The new, vicious fight

NachoBusiness

osarusan wrote: »

And you reiterated it in reply to Daith. As you can see, it is not a conditional statement. It is an absolute statement.

Of course it's a conditional statement. The context sets the conditions.

It's like making a law against kicking puppies and then some people come along and say that what you're really trying to do is prevent people from doing what they want with their feet. It's ludicrous.

Rather than make it a conditional statement, you are trying to make a silly distinction - that silly distinction you are trying to make is this - that a woman getting an abortion is doing something to the body of the baby, but not actually her own body:

The idea that taking actions that will result in the removal of something from inside her body cannot be described as 'doing something to her body' is ridiculous. The two are not mutually exclusive.

You are not listening / comprehending what I am saying to you.

I am not saying that when a woman has an abortion she is not also doing something to her body. Of course she is, hence my contention that nobody could possibly truly believe in female body autonomy. Penny dropping yet? The fact that a woman is doing something to her body when she has an abortion is precisely why I brought Sarah Catt into the argument, as to certain parties all she did was do something "with her body" and yet even the body autonomy crowd condemned her.

From reading your position on abortion, I think mine is not so dissimilar, but let's not pretend that limiting abortion after the first trimester does not necessitate limiting what a woman can do with her own body after the first trimester.

Nobody is pretending that. A woman is only limited in actions that would result in death of her developing baby. Hence why the statement you say is a contradiction, is not one.. unless that is you take away the obvious conditions, which is really just you grasping at straws.

Look, the law in UK would have had the right to stop Sarah Catt from taking those abortion pills had they received a tip off saying she was about to take them. Now, would that mean that Sarah would be prevented from doing something with her body? Yes of course but that would be incidental, which is why the statement you suggesting is a contradiction, is far from being one, as if Sarah wasn't pregnant, nobody would care if she took those damn pills every night of the week, because nobody is trying to stop women from doing what they want to with their own bodies. That's just an empty, sanctimonious, belligerent, selfish, war cry.

One eyed Jack

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Saying 99.99999% was not meant to be a "stat" :P

As I said before, NOBODY would think it is okay for Sarah Catt to do what she did. They would either want her imprisoned, or want her sectioned where she can get some help. Either way, nobody approves of such action. Sure, you might get the odd lunatic hold up in basement somewhere who thinks it should be perfectly legal for women to be able to take abortion pills a couple of weeks before they are due to give birth, but by and large, excluding the insane, everyone wants such actions to be illegal.

Now, if you still feel that I am speaking for people which I shouldn't be, well then my question to you is a simple one: where are these people that think women should be able to abort babies a couple of weeks before they're due to give birth? and why aren't they confronting me here themselves?

I would agree that what Sarah Catt did was an horrendous act, but for me personally, it was the way she went about it, the method she used, that showed no respect nor dignity to the unborn. But the Catt case was plagued with all sorts of issues -


Sarah Catt, abortion and the legal rights of pregnant women


and she has since had her sentence reduced on appeal -


Appeal court cuts jail term for woman who aborted baby at 40 weeks


The only reason tbh I'm not prepared to challenge you on it is because I think you've taken enough flak in this thread already and I can see where you're coming from even though I don't necessarily agree with your position. My position has always been simply if a woman does not want to give birth, then she should not be forced to. At all times however, both the woman and the unborn should be treated with the utmost respect, compassion and dignity.


LorMal's post outlays why I really no longer invest too much energy having discussions about women's reproductive rights online -

LorMal wrote: »

Unfortunately there are people who want to insist on Abortion on demand. Unfortunately, there are also people who insist on no Abortion under any circumstances. Abortion is a complex and difficult and issue which requires compassion, respect for others and level headed debate.
Instead this complex and sensitive issue gets constantly mired in radical feminism or religious dogma or left/right wing politics. The level of debate in Ireland tends to be over emotional, simplistic, intolerant of others and generally shouty.
Time to grow up as a country and draft a balanced, inclusive, moral and intelligent piece of legislation that balances the right of the unborn to life wherever possible and the right of women to their own health not being deliberately put at risk.
There are no absolutes in this issue - its difficult and painful for everyone.

Grayson

Just popping this here.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/08/irish-abortion-survey-majority-people-support-decriminalisation

osarusan

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Of course it's a conditional statement. The context sets the conditions.

I see. So when you said this:

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Newsflash: nobody is trying stop women doing anything with their bodies.

You actually meant this:

Newsflash: nobody is trying stop women doing anything with their bodies, except if they are pregnant, then people are trying to stop them doing some things.

Have I got that right?


And when Daith said this:

Daith wrote: »

You are denying what a woman can do with her body.

And you said this:

NachoBusiness wrote: »

No, I'm not, just with what she does with the body that is developing within her.

what you actually meant was:

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Yes I am, if what she does with the her body affects the body that is developing within her.

You keep mentioning Sarah Catt as if it has something to do with my point. But it doesn't. If there are people who argue body autonomy on this thread and your think your example of Sarah Catt shows their argument to be inconsistent, then take it up with them. But it has nothing to do with my point, which is that the distinction you have been trying to make is nonsense.

Nobody is pretending that [limiting abortion after the first trimester does not necessitate limiting what a woman can do with her own body after the first trimester. ]

You pretended that, in posts i have quoted in this very post. They are right above this text. in fact I'll quote one again:

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Newsflash: nobody is trying stop women doing anything with their bodies.

you pretended it. Here's another of your posts:

they are now doing something which impacts the life of the developing baby and so you can't define whatever that action is which the women is partaking in, as: "doing something to her body".

There it is again - you saying that them having an abortion isn't them doing something to their body.

Now you are pretending that you never said it.

You are not listening / comprehending what I am saying to you.

What you have been saying is demonstrably inconsistent. Maybe there's the problem.

NachoBusiness

osarusan wrote: »

I see. So when you said this: You actually meant this:

And when Daith said this: And you said this: what you actually meant was:

They are same thing, osarusan. Stop pretending they contradict each other, it's boring. You keep ignoring the overall point that nobody has a goal of trying to stop women doing something with their own body. The action that you refer to (abortion) is NOT just them doing something to their own body, it is them doing something which impacts two bodies: theirs and the developing fetus and so when they are STOPPED, they are stopped NOT because they are doing something to their body, but ultimately because of the harm they are about to do to the developing fetus.

If this act which women are prevented from doing, was something they would want do where they not pregnant, then you might have a point, but all these things that the pro choice crowd refer to when they say women should have a right to do what they want with their own bodies, are always methods of abortion and so it's a quite disingenuous to make the argument to begin with, but that's another thread.

There it is again - you saying that them having an abortion isn't them doing something to their body.

Now you are pretending that you never said it.

Here you go again with this pretending BS, as if there is some kind of 'gotcha' moment. There isn't. One minute you say that the Sarah Catt situation doesn't retort your point and then you make a comment which makes the Sarah Catt abortion the perfect retort, like just here.

How can you say I have pretended not to say something, when the very fact that I have said it (with regards to Sarah Catt) means I couldn't possibly pretend I that haven't said it. What you have done is remove context from some of my sentences, then suggested that with that context removed, they now mean something which they never did and when I point that out to you, you say I am pretending I never said it. Even though I have directly replied to your use of these quotes and explained precisely what I meant when I said each one.

What you have been saying is demonstrably inconsistent. Maybe there's the problem.

The problem is you just do not accept my position. You want to pretend I meant something with sentences which it's obvious I didn't. If I meant what you're claiming I did (which is that women are never prevented from certain actions) then everything I said about Sarah Catt would make zero sense, as I have openly said that she should have been prevented from having her abortion and from taking those pills. Oh dear, I've mentioned Sarah again.

frostyjacks

Grayson wrote: »

Just popping this here.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/08/irish-abortion-survey-majority-people-support-decriminalisation

I'm inclined to take anything Amnesty says with a pinch of salt, and I can imagine the howls of derision if the Catholic Church came out with a survey. I'm not sure why they feel the need to get involved with our business, I imagine there are lots of actual injustices going on in the world for them to campaign against. If they're a rights-based organisation, they don't seem to place much value on the rights of the unborn.

volchitsa

frostyjacks wrote: »

I'm inclined to take anything Amnesty says with a pinch of salt, and I can imagine the howls of derision if the Catholic Church came out with a survey.

The poll was by Red C. Amnesty didn't choose the questions or anything you know.

As for the idea that the Catholic Church should do a survey to find out whether people agree with it or not - that is surely something that would indeed be greeted with derision, as much by practicing Catholics as by anyone else. In fact it's hilarious.

As for complaining about why AI "need" to get involved in "our" business, that's exactly the reaction from countries guilty of human rights abuses.

frostyjacks

volchitsa wrote: »

The poll was by Red C. Amnesty didn't choose the questions or anything you know.

As for the idea that the Catholic Church should do a survey to find out whether people agree with it or not - that is surely something that would indeed be greeted with derision, as much by practicing Catholics as by anyone else. In fact it's hilarious.

As for complaining about why AI "need" to get involved in "our" business, that's exactly the reaction from countries guilty of human rights abuses.

The 8th amendment isn't an abuse of human rights. It's an affirmation of them. Amnesty would be better spending their time and money on genuine cases.

zeffabelli

Nacho business,

There is a compelling argument philosophically, not legally, that Sarah Catt should not have been prosecuted. She broke the law, that much is clear.

My guess is she would have gotten less for infanticide and was probably judged as much for her history as for the deed she was put on trial for.

Both the pro choice and pro life sides sustain hipocracies to protect themselves from the ICK factors that influence how we moralise.

Kev W

frostyjacks wrote: »

I'm not sure why they feel the need to get involved with our business,

You really are irony-proof, aren't you?

Kev W

frostyjacks wrote: »

The 8th amendment isn't an abuse of human rights. It's an affirmation of them. Amnesty would be better spending their time and money on genuine cases.

The vast majority would disagree.

volchitsa

frostyjacks wrote: »

The 8th amendment isn't an abuse of human rights. It's an affirmation of them. Amnesty would be better spending their time and money on genuine cases.

Here, you need one of these:

in my opinion

(And I'd be interested in hearing you explain that "affirmation" of human rights to Savita Halappanavar's family, or to Deirdre Conroy, or any other women who've had occasion to taste Ireland's fairly unique take on "human rights" whenever women are concerned. And a bitter taste it was.

lazygal

frostyjacks wrote: »

The 8th amendment isn't an abuse of human rights. It's an affirmation of them. Amnesty would be better spending their time and money on genuine cases.

What human rights does it affirm?

One eyed Jack

Kev W wrote: »

The vast majority would disagree.

Would they? According to that article linked to by Grayson, only 46% of the Irish population agree with decriminalising abortion. That's a far cry from the vast majority some posters here are trying to portray based upon nothing more than their own intuition.

I can't speak for how anyone else feels about them, but amnesty disappeared up their own arse holes a long time ago and haven't been interested in human rights in a long time, just politics, and much as I disagree with the purpose of the 8th amendment, jack does have a point in saying that it's about protecting human rights.

LorMal

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Would they? According to that article linked to by Grayson, only 46% of the Irish population agree with decriminalising abortion. That's a far cry from the vast majority some posters here are trying to portray based upon nothing more than their own intuition.

I can't speak for how anyone else feels about them, but amnesty disappeared up their own arse holes a long time ago and haven't been interested in human rights in a long time, just politics, and much as I disagree with the purpose of the 8th amendment, jack does have a point in saying that it's about protecting human rights.

I do agree with you on that point Jack. Amnesty used to be an outstanding voice for liberty and justice. It's strange to see them focus on subjective issues such as Gay Marriage and Abortion. It is divisive where they should be inclusive.

Kev W

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Would they? According to that article linked to by Grayson, only 46% of the Irish population agree with decriminalising abortion. That's a far cry from the vast majority some posters here are trying to portray based upon nothing more than their own intuition.

65% actually. The 45% were the ones who were in favour of allowing women to access abortion as they choose. Not the same thing.

Kev W

LorMal wrote: »

I do agree with you on that point Jack. Amnesty used to be an outstanding voice for liberty and justice. It's strange to see them focus on subjective issues such as Gay Marriage and Abortion. It is divisive where they should be inclusive.

Another blast of irony there.

Zen65

newmug wrote: »

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.

Why do you assume the pro-choice people are atheists??

Not every atheist is pro-choice, not every Christian is pro-life.

NachoBusiness

zeffabelli wrote: »

There is a compelling argument philosophically, not legally, that Sarah Catt should not have been prosecuted.

And that philosophical argument would be?

My guess is she would have gotten less for infanticide and was probably judged as much for her history as for the deed she was put on trial for.

She got off very light. Her sentence was reduced to three and half years on appeal.

If she was in the states though, she most likely would have got a hell of a lot more .

In general, any sentence which I have seen given for infantcide in the UK that was less than three and half years, mental health issues were an overriding factor. Sarah was given a clean bill of health in that regard.

Both the pro choice and pro life sides sustain hipocracies to protect themselves from the ICK factors that influence how we moralise.

I agree.

Daith

Kev W wrote: »

65% actually. The 45% were the ones who were in favour of allowing women to access abortion as they choose. Not the same thing.

Cos the only thing anti-choice people see is "abortion on demand" and not the actual issues?

Grayson

LorMal wrote: »

I do agree with you on that point Jack. Amnesty used to be an outstanding voice for liberty and justice. It's strange to see them focus on subjective issues such as Gay Marriage and Abortion. It is divisive where they should be inclusive.

Because strapping down a chinese suicidal rape victim, force feeding her and using her as a human incubator obviously had nothing to do with human rights.

volchitsa

Grayson wrote: »

Because strapping down a chinese suicidal rape victim, force feeding her and using her as a human incubator obviously had nothing to do with human rights.

I gather the logic is that it's alright when Irish people do it, because we are good and pure, so our actions are equally good and pure. No matter how evil they would be if anyone else committed them.

(BTW - Chinese? Is that a reference to their lamentable record on human rights, or is it about Miss Y?)

osarusan

NachoBusiness wrote: »

The problem is you just do not accept my position. You want to pretend I meant something with sentences which it's obvious I didn't. If I meant what you're claiming I did (which is that women are never prevented from certain actions) then everything I said about Sarah Catt would make zero sense, as I have openly said that she should have been prevented from having her abortion and from taking those pills. Oh dear, I've mentioned Sarah again.

The problem is that you misstated your position or have changed your position, but won't accept that you did so.


There is a fundamental difference between your earlier (baffling) argument that abortion can't be defined as a woman doing something to her own body:

you can't define whatever that action is which the women is partaking in, as: "doing something to her body".

and what you are now saying (and, what I think you have always believed), which is that abortion can't be defined only or just as a woman doing something to her own body. You didn't always say it wasn't only or just, you simply said it wasn't.

But, rather than accept that you got it wrong the first time round, you now argue that you never said, or that I have taken it out of context, to the extent that the conversation has gone round in circles.

You mention context - let's look at the context. This entire thread has been about access to abortion, that is clear. As you said, we are not talking about toothache, we are talking about pregnancy.

So in this context, when Daith said:

Daith wrote: »

You are denying what a woman can do with her body.

It was obvious he was talking about pregnant women. And when you said you were not denying them, you were obviously talking about pregnant women also.

and when you said

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Newsflash: nobody is trying stop women doing anything with their bodies.

it is clear from the context that you are/were talking about pregnant women.


but you won't admit you misstated yourself the first time round. you keep arguing you've been consistent, so we end up with this:

I see. So when you said this:

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Newsflash: nobody is trying stop [pregnant] women doing anything with their bodies.

You actually meant this:

Newsflash: nobody is trying stop [pregnant] women doing anything with their bodies, except if they are pregnant, then people are trying to stop them doing some things.

Your response is:

NachoBusiness wrote: »

They are same thing, osarusan. Stop pretending they contradict each other

LorMal

Grayson wrote: »

Because strapping down a chinese suicidal rape victim, force feeding her and using her as a human incubator obviously had nothing to do with human rights.

What are you talking about??? I expressed no opinion on that case whatsoever - I am not even aware of it.
Don't attempt to paraphrase me - especially if you have no idea of my opinions thanks

LorMal

Kev W wrote: »

Another blast of irony there.

What 'blast of irony' is that?

frostyjacks

LorMal wrote: »

What 'blast of irony' is that?

They must have the same dictionary as Alanis Morrisette.

NachoBusiness

osarusan wrote: »

The problem is that you misstated your position or have changed your position, but won't accept that you did so.

If I misstated my position, then why would I still be willing make the same statements? You are making no sense. I have repeated and repeated my explanation as why I feel there is no contradiction in my statements.

There is a fundamental difference between your earlier (baffling) argument that abortion can't be defined as a woman doing something to her own body:

and what you are now saying (and, what I think you have always believed), which is that abortion can't be defined only or just as a woman doing something to her own body. You didn't always say it wasn't only or just, you simply said it wasn't.

But, rather than accept that you got it wrong the first time round, you now argue that you never said, or that I have taken it out of context, to the extent that the conversation has gone round in circles.

See, what you are doing here is yet again putting an incorrect meaning to what I said earlier (and which I still say by the way) to imply a contradiction to what I said later when explaining my statements, but there is none. In fact, I am more than happy to repeat those statements and stand over them, when in context of course.

You mention context - let's look at the context. This entire thread has been about access to abortion, that is clear. As you said, we are not talking about toothache, we are talking about pregnancy.

So in this context, when Daith said:

It was obvious he was talking about pregnant women. And when you said you were not denying them, you were obviously talking about pregnant women also.

but you won't admit you misstated yourself the first time round. you keep arguing you've been consistent, so we end up with this:

Like I said: boring.

This is the last time I will explain to you why what I am saying is not a contradiction to me (to others I accept it is, of course). You either accept my point of view, or you don't, your choice.

Here is my first comment in this regard on the thread:

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Nobody is trying stop women doing anything with their bodies. Women choosing to destroy the body of a baby which is developing in their wombs is what those opposed to abortion are objecting to.

In other words, when women are legally prevented from having abortions, the objective of this law is not to stop women doing something with their body. That is not the purpose of the law. The purpose of the law is stop them doing something to the body of the developing baby.

Now, you attaching meaning to that statement that I must mean also mean that women would not be doing something to their body also when they have abortions and that statement infers nothing of the sort. That's a meaning that you are attaching to the statement and one which you need to in order to keep up this nonsense that I have misstated myself and so am now contradicting myself. I did not and am not.

I FULLY accept that women are doing something to their own bodies when they either take abortion pills or undergo a surgical one. Hence why I have have brought the Sarah Catt situation into the debate and said that because of it, nobody could truly believe in female body autonomy as she was "just" doing something to her body, as far as the pro choice side are concerned at least.

Look, it was illegal for Sarah Catt to take those pills. Why? Because she was pregnant. Would it be illegal for Sarah to take those pills if she wasn't pregnant? No, of course not as the law is not trying to stop women doing what they want with their own bodies... it's trying to prevent them doing what they want with the body of the developing fetus. That's the fundamental point which you are unwilling to accept. You are trying to suggest that incidental factors (that women will be ultimately prevented from doing something with their bodies) as being the primal objective and it's not, it's far from it and like I have said many times now: it's a rather disingenuous and selfish one for the pro choice crowd to ever have made / make and I honestly feel that the abortion debate will never move on to a sensible middle ground until they stop this 'body autonomy' / 'it's a woman's body, her choice' nonsense. Not to suggest that the pro life crowd don't need to grow up also, they undoubtedly do.

osarusan

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Long long post

Ok, let's try to put an end to this.

Regarding a woman getting an abortion, did you or did you not try to make a distinction in that the woman is doing something to the body developing inside her but not to her own body?

Did you make that argument?

NachoBusiness

osarusan wrote: »

Regarding a woman getting an abortion, did you or did you not try to make a distinction in that the woman is doing something to the body developing inside her but not to her own body?p

I have answered this, in great detail, above and in many other posts.

Did you make that argument?

If I did, you'd be quoting it

osarusan

NachoBusiness wrote: »

If I did, you'd be quoting it

Can I take that as a No? That you did not make that argument or distinction?

Kev W

LorMal wrote: »

What 'blast of irony' is that?

Accusing Amnesty of being "divisive" while lamenting their involvement in keeping gay people from being kept legally separate from straight people.

Isn't it ironic?

Don't you think?

NachoBusiness

osarusan wrote: »

Can I take that as a No? That you did not make that argument or distinction?

Yes, that's a No.. but I still don't think abortion can be defined or even referred to as "a woman doing something to her body" though, as that would be an incomplete definition / description, given that she would also be doing something to another body (that of the developing fetus) but that is far cry from someone saying a woman is doing nothing to her body when she undergoes an abortion.

Grayson

LorMal wrote: »

What are you talking about??? I expressed no opinion on that case whatsoever - I am not even aware of it.
Don't attempt to paraphrase me - especially if you have no idea of my opinions thanks

You said

I do agree with you on that point Jack. Amnesty used to be an outstanding voice for liberty and justice. It's strange to see them focus on subjective issues such as Gay Marriage and Abortion. It is divisive where they should be inclusive.

Strapping down a suicidal chinese woman is a human rights issue. That's what amnesty deal with, human rights abuses. It's in their mandate. It's not like it's the ISPCA voicing their opinion on it.

I never mentioned you opinion of it, just mentioned it to show that it's the kind of abuse that Amnesty deals with. And you really should read about it. We strapped down a suicidal chinese rape victim and force fed her until she was able to give birth via caesarian.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_Y

frostyjacks

Grayson wrote: »

You said



Strapping down a suicidal chinese woman is a human rights issue. That's what amnesty deal with, human rights abuses. It's in their mandate. It's not like it's the ISPCA voicing their opinion on it.

I never mentioned you opinion of it, just mentioned it to show that it's the kind of abuse that Amnesty deals with. And you really should read about it. We strapped down a suicidal chinese rape victim and force fed her until she was able to give birth via caesarian.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_Y

Where were her rights abused?

Kev W

frostyjacks wrote: »

Where were her rights abused?

You can't possibly be serious.

frostyjacks

Kev W wrote: »

You can't possibly be serious.

I am. What rights were being denied to her?

Kev W

frostyjacks wrote: »

I am. What rights were being denied to her?

SHE WAS STRAPPED DOWN AND FORCE FED AND USED AS A HUMAN INCUBATOR YOU FUCKING MORON

galljga1

Kev W wrote: »

SHE WAS STRAPPED DOWN AND FORCE FED AND USED AS A HUMAN INCUBATOR YOU FUCKING MORON

I agree with you.
See you in a while.

LorMal

Kev W wrote: »

Accusing Amnesty of being "divisive" while lamenting their involvement in keeping gay people from being kept legally separate from straight people.

Isn't it ironic?

Don't you think?

Alanis, no I don't. I did not disagree with their stance (I voted yes) , I disagree with their taking an active role in issues such as this when they are being put to a referendum. I think it undermines their moral authority. In my humble opinion, they should remain independent of issues of personal morality (eg abortion, gay marriage) and focus instead on prisoners of conscience. When they enter a debate like abortion, by taking one side, they can alienate supporters of the other side. Therefore I see this as divisive. We should all be able to support Amnesty International - amnesty is a universal human principal.

LorMal

Kev W wrote: »

SHE WAS STRAPPED DOWN AND FORCE FED AND USED AS A HUMAN INCUBATOR YOU FUCKING MORON

You need to grow up.

volchitsa

frostyjacks wrote: »

I am. What rights were being denied to her?

You're a bit worrying. You do realize that it's against the law to physically restrain someone who is is of sound mind and is not suspected of a crime?
It's called unlawful imprisonment. Of course there are countries which don't bother with such niceties - but then they can expect Amnesty to name and shame them - as in this case.

Daith

LorMal wrote: »

In my humble opinion, they should remain independent of issues of personal morality (eg abortion, gay marriage) and focus instead on prisoners of conscience.

That's a ridiculous statement. One person's "prisoners of conscience" is another persons "personal morality"

LorMal wrote: »

When they enter a debate like abortion, by taking one side, they can alienate supporters of the other side.

So they should only look at issues that everyone agrees on? That'll be some toothless Human Rights Org for sure.

rainbow kirby

frostyjacks wrote: »

I am. What rights were being denied to her?

frostyjacks wrote: »

Where were her rights abused?

LorMal wrote: »

You need to grow up.

Anti-choicers being pants-on-head ridiculous again, news at 11

LorMal

Daith wrote: »

That's a ridiculous statement. One person's "prisoners of conscience" is another persons "personal morality"

No it's not. I can have moral issues with abortion (which I do in many circumstances), while abhoring the human rights abuses in Syria for example. It's not all or nothing.

volchitsa

LorMal wrote: »

When they enter a debate like abortion, by taking one side, they can alienate supporters of the other side. Therefore I see this as divisive. We should all be able to support Amnesty International - amnesty is a universal human principal.

Except presumably when those "supporters of the other side" are the very ones guilty of not respecting human rights, ie who find themselves under criticism from Amnesty - you don't think they agree with Amnesty in their particular case, do you? I'm sure they all have a very good reason for special pleading.

That is exactly the situation Ireland is in. A mirror might be required instead of a computer screen for you.

LorMal

rainbow kirby wrote: »

Anti-choicers being pants-on-head ridiculous again, news at 11

Purile name calling - typical of this debate. How do you know I am 'anti- choice'? You don't - you are just being prejudiced.

Kev W

LorMal wrote: »

No it's not. I can have moral issues with abortion (which I do in many circumstances), while abhoring the human rights abuses in Syria for example. It's not all or nothing.

Ah, so they should only take on the issues that YOU PERSONALLY feel 100% certain about.

Reasonable.

frostyjacks

volchitsa wrote: »

You're a bit worrying. You do realize that it's against the law to physically restrain someone who is is of sound mind and is not suspected of a crime?
It's called unlawful imprisonment. Of course there are countries which don't bother with such niceties - but then they can expect Amnesty to name and shame them - as in this case.

Wasn't she on a hunger strike? That doesn't sound like someone of sound mind to me. The authorities had a duty to protect her baby. What rights were denied/abused?

Daith

LorMal wrote: »

No it's not. I can have moral issues with abortion (which I do in many circumstances), while abhoring the human rights abuses in Syria for example. It's not all or nothing.

You're saying Amnesty should not look at abortion because some people don't like it. It's a rubbish statement.

The authorizes is Syria mightn't think it's a human rights issue and probably think the abortion issues in Ireland is more severe.

volchitsa

LorMal wrote: »

Purile name calling - typical of this debate. How do you know I am 'anti- choice'? You don't - you are just being prejudiced.

You seem to have a problem accepting that Miss Y was subjected to an outrageous abuse of her human rights because of our law. Forcibly sedating and performing major surgery on someone whose "informed consent" is unclear to say the least is an abuse in any democracy I know of.

A couple of possible conclusions may be drawn from that. That you are "anti-choice" is probably the least offensive of them.