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
1…312313315317318…334

Comments

  • Options
    #9422
    robdonn
    Registered Users Posts: 1,107 ✭✭✭robdonn


    Two Sheds wrote: »
    As we've already seen the UN Convention tells us that childhood begins before birth. It looks as if the supporters of abortion have no time for The Rights of the Child.

    What about in a state that does not accept that definition, as the Convention allows for?


  • Options
    #9423
    alaimacerc
    Registered Users Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    Two Sheds wrote: »
    As we've already seen the UN Convention tells us that childhood begins before birth. It looks as if the supporters of abortion have no time for The Rights of the Child.
    Look like that if you read what you saying about other posters, certainly. But as little of what you write is responsive to what others have said, that's not entirely surprising.
    The teenage-adult thing might apply, but only if you were using age as a justification for killing the teenager.
    So your argument is, essentially, a foetus -- embryo? blastocyte? zygote? -- is a "child" for purposes of "not being killed", but not any other sense whatsoever? So consistency in the use of such language is of no importance. Just so long as one is able to amp up the rhetoric by such devices.


  • Options
    #9424
    alaimacerc
    Registered Users Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    robdonn wrote: »
    Luckily I don't need to state my preference as Two Sheds prefers to simply presume to know what I think.

    2S indeed does seem have that preference, but if you don't state what you think, only what you object to being told you think, you risk sounding like Meat Loaf! (Or one or two other posters here, I dare say.)


  • Options
    #9425
    robdonn
    Registered Users Posts: 1,107 ✭✭✭robdonn


    alaimacerc wrote: »
    2S indeed does seem have that preference, but if you don't state what you think, only what you object to being told you think, you risk sounding like Meat Loaf! (Or one or two other posters here, I dare say.)

    Well I would hope that after a while people would simply stop presuming what I think. :P My only argument is with the presumption, not necessarily with the actual content.


  • Options
    #9426
    sinead88
    Registered Users Posts: 172 ✭✭sinead88


    I'm very much pro choice. I live in Scotland and I think the system here is so much better. I've started following a lot of pro choice US commentators in regards to the Planned Parenthood debate recently and came across this quote:
    "I do not believe that just because you're opposed to abortion, that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed. And why would I think that you don't? Because you don't want any tax money to go there. That's not pro-life. That's pro-birth. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is."
    --- Sister Joan D. Chittister O.S.B.
    Funnily enough, It's actually by a nun, but it really resonates with me.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9427
    Two Sheds
    Registered Users Posts: 316 ✭✭Two Sheds


    robdonn wrote: »
    What about in a state that does not accept that definition, as the Convention allows for?
    What about it? I'm pointing out an obvious deduction.


  • Options
    #9428
    Two Sheds
    Registered Users Posts: 316 ✭✭Two Sheds


    alaimacerc wrote: »
    Look like that if you read what you saying about other posters, certainly. But as little of what you write is responsive to what others have said, that's not entirely surprising.


    So your argument is, essentially, a foetus -- embryo? blastocyte? zygote? -- is a "child" for purposes of "not being killed", but not any other sense whatsoever? So consistency in the use of such language is of no importance. Just so long as one is able to amp up the rhetoric by such devices.
    We're discussing killing children (yes, I do feel dirty) and you're concerned about rhetoric?

    The reality is that age is used as a justification for killing children.


  • Options
    #9429
    Two Sheds
    Registered Users Posts: 316 ✭✭Two Sheds


    sinead88 wrote: »
    I'm very much pro choice. I live in Scotland and I think the system here is so much better. I've started following a lot of pro choice US commentators in regards to the Planned Parenthood debate recently and came across this quote:
    "I do not believe that just because you're opposed to abortion, that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed. And why would I think that you don't? Because you don't want any tax money to go there. That's not pro-life. That's pro-birth. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is."
    --- Sister Joan D. Chittister O.S.B.
    Funnily enough, It's actually by a nun, but it really resonates with me.
    Cruelty dressed up as compassion. Some of us want children born and fed.


  • Options
    #9430
    Fred Swanson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,730 ✭✭✭✭Fred Swanson


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #9431
    alaimacerc
    Registered Users Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    sinead88 wrote: »
    Funnily enough, It's actually by a nun, but it really resonates with me.

    Or "Dissident Nun Sister Joan Chittister", as the CLC would call her!

    Why not wanting to criminalise women who don't want to be forced to carry their pregnancies to term makes one a "dissident" in a religious body whose name means "including a wide variety of things; all-embracing" is itself quite the puzzler.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9432
    Two Sheds
    Registered Users Posts: 316 ✭✭Two Sheds


    Fred Swanson wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    Are you?


  • Options
    #9433
    Fred Swanson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,730 ✭✭✭✭Fred Swanson


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #9434
    Two Sheds
    Registered Users Posts: 316 ✭✭Two Sheds


    Fred Swanson wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    And you don't? Is it the feeding part you're having a problem with? Are you concerned that it might cost you?


  • Options
    #9435
    Fred Swanson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,730 ✭✭✭✭Fred Swanson


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #9436
    sinead88
    Registered Users Posts: 172 ✭✭sinead88


    If a woman chooses to go through with a pregnancy, and give her child up for adoption, or raise him or her herself, I am perfectly happy to pay taxes towards that child's upbringing. What I don't support is a system where a woman is forced into giving birth by the state, and ends up in a situation where it is extremely difficult to provide for that child, or where the child ends up in an incredibly underfunded foster care system. Far too many "pro life" people seem to be the types who don't give a second thought to the child once it's born. In my experience, many of them also spout rhetoric about "benefit scroungers" once a single mother needs state support, or else look down upon unwed mothers entirely.


  • Options
    #9437
    alaimacerc
    Registered Users Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    Two Sheds wrote: »
    We're discussing killing children (yes, I do feel dirty) and you're concerned about rhetoric?
    You certainly should feel dirty, given your distorted and inflammatory use of language.

    I'm "concerned" about such rhetoric because it's used to justify unduly curtailing people's (sensu... how most people use the word "people") liberty. To endanger their health. And indeed until recently to put their lives at risk. And on a basis that doesn't satisfy the basics of social justice and equity.
    The reality is that age is used as a justification for killing children.
    Still waiting for that definition of "child" from someone so very, very keen to mock those provided by others. I realize it might not constrain the full extent of the things you'd like to criminalise (or keep criminalised), but it might at least constrain your flights of language.


  • Options
    #9438
    robdonn
    Registered Users Posts: 1,107 ✭✭✭robdonn


    Two Sheds wrote: »
    What about it? I'm pointing out an obvious deduction.

    Yes, and I am following it further. A state can adopt the Convention and still define a child as beginning from birth, therefore abide by the Rights of the Child and still perform abortions with no legal quandary.


  • Options
    #9439
    Two Sheds
    Registered Users Posts: 316 ✭✭Two Sheds


    Fred Swanson wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    I wonder is yours a common reason for support for abortion - not wanting to foot the bill for disadvantaged children?

    When you scratch the surface, many areas of 'concern' come down to money.


  • Options
    #9440
    robdonn
    Registered Users Posts: 1,107 ✭✭✭robdonn


    Two Sheds wrote: »
    I wonder is yours a common reason for support for abortion - not wanting to foot the bill for disadvantaged children?

    When you scratch the surface, many areas of 'concern' come down to money.

    Ah now, are we making presumptions again?


  • Options
    #9441
    Two Sheds
    Registered Users Posts: 316 ✭✭Two Sheds


    robdonn wrote: »
    Yes, and I am following it further. A state can adopt the Convention and still define a child as beginning from birth, therefore abide by the Rights of the Child and still perform abortions with no legal quandary.
    When the head of the UN Human Rights Committee believes that the unborn are not human beings, then we can be sure that states can do whatever they like, as long as it involves killing lots of unborn children.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9442
    sinead88
    Registered Users Posts: 172 ✭✭sinead88


    Two Sheds wrote: »
    I wonder is yours a common reason for support for abortion - not wanting to foot the bill for disadvantaged children?

    When you scratch the surface, many areas of 'concern' come down to money.

    How do you feel about disadvantaged adult women? At the moment we have a two tier system where women who have the financial means can afford to go to the UK, and make a choice, whereas those that do not, are constrained by our unjust laws. This totally reinforces the cycle of poverty. Ireland is exporting its issues, rather than dealing with them fairly.


  • Options
    #9443
    robdonn
    Registered Users Posts: 1,107 ✭✭✭robdonn


    Two Sheds wrote: »
    When the head of the UN Human Rights Committee believes that the unborn are not human beings, then we can be sure that states can do whatever they like, as long as it involves killing lots of unborn children.

    Well that's a bit of a leap.


  • Options
    #9444
    Two Sheds
    Registered Users Posts: 316 ✭✭Two Sheds


    sinead88 wrote: »
    How do you feel about disadvantaged adult women? At the moment we have a two tier system where women who have the financial means can afford to go to the UK, and make a choice, whereas those that do not, are constrained by our unjust laws. This totally reinforces the cycle of poverty. Ireland is exporting its issues, rather than dealing with them fairly.
    Didn't one of those women die .. and another seriously injured?

    Fortunately, Ireland remains a relatively safe place for women to have their babies and a safe place for babies to be allowed live. The same definitely can't be said of the UK.


  • Options
    #9445
    alaimacerc
    Registered Users Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    Two Sheds wrote: »
    Fortunately, Ireland remains a relatively safe place for women to have their babies and a safe place for babies to be allowed live.
    Sure, relatively safe. It's a modern, developed western democracy. It's no Estonia, though.
    The same definitely can't be said of the UK.
    Definitely not "the same". On recent evidence, better.

    http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/new-report-reveals-sharp-rise-in-number-of-maternal-deaths-1.2111831

    And no criminalisation of the exercise of bodily autonomy either, as an additional plus.


  • Options
    #9446
    robdonn
    Registered Users Posts: 1,107 ✭✭✭robdonn


    Two Sheds wrote: »
    Didn't one of those women die .. and another seriously injured?

    Fortunately, Ireland remains a relatively safe place for women to have their babies and a safe place for babies to be allowed live. The same definitely can't be said of the UK.

    Didn't Savita Halappanavar die? Or is a single case not sufficient evidence when it doesn't support your own view?


  • Options
    #9447
    sinead88
    Registered Users Posts: 172 ✭✭sinead88


    That's actually an argument for bringing in abortion legislation. It would mean that women wouldn't have to travel afterwards and could spend longer in the medical facility. They also wouldn't have to be afraid to seek medical help in the event of complications, because it wouldn't be illegal.


  • Options
    #9448
    Two Sheds
    Registered Users Posts: 316 ✭✭Two Sheds


    robdonn wrote: »
    Didn't Savita Halappanavar die? Or is a single case not sufficient evidence when it doesn't support your own view?
    Lots of people die for lots of different reasons. This thread is about abortion.


  • Options
    #9449
    Two Sheds
    Registered Users Posts: 316 ✭✭Two Sheds


    sinead88 wrote: »
    That's actually an argument for bringing in abortion legislation. It would mean that women wouldn't have to travel afterwards and could spend longer in the medical facility. They also wouldn't have to be afraid to seek medical help in the event of complications, because it wouldn't be illegal.
    Maybe the medical personnel can use that in their defence?

    The IFPA gave women great, dangerous advice, didn't they - despite no law being broken.


  • Options
    #9450
    robdonn
    Registered Users Posts: 1,107 ✭✭✭robdonn


    Two Sheds wrote: »
    Lots of people die for lots of different reasons. This thread is about abortion.

    And Savita Halappanavar died as an indirect result of not receiving an abortion. On topic, despite your apparent disregard for human life.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9451
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 82,771 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    The same lawmakers in the U.S. Wanting to defund PP are the same ones who want to shut down Medicare, social security, food stamps, and basically all the other systems in place that assist the disadvantaged; indeed a baby born, but not a baby fed - not just a quotable choice of words but actually how messed up some peoples viewpoint is on the situation.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement