Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

jameorahiely

Cabaal wrote: »

Given there's no regulation in relation to man's reproductive organs I think we should focus on that first. Then we can look at women again.

Periods happen as part of a natural process, masturbation on the other hand as we;ve been told for hundreds of years by religious groups is "unnatural" etc

Remember

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

Where do wet dreams fit in to this farce?

Pherekydes

jameorahiely wrote: »

Will women have to pay a period tax/fine? If we're being fair...

Yes, obviously. But at one egg per month (average wastage) compared with billions of sperm at regular intervals it could get expensive.

jameorahiely

Pherekydes wrote: »

Yes, obviously. But at one egg per month (average wastage) compared with billions of sperm at regular intervals it could get expensive.

Riighttt.



Do the pro repeal have an objection to a waiting time after conselling? Or is the vision "I demand an abortion and I demand it now? " Are any sort of doctors or consellors envisioned to be involved it the process? I know a certain abortion organisation advovates for no doctors.

Pherekydes

jameorahiely wrote: »

Riighttt.



Do the pro repeal have an objection to a waiting time after conselling? Or is the vision "I demand an abortion and I demand it now? " Are any sort of doctors or consellors envisioned to be involved it the process? I know a certain abortion organisation advovates for no doctors.

I'd guess the anti-choicers would agree to repeal the 8th if a 9 month wait after counselling could be built in to the resultant legislation.

jameorahiely

Pherekydes wrote: »

I'd guess the anti-choicers would agree to repeal the 8th if a 9 month wait after counselling could be built in to the resultant legislation.

Riight :rolleyes:


Germany has 3 days, the Netherlands has a five day. The pro abortions here have a snarky answer

Pherekydes

jameorahiely wrote: »

Riight :rolleyes:


Germany has 3 days, the Netherlands has a five day. The pro abortions here have a snarky answer

I'm not pro abortion. I'm pro choice.

What's so good about a 3- or 5-day wait on an important medical procedure?

stefanovich

Pherekydes wrote: »

I'm not pro abortion. I'm pro choice.

What's so good about a 3- or 5-day wait on an important medical procedure?

Pro-choice. It sounds great. A lot easier to stomach. Choosing to terminate a viable pregnancy is not a medical procedure. It's about ending life.

nozzferrahhtoo

stefanovich wrote: »

Pro-choice. It sounds great. A lot easier to stomach. Choosing to terminate a viable pregnancy is not a medical procedure. It's about ending life.

It has nothing to do with what is easy to stomach, and everything to do with choosing a label that most accurately represents the persons views.

The vast majority of pro-choice campaigners, including myself, do not actually WANT abortions to occur. If you sit down and talk to them, or to me, you will quickly find that we support any initiatives that reduce the quantity of people who seek to make that choice.

From better (and much earlier) sex education, to improved access and cost of contraception, to better structures to support the kind of women who find themselves in situations where they feel abortion is their only choice.

So "pro choice" accurately describes that position. We are pro them having a choice. Calling people "pro abortion" is designed and contrived to SPECIFICALLY paint people to look like they gleefully want as many abortions to happen as possible.

And when someone uses that misnomer willfully, as James does, they are merely highlighting just how entrenched and close minded a position they are bringing to the discourse. And how proud they are to admit it.

Cabaal

stefanovich wrote: »

Pro-choice. It sounds great. A lot easier to stomach. Choosing to terminate a viable pregnancy is not a medical procedure. It's about ending life.

Don't try kid yourself,
The anti-choice crowd are against abortions for non-viable pregnancy's as well.

oh and yes it is a medical procedure,

Pherekydes

stefanovich wrote: »

Pro-choice. It sounds great. A lot easier to stomach. Choosing to terminate a viable pregnancy is not a medical procedure. It's about ending life.

How would one know it was a viable pregnancy? Most abortions happen spontaneously because they are not viable. Nearly all elective abortions happen well before viability.

smacl

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Calling people "pro abortion" is designed and contrived to SPECIFICALLY paint people to look like they gleefully want as many abortions to happen as possible.

Indeed, I'm 'pro-abortion' to the same extent as I'm 'pro-Catholic'. While I'd wouldn't encourage it, each to their own, and if someone I loved felt the need to go that way while i'd discuss the options, I'd be fully supportive of their choice.

nozzferrahhtoo

smacl wrote: »

Indeed, I'm 'pro-abortion' to the same extent as I'm 'pro-Catholic'. While I'd wouldn't encourage it, each to their own, and if someone I loved felt the need to go that way while i'd discuss the options, I'd be fully supportive of their choice.

Indeed. Actually I prefer a different analogy. I am "pro abortion" in the same way I am "pro heart bypass". I want anyone who wants or needs such a procedure to be able to get one. But I would much prefer to live in a society where no one ever needs one.

Heart By pass is risky, painful, emotionally traumatic, expensive and more. We would be better off if no one ever wanted or needed or sought one. But the reality is less than the ideal, and we need them.

I would say EXACTLY the same about abortion.

aloyisious

jameorahiely wrote: »

Riight :rolleyes:


Germany has 3 days, the Netherlands has a five day. The pro abortions here have a snarky answer

I suppose the pro-counselling people take into account the counselling the girl or woman has already had from her friends, family, doctor and others aware of her situation already before she approached the clinic to start the paperwork, without some lawmaker who know's zilch about her sticking more paperwork clauses in her path and the paths of other women and girls, merely because of a "I know what's better for them than they do" belief. However I doubt it.

Re current Texas law, the link below from the Guttmacher Institute covers the US states in regard to abortion counseling and waiting periods etc. There are two (2) tables outlining the various states law requirements in regard to abortions. Texas already has a 24 hour length of waiting period, in-person counselling necessitates two-trip visit, written material provided, women informed that abortion cannot be coerced, and another few provisos before an abortion service is provided......

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiJgbKH9dXSAhVrL8AKHb3UAfMQFggmMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.guttmacher.org%2Fstate-policy%2Fexplore%2Fcounseling-and-waiting-periods-abortion&usg=AFQjCNEVeJ9YdwJcyCKpSlsiYCGTkdV0ig

jameorahiely

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Indeed. Actually I prefer a different analogy. I am "pro abortion" in the same way I am "pro heart bypass". I want anyone who wants or needs such a procedure to be able to get one. But I would much prefer to live in a society where no one ever needs one.

Heart By pass is risky, painful, emotionally traumatic, expensive and more. We would be better off if no one ever wanted or needed or sought one. But the reality is less than the ideal, and we need them.

I would say EXACTLY the same about abortion.

I thought abortions weren't risky, painful of emotionally traumatic. That's what we're bern told my those in favour of lunchtime abortions on demand.

I'm not anti choice. There's the choice of contraception, morning after pill, travel to belfast, travel elsewhere, abstenance, adoption, lots of choices, there's probablyore choices if I think about it.


And if you medically need one here, you'll be given one

Delirium

jameorahiely wrote: »

I thought abortions weren't risky, painful of emotionally traumatic. That's what we're bern told my those in favour of lunchtime abortions on demand.

I'm not anti choice. There's the choice of contraception, morning after pill, travel to belfast, travel elsewhere, abstenance, adoption, lots of choices, there's probablyore choices if I think about it.

Contraception: not much use to a pregnant woman.
Morning after pill: only useful for the first week of the pregnancy AFAIK.
Travel to Belfast/elsewhere: Not In My Back Yard :rolleyes:
abstenance: woman is pregnant, fail to see how not having sex helps.
adoption: doesn't stop a woman being pregnant.

And if you medically need one here, you'll be given one

what about fatal foetal abnormalities?

jameorahiely

aloyisious wrote: »

I suppose the pro-counselling people take into account the counselling the girl or woman has already had from her friends, family, doctor and others aware of her situation already before she approached the clinic to start the paperwork, without some lawmaker who know's zilch about her sticking more paperwork clauses in her path and the paths of other women and girls, merely because of a "I know what's better for them than they do" belief. However I doubt it.

Re current Texas law, the link below from the Guttmacher Institute covers the US states in regard to abortion counseling and waiting periods etc. There are two (2) tables outlining the various states law requirements in regard to abortions. Texas already has a 24 hour length of waiting period, in-person counselling necessitates two-trip visit, written material provided, women informed that abortion cannot be coerced, and another few provisos before an abortion service is provided......

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiJgbKH9dXSAhVrL8AKHb3UAfMQFggmMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.guttmacher.org%2Fstate-policy%2Fexplore%2Fcounseling-and-waiting-periods-abortion&usg=AFQjCNEVeJ9YdwJcyCKpSlsiYCGTkdV0ig

What about women with no friends?

The good old pro abortion Guttmacher Institute :rolleyes:


What countries abortionlaws would you like to see here? I thought we wanted abortion laws "like the rest of Europe"?

aloyisious

jameorahiely wrote: »

What about women with no friends?

The good old pro abortion Guttmacher Institute :rolleyes:


What countries abortionlaws would you like to see here? I thought we wanted abortion laws "like the rest of Europe"?

Sorry, for a moment there I thought Texan abortion law was, however temporarily, what we were chatting about.

Seeing as it's about Europe, maybe this will fit the bill..... https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=13&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjStPTJgNbSAhUlD8AKHTsvCZUQFghaMAw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.bbc.co.uk%2F2%2Fhi%2Feurope%2F6235557.stm&usg=AFQjCNG2oZLBmLBj6CI9_cz-oRu2zAGcjg

nozzferrahhtoo

Well it is certainly nice to see you are not willfully dodging and ignoring ALL my posts, just a select majority. That is progress, of a sort.

jameorahiely wrote: »

I thought abortions weren't risky, painful of emotionally traumatic.

Did you now? Well then I can merely be grateful to have educated you to the contrary. Just about ANY medical procedure is risky, painful and emotionally problematic. Why you would expect abortion to be any different is a surprise to me.

Hell even a visit to the dentist for a minor invasive procedure comes with risks. The Anesthetic has risks. Infection risks. Post-Op bleeding and healing risks. There can be pain before, during and after the procedures even with anesthetics. And the emotional worries, most of them leading up to the operation, can for many people be quite debilitating. And dentistry is relatively minor and non-invasive. And somehow you magically think abortion would NOT be? Might I suggest you do a LOT more research on the topic to get the 101 basics down before you talk any more on it, rather than look unduly silly and lose any credibility you might want to hold when speaking on it?

jameorahiely wrote: »

That's what we're bern told my those in favour of lunchtime abortions on demand.

I am forced to parse "we" as YOU in that sentence because you certainly do not speak for me. I have not been told any such thing, by anyone, ever. But suffice to say that anyone going around telling you such things is no more, or less, wrong than you were before you obtained this entirely cost free education from me.

jameorahiely wrote: »

I'm not anti choice. There's the choice of contraception, morning after pill, travel to belfast, travel elsewhere, abstenance, adoption, lots of choices, there's probablyore choices if I think about it.

You do know language is very strongly context based right? When I call you anti-choice I do so in the context of abortion. Not in the context of contraception or whether you want a pink or white fairy cake with your lunch.

Labels are only useful when they differentiate between groups. The "Pro Life" label for me is not such a label as you will find that pro-choice people are every bit as much "Pro Life" as you are.

And the term "Pro Abortion" that you insist on pedalling at times is also not descriptive as it ignores the massive common ground between pro and anti choice activists in that we BOTH of us as groups want a society where little or no abortions are ever performed. We share that ideal, and your contrived propaganda misnomer paints over that fact. Which is bad at the best of times, but even worse on an issue VERY much in need of common ground.

So in terms of context, and of differentiation, the descriptors of "Pro choice" and "anti choice" are more relevant, more accurate, and more useful that throw away misnomers like "pro life" and "Pro abortion".

jameorahiely wrote: »

What countries abortionlaws would you like to see here?

I would like to see OUR OWN one formed, not the adoption of anyone elses. I would like us to sit down and lay out our requirements and goals for abortion by choice....... INFORM ourselves by looking at the laws of other countries, how they were implemented, and what effects they had......... and then form our own, for our own reasons, while merely drawing on their experiences.

In terms of cut offs for example, I think the 24 weeks of some countries is too much and superfluous to requirements. I would aim more around the area of 16 weeks. But I would not lose ANY sleep were we to implement 12 or 20.

jameorahiely

Delirium wrote: »

Contraception: not much use to a pregnant woman.
Morning after pill: only useful for the first week of the pregnancy AFAIK.
Travel to Belfast/elsewhere: Not In My Back Yard :rolleyes:
abstenance: woman is pregnant, fail to see how not having sex helps.
adoption: doesn't stop a woman being pregnant.


what about fatal foetal abnormalities?

Sure they're only a clump of cells, no different from having a wart or a skin tag. That's what the pro repeal told me,

Delirium

jameorahiely wrote: »

Sure they're only a clump of cells, no different from having a wart or a skin tag. That's what the pro repeal told me,

how exactly is that a response to my post?

Loafing Oaf

jameorahiely wrote: »

And if you medically need one here, you'll be given one

Crucial qualifier: if there's a 'substantial' risk to your life...

jameorahiely

Delirium wrote: »

how exactly is that a response to my post?

You asked a question in your post. I answered it. What's confusing you?

jameorahiely

aloyisious wrote: »

Sorry, for a moment there I thought Texan abortion law was, however temporarily, what we were chatting about.

Seeing as it's about Europe, maybe this will fit the bill..... https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=13&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjStPTJgNbSAhUlD8AKHTsvCZUQFghaMAw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.bbc.co.uk%2F2%2Fhi%2Feurope%2F6235557.stm&usg=AFQjCNG2oZLBmLBj6CI9_cz-oRu2zAGcjg

You can talk about what ever countey you want in fairness. I never said not to talk about Texas. I asked what country do you think have good laws that we could model here?

Delirium

jameorahiely wrote: »

You asked a question in your post. I answered it. What's confusing you?

You stated if an abortion is medically necessary then it's available here.

I asked what about fatal abornormalities with relation to your statement.

You didn't respond to the question and instead posted something about the repeal activisits.

Would you care to answer my question?

rainbow kirby

jameorahiely wrote: »

I asked what country do you think have good laws that we could model here?

Canada. Decision between a woman and her doctor.

jameorahiely

rainbow kirby wrote: »

Canada. Decision between a woman and her doctor.

The most likely abortion clinics to set up here advocate no doctor involvement.why do you think a doctor should be involved?

frostyjacks

There's a very revealing video from FlipsideIreland on Facebook, taken from the recent repeal march.

https://m.facebook.com/FlipsideIreland/videos/673822969483538/

Protesters hadnt really the first notion what they were protesting about. Others wanted babies aborted right up to their due date. How are we meant to take this uneducated, ignorant rabble seriously?

Delirium

frostyjacks wrote: »

There's a very revealing video from FlipsideIreland on Facebook, taken from the recent repeal march.

https://m.facebook.com/FlipsideIreland/videos/673822969483538/

Protesters hadnt really the first notion what they were protesting about. Others wanted babies aborted right up to their due date. How are we meant to take this uneducated, ignorant rabble seriously?

Good thread on Twitter examining those behind 'Flipside Ireland'.

https://twitter.com/gavinsblog/status/841448882634645506

Short version:

https://twitter.com/gavinsblog/status/841478319908491265
https://twitter.com/gavinsblog/status/841478708674342918

PopePalpatine

frostyjacks wrote: »

There's a very revealing video from FlipsideIreland on Facebook, taken from the recent repeal march.

https://m.facebook.com/FlipsideIreland/videos/673822969483538/

Protesters hadnt really the first notion what they were protesting about. Others wanted babies aborted right up to their due date. How are we meant to take this uneducated, ignorant rabble seriously?

Says the guy who takes neo-Nazi podcasts seriously. :rolleyes:

fran17

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

In terms of cut offs for example, I think the 24 weeks of some countries is too much and superfluous to requirements. I would aim more around the area of 16 weeks. But I would not lose ANY sleep were we to implement 12 or 20.

So there is a limit to a woman's right to choose and control over her bodily autonomy.Does that not contradict your entire argument.Why are you advocating restrictions?