woman refused abortion - Mod Note in first post.

Piliger

Ralphdejones wrote: »

I was asked to read your post and comment on it, by a fairly decent poster, so I did in a non personal way as possible, so I'm dammed if I do and dammed if I don't.
"people like me"
Actually, I have a very, very good idea indeed, I'm not going into here, so there is no need to pretend anyone is getting personal with you, or that you have any idea about me whatsoever. If you won't allow people who are not in favour of abortion to discuss the matter or have any opinion, then I'm sorry you feel this way.

You really don't get it though. That is clear. And you are not alone.

There are two issues in the abortion 'debate'. Not one.

The first issue is the question of whether abortion in principle is a right one or a wrong one. This is an issue of personal morality. I find the thought of it deeply unsettling. If faced with the situation myself, with my partner, I am totally honest in saying that I would find going through with an abortion a ghastly thing and I don't know if I would have the strength to agree to it, unless it was a case of extreme handicap.

The second issue, though, is the BIG issue of the day. That issue is not about the morality of abortion. It is about forcing our own personal morality on others, and in particular on a woman's human right over what happens inside her own body !

When we come in to this life what kind of freedom do we have if we don't even have control of our own flesh and blood ? What kind of freedom do we have in this life, if the government can decide on when we need heart surgery adn then force it on us ?
Orr if the government can decide that we can't donate one of our kidneys to our dying brother because too many people don't approve of it ? The government surely cannot be allowed to decide about our own singular unique body ?

This is why this lady is so upset with your point of view and your support of the legislation. No one is forcing someone who morally finds abortion unacceptable, to have an abortion. But this young girl in question was intimidated and delayed and thus forced to carry inside her body an entity that she did not want ! and then undergo a surgery that she she did not want ! and now be burdened with a life long responsibility that she did not want.

Yet your point of view stands back and justifies all of that, based on what YOU believe, on what YOU think is right, what YOU decide for other people.

Ralphdejones

There are so many endlessly repeated strawmen, misrepresentation and baseless slurs being thrown about here, the discussion is pointless and impossible.
I guess that's the aim. There are two innocent lives involved in this case not one, one of whom is completely defenseless, has and has no one to speak up for them. Up to 6000 Irish children a year are needlessly aborted in Britian every year, there are endless other options and support systems now available for these children in our society. The medieval practice of killing unborn children in the womb, and the attempted de-humanisation of them at every opportuinty in order to pepeuate and sustain the practice, is not required in a modern civilised society. Someday, maybe generations from now, society will evolve to a point where they don't kill their unborn children.

Piliger

Ralphdejones wrote: »

There are so many endlessly repeated strawmen, misrepresentation and baseless slurs being thrown about here, the discussion is pointless and impossible.
I guess that's the aim. There are two innocent lives involved in this case not one, one of whom is completely defenseless, has and has no one to speak up for them. Up to 6000 Irish children a year are needlessly aborted in Britian every year, there are endless other options and support systems now available for these children in our society. The medieval practice of killing unborn children in the womb, and the attempted de-humanisation of them at every opportuinty in order to pepeuate and sustain the practice, is not required in a modern civilised society. Someday, maybe generations from now, society will evolve to a point where they don't kill their unborn children.

More likely it will evolve to a point where we have no more people with the backward primitive and moral corruption that your arguments expose.

Godge

Ralphdejones wrote: »

There are so many endlessly repeated strawmen, misrepresentation and baseless slurs being thrown about here, the discussion is pointless and impossible.
I guess that's the aim. There are two innocent lives involved in this case not one, one of whom is completely defenseless, has and has no one to speak up for them. Up to 6000 Irish children a year are needlessly aborted in Britian every year, there are endless other options and support systems now available for these children in our society. The medieval practice of killing unborn children in the womb, and the attempted de-humanisation of them at every opportuinty in order to pepeuate and sustain the practice, is not required in a modern civilised society. Someday, maybe generations from now, society will evolve to a point where they don't kill their unborn children.

You know nothing, Jon Snow.

There is no point in debating with you, you have no concept or understanding of the issues that women face in dealing with unwanted pregnancies.

The mask of tolerance of overseas travel has also been pulled back, as many expected it would be, hence all the questions.

It is sad that there are still people like you who fail to understand that there are no absolutes, there are no rights or wrongs, that there are only hard choices, hard choices that women have to make, sometimes on their own, sometimes with the help and support of partners, husbands, boyfriends, family and friends. Compassion, empathy and support are what are required not misogynist bull****.

Ralphdejones

jill_valentine wrote: »

Ralph, just so you know, naked sexism to the extent you're indulging isn't actually reflecting badly on the people you're arguing with, it's reflecting on you alone.

There are two innocent lives involved not one, we don't know the sex of the child yet, but I would bet my bottom dollar its a little girl, a defenseless little girl that would be dead now if many of the posters on this forum had their way.

jill_valentine wrote: »

The difference between that crackpot at the march the other day and your good self is that she is by no means representative and nobody's defending her angle. Yourself and your comrades

What comrades. I don't go on marches and I don't join such groups. But after experienceing all the vitrol strawmen and misrepsentation here, where its all about the poster and not the post, I'm tempted to for the first time ever.

jill_valentine wrote: »

on the other hand can't even be arsed to learn the basic mechanics you're spouting about before declaring yourself an authority, which is why we have to keep hearing mind bogglingly inaccurate statements about our own bodies from even the most elevated of the anti choice types.

Find one

jill_valentine wrote: »

You show your true colours damningly when you wade into a debate about what's best for a woman's body

And here we have, Strawman attempt no. 148, there are two bodies involved, not one

Mountainsandh wrote: »

SaoirseRose, I'm kind of sorry I asked Ralph to read you now, because his lack of empathy once again upset you.

I think Ralph simply does not want to empathize, it's easier to justify denying a woman her rights that way.

Strawman attempt no. 149, there are two innocent lives involved that both deserve empathy, not just one.

takamichinoku

Ralphdejones wrote: »

There are two innocent lives involved not one, we don't know the sex of the child yet, but I would bet my bottom dollar its a little girl, a defenseless little girl that would be dead now if many of the posters on this forum had their way.



What comrades. I don't go on marches and I don't join such groups. But after experienceing all the vitrol strawmen and misrepsentation here, where its all about the poster and not the post, I'm tempted to for the first time ever.



Find one



And here we have, Strawman attempt no. 148, there are two bodies involved, not one



Strawman attempt no. 149, there are two innocent lives involved that both deserve empathy, not just one.

That almost read like a greatest hits or some sh*t! Some bizarre child gender assumption that I must be missing something on. innocence! post/poster! Strawmen all over the motherflucking place!

bodice ripper

Ralphdejones wrote: »

There are so many endlessly repeated strawmen, misrepresentation and baseless slurs being thrown about here, the discussion is pointless and impossible.
I guess that's the aim. There are two innocent lives involved in this case not one, one of whom is completely defenseless, has and has no one to speak up for them. Up to 6000 Irish children a year are needlessly aborted in Britian every year, there are endless other options and support systems now available for these children in our society. The medieval practice of killing unborn children in the womb, and the attempted de-humanisation of them at every opportuinty in order to pepeuate and sustain the practice, is not required in a modern civilised society. Someday, maybe generations from now, society will evolve to a point where they don't kill their unborn children.

Says you. And to be honest, nothing in this thread leads me to believe you are a person to be taken at their word. I am going to have to insist on seeing some evidence. Or, alternatively, proof that you personally have the means to adopt 6000 babies, and/or facilities to house 6000 women (potentially against their will...) while they are pregnant.

Otherwise, in 24 hours I shall resume my habitual recreational abortions. Tbh, I am not getting as many in a year as I did when i was a young woman.

Godge

Ralphdejones wrote: »

There are so many endlessly repeated strawmen, misrepresentation and baseless slurs being thrown about here, the discussion is pointless and impossible.
.

At long last, there is something we can agree on. For ease of memory, here is a selection of the endlessly repeated strawmen, misrepresentation and baseless slurs that have been thrown about in the last day.

Ralphdejones wrote: »

The new spokesperson is called Amanda, she had a big mask slip yesterday

Ralphdejones wrote: »

In other words you'd be happier if the child was now not alive and had been aborted.
What makes you think that's a better outcome than them being alive now ?

Ralphdejones wrote: »

If you had listened to her speech, you would realise she was talking about men who supported abortion. You better get back to Amanda to confirm your place.

Ralphdejones wrote: »

But in some quarters if they had the cheek to avoid abortion, they should wish they were.

Ralphdejones wrote: »

If an innocent child does manage to surive abortion, it's important in some camps to stigmatise them forever.

Ralphdejones wrote: »

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

Absolutely disgusting.

MrPudding

mrsbyrne wrote: »

Of course that's s natural human reaction. "I'm here and I shouldn't be because I should have been killed. I feel so bad for being here. Somebody should just go ahead and kill me now, it's not too late. That will make everything right". Seriously. Are you for real?

Awkward Badger wrote: »

I think my mother should have had access to abortion and to be perfectly honest were I in her place with the option I'd have had an abortion.

Yet I don't feel the slightest bit bad about being here or wish I was dead. Its just a simple fact that were it an option at the time it would have been a perfectly acceptable option to take.

My mother was very close to ending up in a laundry. My father, stand up guy who was already married, gave her a pill to 'fix things' when she told him she was pregnant. Clearly she did not take that pill. I ruined her life. Am I glad she did not take the pill? Yes. Would she have been best off if she did? Hell yes. Would I be troubled if she had? No. I would never have known any different. To this day I still tell her she should have taken the pill.

Ralphdejones wrote: »

No, why would they, sure people are free travel abroad to do all sorts of things to children that are illegal here, but legal in another country. It doesn't make it right though. In practice, there is no way of stopping and proving someone intends to do this, and the state's jurisdiction does not extend to other countries.

Well, this is just actually wrong. But hey, why let reality get I the way of a god rant.

mrsbyrne wrote: »

My beloved daughter is 17 today. I have to organise coke and cake for about. 15. See you all later.

Meh. My beloved daughter wAs 16 last week. My other two believe daughters will be 8 & 7 in November and my beloved son will be 12 I. December. I still think women should be allowed abortions.

Kidchameleon wrote: »

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

Beyond that fact that they do not have brains...?

takamichinoku wrote: »

So one thing I've learned from this thread is that each time someone says the "mangina", my opinion of them drops a bit more. Even if I had a pretty low opinion of them already, like, there doesn't even seem to be a limit on it. My opinion of myself just dropped there from saying it. It's the stupidest word I've ever heard, can't even picture an adult saying it, maybe an 11 year old who endlessly quotes Austin Powers or something.




Quick google for its origin says:

So I was scarily close to being accurate up above!

****ing awesome movie. Don't make me he-bitch man-slap you

MrP

Mountainsandh

Ralphdejones wrote: »

Strawman attempt no. 149, there are two innocent lives involved that both deserve empathy, not just one.

No. A strawman would be a misrepresentation, this is just science, and my conviction incidentally.

This situation escalated to a point pro-choice people on here are arguing should never have been reached, ie, well past 20 weeks.

Most people here agree that 12 weeks is a good cut off point to allow abortions up to. It would have been possible here, and made immediately possible had the law not been what it is, hence the anger and frustration.
At the time when the decision should have been taken there was just one person, and an embryo.

A fetus up to 20 weeks is not a person, even less up to 12 weeks, in the same manner that a tragically unfortunate brain dead coma patient isn't.
17 years ago, my Mum and sisters and I had to make the decision to let my father go, he was in a coma, and brain dead. The person was gone, the body was functioning, with some assistance.

A body without a mind is just that, a body, an envelope of flesh and bone. With assistance, the organism can function without a mind. The mother assists the organism, and so it functions and evolves into a more independent one. That's not a straw man, that's reality, that's science.

A fetus holds the promise of developing a brain and turning into a person later on, that is amazingly precious, but before it reaches that stage it simply isn't a person.

Women in other developed countries sometimes decide that they do not want the organism they are supporting to evolve into a person.

I think Ireland is ready to make that change too, and if your girlfriend, wife, daughter, niece, do not ever wish to make that choice, that'll be perfectly fine.

takamichinoku

MrPudding wrote: »

****ing awesome movie. Don't make me he-bitch man-slap you

MrP

I haven't seen either of them fully!

Willing to acknowledge Austin Powers might be alright though*. I was moreso on about that kind of person who used Austin Powers or Borat quotes as a substitute for a sense of humour anyways.


*Not the Rob Schneider one though, never Rob Schneider

Ralphdejones

Mountainsandh wrote: »

No. A strawman would be a misrepresentation, this is just science, and my conviction incidentally.

This situation escalated to a point pro-choice people on here are arguing should never have been reached, ie, well past 20 weeks.

Most people here agree that 12 weeks is a good cut off point to allow abortions up to. It would have been possible here, and made immediately possible had the law not been what it is, hence the anger and frustration.
At the time when the decision should have been taken there was just one person, and an embryo.

A fetus up to 20 weeks is not a person, even less up to 12 weeks, in the same manner that a tragically unfortunate brain dead coma patient isn't.
17 years ago, my Mum and sisters and I had to make the decision to let my father go, he was in a coma, and brain dead. The person was gone, the body was functioning, with some assistance.

A body without a mind is just that, a body, an envelope of flesh and bone. With assistance, the organism can function without a mind. The mother assists the organism, and so it functions and evolves into a more independent one. That's not a straw man, that's reality, that's science.

A fetus holds the promise of developing a brain and turning into a person later on, that is amazingly precious, but before it reaches that stage it simply isn't a person.

Thankfully, instead of the dehumanised baby being dead, as many here wish, she's alive and so is her mother.

hinault

Godge wrote: »

It is sad that there are still people like you who fail to understand that there are no absolutes, there are no rights or wrongs, that there are only hard choices, hard choices that women have to make, sometimes on their own, sometimes with the help and support of partners, husbands, boyfriends, family and friends. Compassion, empathy and support are what are required not misogynist bull****.

Ralph mentioned two innocent lives. I fail to see that this affirmation can be described as a lack of compassion, empathy, support or can be described as misogynist.

In fact, describing the woman as being innocent is rather charitable. Given that she had agreed to kill her unborn.

Ralphdejones

Ralphdejones wrote: »

Thankfully, instead of the dehumanised baby being dead, as many here wish, she's alive and so is her mother.

"Alive" is such a subjective word.

jank

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.

This is hilarious stuff it must be said. So if person of Gender X tells people of Gender Y to basically STFU and 'know your place' that in your words is 'equality' and not sexist.....

Then of course you throw in the 'sure weren't people of Gender Y engaging in this stuff years ago' suppose that makes it OK now?

Real facepalm stuff here but it gives a good insight into the mind of the modern progressive.

hinault

SaoirseRose wrote: »

You have really, really missed the point.

You have no idea. None. If you did, you wouldn't be so flippant.

How dare you, how dare you tell a woman what she can and cannot deal with following a trauma you couldn't even begin to comprehend. How fcuking dare you. How dare you sentence her to a life sentence itself, when she's already dying inside.

I cut people like you out of my life a long time ago, and it's something I will never regret.

Hyperbole alert.

Ralphdejones

Deleted User wrote: »

"Alive" is such a subjective word.

Not if you are the one alive, that many others would prefer were dead.

hinault

Deleted User wrote: »

"Alive" is such a subjective word.

Is it subjective? How so?

Mountainsandh

Hinault and Ralph, replying might just upset some parents of premature babies happening on this thread, so I for one will refrain. You probably know exactly what I would be saying anyway, this baby was born too early, and alone.

hinault

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Hinault and Ralph, replying might just upset some parents of premature babies happening on this thread, so I for one will refrain. You probably know exactly what I would be saying anyway, this baby was born too early, and alone.

But suggesting to kill the unborn baby instead won't cause upset? :rolleyes:

jill_valentine

Ralphdejones wrote: »

Find one.

One? Shur there's an embarrassment of riches.

To follow - anti-abortion campaigners in positions of authority and visibility with literally no idea of what they're talking about, and no sense whatsoever that they probably should:

King of the Hill, US Representative Todd Akin:

First of all, from what I understand from doctors, that's really rare. If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.

A doozy both for the bizarre use of "legitimate rape" - which builds in the convenient conscience cushion that if a woman gets pregnant it couldn't have been rape anyway - but more relevantly for his incredible lack of understanding about the female human body considering he's married with six children.

For the record, rape is actually more likely to result in a pregnancy, and no, the female body does not have ways to "shut that whole thing down".

Representative Stephen Freind:

The odds that a woman who is raped will get pregnant are "one in millions and millions and millions," said state Rep. Stephen Freind, R-Delaware County, the Legislature's leading abortion foe.

The reason, Freind said, is that the traumatic experience of rape causes a woman to "secrete a certain secretion" that tends to kill sperm.

I hope I don't have to explain that this is not true.

Rep Henry Aldridge

The facts show that people who are raped -- who are truly raped -- the juices don't flow, the body functions don't work and they don't get pregnant," said Aldridge, a 71-year-old periodontist. "Medical authorities agree that this is a rarity, if ever."

Again, there's that weird "true rape" thing, but also, more horse**** assuming the human body works they way they want it to, rather than how it actually does.

You know what, there have been a ton of those. Basically, anti-choice politicians keep trying to assert it's impossible or harder to get pregnant from rape despite it being demonstrably untrue.

Go nuts if you want to catch up on more of there, is no shortage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_and_pregnancy_controversies_in_United_States_elections,_2012#Background

So lets try some others.

In 2013, the Kansas House passed a bill forcing doctors to inform their patients of "the link" between abortions and breast cancer.

There is no link between abortions (or miscarriage) and breast cancer, per every cancer research organisation of any credibility.

Looking back, I've been using a lot of American politicians because they tend to be high profile, so here's an Australian idiot for a change, one who also asserted the abortion = breast cancer thing, Christian Democrat Fred Niles

Christian Democratic Party MP Fred Nile says women should reconsider having abortions "if the price of the decision is breast cancer", repeating discredited views that have angered women and health groups.

...

"The body is preparing to have a baby … and suddenly it's terminated, and that causes some reaction in the cells, and the cells in the breast particularly," he later told Fairfax Media.

"I can see it's logical. There could be some disturbance to the women's physiology when she has an abortion, because she is programmed to … have a baby, feed a baby, and it stops."

All ideas pulled out of his bum's physiology. He likes the idea of it, so assumes it to be true, because it suits him to believe that abortions come with some God given penalty.

But, back to public figures.

Federal Judge James Leon Holmes, Bush appointee and anti-choice campaigner in Arkansas:

Concern for rape victims is a red herring because conceptions from rape occur with approximately the same frequency as snowfall in Miami.

I've never been to Miami, but apparently it snows there between 25,000 and 32,000 times a year.

You will have noticed two recurring themes by now.

Firstly, "I choose to believe the thing that supports my ideology, but won't bother thinking or looking into it". There was a fine example of it in this very thread from poster Richard Bingham, who randomly stated that he was "quite sure that [C Sections] are no more risky than an abortion". He's wrong - C Sections are actually substantially more causally associated with maternal mortality, and it should not take very long to understand why if you give about five seconds' thought to the mechanics.

Similarly, despite it being frequently parroted that an abortion is dangerous to the mother, it's actually safer than carrying the pregnancy to term (though the risk does increase as the pregnancy progresses, which is why prompt response - rather than a flight to England - is important.)

The other recurring theme you may have noticed in the examples I've chosen is that not only are these dumbasses ideologically opposed to abortion, they're actually seeking to legislate against it. In other words, they are making laws over women's bodies without even a secondary school's text book comprehension of how those bodies function. These are not the fringe elements either - they are elected officials, and they represent a consistent pattern of contemptuous ignorance among anti choice movements which transcends borders, parties, ethnicities, and yes, even gender occasionally.

Almost warms your heart, that the common element to these folks seems to be willful ignorance.

I'll throw in on top of that some bonus examples of less authoritative, but nonetheless present and harmful biology fails and outright lies, such as the "crisis pregnancy" agencies giving women absolutely demented false information about how having abortions mean you'll probably need a hysterectomy or a colostomy bag.

Many posters here may not be old enough to remember seeing the many, many examples of campaigners waving placards around Dublin featuring far more advanced foetuses than what they claim, but they may also have seen pro life campaign Cultureshift's now notorious blog post which was actually revealed to be a cat foetus. I won't link because... well, it's a cat foetus.

I... oh God, I could have more but it's late and I'm tired. Apologies for any broken links or typos.

Anyway. Have fun at your march, bring us back some flyers. I'd love to catch up on the latest developments in foetus-to-adult testicle transplant tech.

Ralphdejones

So in other words, you couldn't find one in the whole thread and had to trawl the internet.
No limits to the strawmen is there ?

gctest50

Ralphdejones wrote: »

There are two innocent lives involved not one, we don't know the sex of the child yet, but I would bet my bottom dollar its a little girl, a defenseless little girl that would be dead now if many of the posters on this forum had their way.
......

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-emotion

lazygal

Ralphdejones wrote: »

So in other words, you couldn't find one in the whole thread and had to trawl the internet.
No limits to the strawmen is there ?

By the way the child in this case is a boy. Not that the gender is relevant.

Are you ok with the constitutional right to travel to kill the unborn remaining in place?

Phoebas

Deleted User wrote: »

"Alive" is such a subjective word.

It is?

lazygal

Phoebas wrote: »

It is?

It is. Is a person with no brain activity who's only breathing because of a machine alive? Is a foetus with no brain alive?

RDM_83 again

lazygal wrote: »

It is. Is a person with no brain activity who's only breathing because of a machine alive? Is a foetus with no brain alive?

Ah come on they are both definitely alive by any definition! The question is should be considered Human Beings with all the rights that entails.

As an aside could people stop going on to the Pro-Lifers about adopting kids, there is massive waiting lists for adoption here and in the UK (don't say but what about all the children in care thats a completely different situation legally and socially). Its as stupid as a Pro-lifer saying to a Pro-Choicer, why don't you train in Ob-Gyn and perform abortions

Phoebas

lazygal wrote: »

It is. Is a person with no brain activity who's only breathing because of a machine alive? Is a foetus with no brain alive?

Yep. Both alive.
You can make all sorts of arguments about the quality of the life or the sustainability of it, but it is 'alive' under any usual definition.

Attempting to make any argument that the child in question isn't really alive now doesn't serve a pro choice argument at all well.

Grayson

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Ah come on they are both definitely alive by any definition! The question is should be considered Human Beings with all the rights that entails.

As an aside could people stop going on to the Pro-Lifers about adopting kids, there is massive waiting lists for adoption here and in the UK (don't say but what about all the children in care thats a completely different situation legally and socially). Its as stupid as a Pro-lifer saying to a Pro-Choicer, why don't you train in Ob-Gyn and perform abortions

To be fair, if a pro life ever recommended a catholic adoption agency, they would be open season

jill_valentine

Ralphdejones wrote: »

So in other words, you couldn't find one in the whole thread and had to trawl the internet.
No limits to the strawmen is there ?

Do you understand what "strawman" means?

It seems not, since -

A) I actually answered the question you asked in response to my post.

I realise the problem now; what I did was make the mistake of answering what you'd asked, the sentence you'd actually put to me, under the assumption you'd read a word I'd actually said. What I should have done, I don't know. Though I must say though, it does seems unfair that you won't answer questions directly put to you, while we're expected to furnish answers to ones you haven't even verbalised.

(I suspect "Strawman" isn't the word you're looking for. I have no idea what it might actually be, but it ain't Strawman.)

I actually did provide an example from here regardless?

Buddy, did you just panic and mash the keyboard in a froth when you realised the implications of what you'd said?