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
Abortion Discussion
Options
Comments
-
Rather I would say that the value of the life remains the same regardless of how it affects my lifestyle, but when balanced against my life, I value my own more.
What if the potential value of the tiny life does not balance against the value you place on your lifestyle? You've said that it's a fallacy to say all lives are of equal worth...Where we each decide we stand in that valuation is what I think really informs the abortion debate; as a subjective decision I don't believe the two sides can be reconciled by debate or fact, only reach an accommodation which will be comfortable for the majority.
Agreed.And I don't think that those 4,000 women necessarily feel any different; they simply apportion sufficiently little value to a foetus below a certain age, or in their own particular circumstances, that they are comfortable (or insufficiently uncomfortable) with causing its' death. I would be extremely wary of claiming all 4000 have the same feelings or are even are making exactly the same scale of value judgements.
If they have chosen abortion, then they have indeed made the value judgement that it was the better option to kill the foetus at that point in time, so since that's not something I disagree with, I am no more strange than they. And I might add that it's not the same 4,000 women, it's 100's of thousands.I don't think I'd consider quantity a value multiplier when it comes to the decision; whether it's one or a hundred cockrels I'll value the car more (if it's thousands the effort becomes a greater value factor), but I can't in honesty say I'd choose the car over even one human embryo; for no better reason than it seems worth more to me.
Yes, it was a clumsy comparison in the first place. If, however, you were to have to choose the death of your own choice of lifestyle (permanent) or the death of an embryo (also permanent), are you really that selfless? I'm not.You've already alluded to the fact that there is a point where you would consider the loss of a person to be too tremendous an event to contemplate carrying out the act of killing them; your line is obviously later than my line, and the crux of the debate is where we draw that line as a society.
Yes, and my line isn't a whole lot further down the road than your own, but crucially, mine makes room for choice. Until such a time as you could be reasonably sure that there has been sufficient time to make the decision if you want to have a child or not, like before 12 weeks, I don't see the need for any reason other than not wanting to be pregnant to have an abortion. After that is more of a health matter IMO, as I'm certainly uncomfortable with the idea of a larger foetus being euthanised for the sake of lifestyle. But that's me.Whereas as that veers into soapboxing; women are part of society and some (many? who knows) do believe that a life they carry, or even a life someone else carries, is more important than choices they might have otherwise made.
Of course. I made those choices myself, deciding that having two children was worth the lifestyle change of direction. Essentially though, I don't think it is unfair to men to say that women bear and birth the babies. I disagree with the Irish state's take on my say in the matter, and I would disregard it completely, as do many many other women who make their choices yay or nay. No state can legislate away the need for abortion services, like it or not.I would argue I am less at a remove from unborn embryos in my own society than I am from born humans in other societies; I can have a say in whether those embryos are born to a greater degree than I can affect working/livcing conditions in other societies.
Ah, that's entirely opposite to my view and I'm certain you cannot have more of a say in whether embryos of crisis pregnancies get born here (as the women take the decisions regardless of what you vote for), than you can affect conditions in other societies. I'd say both are equally a drop in the ocean.0 -
An embryo or foetus could fairly reasonably be considered an individual given that its' DNA is different from anyone elses DNA, if you choose to look at it that way.
No right-to-life for clones, then? (Glossing over that religious edict, bioethics bodies, and the criminal law all rule that out anyway, for the purposes of this thought experiment.) Several dystopic SF thrillers on much that premise, mind you...
And contrariwise, a cancer cell or other somatic mutation also has unique DNA. I doubt anyone argue it's on an ethic par with a zygote.0 -
No problem; I have a right to participate in the decision on your reproductive rights because your rights are granted to you by the society you and I live in. I'm not saying I can or should (or would) dictate your rights, but that we all, as members of our society, participate in determining our rights.
You mean, participate in the continued denial of my reproductive rights0 -
Eh, but that wasn't what I asked. (And you'd already offered that characterisation, so "Your surprise confuses me" there, too, as regards answering a question I didn't ask, amnd ignoring the one I did.) You snipped the actual question again. But I'm not sure to what purpose, as you do eventually get around to answering it at the bottom. So let's be cracking on to be getting there, and snipping a few inessential yes-buts....Richard Bingham wrote: »I am pro-life. No problem saying that in fact I'm surprised you had to ask.
I think, on the contrary, a somewhat closer to objective assessment of the "sharpness" to "nasty crap" scale involved. You really think your "barroom blowhard" riff comes lower down than my mild snark about it? Much less your inflammatory about the substantive issue?You can say all the nasty crap you want and if I get even remotely sharp you object. Double standards surely.
To those of us that speak English at a post-primary level, quotation marks mean different things in different contexts. If I write 'You said, "X.", the implication that is very clearly different from writing, 'You seem to be saying "X."' See "use-mention distinction" and "dictionary definition of the word 'seem'" for further details.Putting something in quotation marks indicates (to those of us who speak English) that it is a direct quotation.
Yes, it was pretty obvious, hence my complete lack of patience with your epic-length "quote where I said that!" exercise over my entirely reasonable -- and apparently completely accurate -- surmise as to the gist of your position. Though as you're quick to distance yourself from some of the usual "pro-life" suspects, and have said you're not willing to provide a definition of "human life" -- despite using it frequently in your flights of emotionalist rhetoric -- it's not what you'd call "well-defined".I stated it, not that my position wasn't obvious anyway
I'm trying to make you look like you know what you're actually arguing. The "looking bad" stuff was happening long before I got here.Your just trying to make me the bad guy by challenging me to state that there should be criminal sanctions for abortion, which means you have very little faith in your own argument and the only way you think you can look good is by making me look bad.
Well, there's a whole yawning series of gaps right there. What other things does "needlessly" encompass? Going blind, like the Polish case of a couple of years ago? Rape, incest, suicidality, foetal incompatibility with life? Are those all "needless", if the woman seeks a termination? And do you feel the women in those situations would agree with your assessment of their "need"?I want it to be against the law to take a life needlessly and needlessly includes abortions for lifestyle reasons but it doesn't include terminating a pregnancy to save the life of the mother (which is a rare thing).You can't have an effective law without sanctions and we're talking about the law, so yes - I want criminal sanctions for anyone who takes a life. Shock horror!
We're not necessarily talking about the law. It's possible to think that something is morally wrong, or unwise, without automatically believing "there needs to be legislation establishing such actions to be felonious". If you're going to advocate law (or defend some version of the legal status quo) with those consequences, you can't credibly distance yourself from it.0 -
I don't doubt that childbirth can be a horrendous life scarring experience; only that it generally is. And whilst I wouldn't wish tremendous pain and suffering on most people, neither would I wish death on most people, so I'd consider it a step too far too say a woman certainly ought to be permitted to kill a foetus to avoid the potential trauma of childbirth.I think that is exactly what child birth can be if it is an unwanted experience. Even where child birth is wanted, it can be just that. I'm sure I don't need to describe the gory details. Physically, mentally and emotionally challenging and potentially life changing in all those areas depending on how extreme the experience is. And that is a regular occurrence. I wouldn't wish it on someone who didn't want it, put it that way. It's only a risk you should willingly take.
I did, and I said that generally I'd value human life ahead of lifestyle. But there is a point somewhere; faced with a lifestyle bereft of arms and legs for instance, vs the life or a foetus (though I've no idea how that bizarre chioce might come about..) I think I would probably prefer to preserve my lifestyle, though I might lean more towards the life of the foetus if it were my own issue.What if the potential value of the tiny life does not balance against the value you place on your lifestyle? You've said that it's a fallacy to say all lives are of equal worth...
They've made the value judgement that it was the better option to kill the foetus at that point in time, but doesn't necessarily mean their values seem similar to yours which is what you said; only that their decisions have a result that is the the same as yours in certain circumstances. The values that led them to that decision could easily be (and likely are) very different for many of them; we don't know.If they have chosen abortion, then they have indeed made the value judgement that it was the better option to kill the foetus at that point in time, so since that's not something I disagree with, I am no more strange than they. And I might add that it's not the same 4,000 women, it's 100's of thousands.
Well you are in some respects; you've already changed aspects of your lifestyle in order to bring an embryo to term. Are you certain that there is nothing that you did before you had children that you can't do now? It's not an absolute; it's a matter of degrees. There are some things we will tolerate the loss of rather than kill an embryo, and there are some things we won't.If, however, you were to have to choose the death of your own choice of lifestyle (permanent) or the death of an embryo (also permanent), are you really that selfless? I'm not.
I wouldn't say that I'd be inclined to exclude choice; even if a pregnancy is absolutely certain to end the life of a mother I think, unless her decision making capacity is reduced, the choice of whether to forfeit her own life remains her own. That's the extreme end, but I don't exclude choice, I simply exclude absolute choice; as I would with any other bodily choice (such as assault, rape etc as we mentioned earlier).Yes, and my line isn't a whole lot further down the road than your own, but crucially, mine makes room for choice. Until such a time as you could be reasonably sure that there has been sufficient time to make the decision if you want to have a child or not, like before 12 weeks, I don't see the need for any reason other than not wanting to be pregnant to have an abortion. After that is more of a health matter IMO, as I'm certainly uncomfortable with the idea of a larger foetus being euthanised for the sake of lifestyle. But that's me.
No it's not, but it is unfair to say men can have no say in whether foetuses/babies live or die because they do not bear and birth the babies.Essentially though, I don't think it is unfair to men to say that women bear and birth the babies.
I'd be inclined to disagree with some of what the Irish state legislation is currently, and obviously there will always be people who will try to circumvent legislation that doesn't suit them. It doesn't necessarily make them right, but it might necessarily make them criminals. Nevertheless, even if Irish legislation changed tomorrow to make abortion legal according to a formula acceptable to majority of voting citizens, I think it would still fall short of what some want (or feel they need at some point in their lives), and they would still disregard the law.I disagree with the Irish state's take on my say in the matter, and I would disregard it completely, as do many many other women who make their choices yay or nay.
No state can legislate away a need for anything, like it or not. It can only legislate for a means to provide for that need or obviate the need; in the case of abortion the State has legislated a provision to address the need for abortion. That provision falls short of what many feel it should be, but how short it falls of what the majority feel it should be is debatable. However, I do think it is still short of what most people want.No state can legislate away the need for abortion services, like it or not.0 -
Advertisement
-
I didn't actually say that being an individual conferred a right to life; I said that an embryo or foetus could fairly reasonably be considered an individual given that its' DNA is different from anyone elses DNA. However, how can a clone have a right to life if a clone can't legally exist? If you want to posit one legal argument you can't really gloss over the legal argument that would precede and define it...alaimacerc wrote: »No right-to-life for clones, then? (Glossing over that religious edict, bioethics bodies, and the criminal law all rule that out anyway, for the purposes of this thought experiment.) Several dystopic SF thrillers on much that premise, mind you...
Probably not. But they could reasonably argue that it is an individual cancer. By the way, I'm reliably informed cancer cells do not have different dna from their host; they have the same dna with an additional mutation, which does not qualify it as different dna. I can't claim to be an expert on the subject, but the person beside me most certainly can, and she's pretty damn adamant.alaimacerc wrote: »And contrariwise, a cancer cell or other somatic mutation also has unique DNA. I doubt anyone argue it's on an ethic par with a zygote.0 -
No, I mean participate in the decision on your reproductive rights because your rights are granted to you by the society you and I live in. I meant exactly what I said. You may believe you have rights which are continually denied to you, but I can assure you I've never voted to withdraw any right from anyone, reproductive or otherwise.iwantmydinner wrote: »You mean, participate in the continued denial of my reproductive rights0 -
That's because the question to open up abortion rights has never been put to the people in Ireland within our lifetimes. Every referendum has been to restrict access even further.No, I mean participate in the decision on your reproductive rights because your rights are granted to you by the society you and I live in. I meant exactly what I said. You may believe you have rights which are continually denied to you, but I can assure you I've never voted to withdraw any right from anyone, reproductive or otherwise.
Abortion exists in every society, there will always be pregnant people who do not want to be pregnant for whatever reason. Society's choice is not a yes-no choice, it's whether we make it safe and legal or whether it is driven underground or abroad. If it wasn't for the pressure valve of the UK and the fact that Ireland loves to maintain fake facades abortion would have been legalized here years ago after the population got sick of Mamie Cadden-type cases.0 -
Actually, it's not. If there were a referendum to open up abortion access I wouldn't neccasarily vote against; it would depend on to what degree and in what fashion access was increased, which does lead into your next point.rainbow kirby wrote: »That's because the question to open up abortion rights has never been put to the people in Ireland within our lifetimes. Every referendum has been to restrict access even further.
The choice is not simply whether we make it safe and legal, it's in what circumstances we agree as a society it is appropriate to terminate the life of an as yet to be born human. That's a much bigger discussion. I'm not convinced that having easy access to a different regime has prevented legalisation; if anything surely seeing a different system operate so nearby would encourage those in favour to agitate for legislation, rather than accept the status quo. I simply think there is less of an appetite for broadly accessible abortion in Ireland than those who want it seem to think.rainbow kirby wrote: »Abortion exists in every society, there will always be pregnant people who do not want to be pregnant for whatever reason. Society's choice is not a yes-no choice, it's whether we make it safe and legal or whether it is driven underground or abroad. If it wasn't for the pressure valve of the UK and the fact that Ireland loves to maintain fake facades abortion would have been legalized here years ago after the population got sick of Mamie Cadden-type cases.0 -
I'm not convinced that having easy access to a different regime has prevented legalisation; if anything surely seeing a different system operate so nearby would encourage those in favour to agitate for legislation, rather than accept the status quo. I simply think there is less of an appetite for broadly accessible abortion in Ireland than those who want it seem to think.
That's a bit trite, tbh, as you are cheerfully ignoring the bullying tactics of the RCC and their affiliated lobby groups who agitated successfully for the most restrictive abortion laws in Europe, bar Malta. The shaming and castigation of any voice raised in opposition has historically, and continues to stifle any appetite at government level for bringing the 8th amendment back to the people to decide whether to keep or throw out and rewrite.
It's the very proximity of the UK's different system that prevents the number of "hard cases" from being exposed for the appalling human rights abuses that they are (forcing progressively ill cancer patients to travel for abortions, for example, and women being forced to experience carrying dead fetuses as if they are walking coffins due to the lack of services here). The only ones we historically heard about were the poor sods that died. We don't realise how many have had to travel for services - that is only starting to be brought to light and spoken about publicly. It's disingenuous to ignore the repression and the shaming that has kept alive and well this dreadful system of shipping our problem cases abroad.0 -
Advertisement
-
That may well have been true in the 50s and 60s, but you can't honestly think that the RCCs facility to shame and castigate in the 21st century has a substantial influence on the majority of public opinion? Politicians are only interested in the next vote; if they think their electorate can be motivated to vote for them by backing less restrictive abortion legislation they'll make the appropriate noises. I think they're probably more acutely aware of the can of worms they would be opening; it will be difficult to find the level that suits the most people, and opting for greater or lesser accessibility will alienate sufficient voters to endanger their re-election, so doing nothing is simply the safest option.That's a bit trite, tbh, as you are cheerfully ignoring the bullying tactics of the RCC and their affiliated lobby groups who agitated successfully for the most restrictive abortion laws in Europe, bar Malta. The shaming and castigation of any voice raised in opposition has historically, and continues to stifle any appetite at government level for bringing the 8th amendment back to the people to decide whether to keep or throw out and rewrite.
I think the 'hard cases' have had plenty of publicity, these are the easy poster boys for the pro-liberalisation groups after all. I'm not ignoring what has been done in the past, nor do I think that modern opinions are the same as those that repressed and shamed in the past. However, I do think there is a body of opinion that does oppose liberal abortion legislation and is entirely alien to the RCC standpoint. That block of voters is not going to be swayed by anti-catholic rhetoric or blame gaming. I'll happily acknowledge that there has been repression and shaming in the past, but it makes no difference whatsoever to my opinion on what we should do in the present.It's the very proximity of the UK's different system that prevents the number of "hard cases" from being exposed for the appalling human rights abuses that they are (forcing progressively ill cancer patients to travel for abortions, for example, and women being forced to experience carrying dead fetuses as if they are walking coffins due to the lack of services here). The only ones we historically heard about were the poor sods that died. We don't realise how many have had to travel for services - that is only starting to be brought to light and spoken about publicly. It's disingenuous to ignore the repression and the shaming that has kept alive and well this dreadful system of shipping our problem cases abroad.0 -
Which you were marshalling in the service of some right, or at least some legal presumption.I didn't actually say that being an individual conferred a right to life; I said that an embryo or foetus could fairly reasonably be considered an individual given that its' DNA is different from anyone elses DNA.
I didn't "gloss over" it. I enumerated the many, many problems problems with it. Are you unable to deal with legal hypotheticals with clearcut philosophical implications? What about factual hypotheticals? (For example, cloning happens extra-judically, courts and politicians then have to deal with the fallout.)However, how can a clone have a right to life if a clone can't legally exist? If you want to posit one legal argument you can't really gloss over the legal argument that would precede and define it...
The idea that one's DNA is what makes one an "individual" is in any case an unlikely proposition, given the existence of monozygotic twins. Not even the fundiest of the fundies have started to picket the homes of identical twins with signs calling them "HALF-SOULED ABOMINATIONS!", as far as I know.
Oh no you're not...Probably not. But they could reasonably argue that it is an individual cancer. By the way, I'm reliably informed cancer cells do not have different dna from their host; they have the same dna with an additional mutation, which does not qualify it as different dna.I can't claim to be an expert on the subject, but the person beside me most certainly can, and she's pretty damn adamant.
Well, anonymous uncited third-person ex cathedra pronouncements. Can't do better than that, can we! Oh wait, yes we can...
DNA + genetic mutation = different DNA. Different meaning "no longer the same". I'm sure even if you know nothing about biology, you know what the Latin root for "mutation" means, and implies. How do you think evolution works? If the person sitting next to you is an expert Youth Earth Creationist, I advise not making any sudden motion, but just moving sllloooooooowly off in the other direction. If not, the model answer is "germ cell mutations giving rise to different DNA".
Now, is it "as different as" a child is from each of its parents? No, clearly not, the variability in the population is much larger than single genes (or indeed single basepairs, which is the smallest possible mutation).
(A somewhat better biological argument would have been cellular potency, btw. But if I play both sides of the net too much it'll spoil everyone's "fun".)0 -
No it's not, but it is unfair to say men can have no say in whether foetuses/babies live or die because they do not bear and birth the babies.
Weren't you just saying you couldn't be dealing in legal hypotheticals? Counsel is instructed to maintain some tissue of rhetorical consistency in how he orders his arguments!0 -
'another' pro-life group, doubtless consisting of the usual suspects
http://www.broadsheet.ie/2014/05/03/dressing-down-rte/
I haven't watched the video, as my patience is a tad short today.0 -
Domain is registered to a "Maria Salisbury". There's someone of on facebook that might fit the bill. All looks very shady and fly-by-night. Also getting very annoyed at some very browser-hostile forced redirects from these websites, can't be bothered with them.'another' pro-life group, doubtless consisting of the usual suspectshttp://www.broadsheet.ie/2014/05/03/dressing-down-rte/
I haven't watched the video, as my patience is a tad short today.
My computer sound is still on the fritz, but I think we can get the gist just from a quick glance. Pay more attention to the hierarchy and Lolek!0 -
"lolek"?0
-
"lolek"?
Lolek Ltd, religious lobby group run by one D. Quinn, "trading as" some perfectly innocent island in Scotland, and describing itself as an "Institute", which by any sane definition it most definitely is not.
I prefer to refrain from buying into their abuse of language more than is strictly necessary.0 -
Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 18,407 CMod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 17141
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/thousands-protest-in-dublin-against-abortion-law-1.1783281
“The media failed abysmally to ensure the content of abortion law and the Government’s claims about it were critically examined. The media were pushing the law instead of critically examining it,” she said. “Most seriously the tragic death of Savita Halappanavar was misused by major players in politics and the media.” She said they were more concerned with getting abortion legislation passed than accurate reporting. Such journalists, she said, were more concerned with setting the agenda than reporting on it.
~~
Lynn Coles of the Women Hurt told the vigil that in recent weeks she had counselled a woman who had been considering an abortion. She decided to proceed with it.
“She took her own life on Tuesday. Abortion took not only her baby’s life but her own. She leaves behind a husband and grieving extended Irish family on both sides of the Irish Sea. The media will not cover her story. This is the reality of abortion.”
Aside from the usual question about attendance figures at today's rally, two sad cases. Some more confusion from the pro-life camp. Critcising 'the media' for furthering an agenda and then Coles is happy to use a case to further her own. I'm sure there is more to the woman's suicide than we'll ever know and it's not my business to ask for details. I'm not going to. Thoughts to that woman's family.Moderator: Television, Psychology and Dublin County North.
CMod: Entertainment
0 -
I'm remembering a stat that before abortion was more.easily available10% of suspect deaths/suicides in Ireland involved pregnant women. There's always going to be women who regret abortion, just as there are women who regret continuing a pregnancy and having a child they never wanted. Making it difficult or illegal to access abortion doesn't suddenly make every crisis pregnancy disappear.0
-
-
Advertisement
-
As I've said before; you telling me what my argument is so that you can attack it is entirely diffferent from my making an argument. Try sticking to what I a say rather than what you'd like me to say.alaimacerc wrote: »Which you were marshalling in the service of some right, or at least some legal presumption.
So when you said:alaimacerc wrote: »I didn't "gloss over" it. I enumerated the many, many problems problems with it. Are you unable to deal with legal hypotheticals with clearcut philosophical implications? What about factual hypotheticals? (For example, cloning happens extra-judically, courts and politicians then have to deal with the fallout.)
That was you not glossing over it, was it?alaimacerc wrote: »(Glossing over that religious edict, bioethics bodies, and the criminal law all rule that out anyway, for the purposes of this thought experiment.).
Again, I haven't offered any argument involving souls, though I get you want to play up your point. But I'm happy to agree that twins share identical dna and are different individuals, whilst both are actually individuals.alaimacerc wrote: »The idea that one's DNA is what makes one an "individual" is in any case an unlikely proposition, given the existence of monozygotic twins. Not even the fundiest of the fundies have started to picket the homes of identical twins with signs calling them "HALF-SOULED ABOMINATIONS!", as far as I know.
Yes, I am. But this isn't a punch and judy show.alaimacerc wrote: »Oh no you're not...
I wasn't attempting to educate you; simply pointing out what I've been told by a geneticist who works in the cancer field.alaimacerc wrote: »Well, anonymous uncited third-person ex cathedra pronouncements. Can't do better than that, can we! Oh wait, yes we can...
Excellent logic. However, you might understand that I'd rather trust someone who's spent the last fifteen years working in the field than your five minutes off the cuff logical proposition. I'm perfectly ok with you continuing to think as you do though, so don't worry about it.alaimacerc wrote: »DNA + genetic mutation = different DNA. Different meaning "no longer the same". I'm sure even if you know nothing about biology, you know what the Latin root for "mutation" means, and implies. How do you think evolution works? If the person sitting next to you is an expert Youth Earth Creationist, I advise not making any sudden motion, but just moving sllloooooooowly off in the other direction. If not, the model answer is "germ cell mutations giving rise to different DNA".
Again, good logic.alaimacerc wrote: »Now, is it "as different as" a child is from each of its parents? No, clearly not, the variability in the population is much larger than single genes (or indeed single basepairs, which is the smallest possible mutation).
Some good googling there, but I'm sure you'll understand if I prefer to go with someone whom I know understands what they're talking about.alaimacerc wrote: »(A somewhat better biological argument would have been cellular potency, btw. But if I play both sides of the net too much it'll spoil everyone's "fun".)
Again, I didn't offer a legal point, hypothetical or otherwise. It appears you're trying to make an argument for me again, so you can so pithily reply. If you stick to the fact of my statement you'll notice I said " it is unfair to say" not "it is illegal to say". No legal reference in the entire sentence. Your own consistency in proposing arguments on others behalf so you can throw out your cunningly crafted counters doesn't really add anything to a discussion; that kind of post is really just playing with yourself in public.alaimacerc wrote: »Weren't you just saying you couldn't be dealing in legal hypotheticals? Counsel is instructed to maintain some tissue of rhetorical consistency in how he orders his arguments!0 -
As I've said before; you telling me what my argument is so that you can attack it is entirely diffferent from my making an argument. Try sticking to what I a say rather than what you'd like me to say.Your own consistency in proposing arguments on others behalf so you can throw out your cunningly crafted counters doesn't really add anything to a discussion; that kind of post is really just playing with yourself in public.
I couldn't agree more.
You would need as much time as alaimacerc has (which is too much) to have a discussion with him as you would need to go back through numerous posts to figure out how he got to what he is stating, and then you'd have to go back and correct his incorrect statements every time and basically it is just a p1ssing contest rather than a discussion.
He claims I am avoiding his question, but I don't even know what his question is. He's typed hundreds of words giving out about me avoiding his question, and he could probably just type the question in 8 or 10 words. I have nothing to hide but again, I will state that I am not going back over either his or my posts to decipher what he is on about.
Just ask and I will answer, otherwise go have a p1ssing contest with someone else.0 -
I'm remembering a stat that before abortion was more.easily available10% of suspect deaths/suicides in Ireland involved pregnant women.
I had asked you for a source but I now see that its the Workers Solidarity Movement. Enough said.There's always going to be women who regret abortion, just as there are women who regret continuing a pregnancy and having a child they never wanted.
Are you seriously saying that their are mothers all over Ireland who when thinking about their kids, think there's Mary, and John and oh yes here's Suzy - I'm sorry I had her.
Anyone who chooses to keep the baby has something they will treasure for always. To say that anyone regrets it is rubbish talk.Making it difficult or illegal to access abortion doesn't suddenly make every crisis pregnancy disappear.
The idea is not to make every crisis pregnancy disappear. Bad sh1t happens to people. You can't make it all disappear.
Who told you that there is a solution for every problem that will result in your leading a charmed life? Would you have any character at all if you never had any struggle?0 -
Richard Bingham wrote: »I had asked you for a source but I now see that its the Workers Solidarity Movement. Enough said.
Are you seriously saying that their are mothers all over Ireland who when thinking about their kids, think there's Mary, and John and oh yes here's Suzy - I'm sorry I had her.
Anyone who chooses to keep the baby has something they will treasure for always. To say that anyone regrets it is rubbish talk.
The idea is not to make every crisis pregnancy disappear. Bad sh1t happens to people. You can't make it all disappear.
Who told you that there is a solution for every problem that will result in your leading a charmed life? Would you have any character at all if you never had any struggle?
I doubt every single woman sees every single pregnancy as welcome. I have two children. I would not see every pregnancy as something to treasure. And I don't need to be told what's character building and that I need to struggle. I don't subscribe to the Mother Teresa school of suffering.0 -
Just from the last few days of internet browsing:
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/mar/20/nathan-born-premature-life-death?CMP=EMCNEWEML6619I2
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/01/pregnancy-20-week-abortion-ban-mississippi
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-true-picture-of-the-women-who-face-late-term-abortion/2012/07/27/gJQAxSCjEX_story.html
Then of course there is me who has three but wishes I had fewer, and had them when I was in the right mind to accept and be able to care for them all and also do what was best for me at the time.
Oh wait, that's rubbish talk. Richard said so.0 -
Every women who has thrown the rope up because she found out she was pregnant to her abuser, her rapist, her married lover, some guy who didn't want her, wanted to finish out her education or just wanted to get on with a family when she was ready and able to have one should have just continued with the pregnancy cos no woman ever regrets having children.
Sure it's bred into them, everyone knows nothing validates you like having more kids.
Every teenaged mother who has been rejected by her family as a whore and forced to fend for herself from her teenage years has something that she will treasure for always, so to say that she regrets the choices she ever made in life is rubbish talk.
It's not like she'd ever be forced to give birth to a child she didn't want, or give up a child she didn't want to. No woman has ever thrown the rope up because she was so horrified at the thoughts of having a baby. Women have never bled to death from puncturing their own wombs trying to get rid of a pregnancy. Nothing like this has ever happened in the whole history of ever because aww da babbies.
Every mother who has watched her baby die an agonising death due to prenatally diagnosed birth defects like anacephaly, or simply being born too soon and not being viable - sure they lived a few days or hours in agony and/or gasping for life, and aww you can treasure that for always. How adorbale was their every gasp and bleat. No one would ever possibly regret letting a child live for a short painful existence because... erm, why, exactly? I forget. Oh yeah, da babbies.
Every woman ever loves all da babbies and loves them so much they even wants them to suffer to every second of possibly painful, or unwanted or unloved existence because ... erm, why exactly?
Oh yeah, because YOU'RE the guy who never responds to requests for clarification because you are WAY TOO BUSY to follow the discussion you have involved yourself in, apart from popping in to laugh at other people for discussing the issue at hand. You have plenty of time and energy to scoff at and mock other people but absolutley none to review your own posts, let alone read anyone elses.
All of your recent posts are just scoffing at other posters trying to engage you in serious debate whilst contributing nothing. I'm sure the likes of YD are high fiving you but you are coming across as having nothing to say. Are you actually just trying to score internet points? Because you're coming across as a sanctimonius misogynist and believe me, that is not going to get you any support.0 -
Richard Bingham wrote: »Are you seriously saying that their are mothers all over Ireland who when thinking about their kids, think there's Mary, and John and oh yes here's Suzy - I'm sorry I had her.
Anyone who chooses to keep the baby has something they will treasure for always. To say that anyone regrets it is rubbish talk.
Just because you find it hard to believe doesn't mean it's not true you know. Whether you wish to accept my anecdotal evidence as relevant is up to you, but I have met women who regretted having had children. That didn't mean they didn't love their child or children (it didn't mean they did), but that they felt regret at what those children had cost them in other ways.
It's also something that women are slow to say publically, because there tends to be quite a backlash from other people, especially other mothers for some reason. It is quite the taboo thing to admit, a bit like admitting you have had an abortion.
But abortion does makes a crisis pregnancy disappear. I thought that was the whole point? It doesn't make a bad situation a wonderful experience, but it makes it less bad. What exactly are you arguing here - that if abortion doesn't make a woman's life perfect, it is somehow better to force the pregnancy to continue instead?The idea is not to make every crisis pregnancy disappear. Bad sh1t happens to people. You can't make it all disappear.
Who is arguing that abortion is a route to a charmed life?Who told you that there is a solution for every problem that will result in your leading a charmed life?
I don't disagree that struggles can be character forming, but such struggles should be willingly entered, not forced upon us by others. Perhaps struggling to to get safe, legal abortion in Ireland is more character forming than struggling to keep Ireland's treatment of women in the dark ages?Would you have any character at all if you never had any struggle?0 -
Richard Bingham wrote: »Are you seriously saying that their are mothers all over Ireland who when thinking about their kids, think there's Mary, and John and oh yes here's Suzy - I'm sorry I had her.
Anyone who chooses to keep the baby has something they will treasure for always. To say that anyone regrets it is rubbish talk.
Believe it or not there are. I've worked with three women in the past year looking for counselling because they have issues bonding with children they didn't want to have. And they are just the ones brave enough to admit it. There is a huge stigma for parents, particularly mothers, who don't feel they love or want their kids.0 -
The quote (partial) below from Absolom takes the biscuit, if not the award, for pure gall. I'm wondering, reading through it, if it's not a complete contradiction in terms. Absolom believes he has the right to participate in the decision (a personal decision) of the O/P because the rights of reproduction are granted by society, but he's also saying that he is not saying that he can or should dictate the O/P's rights.
Absolom's quote:No problem; I have a right to participate in the decision on your reproductive rights because your rights are granted to you by the society you and I live in. I'm not saying I can or should (or would) dictate your rights, but that we all, as members of our society, participate in determining our rights; unquote.
I'm left wondering if this mean's that Absolom might take his opinion of society's (and it's members) rights and decide to take an alternate view, something on the lines of Chinese Society with regard to the ratio of male V female babies, in the manner of "the greater good" or "participate in determining OUR rights".
Richard Bingham's quote; Are you seriously saying that their are mothers all over Ireland who when thinking about their kids, think there's Mary, and John and oh yes here's Suzy - I'm sorry I had her.
Anyone who chooses to keep the baby has something they will treasure for always. To say that anyone regrets it is rubbish talk.:unquote.
Richard: Do you seriously believe that there NEVER WERE pregnant women forced by Irish societal norms to proceed through to birth of babies that the women themselves NEVER wanted. Come on, isn't that why laws and criminal sanction against abortion were brought in; to scare the bejasus out of women considering having an abortion, let alone the "your soul will suffer eternal damnation" pronouncements.0 -
Advertisement
-
The Black Oil wrote: »Aside from the usual question about attendance figures at today's rally, two sad cases. Some more confusion from the pro-life camp. Critcising 'the media' for furthering an agenda and then Coles is happy to use a case to further her own. I'm sure there is more to the woman's suicide than we'll ever know and it's not my business to ask for details. I'm not going to. Thoughts to that woman's family.Lynn Coles wrote:Lynn Coles of the Women Hurt told the vigil that in recent weeks she had counselled a woman who had been considering an abortion. She decided to proceed with it.
“She took her own life on Tuesday. Abortion took not only her baby’s life but her own. She leaves behind a husband and grieving extended Irish family on both sides of the Irish Sea. The media will not cover her story. This is the reality of abortion.”
And also further evidence that the anti-abortion crowd don't give two ****s about the life they are crowing so loudly about "protecting". Any truly pro-life organisation wouldn't be so quick to exploit details they came across like the women's suicide to try and paint their opposition as killers, though to be honest a true pro-life group would be far more amenable to abortions where the life or health of the mother were at risk, rather than the "we don't care about the mother, she's only an empty vessel for the carrying of de preecccioooooos bayyyyyyyybeeeee!" misogynist message the anti-abortion movement spreads.
Oh and how very ethical it is of a counsellor to break medical ethics to further her political agenda, don't you think?0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement