The new, vicious fight

Canis Lupus

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Has society changed that the current legislation does not reflect current public morality on the issue? I think what's changed is that people who are pro-life, I've met many who argue the right to life of the unborn from a humanitarian perspective, and not a religious one at all.

I don't think you could seriously draw any conclusions from people's opinions on marriage, and use that to gauge people's opinion on abortion. They're two completely different issues. It's falling into the same trap of pigeon holing people again.

I personally think if we were to have a referendum on repealing the 8th in the morning, that it would fail, and not simply on religious grounds either as some people here would presume would be the case.

I would have thought society has massively changed in the last couple of decades and yes, gay marriage is a clear indicator of that kind of shift.

I think it's mostly clear from watching the videos that the prochoice were made up of a younger demographic and the prolife had a lot of pensioners. The choice to allow women to have abortions will happen and I can easily see if happening within the next decade or so.

darkpagandeath

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Has society changed that the current legislation does not reflect current public morality on the issue? I think what's changed is that people who are pro-life, I've met many who argue the right to life of the unborn from a humanitarian perspective, and not a religious one at all.

I don't think you could seriously draw any conclusions from people's opinions on marriage, and use that to gauge people's opinion on abortion. They're two completely different issues. It's falling into the same trap of pigeon holing people again.

I personally think if we were to have a referendum on repealing the 8th in the morning, that it would fail, and not simply on religious grounds either as some people here would presume would be the case.

The same crowd blocking marriage are the same crowed blocking this. Or has one forgotten the “Wont someone think of the children.”

One eyed Jack

Canis Lupus wrote: »

I would have thought society has massively changed in the last couple of decades and yes, gay marriage is a clear indicator of that kind of shift.

Marriage equality is an entirely different issue altogether from abortion. Have people's attitudes with regard to abortion changed dramatically? I don't think they have. My point is that nowadays what's actually changed is the motivation for their objection to abortion - what was once a religious issue, is now a humanitarian issue.

I think it's mostly clear from watching the videos that the prochoice were made up of a younger demographic and the prolife had a lot of pensioners. The choice to allow women to have abortions will happen and I can easily see if happening within the next decade or so.

If I were to place any value in videos made by social justice types, I'd be given to think the same way you do. As it happens I spend more time simply talking to people than I do protesting about issues, so while you might see abortion being legislated for in Ireland in the next decade, I'm going to say with equal certainty that I can't see abortion being legislated for in Ireland in my lifetime.

JONJO THE MISER

newmug wrote: »

I was there today.

I was surprised at the viciousness of the counter-rally. Everything was dug up to try and throw at the anti-abortion people, accusations of homophobia, women hating, religious corruption, I even saw a poster along the lines of "Divorce should be a right". It was a complete grasping-at-straws situation. What these people dont seem to realise is that there are gay pro-lifers and atheist pro-lifers too! The issue is abortion, but they tried to make it into a one-size-fits-all liberal v conservative thing.

Something else that surprised me was the type of people in the counter-demonstration. I always assumed that atheists would be wannabee-sophisticated D4 types. What I saw were mostly Gotts and Crusties, for want of a better description. There was one fairly rotund fella there form atheist Ireland, and it was obvious he wasnt the full schilling. I was secretly heartened when I saw the type of people in the counter-demonstration, lets just say they were doing a good job of letting themselves down.

The worst incident I saw was a little he-woman who punched a pensioner. She ran into the crowd, about 3 people in front of me, and pulled a poster off a young boy. She tried to rip it up. The old man who was with the boy stood between them to stop her, and she gave him punch in the face. In fairness, it was fairly light, although it was her max effort. The Guards came running, and suddenly yer one changed from a hard-man lesbian into a damsel in distress, throwing herself to the ground crying trying to implicate the pensioner in some way. The Guards were having none of it though.

I just felt sorry for the boy in the situation. Yer one was a pure scumbag.


HA! I just watched the video, you can see her from 41 to 51 secs, short hair, orange T-shirt! I must have literally just walked by the camera! From the looks of that site, the whole thing is pretty pro-abortion biased.

Hope she gets charged with assault.
Militant left wing fascists, a good beating by the guards is what they would want.

darkpagandeath

JONJO THE MISER wrote: »

Hope she gets charged with assault.
Militant left wing fascists, a good beating by the guards is what they would want.

Professional protestors don't really have any views they just go from issue to issue. Like IW, Shannon, pylons, wind farms you will see the same faces at those too. Professional protestors are not representative of Pro choice. Did any of them have a fit when the Garda showed up ?

Coillte_Bhoy

JONJO THE MISER wrote: »

Hope she gets charged with assault.
Militant left wing fascists, a good beating by the guards is what they would want.

So you want the police behaving in a fascist manner by beating up left wing fascists???

Grayson

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Marriage equality is an entirely different issue altogether from abortion. Have people's attitudes with regard to abortion changed dramatically? I don't think they have. My point is that nowadays what's actually changed is the motivation for their objection to abortion - what was once a religious issue, is now a humanitarian issue.

Opinions have changed. Surveys have been done recently and there's a very large swing since 20 years ago. It's roughly 50/50

JONJO THE MISER

dubscottie wrote: »

At the end of the day any referendum campaign on abortion will end up the same as the gay marriage one.

Religion on one side and sensible people on the other.

The same pro-life groups are the same ones that campaigned for a no vote. And before people ask for proof.. Google it.. (Its not rocket science although some have a problem with the science thing..)

I think we should be having a referendum to remove ALL religion from the constitution. Its 2015 not 1915.

Why do you seem to think that it is only religious people who are pro life, im not religious and i oppose it and lots of other people oppose it who are not religious but dont let that get in your way of your spin.
I would agree on your other idea.

JONJO THE MISER

Coillte_Bhoy wrote: »

So you want the police behaving in a fascist manner by beating up left wing fascists???

Anybody that assaults someone like a scumbag deserves to get a good beating, they can be left wing or right wing i dont care.
You cant get your opinion across without resorting to violence and trying to silence other peoples opinions you know.

RedemptionZ

I'm pro choice, but I know plenty of people who aren't and would be pro life(or whatever term should be) and aren't religious at all. All of them would've voted yes on the marriage referendum too. People are allowed to hold other opinions to you and this one is far more defendable than the marriage one imo.

Canis Lupus

Grayson wrote: »

Opinions have changed. Surveys have been done recently and there's a very large swing since 20 years ago. It's roughly 50/50

This is pretty much it. It hard to think just how far things have changed in 20 years. Go back to then and tell a priest that gay people will be able to marry and you'd be laughed out of it. People are becoming more liberal, maybe it's the internet generation I dunno but as the old guard (no pun intended) dies off the more and more likely it is that abortion will come up in a referendum and it'll pass.

On the downside I think it'll likely take another Savita type case to happen first

darkpagandeath

RedemptionZ wrote: »

I'm pro choice, but I know plenty of people who aren't and would be pro life(or whatever term should be) and aren't religious at all. All of them would've voted yes on the marriage referendum too. People are allowed to hold other opinions to you and this one is far more defendable than the marriage one imo.

Its fine to have different views, But if they are in the minority a Referendum will tell us that. Society will move on just like always.

dubscottie

JONJO THE MISER wrote: »

Why do you seem to think that it is only religious people who are pro life, im not religious and i oppose it and lots of other people oppose it who are not religious but dont let that get in your way of your spin.
I would agree on your other idea.

I am not for free for all abortion. I was brought up a prod. and think free for all abortion is not the way to go. But it is 2015..

Religion should not be in any governments policy or a countries constitution.

RayM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I personally think if we were to have a referendum on repealing the 8th in the morning, that it would fail, and not simply on religious grounds either as some people here would presume would be the case.

The most militant and vociferous opposition to repealing the 8th comes from religious extremists, who are obsessed with what other people do with their own lives and bodies. Like the marriage equality and divorce referendums, the inevitable scaremongering posters will be erected by shadowy fundamentalist groups like Iona, etc. Their dishonesty and lack of any valid or coherent arguments throughout the marriage referendum campaign did their credibility no favours, and is still fresh in people's minds. Unless some kind of 'acceptable face' of the 'NO' campaign miraculously appears, I think a referendum would pass quite comfortably.

RedemptionZ

RayM wrote: »

The most militant and vociferous opposition to repealing the 8th comes from religious extremists, who are obsessed with what other people do with their own lives and bodies. Like the marriage equality and divorce referendums, the inevitable scaremongering posters will be erected by shadowy fundamentalist groups like Iona, etc. Their dishonesty and lack of any valid or coherent arguments throughout the marriage referendum campaign did their credibility no favours, and is still fresh in people's minds. Unless some kind of 'acceptable face' of the 'NO' campaign miraculously appears, I think a referendum would pass quite comfortably.

I would vote pro choice, but honestly think a lot of people would be swayed by the 'killing a child' stance that the No side would take, especially parents. Definitely would be nowhere near the reception the 'a child deserves a mother and father' ****e got that came out last time. I honestly feel some people have more gripe with religion than anything else. I believe the argument is that they are 'controlling some bodies life' so that another life won't be killed. As I say I'm not pro life, as I don't consider the foetus to be a person but some do and you have to let them hold that view. But honestly some of you are as bad as the other, not acknowledging what people are saying and just going 'blah blah extremists' and shouting down anyone with a reasonable argument.

newmug

JONJO THE MISER wrote: »

Hope she gets charged with assault.
Militant left wing fascists, a good beating by the guards is what they would want.

HAHA! Were you the aul fella she hit? :D:D

volchitsa

dubscottie wrote: »

I am not for free for all abortion. I was brought up a prod. and think free for all abortion is not the way to go. But it is 2015..

Religion should not be in any governments policy or a countries constitution.

Repealing the 8th doesn't mean free for all abortion.

Most countries with limits on availability of abortion, even very strict limits, Poland for example, have no equivalent of the 8th. Doesn't force them to have "free for all" abortion, or anything close to it.

The 8th amendment was a religion-based initiative. If people now say, as someone just did on here, that they support to for other, non-religion-based reasons, then that in itself is a valid reason for rerunning the referendum.

meeeeh

RedemptionZ wrote: »

I'm pro choice, but I know plenty of people who aren't and would be pro life(or whatever term should be) and aren't religious at all. All of them would've voted yes on the marriage referendum too. People are allowed to hold other opinions to you and this one is far more defendable than the marriage one imo.

Is it? I don't know many gay people who died because they were not able to marry .

I'm central European and it always struck (and annoyed) me how much worse attitude towards gay people is there and how much worse attitude towards women is here. I was totally in favour of gay referendum but it has mostly symbolic inclusive value because law already equalised a lot of rights on practical level.

It is a lot easier to understand people who are pro life because of their religious beliefs. I can't understand why others are, but I am 100% certain it is not humanity or compassion, it is more the control of the women and making sure they stay in their place as child rearing vessel. Regardless how much misery that brings. So no it is not much more defendable position.

greendom

Irish society has a safety valve in the proximity of the UK. If this didn't exist the whole debate would be a lot more vicious.

One eyed Jack

meeeeh wrote: »

It is a lot easier to understand people who are pro life because of their religious beliefs. I can't understand why others are, but I am 100% certain it is not humanity or compassion, it is more the control of the women and making sure they stay in their place as child rearing vessel. Regardless how much misery that brings. So no it is not much more defendable position.

The women I'm thinking of when I say that they are non-religious, but are against abortion on humanitarian grounds, are very much certain that the killing of the unborn child is wrong. They are some of the most compassionate people I know, and they aren't suggesting that they want women to stay in their place as a child rearing vessel. These are people whom I have a tremendous amount of respect for.

Who the hell am I to tell these women what way they should think when that is how they feel?

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The women I'm thinking of when I say that they are non-religious, but are against abortion on humanitarian grounds, are very much certain that the killing of the unborn child is wrong. They are some of the most compassionate people I know, and they aren't suggesting that they want women to stay in their place as a child rearing vessel.

Well, they effectively are suggesting exactly that, you know, if their beliefs on abortion extend to enforcing those beliefs on other women. Even if they can't admit it to themselves or to others.

(Though I'm not sure if you've actually said whether these women you mention are simply against abortion as a personal option, or whether they are happy to enforce that view on other women, at the expense of those women's health, for example.

TBF, I suspect you are conflating the two sets of views.)

One eyed Jack wrote: »

These are people whom I have a tremendous amount of respect for.

Who the hell am I to tell these women what way they should think when that is how they feel?

That's a complete straw man. No-one has to want an abortion themselves, so no need to tell them they have to feel happy about the notion. The question is whether they are entitled to enforce the consequences of their belief on other women, and in most situations nowadays (contrary to a few short decades ago) the default position there is, no they aren't.

Dirty Dingus McGee

There are probably thousands of people alive and living happy lives in Ireland right now because of our current abortion legislation . Because of that I'd choose to leave things the way they are and certainly not allow abortion as a solution to an unexpected pregnancy.

One life is worth a hell of a lot more than whatever hassle it causes on the mother to go the UK and have an abortion.

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

Well, they effectively are suggesting exactly that, you know, if their beliefs on abortion extend to enforcing those beliefs on other women. Even if they can't admit it to themselves or to others.

(Though I'm not sure if you've actually said whether these women you mention are simply against abortion as a personal option, or whether they are happy to enforce that view on other women, at the expense of those women's health, for example.

TBF, I suspect you are conflating the two sets of views.)

I should've been clearer - they are against abortion, and they have no interest in seeing abortion being legislated for in this country, and one of my friends was actually quite relieved when Claire Daly's recent abortion bill proposal was defeated by a majority of five to one -


http://www.thejournal.ie/dail-vote-labour-tds-1931025-Feb2015/


I think it's unfair to say that these women would be 'happy' to enforce their views on other women, but rather that they are more concerned with the life of the unborn child.

That's a complete straw man. No-one has to want an abortion themselves, so no need to tell them they have to feel happy about the notion. The question is whether they are entitled to enforce the consequences of their belief on other women, and in most situations nowadays (contrary to a few short decades ago) the default position there is, no they aren't.

Last time I checked, we live in a democracy. I may not agree with their opinion, but I can still respect that it is the way they feel and I can understand why they feel that way, so I'm not going to get into an argument with them where I know neither of us are going to move from our positions.

lazygal

RedemptionZ wrote: »

I would vote pro choice, but honestly think a lot of people would be swayed by the 'killing a child' stance that the No side would take, especially parents. Definitely would be nowhere near the reception the 'a child deserves a mother and father' ****e got that came out last time. I honestly feel some people have more gripe with religion than anything else. I believe the argument is that they are 'controlling some bodies life' so that another life won't be killed. As I say I'm not pro life, as I don't consider the foetus to be a person but some do and you have to let them hold that view. But honestly some of you are as bad as the other, not acknowledging what people are saying and just going 'blah blah extremists' and shouting down anyone with a reasonable argument.

You'd be surprised. A lot of women my age who've had children in Ireland say being pregnant here has cemented their pro choice views. Hearing that women like me will lie about suicide to get abortions was incredibly insulting and pissed off a lot of on the fence people. I was pregnant when the 2013act passed and I'll never forgive the likes of Peter Mathews saying we're all going to die anyway as a reason women like me don't have access to abortion in Ireland. Same way the mothers and fathers matter brigade pissed off loads of people from non Mammy and Daddy families.

lazygal

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

There are probably thousands of people alive and living happy lives in Ireland right now because of our current abortion legislation . Because of that I'd choose to leave things the way they are and certainly not allow abortion as a solution to an unexpected pregnancy.

One life is worth a hell of a lot more than whatever hassle it causes on the mother to go the UK and have an abortion.

People with planned pregnancies have abortions too.

LoonyLovegood

The way I look at it, abortions are like brussel sprouts. Nearly everyone hates them, but many can agree that they're a necessary evil.

NachoBusiness

lazygal wrote: »

Hearing that women like me will lie about suicide to get abortions was incredibly insulting and pissed off a lot of on the fence people.

You honestly think that some women wouldn't feign suicide ideation in order to obtain an abortion. Don't you think that is a little naive?

Lets be honest, this whole repeal the 8th (which I would support by) is really all just seen as a stepping stone by the vast majority of those campaigning for it. They exploited (and still exploit) the case of Savita Halappanavar and others so that they can reach their ultimate goal which is of course to see situation where that no woman in Ireland wishing to have an abortion will need to travel abroad in order to obtain one.

These clowns made that clear.

Hellrazer

Deleted User wrote: »

This resonates with me. I strongly identify as pro choice. But I also strongly identify as anti abortion.




There is a propaganda spin from many "pro life" or as I call them "anti choice" campaigners that "pro choice" means "pro abortion". And I think what they and the world needs to learn is that "pro choice" is probably almost as "anti abortion" as they are in general.

What does my head in on these anti abortion rallies is that the face of them seems to be middle aged men and you yourself have said that you do as much as you can so that abortions don't happen.

end as much energy as I can funding and supporting and debating for any and all initiatives that minimize the amount of abortions that happen in the world.

Can I ask why?Surely if you are pro choice then its nothing to do with you as a man.

See I cant see how someone can be pro choice and either anti or pro abortion--doesn't make sense.

This is a purely womens rights issue not a middle aged mens issue.

Myself Id be on the pro choice side of the argument.That doesn't mean Im either pro or anti abortion as you make it out so black and white.

Im exactly what "pro choice" means as in Im a man--its none of my business whatsoever what a woman or any other human being decides to do with his/her body.

frostyjacks

The abortionists who went there to cause trouble yesterday, do they behave like that all the time? It was like watching a pack of wild animals. It's disturbing to see how hate-filled they are. Hate for children, the unborn, for women, for democracy, for religion, hate for everything that doesn't fit into their weird moral code, if they even have morals at all. Thank God they're in the minority.

volchitsa

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

There are probably thousands of people alive and living happy lives in Ireland right now because of our current abortion legislation . Because of that I'd choose to leave things the way they are

There are thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, born because their parents or grandparents didn't have access to contraception. Is that a reason for banning that again too?

anothernight

Is 'stepping stone' the new 'slippery slope'?

Dirty Dingus McGee

volchitsa wrote: »

There are thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, born because their parents or grandparents didn't have access to contraception. Is that a reason for banning that again too?

There is a big difference between the two.To use a very basic analogy

In my opinion contraception is like putting a fence up to stop the neigbours dog getting into your yard

Abortion is like taking out a gun shooting the neighbours dog after he gets into your yard.

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I should've been clearer - they are against abortion, and they have no interest in seeing abortion being legislated for in this country, and one of my friends was actually quite relieved when Claire Daly's recent abortion bill proposal was defeated by a majority of five to one -

http://www.thejournal.ie/dail-vote-labour-tds-1931025-Feb2015/

I think it's unfair to say that these women would be 'happy' to enforce their views on other women, but rather that they are more concerned with the life of the unborn child.

As with your earlier claim about not making women serve as vessels, the fact of refusing to acknowledge something doesn't make it any less true.

They are happy to do so, insofar as they are convinced they are right to do so. Unless you mean they genuinely spend large chunks of their lives worried about how Miss Y is doing, and whether there may be others like her tomorrow or next month?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Last time I checked, we live in a democracy. I may not agree with their opinion, but I can still respect that it is the way they feel and I can understand why they feel that way, so I'm not going to get into an argument with them where I know neither of us are going to move from our positions.

Not sure what the relevance is. If one of your neighbours or workmates let it be known that when he lived in SE Asia a decade ago he regularly had sex with 8 year olds, as it was commonplace for westerners to go out there for that reason, how likely is that you'd decide that because we have voted to allow people to travel, including, presumably, in order to have sex with children, therefore you should respect his views on the matter, and that he's an otherwise lovely person?

Pumpkinseeds

Deleted User wrote: »

This resonates with me. I strongly identify as pro choice. But I also strongly identify as anti abortion. I spend as much energy as I can funding and supporting and debating for any and all initiatives that minimize the amount of abortions that happen in the world.

There is a propaganda spin from many "pro life" or as I call them "anti choice" campaigners that "pro choice" means "pro abortion". And I think what they and the world needs to learn is that "pro choice" is probably almost as "anti abortion" as they are in general.

We want abortion to be available to all - because there has been no moral arguments of any note leveled against it - but we want to invest in every idea and initiative out there to ensure it never happens. Most pro choice people do not actually want abortions to happen.

So rather than fight each other over pro or anti abortion - perhaps some day we can accept abortion and work together to find ways to ensure it never happens. Oh the ideal world in my head.

I'm sorry but either I haven't yet woken up properly or you are repeatedly contradicting yourself. What you appear to be saying is that you are pro choice and want women to have the right to an abortion, but you are actively looking for ways to prevent them having abortions. That makes no sense. I totally disagree with you that most pro choice people are against abortion.

Merces

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

I'm sorry but either I haven't yet woken up properly or you are repeatedly contradicting yourself. What you appear to be saying is that you are pro choice and want women to have the right to an abortion, but you are actively looking for ways to prevent them having abortions. That makes no sense. I totally disagree with you that most pro choice people are against abortion.

He/she means that people should have the right to have an abortion but hopes people choose not to have one and wants to find ways to diminish the factors that lead to people choosing to have abortions. This is pretty much my view also.

Not a NSA agent

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

There is a big difference between the two.To use a very basic analogy

In my opinion contraception is like putting a fence up to stop the neigbours dog getting into your yard

Abortion is like taking out a gun shooting the neighbours dog after he gets into your yard.

But you said it should stay the way it is because some people alive today wouldn't be alive if abortion was allowed, in that way it is the exact same reason to be against contraception. Either you are concerned about preventing people being born or not.

How many people aren't born because someone got a blowjob?

Pumpkinseeds

Merces wrote: »

He/she means that people should have the right to have an abortion but hopes people choose not to have one and wants to find ways to diminish the factors that lead to people choosing to have abortions. This is pretty much my view also.

It doesn't read like that to me. It reads as though the poster wants to make it as difficult as possible for a woman to access an abortion but wants to appear to be pro choice.

Dirty Dingus McGee

Not a NSA agent wrote: »

But you said it should stay the way it is because some people alive today wouldn't be alive if abortion was allowed, in that way it is the exact same reason to be against contraception. Either you are concerned about preventing people being born or not.

How many people aren't born because someone got a blowjob?

I'm concerned about life being stopped once it has been created.I don't think that's an unreasonable or difficult concept to grasp in fairness.

volchitsa

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

There is a big difference between the two.To use a very basic analogy

In my opinion contraception is like putting a fence up to stop the neigbours dog getting into your yard

Abortion is like taking out a gun shooting the neighbours dog after he gets into your yard.

In bold is the crucial bit of that post though.

How far do you think your analogy goes? What if it's actually your own dog that's threatening you? Don't you have a right to kill it then? I think you do. Actually I'm fairly sure you're allowed to put your own dog down for pretty much any reason, as long as you do so humanely.

So yes, you can't kill someone else's dog, but you can kill your own.

strelok

so we're having a referendum on infanticide now?

Dirty Dingus McGee

volchitsa wrote: »

In bold is the crucial bit of that post though.

How far do you think your analogy goes? What if it's actually your own dog that's threatening you? Don't you have a right to kill it then? I think you do. Actually I'm fairly sure you're allowed to put your own dog down for pretty much any reason, as long as you do so humanely.

So yes, you can't kill someone else's dog, but you can kill your own.

You compared abortion to contraception I just pointed out that they are in no way comparable in spite of them achieving the same result.

volchitsa

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

You compared abortion to contraception I just pointed out that they are in no way comparable in spite of them achieving the same result.

With a mistaken analogy.

And no, I didn't compare them, I just pointed out the failure of your "justification" for banning abortion by showing that the same "justification" is as valid for contraception, ie that it's not a valid reason for banning either.

Dirty Dingus McGee

volchitsa wrote: »

With a mistaken analogy.

And no, I didn't compare them, I just pointed out the failure of your "justification" for banning abortion by showing that the same "justification" is as valid for contraception, ie that it's not a valid reason for banning either.

Abortion kills life after it has been created Contraception prevents any form of life from being created in the first place so no harm is done to anyone.

Eugene Norman

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

I'm sorry but either I haven't yet woken up properly or you are repeatedly contradicting yourself. What you appear to be saying is that you are pro choice and want women to have the right to an abortion, but you are actively looking for ways to prevent them having abortions. That makes no sense. I totally disagree with you that most pro choice people are against abortion.

There no contradiction. He wants abortion to be legal but not common. It's an invasive procedure and there can be psychological risks ( note I am not mentioning a fetus here).

It's not unlike being pro legalisation of drugs but not hoping that everybody starts taking drugs.

volchitsa

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

Abortion kills life after it has been created Contraception prevents any form of life from being created in the first place so no harm is done to anyone.

You think eggs and sperm are not alive??

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

As with your earlier claim about not making women serve as vessels, the fact of refusing to acknowledge something doesn't make it any less true.

They are happy to do so, insofar as they are convinced they are right to do so. Unless you mean they genuinely spend large chunks of their lives worried about how Miss Y is doing, and whether there may be others like her tomorrow or next month?

I'm really not sure what you're trying to argue here tbh. I didn't make any claims about women serving as vessels, I simply said that some of my friends who are women are against abortion on humanitarian grounds, nothing to do with religion, as they are non-religious. I don't probe how strongly they hold to their respective objection to abortion as I'm simply not interested in trying to argue a woman's reproductive rights with, y'know, a woman!

Not sure what the relevance is. If one of your neighbours or workmates let it be known that when he lived in SE Asia a decade ago he regularly had sex with 8 year olds, as it was commonplace for westerners to go out there for that reason, how likely is that you'd decide that because we have voted to allow people to travel, including, presumably, in order to have sex with children, therefore you should respect his views on the matter, and that he's an otherwise lovely person?

I'm sorry, really struggling here. We're talking about abortion and I ask who am I to tell a woman what she should think when that is the way she feels? You call that a strawman, and then make some argument asking about pedophilia?

I've tried to break it down into smaller chunks, and I still can't figure out what you're asking or how you're relating pedophilia to abortion? They're two completely different issues. I think it's fair enough for me to say I'm not sure what the relevance is?

gravity9.81

Its a life no matter how early,who gets to determine when its a life and under what criteria,
There is enough needless killings in this world for it to be a choice.

I will never change my mind back to a pro choice,
Yes i was once pro choice

I know its not clear cut, black and white however its still a life and no one has the right to decide

My opinion is not a religious based one but more of my morals and of personal experience

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm really not sure what you're trying to argue here tbh. I didn't make any claims about women serving as vessels, I simply said that some of my friends who are women are against abortion on humanitarian grounds, nothing to do with religion, as they are non-religious. I don't probe how strongly they hold to their respective objection to abortion as I'm simply not interested in trying to argue a woman's reproductive rights with, y'know, a woman!

I'm sorry, really struggling here. We're talking about abortion and I ask who am I to tell a woman what she should think when that is the way she feels? You call that a strawman, and then make some argument asking about pedophilia?

I've tried to break it down into smaller chunks, and I still can't figure out what you're asking or how you're relating pedophilia to abortion? They're two completely different issues. I think it's fair enough for me to say I'm not sure what the relevance is?

Your argument seems to be that women, by dint of being women, have a right to impose their beliefs on other women that you as a man don't have.

My point is that the views you ascribe to these anonymous women who apparently don't feel strongly enough about it to come on here themselves, are no more or less acceptable just because they come from women.

What one particular woman feels about having an abortion or not is one thing. Anyone, man or woman, wishing to enforce their views about abortion on a woman who may not share those beliefs is a different issue altogether. That's what I'm objecting to in your posts. You're claiming to quote someone else as an authority for views you actually hold yourself.

So since those people can't be bothered to argue the point you claim they hold, what's the point in your posting them? They're worth nothing if they can't be defended, and "Oh but a woman said it" really doesn't do the job for me.

Kev W

gravity9.81 wrote: »

Its a life no matter how early,who gets to determine when its a life and under what criteria,

Spot the contradiction?

meeeeh

Oh God I love how humanitarian grounds can be used for anything. I bet those babies in launindres we're given out for adoption on humanitarian grounds too.

I never had an abortion, however I had early term miscarriages. It never felt as baby dying. It was bunch of cells that were not compatible with life. There are women who are not so lucky and they are forced to carry a basically dead child full term on I presume humanitarian grounds. And because the do gooders like some here are worried what effect abortion would have on them. Oh and if court decides that woman was not suicidal or desperate enough and mislead doctors she can be imprisoned for over ten years. But I'm certain it is all on humanitarian grounds.