woman refused abortion - Mod Note in first post.

conorh91

irishpancake wrote: »

So, you have argued against a "more extreme view" by espousing an "extreme view" which is less than "more extreme"??

Stop confusing yourself.

It's perfectly clear.

I favor liberal abortion laws, but I also consider the foetus a human child with a limited and independent right to life.

The foetus's right to life is only outweighed by the mother's right to bodily integrity.

It couldn't be more straightforward.

irishpancake

conorh91 wrote: »

Stop confusing yourself.

It's perfectly clear.

I favor liberal abortion laws, but I also consider the foetus a human child with a limited and independent right to life.

The foetus's right to life is only outweighed by the mother's right to bodily integrity.

It couldn't be more straightforward.

I am not confused at all.

And your view is not perfectly clear.

You are the one who said this:

"The reason I got into this "victim status" issue is to counter a more extreme view that a foetus is only ever a clump of cells, or that the foetus never has a right to life."

So, tell us what you mean by " a more extreme view" in the context of what you posted above??

"More" extreme than the extreme argument you have been promulgating here regarding a fetal "victim status"??

You spent pages of comment proposing a view which was extreme, in an attempt to counter a more extreme view.

In this debate, are words posted by people to mean anything at all, when those people then seek to deny their meaning with impunity, as you have just done above.

The Purveyor of Truth

Gustavo CoolS Quote wrote: »

All messing aside, is Obvious Child any good? On a shíts-and-giggles scale ranging from 4 Months 3 Weeks and 2 Days to Knocked Up where does it rank in the greater scheme of abortiony films?

It's garbage, and not just merely because it doesn't mirror my own views on abortion (which indecently, would have resulted in this woman having access to an abortion, despite comments suggesting otherwise) but because it is largely unrealistic. It doesn't reflect the reality of abortion, other than the reality in certain women's minds that is. It purposefully portrays the situation in much the same way as most feminists (and the liberal media) would wish us to see abortion and how it effects, and affects, women.

It's almost treated as a disease in the film. Something she caught off a guy. In fact, if you let someone only watch the last 15 minutes and told them that the guy who is about to turn up with flowers and attend a clinic with the girl and then later pretend they were at the DMV, is doing so as he gave her genital warts and feels badly about it.. they would buy it, as the guy looks sheepish, as if guilty of something and abortion is not mentioned when at the hairdressers abortionists.

The sub-text is: abortion is just a coming of age milestone for women. Men don't enter the sub-text at all. Which I guess, is sub-text in itself. As I said, it's as if the guy in the film did something wrong, such as pass along an STD. We don't see her struggle with her decision to any great degree. The fact that the guy likes here and she likes him, seems irrelevant. It's an infuriating film to watch. Quadruply so when witness women cheering a line suggesting women live in patriarchal society where weird men legislate their vaginas.

This is just a film? Nonsense. It's socially commentary pertaining to a certain section of society which is growing in numbers and whose members which to portray certain nonsensical, self indulgent narratives as the norm. It's reflective of views on this thread indeed, which is why I mentioned it and the women cheering and clapping were Irish women at the end of the day, they were not Americans. I'm not the only one that has used the film as a basis to make a point in the context of this particular case. This journalist at the Irish Times also did and (most of you) will be happy to hear that she takes an entirely different view to the film than I did and very welcome to it she is.

A film I would suggest has protrays abortion in a more realistic light (and not just because I agree with how things panned out) would be the following:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_j7AtUX0Dn0

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

I thought the portrayal of abortion in Blue Valentine was excellent as well, and I thought the situation it was portraying - woman has accessible avenues to abortion that don't require her to justify her decision to have one, and then has the liberty of changing her mind and not going through with it of her OWN free will - was one all women should live in. Incidentally, the father of the child in that film got feck all say in the matter either, and she raised the child with another man without informing him.

It's also a film in a completely different genre representing a completely different situation; subject matter aside they're not comparable films, it's only the fact that the subject is so rarely dealt with on screen that even puts them in the same league. For some women an abortion is a very difficult decision, for some women it's a no brainer. The person best in a position to decide is the individual woman herself, a burden of trust which is not considered in the wheel house of Irish women (unless they can afford the airfare and procedure costs abroad, of course, then it's grand).

volchitsa

The Purveyor of Truth wrote: »

because it is largely unrealistic. It doesn't reflect the reality of abortion, other than the reality in certain women's minds that is.

Would it be indiscreet to ask you how much personal experience you actually have of having an abortion? One? Two? More?

And how can you be sure that your experience of your own abortion mirrors other women's experiences?

The Purveyor of Truth

Gustavo CoolS Quote wrote: »

I thought the portrayal of abortion in Blue Valentine was excellent as well, and I thought the situation it was portraying - woman has accessible avenues to abortion that don't require her to justify her decision to have one, and then has the liberty of changing her mind and not going through with it of her OWN free will - was one all women should live in.

I didn't suggest that her decision was not made of her own 'free will'? I even pointed out that I would still feel the film's portrayal of abortion was realistic, even if things had panned out differently, ie: if she had gone on to have the abortion.

Incidentally, the father of the child in that film got feck all say in the matter either, and she raised the child with another man without informing him.

Translation:

The man got feck all say! She raised a child and never told the father she even had it too!! Na-nana-naa-nah!

Seriously. Your attitude to abortion stinks and is highly indicative of someone seeing abortion as really being nothing more than just a means of getting one-up on men at every given opportunity. I wish that was a rarity in society, but it's not, far from it in fact and I believe thinly veiled attitudes like yours regarding abortion are the prevailing ones among the pro-choice brigade, or at least, among the loudest of their creed. I'm sure it's what also lies at the heart of why we had that lovely woman screaming at men on O'Connell street recently telling them they should 'know their place'. When the mask slips from certain "pro-choice" folk, a misandric scowl is generally not too far beneath.

It's also a film in a completely different genre representing a completely different situation; subject matter aside they're not comparable films, it's only the fact that the subject is so rarely dealt with on screen that even puts them in the same league.

Says the woman who mentioned 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days in the same sentence as Knocked Up

For some women an abortion is a very difficult decision, for some women it's a no brainer. The person best in a position to decide is the individual woman herself, a burden of trust which is not considered in the wheel house of Irish women (unless they can afford the airfare and procedure costs abroad, of course, then it's grand).

I have already said I would support abortion up until the 12th week and further in obvious exceptional circumstances where the health of the women (or the child) are at high risk (which of course includes suicidality) and so I'm not sure why you finished your post as you did, inferring that my opinions would result in a woman having no option but to take the boat. Actually, to tell the truth, I do know why you did it.

You say that the male character in Blue Valentine had "feck all say" but that spectacularly misses the point which I was obviously making. One film (Obvious Child) portrays a woman having a termination at an abortion clinic as if it were akin to waiting for their highlights to set at a hairdressers. Blue Valentine though, in stark contrast, shows an abortion clinic in a far different light, without the emotionally manipulative score for a start, no doubt to make it seem as if it is nothing out of the ordinary is happening. Obvious Child portrays the father's feelings, the type of guy that he is, even his mere presence, along with the woman's positive feelings towards him, as of being TOTALLY irrelevant to her plight, let alone factors which are to be considered. Again, Blue Valentine does not. In fact, the man's wish for her to have the baby is what ultimately has her changing her mind. As you say, she already had raised a child who's father was not around. Clearly she wouldn't want to do so again, giving her obvious struggle and so you can suggest the man's views didn't matter here as much as you like, but they quite clearly did matter. This is where you say: 'It's welcomed for the man to express his views but ultimately it's the woman who makes the decision, as it's her body' blah blah bullshit, totally ignoring the point again, if you wish. No doubt you're itching to, but please spare us both, as aside from the fact that that opinion is 24 caret bollox, it's completely immaterial.

You see, the film is misandric garbage as it deals with abortion in an utterly unrealistic and highly contemptible way. It sends the wrong message to young girls (and women who should know better): that abortion is somewhat of a right of passage ('your mother most likely had a few') a trivial event indeed, that shouldn't be given too much thought to, and if you must girls, thoughts of the guy you caught the embryo from shouldn't be a factor in your decision making process, nor indeed should your feelings regarding him at all. It matters not a jot if you like him, put him out of your mind when making your decision. Just make your choice girls, it's all about you at the end of the day and you alone. Ignore the talk of what the father might want. Pay it no mind. The ever oppressing patriarchy must NOT be allowed to legislate our cunts.

Try and excuse these aspects of the film as much as you like, or put it down to it's genre, but it's really just a cop out as they could easily have dealt with both issues and remained firmly within the genre, their omission has little or nothing to do with it. Robespierre (the writer / director) deliberately did not address the issues in question as they do not reflect her views, nor those of the demographic with which this this film was aimed. This film started out as a short, which feminists hailed and the feature was in fact funded by them (Kickstarter). It was ignoring the cited aspects of the abortion debate which initially got it the attention which it did in fact. They pimped it, reviewed it and held special Feminist screenings for it, but thankfully, it still tanked, and is tanking, at the box office.

As you see, no matter how trivial feminists try and make the abortion issue and they try so hard to do just that (before she goes on stage to preform her stand-up her friend tells her to 'Kill it' and she replies saying 'I've an appointment to do that tomorrow') it will always remain a serious and fraught subject for both women and men as after all, 50% of us are male and so long as we live in democracy at least, men will of course have a say on the issue of abortion and whether it is legalized here or not, which it inevitably will be one day, but when it is, it will be because men have agreed to it. The attempted narrative that has surrounded this case, and predictably surrounds all abortion cases in this country, is that 'it is a woman's body, end of' and films like Obvious Child try to give legitimacy to that narrative, but the truth is it has no legitimacy and it never did. I believe this woman of course should have had abortion available to her and that we should legislate for abortion to be available in future should similar cases arise, which no doubt the will, along also with the availability of abortions (up until no more than two to three weeks after fetal development begins).

I see no reason to allow lifestyle abortions beyond this stage and hopefully the parts of the western world (to begin with) where abortions are currently available after the 12th week, will one day change their laws accordingly. Health of the mother and health of the unborn are one thing, but late term abortions should not be endorsed by mankind on the basis that they are inconsequential ways of circumventing an inconvenience and we must try and silence the narrative which attempts to depict abortions as such.

Nodin

So feminist men haters are to blame, misleading poor silly wimminz. Great stuff.

PopePalpatine

Nodin wrote: »

So feminist men haters are to blame, misleading poor silly wimminz. Great stuff.

Quick, someone fetch an MRA! Maybe John Waters has some free time.

The Purveyor of Truth

The Purveyor of Truth wrote: »

Seriously. Your attitude to abortion stinks and is highly indicative of someone seeing abortion as really being nothing more than just a means of getting one-up on men at every given opportunity. I wish that was a rarity in society, but it's not, far from it in fact and I believe thinly veiled attitudes like yours regarding abortion are the prevailing ones among the pro-choice brigade

Women get abortions to one-up men? I always thought women got abortions for unwanted/non-viable pregnancies.

Next time I get cat-called on the street, I'm getting me an abortion whether I need one or not. That'll show 'em!

PopePalpatine

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Quick, someone fetch an MRA! Maybe John Waters has some free time.

Hopefully John Waters has nothing but free time these days .

conorh91

irishpancake wrote: »

I
"The reason I got into this "victim status" issue is to counter a more extreme view that a foetus is only ever a clump of cells, or that the foetus never has a right to life."

So, tell us what you mean by " a more extreme view" in the context of what you posted above??

I already explained.

Once again, this time more slowly.

The "more extreme" view is that the foetus has no inherent right to life, or that the foetus is not a human being in the foetus's own right.

I am saying the foetus can be a human being in his or her own right, even before viability, and that the foetus may also have an inherent right to life. I am mediating my views by explaining that any pregnancy should be terminated at the will of the mother, where she is of sound mind, or where there is a sufficiently great risk to the health of the mother. Whether or not this will constitutute an abortion depends on whether the foetus is independently viable.

I am not explaining it a third time, so if you don't understand it, good luck.

marienbad

conorh91 wrote: »

I already explained.

Once again, this time more slowly.

The "more extreme" view is that the foetus has no inherent right to life, or that the foetus is not a human being in the foetus's own right.

I am saying the foetus can be a human being in his or her own right, even before viability, and that the foetus may also have an inherent right to life. I am mediating my views by explaining that any pregnancy should be terminated at the will of the mother, where she is of sound mind, or where there is a risk to the health of the mother. Whether or not this will constitutute an abortion depends on whether the foetus is independently viable.

I am not explaining it a third time, so if you don't understand it, good luck.

''can be'' and ''may have'' - either it does or it doesn't to have any consistency in your argument .

conorh91

marienbad wrote: »

''can be'' and ''may have'' - either it does or it doesn't to have any consistency in your argument .

That's a ridiculous suggestion.

"May" signifies that the right is contingent on certain circumstances; to say that a foetus "always" or "never" has a right to life would be foolish.

For example, it would seem absurd to claim that a conceptus, or an embryo at the moment of attachment, has a right to life. But as this organism approaches viability as develops organs, the distinction is blurred.

Therefore I use the word "may" to reflect this developing right, without feeling the need to identify an exact moment when the right to life is fully established. It isn't particularly necessary, or possible, or desirable (for the purposes of this discussion) to identify that moment.

marienbad

conorh91 wrote: »

That's a ridiculous suggestion.

"May" signifies that the right is contingent on certain circumstances; to say that a foetus "always" or "never" has a right to life would be foolish.

For example, it would seem absurd to claim that a conceptus, or an embryo at the moment of attachment, has a right to life. But as this organism approaches viability as develops organs, the distinction is blurred.

Therefore I use the word "may" to reflect this developing right, without feeling the need to identify an exact moment when the right to life is fully established. It isn't particularly necessary, or possible, or desirable (for the purposes of this discussion) to identify that moment.

Of course it is ridiculous but that is exactly what you are saying. You have so many caveats with the use of words like 'can be' and 'may have' that all you are saying that abortion should be allowed up to a certain point . Big deal - welcome to the club.

conorh91

marienbad wrote: »

all you are saying that abortion should be allowed up to a certain point . Big deal - welcome to the club.

I am not claiming it's a big deal.

I am making a very ordinary point. Life is short. If you don't disagree with the point, move on.

marienbad

conorh91 wrote: »

I am not claiming it's a big deal.

I am making a very ordinary point. Life is short. If you don't disagree with the point, move on.

I would hate to see your post count then when you are making a big deal.

Mountainsandh

It's heartening that everyone at this stage of the discussion seems to agree that abortion should indeed be available, at will, up to 12 weeks, and under very strict conditions beyond that, including people who appeared more "pro-life" initially.
Abortion on demand up to 12 weeks is what is available and availed of in most developed countries, how strict other conditions are (beyond the 12 weeks) can then be debated.

It is disheartening that although it seems pretty obvious that this aspect of the constitution needs to be changed to reflect the current "opinion" of most, it will take another while, possibly hurting more women in the meantime.

This referendum can't come soon enough.

irishpancake

conorh91 wrote: »

I already explained.

Once again, this time more slowly.

The "more extreme" view is that the foetus has no inherent right to life, or that the foetus is not a human being in the foetus's own right.

I am saying the foetus can be a human being in his or her own right, even before viability, and that the foetus may also have an inherent right to life. I am mediating my views by explaining that any pregnancy should be terminated at the will of the mother, where she is of sound mind, or where there is a sufficiently great risk to the health of the mother. Whether or not this will constitutute an abortion depends on whether the foetus is independently viable.

I am not explaining it a third time, so if you don't understand it, good luck.

I know what you described as being "more extreme".

You said you were trying to counter this view.

But, and I'm not sure you noticed, going as slow as you are, that you did not once mention this "victim status" thing you spent so much time on previously, which I asked about.

Like I asked about this:

"The reason I got into this "victim status" issue is to counter a more extreme view that a foetus is only ever a clump of cells, or that the foetus never has a right to life."

So, was the fetal "victim status" thing a less extreme thing than what you describe as more extreme?

Or was it a total canard on your part, a kind of legal game you like to play?

conorh91

irishpancake wrote: »

So, was the fetal "victim status" thing a less extreme thing than what you describe as more extreme?

Yes, the "victim status" argument is a logical exercise to mediate against/ counter the "extreme" clump of cells argument.

I'm not sure why this needs repeated clarification.

The post you quoted will be clear to anyone who has English as their mother tongue.

marienbad

conorh91 wrote: »

Yes, the "victim status" argument is a logical exercise to mediate against/ counter the "extreme" clump of cells argument.

I'm not sure why this needs repeated clarification.

The post you quoted will be clear to anyone who has English as their mother tongue.

This is where your posts are confusing, most people do not accept the designation of victim and have no problem with a description of 'a clump of cells'

conorh91

marienbad wrote: »

This is where your posts are confusing, most people do not accept the designation of victim

If you actually read my posts, I'm not claiming that everyone agrees with my 'victimhood' designation.

My point was that most people would agree with it.

My aim, in doing so, was to demonstrate that the clump of cells argument is very unlikely to gain traction in society. It alienates people.

marienbad

conorh91 wrote: »

If you actually read my posts, I'm not claiming that everyone agrees with my 'victimhood' designation.

My point was that most people would agree with it.

My aim, in doing so, was to demonstrate that the clump of cells argument is very unlikely to gain traction in society. It alienates people.

To be honest with you I don't know what your point is at this stage. I have never heard anyone outside the pro life side use words such as victim to describe the foetus .It is not a question of gaining traction either , it is the ability to distinguish between a potential human being and an actual human being that is the core of the argument and such terms as victim add nothing to the discussion.

conorh91

marienbad wrote: »

To be honest with you I don't know what your point is at this stage. I have never heard anyone outside the pro life side use words such as victim to describe the foetus .It is not a question of gaining traction either , it is the ability to distinguish between a potential human being and an actual human being that is the core of the argument and such terms as victim add nothing to the discussion.

The point is in using the term "victim" is that if a dead foetus (lets say a foetus who dies in a terrorist bomb explosion) is ever a victim, then by default, that "victim" had some kind of ab initio right to life.

Otherwise, s/he just isn't a "victim" of the explosion.

Hence, in my experience, many people agree that some foetuses can be "victims"; hence those people agree with the premise that some foetuses possess some right to life.

The popularity of this view means that the "pro-choice" side should drop the 'clump of arguments' line. In my opinion, that line is unlikely to advance their (worthy) cause.

Is anything I have said unclear?

Piliger

conorh91 wrote: »

The point is in using the term "victim" is that if a dead foetus (lets say a foetus who dies in a terrorist bomb explosion) is ever a victim, then by default, that "victim" had some kind of ab initio right to life.

Otherwise, s/he just isn't a "victim" of the explosion.

Hence, in my experience, many people agree that some foetuses can be "victims"; hence those people agree with the premise that some foetuses possess some right to life.

The popularity of this view means that the "pro-choice" side should drop the 'clump of arguments' line. In my opinion, that line is unlikely to advance their (worthy) cause.

Is anything I have said unclear?

It's clear. It's just wrong. I don't know any pro choice people myself who believe that a fetus has no rights.

conorh91

Piliger wrote: »

It's clear. It's just wrong. I don't know any pro choice people myself who believe that a fetus has no rights.

Yeah but I wasn't addressing you.

Claims that a foetus has no inherent rights are commonplace.

Random searches show up the following…. from this thread.

Deleted User wrote: »

It's just a bunch of cells until the cord is cut.

Deleted User wrote: »

Ugh, grow up, it was just a clump of cells. Like the mole on my neck.

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

Women have no rights but a sub human clutter of cells with the potential to form a human being at a later date have all the right.


How far does it go? If we are talking about cells with the potential for life? Brings a whole new look to the "spit or swallow" question

Piliger

conorh91 wrote: »

Yeah but I wasn't addressing you.

Claims that a foetus has no inherent rights are commonplace.

Random searches show up the following…. from this thread.

Which shows the quality of your statements. Those statement all refer to people who make those statements about foetus's in the first few weeks/months of their existence. Your statement completely distorts what people actually are saying.

volchitsa

If we could get back to the topic itself, Prime Time broadcast about the draft review (which is already looking like another attempt at a stitch up, with an early misleading version of its contents published in the Indo, followed by a later article rowing back on their earlier one)

Any thoughts on the problem identified by the lawyer on Prime Time that the apparent lack of a practicable way of access for this young woman to avail of a legal procedure to which she is recognized as being entitled means that Ireland may still be heading straight for yet another stinging rebuke over human rights from Europe?
http://www.rte.ie/news/player/prime-time/2014/0922/

Gatica

I think Ireland hardly has a great history wrt to women's human rights, and Europe's rebukes do not seem to be making us hurry with progress...

volchitsa

Gatica wrote: »

I think Ireland hardly has a great history wrt to women's human rights, and Europe's rebukes do not seem to be making us hurry with progress...

I'd say it's one of the few things that seems to make a difference - look how there was a complete refusal to legislate for X for twenty years. Until Europe told told the Irish government to get their fingers out after the A, B and C cases.

Gatica

some, just some, very minimal progress. All that's actually changed is that they can't stop you from leaving Ireland to have an abortion elsewhere. As this case has shown, there's still not enough there to protect vulnerable women, partly slow legislation and partly no-one wanting to be in the line of fire when it comes to carrying out necessary terminations.