This is just sick...

floggg

dont bother wrote: »

haha, im not "going off the head"...

i hadnt quoted part of her other post, so it looks weird.

BUt yeah, i dont believe that sexism exists. it exists only because people want it to.

Sexist people?

Morag

gozunda wrote: »

But such choice can never be an easy decision to make.

For some it is, they have already thought about it and decided if conditions in their life don't change they would not currently be interested in continuing a pregnancy.

bjork

Shrap wrote: »

I don't see how the cultural inequality of women in these ethnic groups in our countries is the responsibility of the pro-choice movement or standpoint to fix. Any place where choice is taken away from the woman clearly is the exact opposite stance to a pro-choice sensibility, but cultural clashes happen regardless of what you or I think. FGM is another issue for our countries, and many other issues such as arranged/forced marriage, for example.

I cannot understand why you think traditional ethnic gender inequality is the sole preserve of the pro-choice movement to tackle :rolleyes:, but to try and answer your questions (not on behalf of any pro-choice ethos, just an Irish citizen's...) EDUCATION is the only way to combat any of these issues, and INCLUSION.

I don't think "traditional ethnic gender inequality is the sole preserve of the pro-choice". Maybe you misunderstood my post?

Abortion based on gender is something the pro choice movement should have a strategy to prevent as it is an issue.
If you have "abortion on demand" this is a very real issue.

I've never heard their stance on the issue. You seem to be offended that I asked but "whatever" :rolleyes:

Shrap

bjork wrote: »

If you have "abortion on demand" this is a very real issue.

If you have abortion on demand, the vast majority of abortions are sought and performed at very early stages and well within the first trimester. I would assume that anyone wishing to abort for gender reasons wouldn't realistically be able to within that time frame, so it should be easier to pinpoint someone looking for a gender based abortion past that 12 week mark. With abortion services, one would hope that adequate counselling and support services were also in place (and mandatory). At that point, if it were discovered that someone wished to abort for gender reasons, you'd hope that adequate supports for her to carry her pregnancy to term would be rolled out if she would wish to continue her pregnancy were it not for her cultural constraints.

floggg

bjork wrote: »

I don't think "traditional ethnic gender inequality is the sole preserve of the pro-choice". Maybe you misunderstood my post?

Abortion based on gender is something the pro choice movement should have a strategy to prevent as it is an issue.
If you have "abortion on demand" this is a very real issue.

I've never heard their stance on the issue. You seem to be offended that I asked but "whatever" :rolleyes:

I certainly disagree that it's the responsibility of the pro-choice side. Its the responsibility of society as a whole.

Abortion is not the ill that needs to be cured in that context, the reason why such an abortion might take place is. Any such abortion is only a symptom of the problems some cultures have regarding the role of women in society.

That approach would be akin to making free speech advocates responsible for tackling racism, because racism sometimes results in people expressing nasty views in public.

the obligation should be on society as a whole to tackle and cure those problems, and restricting abortion access won't do that. Indeed it would cause further problems for women in those cultures who forced into early marriage, rape etc by further restricting their ability to make their own reproductive choices.

Shrap

Well put ^^ What I was hoping to say in fact!

JuliusCaesar

The fact of the matter is that present legislation does not allow abortion on grounds of the sex of the fetus.

This woman appears to have some mental problems.

Did she actually have an abortion?

Shrap

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

This woman appears to have some mental problems.

Did she actually have an abortion?

It appears to be a set-up, so we're left debating the hypothetical positions on the story......

DeadHand

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

Did she actually have an abortion?

Probably not.

Thankfully.

Shrap

DeadHand wrote: »

Probably not.

Thankfully.

:pac: Really?! You see her as prime parenting material?!

strobe

I dunno, I don't see what the problem with aborting due to sex is. How is it worse than aborting for any other reason? If someone only wants sons or daughters, what's the issue? Is it better for someone to have a daughter they don't want or a son they don't want? From a pro-life perspective I can see the objection. But from a pro-choice angle, I just don't get it. Same as with aborting due to disability. Look at the reaction from some pro-choice people to the woman who came out recently and said she aborted due to down syndrome being detected.

Can anyone help me out? Why is aborting for reasons specific to the fetus worse than aborting cause you just don't want a kid? Why is aborting specific kinds of fetuses (feti?) worse than aborting any kind?

AlanS181824

Has to be fake, very hard to believe.

Shrap

strobe wrote: »

I dunno, I don't see what the problem with aborting due to sex is. How is it worse than aborting for any other reason? If someone only wants sons or daughters, what's the issue? Is it better for someone to have a daughter they don't want or a son they don't want? From a pro-life perspective I can see the objection. But from a pro-choice angle, I just don't get it. Same as with aborting due to disability. Look at the reaction from pro-choice people to the woman who came out and said she aborted due to down syndrome being detected.

Can anyone help me out? Why is aborting for reasons specific to the fetus worse than aborting cause you just don't want a kid? Why is aborting specific kinds of fetuses (feti?) worse than aborting any kind?

It's not worse, but it's an indication that social constraints (traditional gender inequality) that shouldn't be there are having an effect on a person's choice. Similar of course to other constraints on continuing a pregnancy* that shouldn't be there, are there.

*or indeed, social constraints on abortion that shouldn't be there.

nc19

conorhal wrote:

The face of abortion that those on here with the 'champagne on ice' for day they manage to push through abortion on demand would rather nobody talked about and the papers won't publish because it would perhaps cause people to question the wisdom of their nhillistic culture of death.

yawn

nc19

conorhal wrote:

How is she any different to any woman that chooses to end a pregnancy because she wants to go on holiday, it's inconvenient to her career at the moment or any other lifestyle choice reasons for having an abortion, which lets be honest covers the vast majority of abortions performed? Is one persons lifestyle choice reasoning any more or less valid?

and what about the rest? do they not count because they are a minority???

probably best you go back to bashing you bible and let the rest of us chat

Shrap

Shrap wrote: »

If you have abortion on demand, the vast majority of abortions are sought and performed at very early stages and well within the first trimester. I would assume that anyone wishing to abort for gender reasons wouldn't realistically be able to within that time frame, so it should be easier to pinpoint someone looking for a gender based abortion past that 12 week mark. With abortion services, one would hope that adequate counselling and support services were also in place (and mandatory). At that point, if it were discovered that someone wished to abort for gender reasons, you'd hope that adequate supports for her to carry her pregnancy to term would be rolled out if she would wish to continue her pregnancy were it not for her cultural constraints.

Just adding to my previous post here bjork, having just had a brain-wave! If gender is not considered as a good enough reason for an abortion (despite the problems that the women concerned may face on producing a girl), then don't tell people the gender of the foetus before whatever cut-off point for an elective abortion is.....

Why would we need to know anyway? :cool:

One eyed Jack

floggg wrote: »

So should we outlaw adultery? Outlaw one night stands unless both parties clearly agree to never contacting each other again before hand? Outlaw lying?

These are issues we as a society would decide upon either by way of either referendum to change the constitution, or by the Government introducing legislation.

And who is the arbiter of what's moral? If I think aborting where there is a risk to the mother's life is moral, but somebody else disagrees, who gets to decide?

What about if i think all abortions are moral but you think none are? Which morality do we impose?

What about cheating/adultery? Some people are ok with it, others think adulterers should be stoned - which moral standard should we set our rules by?

We live in a democracy, come on now, you know how that works! As it currently stands, the legislation the way it is written now regarding abortion seems to suit the majority of the people in this country.

What if my brother is cheating on his girlfriend - I care about him, but I think cheating is immoral in most cases. Should i tell his girlfriend, regardless of the consequences for him? Should I physically restrain him?

Or what if he gets a job working for a cigarette company or weapons manufacturer? Should I stop speaking to him? Petition the government to outlaw his job? Physically restrain him again?

Please tell do explain how removing his choice to make his own decisions in each of those cases is caring for and respecting him.

The circumstances above are related to your personal morality, it would be silly to be asking the country to decide what you as an individual should do in those circumstances. In relation to legislation regarding abortion, the legislation applies to all citizens in this country, not just to one individual woman who would choose to have an abortion. That's the difference between personal morality and social morality.

How is that any different from my position on this (fake) story? I believe a woman should be legally allowed have an abortion if she wishes, but I will deem abortions for absurd reasons such as this to be socially unacceptable.*

In what way does that differ from believing that a person should legally be allowed commit adultery if they wish, but deeming adultery to be socially unacceptable?*

I am taking "socially unacceptable" in this context to be frowned upon and viewed unfavourably, seeing as there is no actual sanction for adultery or prohibition.

You're applying your personal morality to these issues, and ignoring social morality. Sometimes your personal morality will be in agreement with social morality, and sometimes it won't. Put simply - it's not all about you.

Good thing I am not planning on having any.

In any event:

(a) it should be evident I was talking about third parties and not the specific parental responsibility towards their children;
(b) I would neither have the right or ability to impose my moral standards on my hypothetical child - the best I could do would be to try and impart my values to them and hope that they grew up sharing similar view points. I would have to respect their right to form their own views though, subject to my parental responsibility to ensure their welfare and safety until the reach they age of maturity.

Again, you're applying your personal morality to an issue that is one of social morality. You know a person's fundamental rights as a parent are enshrined in the Irish Constitution already so every parent actually DOES have the right to impose their moral standards on their children. They also have responsibilities towards their children.

This is a semantic nonsense.

Firstly, allowing somebody the right to make their own choice isn't imposing anything on them. The use of the word "choice" should make it fairly clear they aren't bound to act in accordance with my wishes.

It's not semantic nonsense at all. In allowing someone the right to make their own choice, you first of all have to assess whether they should be allowed to make that choice, and in doing so you are making a value judgement. In making that value judgement you will decide whether that person is bound to act in accordance with your wishes or whether they should have a right to make that choice for themselves.

Secondly, how exactly does one go about advocating for rights for themselves specifically but not for others in the same position? I really don't think standing outside Leinster House with a sign saying "Legal abortion for floggg (only)" will get me very far - not least because I don't have a womb.

Quite simply? They can't. Because you're absent of a womb you can't advocate for an abortion for yourself obviously. But a woman can advocate for her right, and she can join the thousands of women advocating for their right as individuals for abortion in this country. Then they're speaking for themselves as opposed to having you or I or anyone else speak for them. That's what I mean when I say that it is a person's responsibility to speak for themselves. They join the voices of many more people speaking for themselves.

Unless you expect each woman to petition the government for individual dispensation, no woman can have a right to an abortion unless and until abortion is legalised. The only way to give a choice to any individual is to give the choice to all - and let each of them decide what is right or wrong for them.

Otherwise it is not a right, but an unfair privilege conferred on the few.

That won't happen until more women who want that choice, take responsibility for themselves and speak for themselves. Otherwise, the Government will assume that these women are satisfied to leave the law as it currently stands regarding the issue of abortion.

Are you trying to extrapolate some wider anarchist principle from my posts on this specific topic here? There is none there, so save yourself some time. I advocate a woman's right to choose what happens to her body, not that we dispense with the need for a legal system entirely.

As there is only one person who will be required to carry a foetus to term, there should only be one person who gets to have the final say on whether or not to actually carry that foetus to term.

Not a wider anarchist principle, no, but the anarchist principle is there in the second bolded text. You are suggesting that the State should have no authority over what you feel is a person's individual responsibility. That would be fine if the State didn't already recognise the right to life of the unborn. The 8th Amendment places equal value on the rights of both the unborn and the woman in question. Your idea of the way things should be is a question of your own personal morality, but the State is concerned with the question of social morality. Society gets to decide, not the individual. That is the principle of democracy as opposed to anarchy.

And social cohesion does not require interference on private personal matters such as abortion. It is a private matter, and legalised abortion does not threaten social cohesion.

Intrusion into others sex lives and reproductive organs does though.

Abortion isn't simply a private personal matter for the individual, as the State currently recognises the right to life of the unborn. The State doesn't have the luxury of your personal morality which ignores the right to life of the unborn. Social cohesion is absolutely dependent on the State interfering and intruding as you put it, to advocate for the right to life of the unborn.

From my perspective, the pro-choice argument should be argued from a "quality of life" point of view, as opposed to simply just a question of the right to life. This would make a better argument for the repeal of the 8th, rather than just because "it's the right thing to do".

Shrap

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Social cohesion is absolutely dependent on the State interfering and intruding as you put it, to advocate for the right to life of the unborn.

TL;DR, but reading from bottom to top this stuck out for me. And it is utter bollix.

Do you think the whole fabric of Canadian society has fallen into social anarchy and murderous intent due to their "no blame" abortion laws? You see Canadians out promoting abortion and general lawlessness? Somehow, their social cohesion appears to be cohesive, despite abortion being allowed "on demand". They also have an extremely supportive system around women in crisis pregnancies of course. Which may add to social cohesion...you never know :pac:

gozunda

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Been around YouTube lately? Been around many social media sites where women advocating for choice are celebrating the fact that an abortion was "the best thing they ever dld"? Only last year we had a thread on a woman who was celebrating "her choice"! I don't like it myself, I find it crass in the extreme, but we must acknowledge that these people DO exist, and we also must acknowledge that they aren't necessarily mentally ill. They do the pro-choice argument no favours, but we can't afford to pretend they don't exist simply because we find their attitudes utterly repulsive to us personally.

A rational woman standing by her decision to have an abortion is not 'celebrating'. You would swear from your interpretation that every single woman ever to get a termination were dancing in the streets and shouting yahoo :rolleyes: exaggerate much? I would ask why you are scouring youtube for woman affirming that their choices were the correct thing to do, if it offends you so much? Strange thing to be at tbh...And no - I don't judge normal woman who choose to have an abortion as mentally ill.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

actually it can, it can be a very easy decision to make and again we must acknowledge that there are people that argue that if choice is to mean anything, then it must be choice regardless of circumstances and free from guilt and shame. In order to take the guilt and shame out of abortion, then we must reserve judgment in all circumstances and not simply pretend that the only reason women should have a right to choice is because they're suffering. That's the situation we have at the moment - special circumstances and conditions apply and only if there is the possibility that the woman could die should she be permitted to an abortion.

What kind of choice is that if there are conditions attached?

I disagree

One eyed Jack

Shrap wrote: »

TL;DR, but reading from bottom to top this stuck out for me. And it is utter bollix.

Do you think the whole fabric of Canadian society has fallen into social anarchy and murderous intent due to their "no blame" abortion laws? You see Canadians out promoting abortion and general lawlessness? Somehow, their social cohesion appears to be cohesive, despite abortion being allowed "on demand". They also have an extremely supportive system around women in crisis pregnancies of course. Which may add to social cohesion...you never know :pac:

You cannot simply transpose one society onto another as if they are actually comparable. Irish society is completely different to Canadian society. "No" is the obvious answer to your question. Your point doesn't actually contradict what I said though that social cohesion is dependent upon the State intruding or interfering in the lives of it's citizens, and here in Ireland we have laws and legislation that recognises the right to life of the unborn. In Canada, they don't, so this was never an issue.

Of course if we had the facilities to support abortion here, we wouldn't have the issues we do now where abortion is effectively "outsourced", and only the odd case that makes the newspapers has the Government squirm uncomfortably for a few weeks, then the country carries on with business as usual.

FWIW btw I support a woman's right to have full responsibility for her reproductive choices, but that will never come to fruition as long as the pro-choice lobby groups lack a comprehensive and cohesive strategy to inform and educate people on the issues involved.

gozunda

Morag wrote: »

For some it is, they have already thought about it and decided if conditions in their life don't change they would not currently be interested in continuing a pregnancy.

And that paragraph contains no explanation on how any such decision could be easy. Tbh it's one of the most rubbish argument put out there by the anti's.

One eyed Jack

gozunda wrote: »

A rational woman standing by her decision to have an abortion is not 'celebrating'. You would swear from your interpretation that every single woman ever to get a termination were dancing in the streets and shouting yahoo :rolleyes: exaggerate much?

Eh? I think there's only one of us exaggerating and making weird interpretations here, and it sure as hell ain't me!

I would ask why you are scouring youtube for woman affirming that their choices were the correct thing to do, if it offends you so much? Strange thing to be at tbh...And no - I don't judge normal woman who choose to have an abortion as mentally ill.

I'm hardly scouring youtube in all fairness, you watch one video and there's at least 20 more related to it in the sidebar. I wouldn't say I was offended by it. I simply said I found it crass, facepalm inducing (I'm sure you remember Emily Letts? Josie Cunningham?). I'm delighted to hear that you don't pass judgement on a woman who has had an abortion. I've never done it myself either, but as you can see from this thread and the many that preceded it, there are still plenty of people in Irish society that do, if Boards is to be taken as a representative cross-section of Irish society (we both know it's not though, as it's main social demographic is middle class).

I disagree

I said it can be an easy decision, and that is true for some women, I never even implied it was true for all women. If you still disagree with that then fair enough.

gozunda

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Eh? I think there's only one of us exaggerating and making weird interpretations here, and it sure as hell ain't me!

In relation to woman 'celebrating' abortions - you said

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Been around YouTube lately? Been around many social media sites where women advocating for choice are celebrating the fact that an abortion was "the best thing they ever dld"? .

I'm hardly scouring youtube in all fairness, you watch one video and there's at least 20 more related to it in the sidebar. I wouldn't say I was offended by it. I simply said I found it crass, facepalm inducing (I'm sure you remember Emily Letts? Josie Cunningham?). I'm delighted to hear that you don't pass judgement on a woman who has had an abortion. I've never done it myself either, but as you can see from this thread and the many that preceded it, there are still plenty of people in Irish society that do, if Boards is to be taken as a representative cross-section of Irish society (we both know it's not though, as it's main social demographic is middle class).

Again you said

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Been around YouTube lately? Been around many social media sites where women advocating for choice are celebrating the fact that an abortion was "the best thing they ever dld"? Only last year we had a thread on a woman who was celebrating "her choice"! I don't like it myself, I find it crass in the extreme, but we must acknowledge that these people DO exist, and we also must acknowledge that they aren't necessarily mentally ill. They do the pro-choice argument no favours, but we can't afford to pretend they don't exist simply because we find their attitudes utterly repulsive to us personally.

I said it can be an easy decision, and that is true for some women, I never even implied it was true for all women. If you still disagree with that then fair enough.

You offered no qualifiers whatsoever and by implication applied to all woman. I'll reiterate it is never an easy decision for anyone imo. Tbh I have heard that trite claim again again when the issue of reproduction rights comes up for discussion. A claim put out with no evidence or supporting information. A woman affirming their decision does not make any case that such a decision is an easy one to make.

Shrap

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You cannot simply transpose one society onto another as if they are actually comparable. Irish society is completely different to Canadian society. "No" is the obvious answer to your question. Your point doesn't actually contradict what I said though that social cohesion is dependent upon the State intruding or interfering in the lives of it's citizens, and here in Ireland we have laws and legislation that recognises the right to life of the unborn. In Canada, they don't, so this was never an issue.

Ok, I'm admitting I don't exactly know what position you're coming from so I'm going to put this to you another way, and actually in your own words. Which are fine btw, I'm just hammering this out with you, not actually having a go at telling you how wrong you are, just that I can't quite get your drift!

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You're applying your personal morality to these issues, and ignoring social morality. Sometimes your personal morality will be in agreement with social morality, and sometimes it won't. Put simply - it's not all about you.

Correct on all counts, it's not all about any one of us. However, when "social morality" is out of kilter with the "State intruding or interfering in the lives of it's citizens" to the extent that government officials are prepared to lose their jobs over it, we then have a problem, yes?

Of course you can't transpose one society onto another, but equally you can't say that just because the state recognises the right to life of the unborn as equal to the mother that this is a true reflection of modern society. "A true reflection" of course is only democracy at work, leaving the minority in the "out of kilter" position. How long must we wait before the question is asked again though? Until "after the next election" we've been told. Which next election though? Another 30 years from now?

Shrap

gozunda wrote: »

A woman affirming their decision does not make any case that such a decision is an easy one to make.

Well, anecdotally and in support of Jack here, I personally know two women for whom it was a very easy decision. They never wanted to ever, EVER have children EVER. Very easy decision when they got pregnant despite their best efforts not to.

gozunda

Shrap wrote: »

Well, anecdotally and in support of Jack here, I personally know two women for whom it was a very easy decision. They never wanted to ever, EVER have children EVER. Very easy decision when they got pregnant despite their best efforts.

I will take that for what it is. Unsupported and posted without any possible verification. And no it does not follow that its a 'very easy decision' because they got pregnant :rolleyes: if I had a cent for every time I've heard antis trot out the easy argument I would have retired by now .

bjork

One eyed Jack wrote: »

......a woman's right to have full responsibility for her reproductive choices, but that will never come to fruition as long as the pro-choice lobby groups lack a comprehensive and cohesive strategy to inform and educate people on the issues involved.

Nail on the Head!

Shrap

gozunda wrote: »

I will take that for what it is. Unsupported and posted without any possible verification. And no it does not follow that its a 'very easy decision' because they got pregnant :rolleyes: if I had a cent for every time I've heard antis trot out the easy argument I would have retired by now .

Similarly as unsupported as your assertion that "it's never an easy decision". I would propose that it's often an obvious decision, if not an easy one. It's never an easy decision for example, to go for a smear test. Having doctors fiddling about with metal implements at your cervix is not easy or comfortable. However, it is an obvious decision.

I don't personally see the problem with abortion being an easy/obvious decision to take for some people. What is the problem?

Shrap

bjork wrote: »

Nail on the Head!

True enough. I'll second that too. I get a bit sick of arguing with pro-choicers with totally different notions of what are "valid" reasons for abortion. Tackle the myriad reasons for abortion on your own time says I. The services are necessary, as are the psychological supports for people who do or don't have an abortion during a crisis pregnancy, but the constant moralising about who "deserves" one is melting my head :mad:

qt3.14

Not sure I see the problem. If it's okay to abort A foetus because you don't want A baby then it should be OK to abort THAT specific foetus of you don't want THAT specific baby.
I've a list of features an arm long I'd abort for if I was a woman and the features were discernible in the womb.

gozunda

Shrap wrote: »

Similarly as unsupported as your assertion that "it's never an easy decision". I would propose that it's often an obvious decision, if not an easy one. It's never an easy decision for example, to go for a smear test. Having doctors fiddling about with metal implements at your cervix is not easy or comfortable. However, it is an obvious decision.

I don't personally see the problem with abortion being an easy/obvious decision to take for some people. What is the problem?

I offered no real or imagined woman to back up my opinion. Rather I put forward the woman who have publicly talked about their experiences of abortion. To a woman ime not one has ever said the decision was ever 'easy'. Unlike your unsupported personas - there are have been many reputable documentary program's that have interviewed woman on this issue.

The issue with it not been an easy decision, ignoring the fact that the antis keep trotting this rubbish out, is that termination is not comparable with a smear test. Women are are fully aware of the issues inherent in being pregnant and deciding to chose to have a termination. Whether this termination is for medical or other reasons.

One eyed Jack

gozunda wrote: »

In relation to woman 'celebrating' abortions - you said

Again you said

Yes, they're celebrating the fact that they had the courage to decide to have an abortion because it was for them the best decision they ever made? There was another video in the same competition that Emily Letts entered which IMO was a far better representation of a number of women who had positive stories to relate after they had an abortion. The organisers went for publicity and shock value knowing the Letts video would go viral, but it backlashed. The other video was this one -

I'll let you make up your own mind as to which one was the better video to get the message across that there should be no stigma attached to women who have had an abortion.

You offered no qualifiers whatsoever and by implication applied to all woman. I'll reiterate it is never an easy decision for anyone imo. Tbh I have heard that trite claim again again when the issue of reproduction rights comes up for discussion. A claim put out with no evidence or supporting information. A woman affirming their decision does not make any case that such a decision is an easy one to make.

What evidence or supporting information does it need? Why should we have to ask any woman to explain themselves and their reasons for wanting the right to choose what should happen within their own bodies? Bodily integrity is a fundamental human right according to the UN Human Rights charter, and successive Irish governments have managed to avoid having to address the issue that gives the unborn inside her the equal right to life as that of the woman on whom that unborn life is actually dependent upon for it's continued development and survival.

I'm not about to drag any woman in here to explain herself and why she chose to have an abortion because I don't see how her reasons should be relevant. For some women who discover they are unexpectedly pregnant, it really can be an easy decision for them to have an abortion. Why should they make any excuses for that or come up with any valid reasons? Why should we have to question a woman at all? If you truly understand the meaning of a woman's right to choose, then respecting that right means they shouldn't have to come up with any reasons.

Usually when anti-choice people point to things like "abortion on demand" and "lifestyle choices", my response to that is "So what?".

Kiwi in IE

conorhal wrote: »

strawman nonsesense. The VAST majority of people that are pro life would not applaud this. The vast majority of people that are pro choice however have no problem with abortion as a lifestyle choice and thus can have no argument with her actions.

I don't have any argument with her actions at all. She is quite apparently very mentally unwell and needs intensive professional help rather then being made a reverse poster child for the anti choicers and subjected to their pious judgement.

gozunda

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yes, they're celebrating the fact that they had the courage to decide to have an abortion because it was for them the best decision they ever made? There was another video in the same competition that Emily Letts entered which IMO was a far better representation of a number of women who had positive stories to relate after they had an abortion. The organisers went for publicity and shock value knowing the Letts video would go viral, but it backlashed. The other video was this one -

Again - that is your sole opinion.

As for the celebrating issue, your initial argument came across that women who chose to have a termination automatically went on a glee fest. Maybe that's not what you meant but it was certainly what I and some other posters took from your argument. If you say otherwise now, grand so thanks for the clarification ...

As for "I'm not about to drag any woman in here to explain herself" - lol who asked you to drag any woman in?

Letree

She is not a feminist imo she has relabeled herself a misandrist after aborting a male fotus.

Shrap

gozunda wrote: »

Again - that is your sole opinion.

As for the celebrating issue, your initial argument came across that women who chose to have a termination automatically went on a glee fest. Maybe that's not what you meant but it was certainly what I and some other posters took your argument. If you say otherwise now, grand so thanks for the clarification ...

Not quite sole opinion. Mine to, and Morag's from a few pages back seemingly. Plus the two women I know who found it an easy decision. But perhaps we're the only ones in the world to think/feel that!

In fairness to you though, one eyed Jack did indeed come across that way at first. I totally thought he was anti-choice and having a go at "gleeful" women after their abortions

Shrap

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The organisers went for publicity and shock value knowing the Letts video would go viral, but it backlashed. The other video was this one -

I'll let you make up your own mind as to which one was the better video to get the message across that there should be no stigma attached to women who have had an abortion.

Idiots. That video was spot on.

gozunda

Shrap wrote: »

Not quite sole opinion. Mine to, and Morag's from a few pages back seemingly. Plus the two women I know who found it an easy decision. But perhaps we're the only ones in the world to think/feel that!

In fairness to you though, one eyed Jack did indeed come across that way at first. I totally thought he was anti-choice and having a go at "gleeful" women after their abortions

Ah but I'm wasn't replying to you - was I? I meant that was OEJs and not the women's I have heard talking about the issue in various documentaries. And unless you have had a gender change then such opinion on how women have it easy is largely worthless. I have listened to women in various documentaries and I can't remember one that claimed it was an easy decision. But I do realise that a forum is a very difficult place for shadows to throw a reflection

But yes I agree - One Eyed Jack did appear to be a victim of shifting sands.

Shrap

gozunda wrote: »

Ah but I'm not replying to you - am I? And unless you have had a gender change then such opinion on how women have it easy is largely worthless. I have listened to women in various documentaries and I can't remember one that claimed it was an easy decision. But I do realise that a forum is a very difficult place for shadows to throw a reflection

You're chucking shadows about all over the place now mate. Don't know what you're on about here. Plus, I think we're allowed talk to each other usually, no? I figured...y'know, we might actually be discussing this with each other AND this Jack bloke.

BTW, do you think I'm a bloke? I'm really feckin confused now

Edit: For what it's worth, one of my friends actually put herself forward for one of these "tell your abortion story" things but was turned down for not being compelling enough, ie. it wasn't any big deal in her life. She told her story out of a sense of duty to those who's story doesn't get heard because it's not a FFA story or a teen pregnancy or anything poignant. Unfortunately her story wasn't poignant enough to air.....

strobe

Shrap wrote: »

AND this Jack bloke.

BTW, do you think I'm a bloke?

Pretty sure One Eyed Jack is a chick too.

gozunda

Shrap wrote: »

You're chucking shadows about all over the place now mate. Don't know what you're on about here. Plus, I think we're allowed talk to each other usually, no? I figured...y'know, we might actually be discussing this with each other AND this Jack bloke.

BTW, do you think I'm a bloke? I'm really feckin confused now

Edit: For what it's worth, one of my friends actually put herself forward for one of these "tell your abortion story" things but was turned down for not being compelling enough, ie. it wasn't any big deal in her life. She told her story out of a sense of duty to those who's story doesn't get heard because it's not a FFA story or a teen pregnancy or anything poignant. Unfortunately her story wasn't poignant enough to air.....

Well you replied specifically to a comment on OEJs comment -"For some women who discover they are unexpectedly pregnant, it really can be an easy decision for them to have an abortion. Why should they make any excuses for that or come up with any valid reasons? that that was his sole opinion ie not as a woman who has chosen to have a termination. So yes it did make including others in the reply somewhat difficult. The gender change comment was misdirected. As to your gender and termination choices I really have no idea. So I make no presumptions in your case. However if OEJ does turn out to be female then that's would be a surprise...

Perhaps your friend could write about her experience if she would like to give others the benefit of her experience. Certainly something to think about imo.

Shrap

strobe wrote: »

Pretty sure One Eyed Jack is a chick too.

Sigh. I'd better go to bed

Shrap

gozunda wrote: »

Well you replied specifically to a comment of OEJs comment ....

Not worth arguing about then? Good-oh.

Perhaps your friend could write about her experience if she would like to give others the benefit of her experience. Certainly something to think about imo.

I did actually say that to her but unfortunately she's not in a position to go public at all at all, being in a rather responsible position within the court system. Not worth taking the risk on a back-lash. And she did already do her best to write about it, but it was considered to be not very compelling, like I said. It was however, a typical Irish abortion with missed trains, delayed flights, anti-choice protesters and something else going wrong ...all in a foreign country :-/

The "easy choice", or should I say "the obvious choice" is a very good reason, among thousand other unknown choices (presumably) that the pro-choice side needs to get it's ducks in a row and stop banging on about ffa's and rape/incest cases. We want no blame abortions for whatever reason, thanking youse all very much.

gozunda

Shrap wrote: »

...

In fairness to you though, one eyed Jack did indeed come across that way at first. I totally thought he was anti-choice and having a go at "gleeful" women after their abortions

OEJ appears to have gone to ground now - only popping up in the thanks feature. To paraphrase that song Oh Jack - won't you come back, oh noooo

One eyed Jack

gozunda wrote: »

OEJ appears to have gone to ground now - only popping up in the thanks feature. To paraphrase that song Oh Jack - won't you come back, oh noooo

Tbh gozunda, and with all due respect, you have my head melted trying to work out are you genuinely misunderstanding what posters are saying, or are you simply spoiling for an argument. If it's the former I can only apologise for my posts being unclear or incoherent; the latter I'm afraid I won't be entertaining as I don't want anyone to think we shouldn't be taking this issue seriously.

I've been involved in far too many threads on abortion on Boards alone at this point that have followed a template pattern of trading petty insults, pedantry and semantics. Meanwhile women are still being denied their dignity because most people in Ireland don't want to know about abortion.

If we can learn to have a discussion like mature adults, perhaps we could get to the point where we could discuss abortion in a calm, clear and rational manner, that we could all come up with a comprehensive, cohesive, coherent and complete framework that could be presented to politicians who continue to infantilise the electorate with broken promises and meaningless, patronising platitudes, just so long as they can continue to treat abortion as the political football they've been kicking around amongst themselves for far too long now.

gozunda

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Tbh gozunda, and with all due respect, you have my head melted trying to work out are you genuinely misunderstanding what posters are saying, or are you simply spoiling for an argument. If it's the former I can only apologise for my posts being unclear or incoherent; the latter I'm afraid I won't be entertaining as I don't want anyone to think we shouldn't be taking this issue seriously.

I've been involved in far too many threads on abortion on Boards alone at this point that have followed a template pattern of trading petty insults, pedantry and semantics. Meanwhile women are still being denied their dignity because most people in Ireland don't want to know about abortion.

If we can learn to have a discussion like mature adults, perhaps we could get to the point where we could discuss abortion in a calm, clear and rational manner, that we could all come up with a comprehensive, cohesive, coherent and complete framework that could be presented to politicians who continue to infantilise the electorate with broken promises and meaningless, patronising platitudes, just so long as they can continue to treat abortion as the political football they've been kicking around amongst themselves for far too long now.

One Eyed Jack with all due respect - there are other posters who have been both confused and misdirected by your arguments. So no it not just me and I am not looking for any 'arguments' either. Clarification is always good.

As for the calm, clear, coherent etc etc - that is my direction. I was wondering what yours was tbh.

floggg

One eyed Jack wrote: »

These are issues we as a society would decide upon either by way of either referendum to change the constitution, or by the Government introducing legislation.





We live in a democracy, come on now, you know how that works! As it currently stands, the legislation the way it is written now regarding abortion seems to suit the majority of the people in this country.





The circumstances above are related to your personal morality, it would be silly to be asking the country to decide what you as an individual should do in those circumstances. In relation to legislation regarding abortion, the legislation applies to all citizens in this country, not just to one individual woman who would choose to have an abortion. That's the difference between personal morality and social morality.





You're applying your personal morality to these issues, and ignoring social morality. Sometimes your personal morality will be in agreement with social morality, and sometimes it won't. Put simply - it's not all about you.





Again, you're applying your personal morality to an issue that is one of social morality. You know a person's fundamental rights as a parent are enshrined in the Irish Constitution already so every parent actually DOES have the right to impose their moral standards on their children. They also have responsibilities towards their children.





It's not semantic nonsense at all. In allowing someone the right to make their own choice, you first of all have to assess whether they should be allowed to make that choice, and in doing so you are making a value judgement. In making that value judgement you will decide whether that person is bound to act in accordance with your wishes or whether they should have a right to make that choice for themselves.





Quite simply? They can't. Because you're absent of a womb you can't advocate for an abortion for yourself obviously. But a woman can advocate for her right, and she can join the thousands of women advocating for their right as individuals for abortion in this country. Then they're speaking for themselves as opposed to having you or I or anyone else speak for them. That's what I mean when I say that it is a person's responsibility to speak for themselves. They join the voices of many more people speaking for themselves.





That won't happen until more women who want that choice, take responsibility for themselves and speak for themselves. Otherwise, the Government will assume that these women are satisfied to leave the law as it currently stands regarding the issue of abortion.





Not a wider anarchist principle, no, but the anarchist principle is there in the second bolded text. You are suggesting that the State should have no authority over what you feel is a person's individual responsibility. That would be fine if the State didn't already recognise the right to life of the unborn. The 8th Amendment places equal value on the rights of both the unborn and the woman in question. Your idea of the way things should be is a question of your own personal morality, but the State is concerned with the question of social morality. Society gets to decide, not the individual. That is the principle of democracy as opposed to anarchy.





Abortion isn't simply a private personal matter for the individual, as the State currently recognises the right to life of the unborn. The State doesn't have the luxury of your personal morality which ignores the right to life of the unborn. Social cohesion is absolutely dependent on the State interfering and intruding as you put it, to advocate for the right to life of the unborn.

From my perspective, the pro-choice argument should be argued from a "quality of life" point of view, as opposed to simply just a question of the right to life. This would make a better argument for the repeal of the 8th, rather than just because "it's the right thing to do".

You are the one who started talking about my morality and whether I was imposing it on others. Now you have moved to "our" morality.

The state doesn't, or at least shouldn't legislate on the concept of "social morality" because there is no such thing.

Society as a whole will take different views on different issues, and it is quite possible to think something is immoral yet that it should absolutely be legal. Adultery is a perfect example you glossed over - we will never have a referendum or legislation criminalising it (unless ISIS take over) as even though the vast majority of people think its immoral (and likely far more than think abortion is immoral), we do not think the State should interfere in peoples private lives in that manner.


Equally, most people think uttering racist statements is immoral - but many of them would vehemently defend the right to say them.

The State doesn't, or at least shouldn't impose or enforce morals through legislation - otherwise lying would be illegal. It legislates in order to ensure the common good, ensure social cohesion, the security and stability of the State and protect and vindicate personal rights.

And it doesn't legislate against abortion because its immoral - as you have recognised it does so because the State (through our Constitution) and anti-choice advocates consider a foetus to be a person with rights of its own which the state is required to protect (read the X case to see the language used).

And no, saying somebody should have the primary right to make decisions in relation to their body isn't an anarchist view. It's simply respecting a womans right to privacy, bodily integrity and control over reproductive choices.

It's also based on the opinion that a foetus isn't a person (at least not until capable of surviving outside the womb) and so doesn't have rights (that's how I view it but I will respect other people's right to a different view on it).

And while I recognise a father will have some rights in relation to the unborn foetus, thus rights are trumped by the mothers rights referred to above. It is therefore an issue primarily affecting the womans body so she gets the say.

If there was a wider societal impact, then her rights could be restricted - which wouldn't be very anarchisty of me.

And you cannot advocate for a change in law without advocating for a change in the law for everybody else. If your beef is with me as a man commenting on abortion issues, well I don't know what to say.

I thought acknowledging a right for a woman to decide her own faith was the fairest stance I could take as a man.

And giving her that right isn't imposing anything other than choice. If you want to phrase it like that, fine.

The Corinthian

floggg wrote: »

The state doesn't, or at least shouldn't legislate on the concept of "social morality" because there is no such thing.

Firstly, the State clearly does legislate on the concept of "social morality", indeed most laws are based on enforcing what we, as a society, consider to be moral.

Secondly, should it? Problem with morality is that one man's morality will often affect another man who may not share it. A simple example of this is anti-discrimination legislation; without it then one may choose to discriminate against others based on their own beliefs and the other has no option but to accept this discrimination. Family law is another area which is all about the imposition of a common "social morality".

Society as a whole will take different views on different issues, and it is quite possible to think something is immoral yet that it should absolutely be legal.

Sure, it's called hypocrisy - no one ever said that it's supposed to make sense.

we do not think the State should interfere in peoples private lives in that manner.

But we do clearly think that the State should interfere in peoples private lives in some manner - that's why adultery is not illegal (although it still remains a felony in some US states, believe it or not), but drug use or pedophilia is.

Equally, most people think uttering racist statements is immoral - but many of them would vehemently defend the right to say them.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

The State doesn't, or at least shouldn't impose or enforce morals through legislation - otherwise lying would be illegal. It legislates in order to ensure the common good, ensure social cohesion, the security and stability of the State and protect and vindicate personal rights.

I don't think that is a valid argument. Just because something is immoral, doesn't mean it should be put in one single category; telling a lie may be immoral, but are you going to treat it the same way as murder? No belief system has ever been so black and white - even the nuttiest of Islamic groups will different treat immoral acts in different ways.

It's also based on the opinion that a foetus isn't a person (at least not until capable of surviving outside the womb) and so doesn't have rights (that's how I view it but I will respect other people's right to a different view on it).

I've always found this an interesting position. Would you respect other people's right to consider and act upon racist beliefs?

And you cannot advocate for a change in law without advocating for a change in the law for everybody else.

Now, that's not true. If we really believed in people having reproductive rights, then 'male abortion' would also have been introduced in some way.

And giving her that right isn't imposing anything other than choice.

Choices have consequences though. A woman's choice may trump any rights to any of the other stakeholders in such scenarios, but it would be disingenuous to pretend that it solely affects only one person.