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
-
Abortion isn't black or white issue please don't go expecting people to be black and white in their views. It may be easier to dismiss to them if they're views are straight forward. That's not giving the complexity of the topic the respect it deserves.Zubeneschamali wrote: »See, Absolam? This guy is anti abortion!
No wishy-washy "it isn't practicable" stuff here!What possible kick would a woman get from getting pregnant just to have an abortion, especially in Ireland when she'd have to incur hassle to get one? This attitude towards women, that they'll just have abortions left, right and centre if we let them, is not surprising but it's extremely patronising and misogynistic, which I'd expect from those whose solution to every unwanted pregnancy is the same.
Some weird people get a kick of out of burning pets. It's not entirely unfeasible that some women somewhere would get a kick out of it. Just like it's not entirely infeasible that some men would get a kick out of forcing a woman through a pregnancy in pain. Heck, in this era of reality tv we've had a woman who proposed to do an abortion for incredibly spurious reasons. Anything is as they say possible. As long as it's a not a generalisation of women getting abortions it's not misogynistic.0 -
So, when he deviates from your pre-concieved notions, you're not going to kick him out of the people who are allowed to call themselves Pro Life club? I'd say he's deliriously happy :-)Zubeneschamali wrote: »See, Absolam? This guy is anti abortion!
No wishy-washy "it isn't practicable" stuff here!0 -
You've finally found someone you think will fit the pigeon hole you've been trying to fit someone into. I guess it helps validate everything you say, eh?It's nice to see a clear statement from someone who opposes abortion and isn't afraid to say so.
Well, you have to be honest here; no one has been hand wringing over it. You've brought it up over forty times so far, in fact you've badgered posters to tell you why they're not doing it. Is it really troubling you that much that no one is rushing to engage in something you obviously consider a necessary aspect of a pro life position?Now, when will those hand wringing over how it's not possible to prevent women from travelling to murder the unborn start the campaign to repeal the right to travel and information and introduce legislation to prosecute women on return if they abortions.0 -
How does its manner of conception change its right to life, and does a child actually born of rape have similarly reduced rights in your view?
If not, why only before it's born?
Because abortion is say -6.
Being raped and having to carry though with the baby when you don't want to is -8.
(numbers not exact, just trying to make a point why an exception exists).0 -
You've finally found someone you think will fit the pigeon hole you've been trying to fit someone into. I guess it helps validate everything you say, eh?
Well, you have to be honest here; no one has been hand wringing over it. You've brought it up over forty times so far, in fact you've badgered posters to tell you why they're not doing it. Is it really troubling you that much that no one is rushing to engage in something you obviously consider a necessary aspect of a pro life position?
It does trouble me that people who oppose allowing women to access abortion services in Ireland have no issue whatsoever with those same women bringing unborn children to be killed somewhere else. It's a total contradiction - why exactly do those who claim to be pro life think bringing unborn children to be killed outside the state is acceptable?0 -
Advertisement
-
It does trouble me that people who oppose allowing women to access abortion services in Ireland have no issue whatsoever with those same women bringing unborn children to be killed somewhere else.
It doesn't trouble me, it encourages me. These people have no principled objection to abortion, they just have some weird hangup about it happening in the Republic of Ireland.
Using what we learn here about this strange quirk, we might be able to devise some form of words which would allow abortion here without freaking these prolifers out. My first effort, we delete the stuff added in the 13th and 14th amendments, and make 40.3.3 read:
3° The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.
This subsection shall not limit freedom to access services deemed necessary by medical professionals.
See? We keep the equal right to life, so Ireland remains Holy and Catholic, but instead of adding a qualification which says the State won't do anything of the sort if Travel is involved, we say it won't do anything about Necessary Medical Treatment.
If these people can allow abortion on demand as long as you take a 1 hour Ryanair flight first, surely they can talk themselves into pretending that they've defended the unborn, and it's not their fault if medical professionals agree stuff in private with patients.
After all, it isn't feasible or practicable to track every pregnant woman and find out why she is suddenly not pregnant, right? So if she and her doc agree on a quick D&C, who's to know? Now I'm off to mass.0 -
They don't think that killing unborn children anywhere is acceptable ... but they also accept that law has its limitations ... and the issues around abortion aren't as 'black and white' as you would seem to have them believe.It does trouble me that people who oppose allowing women to access abortion services in Ireland have no issue whatsoever with those same women bringing unborn children to be killed somewhere else. It's a total contradiction - why exactly do those who claim to be pro life think bringing unborn children to be killed outside the state is acceptable?
Being 'pro-life' is being pro the life of the mother as well as the child. That is why many pro-life people, for example, treat women who have abortions with respect and compassion.
I think Turtwig has a good point when he said:-
Abortion isn't black or white issue please don't go expecting people to be black and white in their views. It may be easier to dismiss to them if they're views are straight forward. That's not giving the complexity of the topic the respect it deserves.0 -
It does trouble me that people who oppose allowing women to access abortion services in Ireland have no issue whatsoever with those same women bringing unborn children to be killed somewhere else. It's a total contradiction - why exactly do those who claim to be pro life think bringing unborn children to be killed outside the state is acceptable?
It's no particular mystery. What we have here is a "coalition", of sorts. On the one hand, there's the theocratic absolutists that'd be simply delighted to have a travel ban (or prosecution of intent, or prosecution after the facts... what have you got?). After all, there were over 600,000 people votes for this. They haven't all gone away, you know. But equally, they lost that time, and they realize they'd lose much more heavily if they tried to reverse it (much less to propose legislating for such a measure). Thus, most of them have the gumption to realize that agitating for this would be massively counterproductive. So, we get meaningless phrases like "limitations of the law", which is utterly to beg the question.
Then, on the other hand, you have the people for whom the "Irish solution" is apparently perfectly reasonable. Costs a couple of grand, doesn't happen here, isn't "legitimised", but happens "in moderation". And of course, if it happens to you, or someone you actually care about (as opposed to this "pro life compassion for women" that doesn't require any material signs of caring whatsoever, just repeating the word "compassion" as), it's available in "real" emergencies. Unlike all those fake emergencies everyone else has. How bad?
"Coalition" is in quotes because it's so long since it's been testing in any referendum, and political scaremongering and inertia is so great, that these views haven't been been tested in any systematic manner.0 -
-
Noting that latter caveat, where is "murder" on this spectrum? -6? -6.5? -10? And where would be variously: a 39 week abortion, a 20 week abortion, an 8-week abortion, and use of the MAP, which the fundies would typically like to ban just in case it is -- against all medical evidence -- a "2 week abortion" at some level of efficacy as such that's below statistical detectability.Tim Robbins wrote: »Because abortion is say -6.
Being raped and having to carry though with the baby when you don't want to is -8.
(numbers not exact, just trying to make a point why an exception exists).0 -
Advertisement
-
We don't make the laws for other countries.It does trouble me that people who oppose allowing women to access abortion services in Ireland have no issue whatsoever with those same women bringing unborn children to be killed somewhere else. It's a total contradiction - why exactly do those who claim to be pro life think bringing unborn children to be killed outside the state is acceptable?
It troubles me you have no issue killing a life just because it depends on someone else's body in one particular way.0 -
Tim Robbins wrote: »We don't make the laws for other countries.
It troubles me you have no issue killing a life just because it depends on someone else's body in one particular way.
But you think it's ok to kill unborn children conceived by rape. How do the circumstances of conception affect the ability of a woman to access abortion?0 -
alaimacerc wrote: »Noting that latter caveat, where is "murder" on this spectrum? -6? -6.5? -10? And where would be variously: a 39 week abortion, a 20 week abortion, an 8-week abortion, and use of the MAP, which the fundies would typically like to ban just in case it is -- against all medical evidence -- a "2 week abortion" at some level of efficacy as such that's below statistical detectability.
It depends on who gets murdered. For example murdering someone innocent would be -8 and murdering someone who was say a suicide bomber would be less say a -2.
Point I am trying to make is there is a sliding scale here:
abortion after 30 weeks is worse than abortion after 20 weeks which is worse then abortion after 10 weeks, which is worse than abortion after 1 week which is worse than abortion after 1 second.
That is the way I see it.
Whereas the extremes are more:
1. Killing a fertilised egg that is in your freezer is as a bad as killing a fully grown adult.
2. Killy a baby 5 seconds before birth while it is in the womb is fine, but killing it 5 seconds after birth is terrible.
I find both of these extreme ridiculous.0 -
alaimacerc wrote: »Then, on the other hand, you have the people for whom the "Irish solution" is apparently perfectly reasonable. Costs a couple of grand, doesn't happen here, isn't "legitimised", but happens "in moderation".
I think this is it in a nutshell - there are lots of people who grudgingly will admit to themselves that abortion is needed, but are damned if they are going to make it "easy", and damned if they are going to "legitimise" it by making it legal here.
They don't really care whether the abortion happens or not (or else travel would be a much bigger issue for them), but by Jesus they want to make sure that Irish women know just how much they disapprove of what they are doing, by making them jump through the hoop of expensive travel. And if the women with FFA pregnancies are affected, well that's just collateral damage. It really does seem to come down to (unconscious?) misogyny: women need to by punished for having abortions by making them travel. I can't see any other way to explain the mindset that is absolutely opposed to abortion in Ireland but couldn't give a monkeys about the same Irish women travelling to have those same "babies" aborted.
IMO, obviously.0 -
Sorry, are you claiming here she's being dishonest? You seem altogether too free with such charges, frankly. It's not one of your more endearing traits. (Or less un-endearing traits, with all apologies to Orwell.)Well, you have to be honest here; no one has been hand wringing over it.
And yes, there's been a tremendous among of hand-wringing about it. Relative to the very little the anti-abortionists have had to say in reply at all.
It's not universal, though. Over at p.ie in the there was one poster rubbing his hands in glee last year that the High Court hearing concerning the young couple in a dispute over travel to the UK was gleefully imagining that somehow, magically, this represented a "conflict" in the law about the right to travel. (This is known as "not being able -- or willing -- to read".)You've brought it up over forty times so far, in fact you've badgered posters to tell you why they're not doing it. Is it really troubling you that much that no one is rushing to engage in something you obviously consider a necessary aspect of a pro life position?
My diagnosis would be that lazygal is far from "troubled" by this. I think, and I think she likely thinks, that she has 'em on the run. And I think she and I are right to think this. Though she might be somewhat "troubled" by the essentially pigeon chess nature of such discussions, where people keep using a line of argument long after it's been refuted, skipping right past the part where the provide any actual argument, and straight to "victory Because Reasons!"
Here's the flowchart of what's been happening on this. Someone pops up with all the zeal of a recent convert to flaming on the internet and talks about "killing children". They're asked to compare their rhetoric with Irish law, current and prospective. They fail to successfully do so. Most often, they fail to ever try. It's not entirely unlike the "a unique individual human life begins at conception!" "... identical twins?" process.
In short: "we don't have a counterargument to that, so please have the good taste to stop talking about it" is not, itself, a good meta-counterargument.0 -
Oh wow - haven't heard this question before.But you think it's ok to kill unborn children conceived by rape. How do the circumstances of conception affect the ability of a woman to access abortion?
I don't think it's ok to just get married for the craic and then get divorced for the craic. But of course it is ok to get divorced in extreme situations.
Being raped is an extreme situation that makes the live of the woman miserable enough.0 -
I think this is it in a nutshell - there are lots of people who grudgingly will admit to themselves that abortion is needed, but are damned if they are going to make it "easy", and damned if they are going to "legitimise" it by making it legal here.
They don't really care whether the abortion happens or not (or else travel would be a much bigger issue for them), but by Jesus they want to make sure that Irish women know just how much they disapprove of what they are doing, by making them jump through the hoop of expensive travel. And if the women with FFA pregnancies are affected, well that's just collateral damage. It really does seem to come down to (unconscious?) misogyny: women need to by punished for having abortions by making them travel. I can't see any other way to explain the mindset that is absolutely opposed to abortion in Ireland but couldn't give a monkeys about the same Irish women travelling to have those same "babies" aborted.
IMO, obviously.
Sadly I fear you are wrong, I think they avoid opposing travel for abortions because they know that is a battle they cannot win (at least at present they hope). I have no doubt that if they could kill off any discussion of liberalising abortion in Ireland they would then target travel for abortion.0 -
Sadly I fear you are wrong, I think they avoid opposing travel for abortions because they know that is a battle they cannot win (at least at present they hope). I have no doubt that if they could kill off any discussion of liberalising abortion in Ireland they would then target travel for abortion.
Oh, yes! Look at what's happening in the US, the anti-abortionists through a campaign of intimidation, scaremongering and violence have shut down abortion clinics throughout the country, and now are targeting right-wing legislators in right-wing states (and counting on the fact that Ronnie Ray-Gun "the Alzheimers", Daddy Shrub and Baby Shrub have appointed virtually all the supreme court judges thus enusring a court short on legal and constitutional knowledge but long on pandering to the religious-right base {hence the 180 degree about turn on gun control since the '90's}) to make abortion harder and more expensive to access, then to shorten the time open to access services, and finally to ban them altogether.
The leaders know that services will be available in "liburrrl" states like NY or California for their wives and daughters, and they know that these measures will not stop the demand or need for abortions amongst the plebes sordide, only make those needing abortions having to go underground or fall down stairs, either way making it more dangerous, costly and life threatening. They know that when abortion was illegal before Roe v. Wade that the illegality didn't stem the number of abortions in the US, but it did kill off quite a lot of poor women, a win-win situation in their books.
And given the funding for Iona and Hitler Jugend Defence and their allies over here, we know that they will use the same tactics as over in the US, because it is the same puppet masters pulling the strings.0 -
If you break a law to prevent a larger crime, there's a broad legal principle of complete exculpation. So if you kill an imminently prospective SB, you have at least a claim of justifiable homicide, rather than any sort of "murder", in legal terms.Tim Robbins wrote: »It depends on who gets murdered. For example murdering someone innocent would be -8 and murdering someone who was say a suicide bomber would be less say a -2.
I get that, but it's not a very deep point if you don't give us some sense of where the "scale" is smooth or stepped, how steep it is, or indeed, much about what points are on it!Point I am trying to make is there is a sliding scale here:
I struggle to see any especially compelling distinction between the last three cases. Certainly between the last two.abortion after 30 weeks is worse than abortion after 20 weeks which is worse then abortion after 10 weeks, which is worse than abortion after 1 week which is worse than abortion after 1 second.Whereas the extremes are more:
1. Killing a fertilised egg that is in your freezer is as a bad as killing a fully grown adult.
2. Killy a baby 5 seconds before birth while it is in the womb is fine, but killing it 5 seconds after birth is terrible.
I find both of these extreme ridiculous.
What I find ridiculous is that these are prevented as somehow equal-but-opposite! There's been very serious and determined attempts to make the first the basis of the law in several jurisdictions, and it's essentially the position of the world's largest religious denominational body. The second is the stuff of "feminists say the craziest things" quote-mining.
In fact, given the initial preference of the anti-abortion lobby for an "absolute right to life of the unborn", and that the RCC "rates" abortion above almost all other "grave matters of sin", one might well infer that a very popular ridiculous extreme is that the zygote is of greater value than the person.0 -
Tim Robbins wrote: »I don't think it's ok to just get married for the craic and then get divorced for the craic.
OK... but is "not OK" a standin for "should be illegal"? Would we get a panel of three priests to determine if yours is an "extreme" case, and you should get a divorce? Extreme being perhaps life-threatening? (As distinct from health!) Or do we throw you in jail for 14 years if "for the craic" is suspected?
We're doing quite the tourist trail of ludicrous analogies, aren't we?0 -
Advertisement
-
We're able to make the laws here that say what you can plan to do elsewhere. We're able to make the laws here that say what you can be put in the slammer for doing elsewhere.Tim Robbins wrote: »We don't make the laws for other countries.
What we have done, instead, is to make a law preventing us from doing this in the particular case of abortion.
Is this is some way unclear, or is the only remaining strategy to ignore the explanations and act dumb?0 -
Does it though?It does trouble me that people who oppose allowing women to access abortion services in Ireland have no issue whatsoever with those same women bringing unborn children to be killed somewhere else. It's a total contradiction - why exactly do those who claim to be pro life think bringing unborn children to be killed outside the state is acceptable?
Which posters have offered the opinion (without your questioning) that they oppose allowing women to access abortion services in Ireland and have no issue whatsoever with those same women bringing unborn children to be killed somewhere else?
Which posters have offered the opinion (without your questioning) that bringing unborn children to be killed outside the state is acceptable?
These seem to be positions you have created especially on behalf of others in order to ask them to justify them to you. You have asked people do they support this position so many many times and yet you don't find it curious that no one claimed to espouse it before you asked them?
When a poster doesn't answer you ask them over and over, yet, when Silvio.Dante answered you, you didn't engage with his answer.
When Hinault replied to your question, you didn't discuss it, you just moved onto another question.
You decided against replying to Ralphdejones answer to your question, and when Tim Robbins pointed out you weren't engaging with his reply you ignored him.
When JC answered your question you decided not to reply,and whilst the first time you ignored my answer to your question I thought it might be because I didn't highlight your quote, I have to admit that when you didn't respond to my replying a second time I began to suspect you weren't interested in discussing the question you keep asking, only in asking the question....0 -
Does it though?
Which posters have said that they oppose allowing women to access abortion services in Ireland and have no issue whatsoever with those same women bringing unborn children to be killed somewhere else?
Which posters have said bringing unborn children to be killed outside the state is acceptable?
These seem to be positions you have created especially on behalf of others in order to ask them to justify them to you. You have asked people do they support this position so many many times and yet you don't find it curious that no one claimed to espouse it before you asked them?
When a poster doesn't answer you ask them over and over, yet,
when Silvio.Dante answered you, you didn't engage with his answer.
When Hinault replied to your question, you didn't discuss it, you just moved onto another question.
You decided against replying to Ralphdejones answer to your question,
and when Tim Robbins pointed out you weren't engaging with his reply you ignored him,
When JC answered your question you decided not to reply,and whilst the first time you ignored my answer to your question I thought it might be because I didn't highlight your quote, I have to admit that when you didn't respond to my replying a second time I began to suspect you weren't interested in discussing the question you keep asking, only in asking the question....
Ok, I have a simple question. If you could would you make travelling for abortion illegal?0 -
Tim Robbins wrote: »Well they are legally obliged. Your point is that no-one should have to legally look after their children if it means they have to use their body to look after the children.
Ok, I have to use my hands to change my kids nappy. Should I have to be legally obliged to do that?
More weak sauce stuff. The state doesn't compel you not to leave it to The Mrs. Or to hire childcare. Or to get on the phone to social services to weep down the line for help. (Whether you get it or not...) Or if it comes to it, give the kid up to the care of the state and fosterage, etc.
That you'd get thrown in the jail if you neglected to do any of the above is a faaar different proposition to "donate the use of your abdomen and your endocrine system, or go to jail". (Or else what happens in England, stays in England.)0 -
I'm sure Lazygal can quote the posters hand wringing on the thread over how it's not possible to prevent women from travelling to murder the unborn if she feels it's an honest representation. I don't imagine for a moment that she will say that replying to the effect that it is not practicable is the same as 'hand wringing'.alaimacerc wrote: »Sorry, are you claiming here she's being dishonest?
And there I thought you were falling in love with me. Oh well.alaimacerc wrote: »You seem altogether too free with such charges, frankly. It's not one of your more endearing traits. (Or less un-endearing traits, with all apologies to Orwell.)
There has? So whose hand wringing have the anti abortionists had so little to say in reply to?alaimacerc wrote: »And yes, there's been a tremendous among of hand-wringing about it. Relative to the very little the anti-abortionists have had to say in reply at all.
Not having been involved in the discussion, i wouldn't want to comment on what you know it as. But is rubbing your hands with glee not a little different from wringing your hands? Or are you assuming that if you assume he rubbed his hands with glee (I'm guessing you might not have actually seen him do it) at first, he must have wrung his hands in despair in the end?alaimacerc wrote: »It's not universal, though. Over at p.ie in the there was one poster rubbing his hands in glee last year that the High Court hearing concerning the young couple in a dispute over travel to the UK was gleefully imagining that somehow, magically, this represented a "conflict" in the law about the right to travel. (This is known as "not being able -- or willing -- to read".)
Well, I suppose if you make up a point on someones behalf and then beat them with it (there must be a name for that...) you probably would think you have them on the run with it if they're not responding. Doubly so if you ignore it when they do respond.alaimacerc wrote: »My diagnosis would be that lazygal is far from "troubled" by this. I think, and I think she likely thinks, that she has 'em on the run. And I think she and I are right to think this.
You think Lazygal might be "troubled" by someone continually using the same line of argument? Say, forty times or more? Skipping providing an actual argument, like by saying, "maybe those concerned about the unborn would have some ideas"? It's possible, I suppose.alaimacerc wrote: »Though she might be somewhat "troubled" by the essentially pigeon chess nature of such discussions, where people keep using a line of argument long after it's been refuted, skipping right past the part where the provide any actual argument, and straight to "victory Because Reasons!"
Victory because Reasons sounds awesome... I can't wait for that bit.
So it all boils down to just that? I guess we can all stop discussing it then; everything is fine. Well done.alaimacerc wrote: »Here's the flowchart of what's been happening on this <...> is not, itself, a good meta-counterargument.0 -
No. I cannot accept that wishing or intending to do something should be illegal; even if we had infallible mind reading technology capable of scanning everyone leaving the country that could assure us that this was the sole purpose of someone boarding an aeroplane or boat, it does not mean that they will go though with the act of having an abortion.Ok, I have a simple question. If you could would you make travelling for abortion illegal?
Similarly, if such technology were being used to make wishing or intending to commit murder illegal, I would oppose it on the same grounds.0 -
Which posters have said that they oppose allowing women to access abortion services in Ireland and have no issue whatsoever with those same women bringing unborn children to be killed somewhere else?
Which posters have said bringing unborn children to be killed outside the state is acceptable?
These seem to be positions you have created especially on behalf of others in order to ask them to justify them to you. You have asked people do they support this position so many many times and yet you don't find it curious that no one claimed to espouse it before you asked them?
You'll pardon us if we don't share your boundless enthusiasm for stabbing wildly with a butterknife at infeasibly tiny distinctions to make a specious "you terrible, terrible strawmanning people, you" <wrings hands/>. "I dislike your paraphrase!" does not advance the debate in material terms. At all.
We've certainly had posters mouth phrases like "the law has its limitations". Absent any further clarification on their part as to why they're not urgently striving to address said "limitations", what would objectively diagnostically differentiate this position from those above? When you remove the spin, and the "constructive ambiguity" behind "not an issue", "acceptable", etc, what you're left with is "I am content with a legal situation which expressly makes it (now merely near-)impossible to get an abortion in Ireland, and in the very same article expressly makes it possible to travel to GB to get an abortion with no prior or subsequent legal sanction."0 -
No. I cannot accept that wishing or intending to do something should be illegal; even if we had infallible mind reading technology capable of scanning everyone leaving the country that could assure us that this was the sole purpose of someone boarding an aeroplane or boat, it does not mean that they will go though with the act of having an abortion.
Similarly, if such technology were being used to make wishing or intending to commit murder illegal, I would oppose it on the same grounds.
OK, Minority Report objection noted (though it still hardly completely rules out criminalising intent in some form). What about prosecution after the fact?0 -
Because telling us how over at p.ie there was one poster rubbing his hands in glee last year does?alaimacerc wrote: »You'll pardon us if we don't share your boundless enthusiasm for stabbing wildly with a butterknife at infeasibly tiny distinctions to make a specious "you terrible, terrible strawmanning people, you" <wrings hands/>. "I dislike your paraphrase!" does not advance the debate in material terms. At all.
I can see how that would be different from stating "the law has its limitations". It must have been the way they wrote it, right?alaimacerc wrote: »We've certainly had posters mouth phrases like "the law has its limitations".
Well, it would be certainly be difficult to discover if you don't reply to their post, I admit. Though, in fairness, "the law has its limitations" hardly conveys a sense of an excessive display of concern or distress, does it? So in this case it would seem diagnosing infeasibly tiny distinctions from those five words to arrive at the conclusion the words are being mouthed in a hand wringing fashion is... infeasible?alaimacerc wrote: »Absent any further clarification on their part as to why they're not urgently striving to address said "limitations", what would objectively diagnostically differentiate this position from those above?
Fascinating. You're suggesting that if we remove the 'spin' and 'constructive ambiguity' from 'the law has its limitations' you're left with "I am content with a legal situation which expressly makes it impossible to get an abortion in Ireland, and in the very same article expressly makes it possible to travel to GB to get an abortion with no prior or subsequent legal sanction". As linguistic feats go, it's impressive. Remarkably improbable.... or was there a different statement someone made that you felt you could deconstruct in a similar fashion to arrive at a similarly alternate intent to the one it originally conveyed?alaimacerc wrote: »When you remove the spin, and the "constructive ambiguity" behind "not an issue", "acceptable", etc, what you're left with is "I am content with a legal situation which expressly makes it (now merely near-)impossible to get an abortion in Ireland, and in the very same article expressly makes it possible to travel to GB to get an abortion with no prior or subsequent legal sanction."0 -
Advertisement
-
You're very kind to note my objection. I'll let obplayer decide for himself if he feels it is sufficient answer to his question, and allow Lazygal to decide if it's sufficient reason for not preventing women from travelling to murder the unborn, since they were their questions.alaimacerc wrote: »OK, Minority Report objection noted (though it still hardly completely rules out criminalising intent in some form).
Is there a particular objection I've raised that you take issue with, or are you intending to present a practicable plan for it?alaimacerc wrote: »What about prosecution after the fact?0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement