woman refused abortion - Mod Note in first post.

jank

Sarky wrote: »

Sure what would a dark-skinned woman in Ireland know about Irish racism?

Ah sure move the goal posts and be the first in the thread to mention her skin colour. Well done Sarky, well done. Gold medal for bringing race into this thread just to muddy the waters even more.

Care to comment on my original post the irony of being 'anti racisct' (aren't 99% of people anyway) while being openly sexist.

What she said was a) inherently sexist b) if the other side gave a speech like that social media and others would be onto it like a dog in heat. Or are you going to dodge that with one of your trade mark witty comments.

bumper234

Ralphdejones wrote: »

You're the one defending her speech.

Really?


Please show the post where i "defended" her speech.

mrsbyrne

marienbad wrote: »

Go easy on the coke .

Sure it's the modern equivalent of a sneaky fag round the back of the bicycle sheds!

Sarky

I misread your post, jank. Sorry. It happens sometimes. Will you now apologise for the sneering jab at the end of your post?

No, there's nothing sexist about what she said. Abortion is an issue primarily affecting women, men can lend all the support they want, and that's great and she loves anyone who will do so, just don't go around speaking over or for the women involved. Treat them as the equals they are, their experiences are valid, and crucial to the issue, and assuming otherwise helps nobody. That was her message. That's equality, jank. Sexism would be saying men had no part in the debate. Or an all-male panel discussing womens' rights. Just because you were offended by what she said doesn't make it sexist. Women have heard "know your place" for so damn long, I think they're allowed to use the same phrase to make their point about being taken seriously.

mrsbyrne

Akrasia wrote: »

I want the coke!

Sure we all want the coke akrasia but it's only for the party guests! LOL

Mountainsandh

Kidchameleon wrote: »

do we have hard evidence that humans at an early stage of development are not aware?

The "brain" starts developing early, but the cerebral cortex really starts to develop from week 20 or so I think. Even as it starts to develop, connections take time to establish, so although some senses might start appearing around week 18 like hearing, there is no awareness or brain waves until later.

The wiki on "fetus" has good links and somewhat succint explanations :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus#cite_note-test-29

Fetal pain
Main article: Fetal pain
Fetal pain, its existence, and its implications are debated politically and academically. According to the conclusions of a review published in 2005, "Evidence regarding the capacity for fetal pain is limited but indicates that fetal perception of pain is unlikely before the third trimester."[26][27] However, developmental neurobiologists argue that the establishment of thalamocortical connections (at about 26 weeks), is an essential event with regard to fetal perception of pain.[28] Nevertheless, the perception of pain involves sensory, emotional and cognitive factors, and it is "impossible to know" when pain is experienced, even if it is known when thalamocortical connections are established.[28] Some authors,[29] however, argue that fetal pain is possible from the second half of pregnancy: “The available scientific evidence makes it possible, even probable, that fetal pain perception occurs well before late gestation” wrote KJS Anand in the journal of the IASP.[30]

The link to note 30 is not available anymore, but the text from note 29 says :

Glover V. The fetus may feel pain from 20 weeks. Conscience. 2004-2005 Winter;25(3):35-7

I think it is reasonable to assume that before week 20, the brain simply isn't developed enough for the foetus to be aware.

This link has the following quote : (the author debunks the myths that a foetus has "brain waves" at 40 days gestation).

"Functional maturity of the cerebral cortex is suggested by fetal and neonatal electroencephalographic patterns...First, intermittent electroencephalograpic bursts in both cerebral hemispheres are first seen at 20 weeks gestation; they become sustained at 22 weeks and bilaterally synchronous at 26 to 27 weeks

I also found this image which illustrates the embryonic brain development http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerebral_cortex#mediaviewer/File:Human_Cortical_Development.png

SaoirseRose

Akrasia wrote: »

You're missing the point.

You're trying to say that a baby being born as the result of a rape is an argument against abortion because when that baby is older, he/she will be glad to be alive and not have been aborted.

In fact the logic also applies to the act of the rape. It's equally an argument in favour of rape as it is against abortion. 'The end justifies the means'. Imagine your the daughter of a mother who was raped by her father and some day your grandmother says to you:

'I knew your grandfather was raping your mother every day and I did nothing to stop him, but it's a good thing I didn't because If I did, you would never have been born'

People seem to be putting far more weight into the plight of a cluster of cells rather than the suffering of a woman who has now been re-traumatised.

I write an anonymous blog on which documents almost 3years of the effect of rape and PTSD (as a result). A few days ago, another site contacted me to ask me to write about this case; I said no. I said no, because it's been a rough few days for me and I have become so protective of myself that I avoid all triggers at any cost. However, the case stuck with me so much that I decided it was worth it if even one person could see things from the point of view of this woman...instead of launching into a pro-life agenda with complete disregard for a life that's already been destroyed. So I tried as best as I could, to put into words a struggle that I wouldn't wish for anyone to ever truly understand, but would ask for everyone to just at least consider when forming an opinion on this case. So many people have got in touch with me and shared this piece since the other night, more than I imagined would even read it.

It took a lot to write, but I needed to stand for this woman - I had to, because there were so many times when I stood alone. And it's not a nice place to be.

I won't copy it here because it's very long and not everyone will be interested in reading, but this is the post.

Ralphdejones

Sarky wrote: »

I misread your post, jank. Sorry. It happens sometimes. Will you now apologise for the sneering jab at the end of your post?

No, there's nothing sexist about what she said. Abortion is an issue primarily affecting women, men can lend all the support they want, and that's great and she loves anyone who will do so, just don't go around speaking over or for the women involved. Treat them as the equals they are, their experiences are valid, and crucial to the issue, and assuming otherwise helps nobody. That was her message. That's equality, jank. Sexism would be saying men had no part in the debate. Or an all-male panel discussing womens' rights. Just because you were offended by what she said doesn't make it sexist. Women have heard "know your place" for so damn long, I think they're allowed to use the same phrase to make their point about being taken seriously.

Looks like Amanda has found another new mangina who 'knows his place'.
Can't wait to see her on TV.

bumper234

Ralphdejones wrote: »

Looks like Amanda has found another new mangina who 'knows his place'.
Can't wait to see her on TV.

What's that mean?

lazygal

Ralphdejones wrote: »

Looks like Amanda has found another new mangina who 'knows his place'.
Can't wait to see her on TV.

While you're here, could you clarify your stance on whether the right to travel to kill an unborn child should be repealed?

Godge

Ralphdejones wrote: »

Looks like Amanda has found another new mangina who 'knows his place'.
Can't wait to see her on TV.

Great to see you back. Have you been given the answers to these questions yet?

Godge wrote: »

Can I take it that you mean that if a woman deliberately does something at 8 weeks pregnant that leads to the fetus being killed, that this is wrong as the baby would not be alive when born? That is the logic behind what you are saying.

Therefore if a woman is not allowed ingest a pill at 8 weeks pregnant to kill a fetus, why are there no laws forbidding pregnant woman to travel abroad in case they have an abortion? Why are there no laws forbidding them to go skiing, climbing mountains or other dangerous pursuits? Why are there no laws forbidding them to smoke or drink alcohol of ingest other unhealthy foods? Why aren't they put into hospital care from the moment of pregnancy to ensure they don't damage or kill the fetus?

You see it is quite simple. If you believe in a woman's right to choose what to do with their own body, you allow for abortion and for women to choose whether to have one or not. If you believe in the equal right to life of a fetus, then you must ensure that that equal life is protected fully as I have outlined above, if you don't you are a hypocrite.

Godge wrote: »

I know, answer straight from the pro-life website.

However, you are wrong, very wrong and her is why. While you can go abroad and do things to children abroad, you cannot bring children abroad (including your own children) to do things to them.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2008/en/act/pub/0008/sec0002.html

Section 2 (1)

"A person who trafficks a child for the purposes of the exploitation of the child shall be guilty of an offence."

Now that I have shown that you cannot bring your child abroad and do harm to them except in the case of abortion, why aren't you calling for this Act to be extended to cover abortion?


Edit: P.S. Why haven't you answered the other questions, haven't been given the party line yet?

Godge

bumper234 wrote: »

What's that mean?

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=mangina&page=2

Ralphdejones

Godge wrote: »

Great to see you back. Have you been given the answers to these questions yet?

If you read back thought the thread, I've answered a load of versions of them, the same old easy straw men and red herrings get very boring after a while. a) There are two lives involved, not one. b) Lots of people go aboard and do all sorts things that are not legal here, there is no one going to stop them at the airport, because in the real world there is no way of proving what they are going to do, and it's another jurisdiction.

lazygal

Ralphdejones wrote: »

If you read back thought the thread, I've answered a load of versions of them, the same old easy straw men and red herrings get very boring after a while. There are two lives involved, not one.

And if one life is traveling abroad to kill the other unborn life, that's ok with you because it's legal? Should women be prevented from traveling with the intention to kill an unborn child?

Mountainsandh

Ralphdejones wrote: »

Looks like Amanda has found another new mangina who 'knows his place'.
Can't wait to see her on TV.

Ralph you have been asking how we thought a termination early in pregnancy would have been a better outcome for the woman, could you please read SaoirseRose's post (link), I feel you might understand maybe a bit better what a lot of women on here seem to instinctively perceive (a bit, at least).

Ralphdejones

bumper234 wrote: »

What's that mean?

Amanda will explain it to you

swampgas

Ralphdejones wrote: »

If you read back thought the thread, I've answered a load of versions of them, the same old easy straw men and red herrings get very boring after a while. There are two lives involved, not one.

You seem to have missed this question. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=91840276&postcount=2427

Or can I assume that because there are two lives involved you would support banning travel outside the country for pregnant women intending to abort?

Ralphdejones

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Ralph you have been asking how we thought a termination early in pregnancy would have been a better outcome for the woman, could you please read SaoirseRose's post (link), I feel you might understand maybe a bit better what a lot of women on here seem to instinctively perceive (a bit, at least).

For you I will indeed. back in a mo

EDIT, can you give me post no. or link

Ralphdejones

swampgas wrote: »

You seem to have missed question.
Or can I assume that because there are two lives involved you would support banning travel outside the country for pregnant women intending to abort?

it's been asked and answered a dozen times in this thread already
please see post 2445 b)

Godge

Ralphdejones wrote: »

If you read back thought the thread, I've answered a load of versions of them, the same old easy straw men and red herrings get very boring after a while. a) There are two lives involved, not one. b) Lots of people go aboard and do all sorts things that are not legal here, there is no one going to stop them at the airport, because in the real world there is no way of proving what they are going to do, and it's another jurisdiction.

No you haven't, you have provided the following stock answer a number of times, probably gleaned from a pro-life website.

Ralphdejones wrote: »

You can do all sorts of things abroad to children that are not legal here, you can't stop people going abroad to do them.

I have pointed out as in the following post, that while you can do what you like to children abroad, you cannot bring a child or your child abroad to do things to it that are illegal in Ireland. The Act below specifically forbids this.

The only time that you can bring a child abroad and do something to it that is illegal in Ireland is when it is a fetus and you can abort it. So your answer does not answer the question.

Again, why do you support the right of pregnant women to travel?

Godge wrote: »

I know, answer straight from the pro-life website.

However, you are wrong, very wrong and her is why. While you can go abroad and do things to children abroad, you cannot bring children abroad (including your own children) to do things to them.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2008/en/act/pub/0008/sec0002.html

Section 2 (1)

"A person who trafficks a child for the purposes of the exploitation of the child shall be guilty of an offence."

Now that I have shown that you cannot bring your child abroad and do harm to them except in the case of abortion, why aren't you calling for this Act to be extended to cover abortion?


Edit: P.S. Why haven't you answered the other questions, haven't been given the party line yet?

As for the other things a woman might do such as smoke or drink or ski, you haven't answered those at all.

swampgas

Ralphdejones wrote: »

b) Lots of people go aboard and do all sorts things that are not legal here, there is no one going to stop them at the airport, because in the real world there is no way of proving what they are going to do, and it's another jurisdiction.

In the real world there is often no way of knowing someone is going to commit a murder, but we still try to prosecute when we have evidence that a murder has occurred.

In the real world there are often cases where someone will know that an abortion is being planned and will notify the Gardaí, it might be a relative or it might be the father, it might be a travel agent or even a doctor.

If you truly believe that abortion is a real crime, similar to murder, then why not make it illegal to travel, and prosecute when you can? To refuse to criminalise travel for abortion is, in my opinion, to condone abortion.

Ralphdejones

Godge wrote: »

No you haven't, you have provided the following stock answer a number of times, probably gleaned from a pro-life website.

This again ?
I've genuinely never read one, and I don't need to know there is two lives involved, not one.
Do you glean everything from a pro abortion website, or do you speak for yourself ?

Godge wrote: »

I have pointed out as in the following post, that while you can do what you like to children abroad, you cannot bring a child or your child abroad to do things to it that are illegal in Ireland. The Act below specifically forbids this.

The only time that you can bring a child abroad and do something to it that is illegal in Ireland is when it is a fetus and you can abort it. So your answer does not answer the question.

Again, why do you support the right of pregnant women to travel?

As for the other things a woman might do such as smoke or drink or ski, you haven't answered those at all.

The law can say whatever it likes, but in practice, no one is going to be able to prove at an airport that a child is being brought abroad for harm to be done to it abroad.
In practice, everyone from pedophiles to bank robbers can travel abroad to do what they are going to do.

Ralphdejones

swampgas wrote: »

If you truly believe that abortion is a real crime, similar to murder, then why not make it illegal to travel, and prosecute when you can? To refuse to criminalise travel for abortion is, in my opinion, to condone abortion.

No where have I said abortion is a crime or murder, so you must be mixing me up again with your strawman. I don't agree with abortion, I think it's wrong and medieval for any modern society to kill defenseless unborn children, when there are lots of other options available. To refuse to crimilise travel for criminal activity abroad is in effect to condone it? You better get a lot of new laws introduced then.

Godge

Ralphdejones wrote: »

The law can say whatever it likes, but in practice, no one is going to be able to prove at an airport that a child is being brought abroad for harm to be done to it abroad.
In practice, everyone from pedophiles to bank robbers can travel abroad to do what they are going to do.

You miss the point again.

(A) If you bring your 14-year old daughter to Thailand and sexually abuse her in Thailand, you can be prosecuted in Ireland through her testimony upon your return under Section 2 of the Criminal Law (Human Trafficking) Act 2008 regardless of what the law in Thailand says.

(B) If you bring your 14-week old fetus to England and abort it, you cannot be prosecuted.

Why are you not calling for (B) to be brought into line with (A) if you believe in the equal rights of the unborn.

Ralphdejones

Godge wrote: »

You miss the point again.

(A) If you bring your 14-year old daughter to Thailand and sexually abuse her in Thailand, you can be prosecuted in Ireland through her testimony upon your return under Section 2 of the Criminal Law (Human Trafficking) Act 2008 regardless of what the law in Thailand says.

(B) If you bring your 14-week old fetus to England and abort it, you cannot be prosecuted.

Why are you not calling for (B) to be brought into line with (A) if you believe in the equal rights of the unborn.

No, it's a version same strawman hashed over and over again

Dead babies can't testify

Godge

Ralphdejones wrote: »

No where have I said abortion is a crime or murder, so you must be mixing me up again with your strawman. I don't agree with abortion, I think it's wrong for and medieval for any modern society to kill defenseless unborn children, when there are lots of other options available. To refuse to crimilise travel for criminal activity abroad is in effect to condone it? You better get a lot of new laws introduced then.

We don't need a new law (except for abortions), we have it for everything else that is done to children.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2008/en/act/pub/0008/sec0002.html


I can dig out the drug trafficking laws as well if you want other examples of where the state has criminalised travelling abroad for criminal activity.

You really haven't thought very deeply about the consequences and implications of your stance.

swampgas

Ralphdejones wrote: »

No where have I said abortion is a crime or murder, so you must be mixing me up again with your strawman. I don't agree with abortion, I think it's wrong for and medieval for any modern society to kill defenseless unborn children, when there are lots of other options available. To refuse to crimilise travel for criminal activity abroad is in effect to condone it? You better get a lot of new laws introduced then.

So, do you think abortion is a crime?

Would you support decriminalising abortion in Ireland?

If not, then I cannot see how your position is consistent. Either you think abortion is wrong enough to be criminalised in Ireland or you don't. If it is wrong enough to be criminalised in Ireland, surely it is wrong enough that travel to abort should be prevented as well?

geret

Godge wrote: »

You miss the point again.

(A) If you bring your 14-year old daughter to Thailand and sexually abuse her in Thailand, you can be prosecuted in Ireland through her testimony upon your return under Section 2 of the Criminal Law (Human Trafficking) Act 2008 regardless of what the law in Thailand says.

(B) If you bring your 14-week old fetus to England and abort it, you cannot be prosecuted.

Why are you not calling for (B) to be brought into line with (A) if you believe in the equal rights of the unborn.

you can bring your 16 year old to Italy and buy them beer
no prosecution no return
why?
because it's legal in Italy
your theory doesn't hold

Godge

Ralphdejones wrote: »

Dead babies can't testify

Evidence from G.P.s, airlines, fathers of unborn children, other relatives and friends, DNA and physical examinations plus requisitioning of medical records from the UK would be sufficient to convict if that is all that is stopping you.

marienbad

Ralphdejones wrote: »

Amanda will explain it to you

Is it another word for asshole ? I suppose it takes one to know one