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…319320322324325…334

Comments

  • Options
    #9632
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    what empirical evidence can we offer to show that a pro-choice position is the correct one?

    Maybe the fact that some women have always chosen to end pregnancies rather than remain pregnant? There's never been a time when women haven't sought abortion.


  • Options
    #9633
    Two Sheds
    Registered Users Posts: 316 ✭✭Two Sheds


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    If "faith" is defined as "taking to be true something which is not shown by evidence to be true" - and that definition, or some variation of it, is commonly offered on this board - then the claim that a woman has a right to choose is a matter of faith. How, after all, can we possibly show by evidence that a woman has a right to choose? All claims about rights are faith-based.
    Also, most human rights have a basis in a broad consensus.
    The 'right' to choose to kill a child has no such basis. It is a term that was put out there and has been adopted into common language.

    But, having no basis, it's a belief, an article of faith, with the likes of Amnesty International as its church and Colm O'Gorman as one of its High Priests (he must get a kick out of leading a coterie of believers).


  • Options
    #9634
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,509 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    lazygal wrote: »
    Maybe the fact that some women have always chosen to end pregnancies rather than remain pregnant? There's never been a time when women haven't sought abortion.
    There's never been a time when people haven't committed murder. Or when they haven't donated to charity.

    All this proves is that these things happen. It doesn't prove that they are right or wrong, or that they should or should not happen.


  • Options
    #9635
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    There's never been a time when people haven't committed murder. Or when they haven't donated to charity.

    All this proves is that these things happen. It doesn't prove that they are right or wrong, or that they should or should not happen.


    Again, how is allowing women the choice to continue to remain pregnant or have an abortion a faith-based position?


  • Options
    #9636
    Two Sheds
    Registered Users Posts: 316 ✭✭Two Sheds


    lazygal wrote: »
    Maybe the fact that some women have always chosen to end pregnancies rather than remain pregnant? There's never been a time when women haven't sought abortion.
    Women have almost always been oppressed, in many societies.
    Telling mothers it's ok to kill their child, while providing the means to do so (and charging them), is a continuation of that oppression.

    Some of us want to change that. We call it 'progress'.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9637
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,955 ✭✭✭Daith


    Two Sheds wrote: »
    Women have always been oppressed.
    Telling mothers it's ok to kill their child, while providing the means to do so (and charging them), is a continuation of that oppression.

    Some of us want to change that. We call it 'progress'.

    It's not a child. Otherwise the morning after pill will need to be stopped.


  • Options
    #9638
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    Two Sheds wrote: »
    Women have always been oppressed.
    Telling mothers it's ok to kill their child, while providing the means to do so (and charging them), is a continuation of that oppression.

    Some of us want to change that. We call it 'progress'.

    If the services are provided at no cost to the woman, would that reduce some of the oppression?


  • Options
    #9639
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,509 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    lazygal wrote: »
    Again, how is allowing women the choice to continue to remain pregnant or have an abortion a faith-based position?
    I didn't say it was. I said that asserting that they have a right to choose abortion is a faith based position. It's a faith-based position because there is no evidence for the existence or reality of that right.

    It's a faith-based position in exactly the way that asserting that the foetus has a right to life is a faith based position. In both cases we asserting the existence or reality of something - a moral right - for whose existence or reality there is no evidence.


  • Options
    #9640
    Kev W
    Registered Users Posts: 2,536 ✭✭✭Kev W


    Two Sheds wrote: »
    Women have almost always been oppressed, in many societies.
    Telling mothers it's ok to kill their child, while providing the means to do so (and charging them), is a continuation of that oppression.

    Some of us want to change that. We call it 'progress'.

    The mental gymnastics involved in convincing yourself that forcing women to stay pregnant against their will is progressive is genuinely impressive.


  • Options
    #9641
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    Daith wrote: »
    It's not a child. Otherwise the morning after pill will need to be stopped.
    Breda O'Brien isn't a fan of the MAP either. And she nearly wept on the radio thinking of all the embryos whose right to life will never be vindicated because they weren't needed for IVF. At least she's consistent, worrying about frozen embryos as well as those in utero.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9642
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,955 ✭✭✭Daith


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    I didn't say it was. I said that asserting that they have a right to choose abortion is a faith based position. It's a faith-based position because there is no evidence for the existence or reality of that right.

    However the reason why the likes of Breda O'Brien won't mention her faith and is because faith isn't the issue. It's because she doesn't want her points mistook for religious dogma which they are.


  • Options
    #9643
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,955 ✭✭✭Daith


    lazygal wrote: »
    Breda O'Brien isn't a fan of the MAP either.

    Which is consistent. Once you introduce a time limit even 1 day then what makes 2 days, three days, a week a month wrong?


  • Options
    #9644
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    Daith wrote: »
    Which is consistent. Once you introduce a time limit even 1 day then what makes 2 days, three days, a week a month wrong?
    Yes, I (grudgingly) respect her more for opposing its use and for worrying about frozen embryos than picking and choosing which bits of Catholic dogma don't matter any more.


  • Options
    #9645
    robdonn
    Registered Users Posts: 1,107 ✭✭✭robdonn


    Two Sheds wrote: »
    Also, most human rights have a basis in a broad consensus.
    The 'right' to choose to kill a child has no such basis. It is a term that was put out there and has been adopted into common language.

    But, having no basis, it's a belief, an article of faith, with the likes of Amnesty International as its church and Colm O'Gorman as one of its High Priests (he must get a kick out of leading a coterie of believers).

    The basis of the right to choose is not based on your fictitious right to kill a child, it is based on the right of bodily autonomy or integrity. This is a recognised right in law, both internationally and in Ireland.
    Bodily integrity is the inviolability of the physical body and emphasizes the importance of personal autonomy and the self-determination of human beings over their own bodies. It considers the violation of bodily integrity as an unethical infringement, intrusive, and possibly criminal.

    Source


  • Options
    #9646
    veliktom
    Registered Users Posts: 34 ✭veliktom


    I would argue that the right to bodily integrity trumps the right to life in practice, as even corpses have a right to bodily integrity, and no-one is forced to use their body to protect the life of another in Ireland except for pregnant women.


  • Options
    #9647
    Two Sheds
    Registered Users Posts: 316 ✭✭Two Sheds


    Daith wrote: »
    It's not a child. Otherwise the morning after pill will need to be stopped.
    Another pro-choice belief, contradicted by broad consensus and by science.


  • Options
    #9648
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,955 ✭✭✭Daith


    Two Sheds wrote: »
    Another pro-choice belief, contradicted by broad consensus and by science.

    Then we are killing children with the morning after pill?


  • Options
    #9649
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    Two Sheds wrote: »
    Another pro-choice belief, contradicted by broad consensus and by science.
    What broad consenus? What science?

    Do you also oppose IVF and the morning after pill?


  • Options
    #9650
    Two Sheds
    Registered Users Posts: 316 ✭✭Two Sheds


    veliktom wrote: »
    I would argue that the right to bodily integrity trumps the right to life in practice, as even corpses have a right to bodily integrity, and no-one is forced to use their body to protect the life of another in Ireland except for pregnant women.
    Not killing an unborn child is not the same as forcing anybody to do anything.


  • Options
    #9651
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    Two Sheds wrote: »
    Not killing an unborn child is not the same as forcing anybody to do anything.
    What would you call compelling a woman to remain pregnant who doesn't wish to?

    Should I be compelled to have my bodily integrity violated if my born children need an organ or blood to ensure their right to life is vindicated and protected?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9652
    robdonn
    Registered Users Posts: 1,107 ✭✭✭robdonn


    Two Sheds wrote: »
    Not killing an unborn child is not the same as forcing anybody to do anything.

    Actually it is the exact same. Telling somebody that they MUST continue with a pregnancy is, by definition, denying bodily integrity.

    If somebody needed an organ transplant to live and you were, for some reason, the only person in the world that could donate to them and save their life (and you would survive too), you can NOT be forced to do so, even it means the other person will die.


  • Options
    #9653
    Two Sheds
    Registered Users Posts: 316 ✭✭Two Sheds


    robdonn wrote: »
    Actually it is the exact same. Telling somebody that they MUST continue with a pregnancy is, by definition, denying bodily integrity.

    If somebody needed an organ transplant to live and you were, for some reason, the only person in the world that could donate to them and save their life (and you would survive too), you can NOT be forced to do so, even it means the other person will die.
    Nonsense!

    The entire abortion debate centres on the state's facilitation and co-operation in violating the bodily integrity of a woman and of her unborn, albeit with the consent of two of the three parties involved.

    You cannot argue that because I don't give you money I am therefore responsible for your poverty.

    Nonsense!


  • Options
    #9654
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,955 ✭✭✭Daith


    Two Sheds wrote: »
    Nonsense!

    The entire abortion debate centres on the state's facilitation and co-operation in violating the bodily integrity of a woman and of her unborn, albeit with the consent of two of the three parties involved.

    You cannot argue that because I don't give you money I am therefore responsible for your poverty.

    Nonsense!

    Just like the morning after pill? At what point is the child consulted?

    This seems to be a strange gap in your argument and something you seem keen to avoid answering.


  • Options
    #9655
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    Two Sheds wrote: »
    Nonsense!

    The entire abortion debate centres on the state's facilitation and co-operation in violating the bodily integrity of a woman and of her unborn, albeit with the consent of two of the three parties involved.

    You cannot argue that because I don't give you money I am therefore responsible for your poverty.

    Nonsense!

    Are frozen embryos troubling you at all? Or the morning after pill?

    The entire abortion debate centres on whether a woman should have the choice to decide to no longer remain pregnant.

    Also, if I don't donate a kidney to someone who'll die otherwise, am I killing that person? If I don't allow my uterus to be used to gestate a foetus, am I killing that foetus?


  • Options
    #9656
    Two Sheds
    Registered Users Posts: 316 ✭✭Two Sheds


    lazygal wrote: »
    What would you call compelling a woman to remain pregnant who doesn't wish to?

    Should I be compelled to have my bodily integrity violated if my born children need an organ or blood to ensure their right to life is vindicated and protected?
    You choose to ignore the unborn child. How convenient for you!

    Another pro-choice article of faith - 'if you can't see her, she doesn't exist'.


  • Options
    #9657
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    Two Sheds wrote: »
    You choose to ignore the unborn child. How convenient for you!

    Another pro-choice article of faith - 'if you can't see her, she doesn't exist'.

    How could I ignore the unborn child when I've had two of them inside me in the past four years?
    Is the morning after pill acceptable? What about frozen embroys that'll never be implanted, are they unborn children? Or is it a case of 'if you can't see them, they don't exist'?


  • Options
    #9658
    Two Sheds
    Registered Users Posts: 316 ✭✭Two Sheds


    lazygal wrote: »
    Are frozen embryos troubling you at all? Or the morning after pill?

    The entire abortion debate centres on whether a woman should have the choice to decide to no longer remain pregnant.
    When achieving an end involves butchering a child, then we should stop and consider what we're really doing. Don't you think so?


  • Options
    #9659
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    Two Sheds wrote: »
    When achieving an end involves butchering a child, then we should stop and consider what we're really doing. Don't you think so?

    If don't donate a kidney to someone who needs it, am I butchering that person? Does the morning after pill butcher a child? Or the abortion pill taken before 12 weeks? Or are you exclusively referring to the tiny percentage of later term abortions, mainly done for serious medical reasons? Was Miss Y's baby butchered when she was granted a termination under the POLDP Act?


  • Options
    #9660
    Two Sheds
    Registered Users Posts: 316 ✭✭Two Sheds


    lazygal wrote: »
    How could I ignore the unborn child when I've had two of them inside me in the past four years?
    Is the morning after pill acceptable? What about frozen embroys that'll never be implanted, are they unborn children? Or is it a case of 'if you can't see them, they don't exist'?
    The science is very clear. Sorry if it contradicts your beliefs.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9661
    robdonn
    Registered Users Posts: 1,107 ✭✭✭robdonn


    Two Sheds wrote: »
    Nonsense!

    The entire abortion debate centres on the state's facilitation and co-operation in violating the bodily integrity of a woman and of her unborn, albeit with the consent of two of the three parties involved.

    And at no point has anyone given the right of bodily integrity to the unborn, but the woman has. The unborn, by Irish law, has been given the right to life but nothing else, and as with my example nobody can be forced to give up their bodily integrity even if it results in the death of another.
    Two Sheds wrote: »
    You cannot argue that because I don't give you money I am therefore responsible for your poverty.

    Nonsense!

    Exactly, and by that reasoning you cannot argue that not giving someone the use of their body makes them responsible for another's life. If you do not give me money you are not held responsible for my poverty. If you do not donate an organ to me you are not responsible for my death. If a woman does not allow the use of her body to continue a pregnancy she is not responsible for the foetus that is terminated as a result.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement