" (to quote Alan Shatter yesterday).

Zulu

jaja321 wrote: »

Seriously Zulu - choice is about having options - that's what pro-choice means. You're very fond of the English dictionary so if you look it up you'll find reference to an 'alternative' i.e. there is another choice. Simple really.

Life is about living. Seriously Jaja, it's a simple point that both terms are equally flawed. It's telling that people can't even concede or agree on that single point.

The fact that I've been berated for trying to make is also, sadly, very telling.

Obliq

Zulu wrote: »

How dare a man have an opinion, right?

That's just silly. Completely beside the point, which is that male or female, your opinion is the one that is in force of law in this country, and mine is not taken into account currently.

Zulu

Obliq wrote: »

...but you are mistaken if you think that your opinion does not constitute imposing your judgement on people who disagree with you.

Thats the nature of a democratic society, and I'm glad for it. Would you wish to change that? Perhaps refuse the vote to men??

General Zod

Zulu wrote: »

How dare a man have an opinion, right?

do you have autonomy over your body?

Zulu

Obliq wrote: »

That's just silly.

As silly as the "pesky wimminz" I've had thrown at me?

Mr Benevolent

This thread is going around in ever decreasing circles, having now reached the 'definition' stage. So I'm going to give my opinion.

Abortion is killing a living, grow being, obviously. However, abortion is warranted in a few cases such as:

- Ectopic pregnancies
- Gross fetal defects (foetuses that would not live after birth or have gross defects that would result in a vegetative or near vegetative state)
- Pregnancy resulting from rape
- Severe foetal injury during pregnancy
- Direct medical threat to the mother's life (early onset eclampsia, severe infection, etc)

Personally I believe that abortion should be contraindicated when the mother has psychiatric issues (apart from the reasons above). Threats of suicide are not enough to warrant an abortion, as people who threaten to kill themselves rarely do it.

Abortion as a choice should be illegal after 8-10 weeks.

jaja321

Zulu wrote: »

Life is about living. Seriously Jaja, it's a simple point that both terms are equally flawed. It's telling that people can't even concede or agree on that single point.

The fact that I've been berated for trying to make is also, sadly, very telling.

You think the term pro-choice is flawed - I don't.

Zulu

Mr Benevolent wrote: »

This thread is going around in ever decreasing circles, having now reached the 'definition' stage. So I'm going to give my opinion.

Abortion is killing a living, grow being, obviously. However, abortion is warranted in a few cases such as:

- Ectopic pregnancies
- Gross fetal defects (foetuses that would not live after birth or have gross defects that would result in a vegetative or near vegetative state)
- Pregnancy resulting from rape
- Severe foetal injury during pregnancy
- Direct medical threat to the mother's life (early onset eclampsia, severe infection, etc)

Personally I believe that abortion should be contraindicated when the mother has psychiatric issues (apart from the reasons above). Threats of suicide are not enough to warrant an abortion, as people who threaten to kill themselves rarely do it.

Abortion as a choice should be illegal after 8-10 weeks.

I have problems with the rape point, but would pretty much agree with everything else you've posted there.

Nemeses

Zulu wrote: »

I have problems with the rape point, but would pretty much agree with everything else you've posted there.

What's your issue with the posts point on rape?

Obliq

Zulu wrote: »

Thats the nature of a democratic society, and I'm glad for it. Would you wish to change that? Perhaps refuse the vote to men??

Where did you hear that out of any woman here? Certainly not me.
Yes, I would like to change the status quo democratically. I have a need to be considered more important than a foetus, thanks.

Zulu wrote: »

I have problems with the rape point, but would pretty much agree with everything else you've posted there.

You have problems with the rape point? So you think it's fine that the woman has control taken away from her twice, and in the most depraved sexual fashion the first time and then in an equally depraved show of force in making her stay pregnant? You're some piece of work.

Zulu

Nemeses wrote: »

What's your issue with the posts point on rape?

I don't agree with abortion in that event.

jaja321

Obliq wrote: »

You have problems with the rape point? So you think it's fine that the woman has control taken away from her twice, and in the most depraved sexual fashion the first time and then in an equally depraved show of force in making her stay pregnant? You're some piece of work.

But sure its easy to speak about something that can never possibly happen to you.

Zulu

Obliq wrote: »

So you think it's fine that the woman has control taken away from her twice, and in the most depraved sexual fashion the first time and then in an equally depraved show of force in making her stay pregnant?

I don't think abortion is a solution for a tragic crime.

You're some piece of work.

:rolleyes: The feeling, I assure you, is mutual.