Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Contraception v s abortion

Options
1235

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    zeffabelli
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,516 ✭✭✭zeffabelli


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    BTW, alive doesn't mean a lot, to begin with. Blood cells are alive, but that hardly imbues them with any special status. So what I think you were looking for was the term organism.

    But why the contradictions? Why are the morning after pill or even the pill legal, even though their actions can be abortive rather than contraceptive?

    Because we're human and we will bend the rules, invent all sorts of crap and rename things so that they fit with the World view that we want them to fit and we can feel better about ourselves while getting what we want. So legislation tends to be ad hoc, and sometimes contradictory as someone else pointed out.

    Just pay no attention to the man behind the curtain and you'll be fine.

    I would go further than this and say the availability of the MAP and certain other forms of contraception, put a big fat gaping hole in Ireland's tenacious grip on its abortion laws, as if some of the recent birth stories weren't enough to humilate it into some change.


  • Options
    #123
    RobertKK
    Registered Users Posts: 33,747 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    btw the contraceptive pill is linked to oestrogen poisoning of water.

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jun/02/water-system-toxic-contraceptive-pill

    Women on the pill are killing fish with their piss.
    More than 2.5 million women take birth control pills in the UK. Their EE2 content is excreted and washed into sewage systems and rivers. Even at very low concentrations, this chemical has harmful effects on fish. Males suffer reduced sperm production, with severe effects on populations. In one recent trial, in a Canadian lake, researchers added EE2 until levels in the water reached five parts per trillion (ppt), a minute concentration. Yet fish populations suffered severe problems with one species, the fathead minnow, collapsing completely.


  • Options
    #124
    Penny Tration
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,687 ✭✭✭✭Penny Tration


    RobertKK wrote: »
    btw the contraceptive pill is linked to oestrogen poisoning of water.

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jun/02/water-system-toxic-contraceptive-pill

    Women on the pill are killing fish with their piss.

    Seems we're damned if we prevent pregnancy, but also damned if we don't kill the fish, get pregnant and abort.

    I'll stick with the pill. Seems easier.


  • Options
    #125
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Penny Tration wrote: »
    However, it's essentially a massive amount of female hormones being dumped into the body, so medical advice should be sought.
    And chocolate.
    zeffabelli wrote: »
    I would go further than this and say the availability of the MAP and certain other forms of contraception, put a big fat gaping hole in Ireland's tenacious grip on its abortion laws, as if some of the recent birth stories weren't enough to humilate it into some change.
    Come'on - Ireland's grip on its abortion laws? We're talking about a country that not only allows you, but constitutionally defends your right to inform and organize an illegal act in another country. It's like making child abuse illegal, but making it a right to book sex holidays in Cambodia.


  • Options
    #126
    galljga1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,938 ✭✭✭galljga1


    volchitsa wrote: »
    Aren't they feminizing hormones?
    So I'd guess either nothing, if he's lucky (because one dose may not be enough to have much effect on a man) or if he's unlucky (because they contain very large doses of female hormones in order to work) then he might be advised to seek medical surveillance just in case. That's what I'd do, if a male in my family were exposed to a large dose of female hormones.

    On the plus side, he won't be getting pregnant any time soon.

    I have been exposed to large doses of female hormones on a regular basis. You just have to know when to say the right thing or nothing at all.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    OneOfThem
    Closed Accounts Posts: 667 ✭✭✭OneOfThem


    ~ 80% of attempts at conception fail naturally (sperm don't get to egg, egg doesn't implant, or something else goes awry).

    ~ 20% of pregnancies end in miscarriage/spontaneous abortion naturally.

    We're just nudging nature along a little bit more in a particular direction rather than another with contraception etc.

    'tis grand.


  • Options
    #128
    Penny Tration
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,687 ✭✭✭✭Penny Tration


    All of the posts about hormonal women, nagging and chocolate are so original and hilarious. :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #129
    galljga1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,938 ✭✭✭galljga1


    Penny Tration wrote: »
    All of the posts about hormonal women, nagging and chocolate are so original and hilarious. :rolleyes:

    Would you like a nice cup of tea?


  • Options
    #130
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Penny Tration wrote: »
    All of the posts about hormonal women, nagging and chocolate are so original and hilarious. :rolleyes:
    More original and hilarious than having to suffer through it.


  • Options
    #131
    Penny Tration
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,687 ✭✭✭✭Penny Tration


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    More original and hilarious than having to suffer through it.

    Because you don't have the option of walking away and shaking up with someone who ISN'T an unstable mess?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    galljga1 wrote: »
    Would you like a nice cup of tea?

    Since you're offering, milk and two sugars!


  • Options
    #133
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Penny Tration wrote: »
    Because you don't have the option of walking away and shaking up with someone who ISN'T an unstable mess?
    The only women who can ever get hormonal, nag or like chocolate are unstable messes...?


  • Options
    #134
    galljga1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,938 ✭✭✭galljga1


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Since you're offering, milk and two sugars!

    Fcuk Off!!!! I didn't ask you. Ba$tdard. You never understand.


  • Options
    #135
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    So it would be too much to ask for a biscuit?


  • Options
    #136
    zeffabelli
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,516 ✭✭✭zeffabelli


    Penny Tration wrote: »
    All of the posts about hormonal women, nagging and chocolate are so original and hilarious. :rolleyes:

    F*ck chocolate. Hello cognac.


  • Options
    #137
    galljga1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,938 ✭✭✭galljga1


    Ah no. Women and men, all different, all hormonal basketcases at times. That's what makes it interesting.


  • Options
    #138
    zeffabelli
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,516 ✭✭✭zeffabelli


    suicide_circus wrote: »
    Two questions will see you through;

    Is it hungry?
    Is it tired?

    You forgot "Am I being a prick?":)


  • Options
    #139
    Penny Tration
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,687 ✭✭✭✭Penny Tration


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    The only women who can ever get hormonal, nag or like chocolate are unstable messes...?

    The way you and a few others are describing them, it would appear so!


  • Options
    #140
    Penny Tration
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,687 ✭✭✭✭Penny Tration


    zeffabelli wrote: »
    You forgot "Am I being a prick?":)

    No, no. It's always the women being hormonal. Always.


  • Options
    #141
    zeffabelli
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,516 ✭✭✭zeffabelli


    Penny Tration wrote: »
    No, no. It's always the women being hormonal. Always.

    Complain when you have your period, cry in a corner when you don't.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    galljga1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,938 ✭✭✭galljga1


    Deleted User wrote: »
    So it would be too much to ask for a biscuit?
    Did you fix the goddamn shower door?


  • Options
    #143
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,340 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    I'd be curious to understand why you apply the, IMO, rather vague "early term"

    Because the exact cut off points I advocate for, generally in the area of 16 to 20 weeks, and the reasons why I argue for that area, are long and complex and have nothing to do with the point I was making.

    So I opt above for a more "vague", though in this case words like "brief" or "concise" would be more applicable, reference to it so as not to derail myself from my actual point into a long drawn out irrelevant tangent. My posts are generally TLDR enough without piling in that level of crap :)

    I am more than happy to go into my reasoning behind my cut offs at great length if asked, it was just not helpful or relevant to the point I was making above at this time so I quite deliberately kept that part "vague". Especially as I had covered it in earlier posts too anyway and I guess I am guilty of assuming, often quite falsely, that anyone who reads my post on a thread has already read the posts I made before it on that thread. An assumption I know is unsafe, but I make anyway for the purposes of brevity.
    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    where exactly is your arbitrary point, based upon your personal morality?

    Had you read all my posts in the thread rather than this one, you would already have the answer to this question. But I am happy to repeat it because it is certainly not "arbitrary" at all.

    I think finding arbitrary points in the development (such as implantation or conception) is exactly the wrong direction to the take to the issue.

    As is, as I have said, throwing out a label like "Human Being" "Person" or "Unborn Child" and arguing backwards from the label, often without even defining it (as we have seen on this thread already actually) because the label itself puts the target in an emotional position that they then have to dig out of, rather than the person using the label.

    Instead what I suggest is that we identify for ourselves what attributes an entity must actually have before we afford it moral concerns and rights. Then, armed with that knowledge we view the development cycle of the fetus and identify points where we can be as certain as science can be that those attributes are absent.

    Then one can with no moral fear whatsoever say "There is no reason at <this point> in fetal development to afford it any moral or ethical concerns or rights, and as such there is nothing morally wrong with abortion at this point".

    And in that light I have to date never been shown a single argument to suggest that a fetus before, say, 16 weeks should be afforded moral or ethical concerns. If pressed I am comfortable to push this to 20 weeks or even 24, but the fact is 16 is not only safe but is massively relevant to the reality in our world.

    Why? Because a large study in the US shows that 61.3% of abortions happen before 9 weeks. Around 88% happen before 12 weeks. And of the remaining 12%, nearly 60% of them say they wish they had done it earlier.

    So yea when I referred to "early term fetus" above I was basically saying all that.... my argument for when abortion cut offs could be strongly argued for AND the reality of when the vast majority of abortions actually occur, which is in very early stages.

    But the TLDR nature of this post will likely answer readily enough why I was "vague" in what I meant there, while aiming for another point I was making.


  • Options
    #144
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Is there going to be tea? I really want tea. Fine. I'll make it myself. Way to leave me hanging, you tea tease.


  • Options
    #145
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    zeffabelli wrote: »
    You forgot "Am I being a prick?":)

    I am never racked with this kind of self doubt thankfully


  • Options
    #146
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Penny Tration wrote: »
    The way you and a few others are describing them, it would appear so!
    You have got it so wrong... if only it was just the unstable messes...


  • Options
    #147
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,340 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Cold War Kid wrote: »
    An opinion.

    Thanks, I did suspect as much because I can certainly find no basis for it in anything I have learned or been told in my life. Opinions are two-a-penny really and one can not deal with them all. So I do at least attempt to focus myself mainly on the opinions with some actual basis or substantiation behind them. So you have saved me a little time :)
    Cold War Kid wrote: »
    Sentience kicking in, as I clearly said. I don't think you're "curious" at all, but it's a standard phrase used as part of an unnecessarily sneery tone.

    The wonderful thing about text internet forums is one has the ability to assign whatever tone one likes to another user in order to fit whatever personal narrative you have about them or what they are saying. If you choose to find "sneering" in my questions that is entirely your choice. You would be wrong, but that too is your choice.

    There are, however, a lot of terms and phrases thrown around in the abortion debate. And it behooves one not to just reply knee jerk to other people straight off the bat while assuming to know what they mean by what they say.... but to take the time first to explore with them what THEY mean by their terms.... so you then talk with them rather than past them.

    So that was the motivation behind my curiosity, but as I said you are indeed free to invent your own vicariously for me.
    Cold War Kid wrote: »
    I'm not in favour of late-term abortions - an opinion I'm entitled to. I don't see an issue with early-term.

    I am entirely in agreement with you. The form my argument takes means I have ZERO issue of any sort with the morality of abortions up to 16, 20, and even possibly 24 weeks. But it gets more morally problematic from there. But I temper my argument with actual reflection on what the demand is and given 88% of abortions in the US happen before 12 weeks, I am more than happy with my moral position of arguing for them up to 16 weeks. Morally I could push towards 20 with my arguments, but there is no real reason to do so given emotionally the later you go, the more political support you lose.
    Cold War Kid wrote: »
    What is it with some pro choice people feeling the need to ridicule even moderately pro life outlooks?

    I honestly can not help you there, though I would if I could. I am simply uninformed as to the ridicule you mean, who does it, or why. Sorry. Perhaps take it up with someone who has engaged in such ridicule? Given I have not, I am really not in the best position to help you and am happy to admit my ignorance where it exists :)

    If you do find out though, do not hesitate to inform me, as I would genuinely like to know too. Ridicule has it's place of course, I have nothing against it, but I agree with you it does seem pointless where you describe it.


  • Options
    #148
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,340 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    suicide_circus wrote: »
    I am never racked with this kind of self doubt thankfully

    Generally you are certain that you are being a prick then is it? :) *runs*


  • Options
    #149
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Generally you are certain that you are being a prick then is it? :) *runs*
    It's at the very core of my being


  • Options
    #150
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 50,630 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Deleted User wrote: »
    He'd probably spend the next while nagging, moaning, and always feeling cold until the side effects wear off.

    :pac:
    galljga1 wrote: »
    I have been exposed to large doses of female hormones on a regular basis. You just have to know when to say the right thing or nothing at all.
    galljga1 wrote: »
    Would you like a nice cup of tea?
    galljga1 wrote: »
    Fcuk Off!!!! I didn't ask you. Ba$tdard. You never understand.
    galljga1 wrote: »
    Did you fix the goddamn shower door?
    The Corinthian wrote: »
    More original and hilarious than having to suffer through it.
    The Corinthian wrote: »
    The only women who can ever get hormonal, nag or like chocolate are unstable messes...?
    The Corinthian wrote: »
    You have got it so wrong... if only it was just the unstable messes...

    Mod

    Warnings/infractions/bans give to the above posters dependent on previous history within the forum.

    Do not post on this thread again.

    Sexist bullsh*t is not welcome here.

    (awaits onslaught of Private Messages and reported posts claiming I must be hormonal!).


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,695 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    But the TLDR nature of this post will likely answer readily enough why I was "vague" in what I meant there, while aiming for another point I was making.


    No I actually appreciated the expansion and explanation tbh as it was more clarification I was trying to understand having read your earlier posts where you mentioned a cut-off point, and then in that post you used the phrase "early term". I was just curious as to the reasoning behind what seemed like an inconsistency is all.


Advertisement