Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

infogiver

volchitsa wrote: »

I think "emergency contraception" is not something made up by rainbowkirby, it's the accepted term.

Presumably if it didn't prevent conception it would be a form of abortion.
Are Iona and the rest of those nice people also protesting for the MAP to be brought within the remit of the 8th? If not, do you mean perhaps they should?

What relevance does the "niceness" of the members of Iona have?
What objection do you have to the existence of Iona ?

volchitsa

infogiver wrote: »

What relevance does the "niceness" of the members of Iona have?
What objection do you have to the existence of Iona ?

If you think there's a problem with my post, please do feel free to report it.

If, as I believe, there isn't a problem, then you can either respond or just scroll on by.

aloyisious

recedite wrote: »

I know what the word means.
I was suggesting (politely) that rainbowkirby's stated category of "emergency contraception" is not in fact "contraception" at all, if its action is to prevent implantion of an already fertilised embryo.

I think it's generally accepted in medical and law terms that an abortion is the termination of a feotus. You might be equating the status of an embryo to that of a feotus. It'd also (IMO) be a bit of a leap to describe a fertilized egg, a zygote, as an embryo.

In any case it seem's the medical world reckon that an embryo comes into existence approx two (2) weeks after the zygote, after male sperm enters the female egg and fertilize it, making the zygote. There is another stage in the evolution of the zygote, when it becomes a blastocyst and attaches itself to the woman's uterine lining some four to six days after fertilization as a result of which the embryonic stage begins

The feotus is the next stage in evolution again after the embryo, and seems to be some eight weeks after fertilization.

If a morning-after pill is taken by a girl or woman well within a safe time period after sex (say the morning-after) and prevents a fertilized egg becoming a blastocyst, it doesn't (IMO) merit defining it as causing an abortion, as that is usually classed as the termination of a feotus.

You could well be correct if the morning-after pill was taken outside a period of approx five days of a girl or woman having had sex and causes a termination of the natural evolutionary progress of any zygote but that termination would not (IMO) be an abortion. It all depends on one's understanding or deciding for one's-self what a termination of the evolutionary process is in the very limited time period of two days after sex and use of a morning-after pill by a girl or woman.

Thank's, anyway, for driving me back to medical info sources. It's good to have a refresher course every now and again.

infogiver

volchitsa wrote: »

If you think there's a problem with my post, please do feel free to report it.

If, as I believe, there isn't a problem, then you can either respond or just scroll on by.

I'm not berating you or criticising you or attacking either you or your post.
I don't see any problem with your post.
I genuinely would like to know why you display such animosity towards Iona Institute when they are just exercising their right to free speech.

recedite

volchitsa wrote: »

I think "emergency contraception" is not something made up by rainbowkirby, it's the accepted term.

Presumably if it didn't prevent conception it would be a form of abortion.

So why not just call a spade.... a spade?

MrPudding

infogiver wrote: »

I'm not berating you or criticising you or attacking either you or your post.
I don't see any problem with your post.
I genuinely would like to know why you display such animosity towards Iona Institute when they are just exercising their right to free speech.

Westbore Baptist Church are just exercising their right to free speech. Is it also wrong that people show animosity to them?

MrP

aloyisious

recedite wrote: »

So why not just call a spade.... a spade?

Ní thuigim.

infogiver

MrPudding wrote: »

Westbore Baptist Church are just exercising their right to free speech. Is it also wrong that people show animosity to them?

MrP

Are you comparing the Iona Institute stating their opinion with the Westboro Baptist Church picketing the funerals of dead marines?
Ok. Show me the comparison. Show me how they are similar.

eviltwin

infogiver wrote: »

Are you comparing the Iona Institute stating their opinion with the Westboro Baptist Church picketing the funerals of dead marines?
Ok. Show me the comparison. Show me how they are similar.

Both made up of religious freaks who love to judge orhers. Yeah I'd say they have quite a lot in common. And why would Iona need to picket funerals to spread their ignorance when they have the platform of media.

infogiver

eviltwin wrote: »

Both made up of religious freaks who love to judge orhers. Yeah I'd say they have quite a lot in common. And why would Iona need to picket funerals to spread their ignorance when they have the platform of media.

Religious freaks and ignorance is just a matter of your opinion. Not facts or evidence of a fair comparison.
The poster chose to compare Iona to Westboro and I look forward to Mr Pudding pointing to where Iona have picketed funerals or picketed anything or protested anything at all with grossly offensive placards.

Delirium

infogiver wrote: »

Are you comparing the Iona Institute stating their opinion with the Westboro Baptist Church picketing the funerals of dead marines?
Ok. Show me the comparison. Show me how they are similar.

You said:

I genuinely would like to know why you display such animosity towards Iona Institute when they are just exercising their right to free speech.

Which suggests that people shouldn't have animosity to a group "just exercising their right to free speech".

I imagine MrP was showing just how silly that notion can be as a blanket rule/suggestion.

eviltwin

infogiver wrote: »

Religious freaks and ignorance is just a matter of your opinion. Not facts or evidence of a fair comparison.
The poster chose to compare Iona to Westboro and I look forward to Mr Pudding pointing to where Iona have picketed funerals or picketed anything or protested anything at all with grossly offensive placards.

You could say the same about Westboro. There is nothing wrong with free speech but it comes with responsibility. Just as its not appropriate to target a grieving family it's also not appropriate to hide behind a loaded name like Institute as if that gives gravitas to religious fundamentalism.

infogiver

Delirium wrote: »

You said:



Which suggests that people shouldn't have animosity to a group "just exercising their right to free speech".

I imagine MrP was showing just how silly that notion can be as a blanket rule/suggestion.

Mr. Pudding then compared Iona Institute to Westboro.
When making comparisons it's generally a good idea to give examples of how they could be compared, otherwise I could compare Joe Brollys constant criticism of GAA hierarchy to Westboro, which would be ludicrous.

Delirium

infogiver wrote: »

Mr. Pudding then compared Iona Institute to Westboro.
When making comparisons it's generally a good idea to give examples of how they could be compared, otherwise I could compare Joe Brollys constant criticism of GAA hierarchy to Westboro, which would be ludicrous.

Yes, to illustrate how "don't have animosity to a group just exercising their right to free speech" is silly as a general rule.

infogiver

eviltwin wrote: »

You could say the same about Westboro. There is nothing wrong with free speech but it comes with responsibility. Just as its not appropriate to target a grieving family it's also not appropriate to hide behind a loaded name like Institute as if that gives gravitas to religious fundamentalism.

Who said it comes with responsibility?
Responsibility to who or what?
Sorry, no, if your feelings are hurt by my opinion then that's your problem and not mine.
Free speech doesn't have to be "appropriate ". "Appropriate" to what?
Appropriate means different things to different people.
What I think is appropriate you might find offensive and vis versa.
Nobody gets to dictate appropriate based on hurt feelings.
The Left have to constantly have it pointed out to them that free speech also extends to people who don't agree with them, and people have got fed up with this fascist nonsense and that's why Trump was elected.

infogiver

Delirium wrote: »

Yes, to illustrate how "don't have animosity to a group just exercising their right to free speech" is silly as a general rule.

No, he picked Westboro as the most extreme example of extreme right wing lunacy in a direct comparison to Iona.
He could have picked any other right wing organisation in between but Westboro was his choice and he cited no examples of comparable incidents.
There's still no examples either.

Delirium

infogiver wrote: »

No, he picked Westboro as the most extreme example of extreme right wing lunacy in a direct comparison to Iona.
He could have picked any other right wing organisation in between but Westboro was his choice and he cited no examples of comparable incidents.
There's still no examples either.

Lets wait for MrP to clarify seeing as we both have different understandings of their post.

aloyisious

infogiver wrote: »

Who said it comes with responsibility?
Responsibility to who or what?
Sorry, no, if your feelings are hurt by my opinion then that's your problem and not mine.
Free speech doesn't have to be "appropriate ". "Appropriate" to what?
Appropriate means different things to different people.
What I think is appropriate you might find offensive and vis versa.
Nobody gets to dictate appropriate based on hurt feelings.
The Left have to constantly have it pointed out to them that free speech also extends to people who don't agree with them, and people have got fed up with this fascist nonsense and that's why Trump was elected.

Maybe the writers of the free speech and religious practice freedom thought that users of it would use common sense in trying to get their point across. Westboro doesn't practice that common sense, and neither does the Iona Institute. Their shock tactics and failure to get their messages across proves that.

Thinking free speech gives a person a right to deliberately anger the O/P and provoke an unseemly reaction alone and claim he/she/they were only using free speech to legitimately get a genuinely well-intended message across, makes for a free-fire zone without bounds of common sense. Crying foul play after provoking an O/P who gives an honest heartfelt response gives the game away.

infogiver

aloyisious wrote: »

Maybe the writers of the free speech and religious practice freedom thought that users of it would use common sense in trying to get their point across. Westboro doesn't practice that common sense, and neither does the Iona Institute. Their shock tactics and failure to get their messages across proves that.

Thinking free speech gives a person a right to deliberately anger the O/P and provoke an unseemly reaction alone and claim he/she/they were only using free speech to legitimately get a genuinely well-intended message across, makes for a free-fire zone without bounds of common sense. Crying foul play after provoking an O/P who gives an honest heartfelt response gives the game away.

...in other words, don't speak or respond in a way that might "anger" (your words) anyone else.
Don't speak unless you agree with me or I might get angry and upset.
My "feelings" trump ( the irony) your right to express yourself ( your regard this as "common sense ").
Also, I'm still waiting for someone to give me an example of how Westboro "shock tactics " (your words) can be compared with anything Iona have said or done.

aloyisious

infogiver wrote: »

...in other words, don't speak or respond in a way that might "anger" (your words) anyone else.
Don't speak unless you agree with me or I might get angry and upset.
My "feelings" trump ( the irony) your right to express yourself ( your regard this as "common sense ").
Also, I'm still waiting for someone to give me an example of how Westboro "shock tactics " (your words) can be compared with anything Iona have said or done.

Re Free speech, don't go out to deliberately insult others, or their intellect, at a personal level, using freedom of speech as a flag of convenience to cover it. That is a regular tactic of Iona's senior persons here in Ireland. Iona's senior persons have that off to a T as an art-form when it comes to others speech, shutting them down and subverting free speech, with hosts running scared of it.

You said it all when you mentioned upset feelings. Those who are upset will respond to upset the person who'd (in their mind) provoked them by using provocative, stupid or unfeeling words and action. Don't knowingly deliver a provocative message and be surprised when you don't get plaudits.

Re the likening of Iona to Westboro, I see it as the general aspect of thought pattern behind both organisations thinking where the saving of souls applies. In such pattern, the only difference is what's seen as common-sense being applied here that makes a difference between both organisations overall methods. Iona, to it/their credit, don't picket funerals unlike W/B. However, Iona's allies using images in public of aborted feotus is a rather unsettling shock tactic which works contrarily for the institute, when it comes to its choice in bedfellows.

volchitsa

infogiver wrote: »

...in other words, don't speak or respond in a way that might "anger" (your words) anyone else.
Don't speak unless you agree with me or I might get angry and upset.
My "feelings" trump ( the irony) your right to express yourself ( your regard this as "common sense ").
Also, I'm still waiting for someone to give me an example of how Westboro "shock tactics " (your words) can be compared with anything Iona have said or done.

Can you please go back to what I actually said please, and explain how it expresses anything other than mild antagonism towards Iona?

I mean, seriously - what level of disagreement with what are after all a propaganda group like Iona are you going to allow someone to express without objecting to it?

Do I have to pretend to believe that they are anything other than a bunch of hypocrites whose aim is to make Ireland a theocracy, with mindsets closer to people in Iran than in Sweden or Holland?

Does that suit you better than referring to them as "those nice people"?
I don't mind, I can say worse about them if you insist.

Absolam

volchitsa wrote: »

Are Iona and the rest of those nice people also protesting for the MAP to be brought within the remit of the 8th? If not, do you mean perhaps they should?

You're not saying who 'the rest of those nice people' are so it would be difficult to say with any certainty what they are doing. As far as the Iona Institute go though, I'd say it's not unlikely that their position aligns with the Catholic Church when it comes to contraception, what do you think?

Whilst no one of any note seems to actually be campaigning for the morning after pill to be legally considered the destruction of unborn human life, I think it's fair to say there are undoubtedly those who would consider it to be morally so. There's no reason why they shouldn't campaign for it to be considered so legally if they want to, is there? It certainly wouldn't be hypocrotical.

On what the substance of the contraception point was, the MAP may work in a number of ways. Strictly speaking, if it delays ovulation then it's acting as a contraceptive, but if it inhibits implantation then it isn't as conception has already occurred; whether or not that can be termed an abortifacient effect is a matter of opinion. Plan B, the most common MAP, was believed to have both effects, though recent studies suggest it doesn't inhibit implantation. Ella, the newer MAP, is more controversial, and in both cases it's obviously rather difficult to tell which effect (if either) has prevented a pregnancy.

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

.. in both cases it's obviously rather difficult to tell which effect (if either) has prevented a pregnancy.

Not if its taken after sex, as in the aforementioned "emergency contraception".

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

Not if its taken after sex, as in the aforementioned "emergency contraception".

Why not? If taken after sex it may delay ovulation until after the sperm die, which could take as long as five days. That would be contraception. If ovulation has already occurred it may prevent a fertilised egg implanting; that would not prevent conception but would prevent pregnancy. In either case, there is no noticeably different outcome to tell you which (if either) has occurred.

recedite

Good point.

looksee

I think we should also consider the evil acts of all those men who 'spill their seed', directly in contravention of God's law. These sperm are all potential life, they should be treated with respect, masturbation is ultimately contraception. We just need to put it into law somehow, we can't have men making decisions about what they can do to their own bodies.

aloyisious

Umm, on what I wrote about MAP above, I see this about it's effect and what it's claimed to do.

Conception starting when a sperm enters an egg and mixes with the egg's contents, this is what the paragraph below describes (in part) about what can happen, and also what could happen, prior to sex and/or conception.....

If the woman has not ovulated recently, has unprotected sexual intercourse, wants to avoid a pregnancy, and takes an "morning after" pill quickly, it will normally prevent ovulation. If ovulation has already occurred, it will normally prevent conception. If conception has already occurred, medical researchers have determined that the pill will have no effect. However, many religious, social, and political conservatives have chosen to ignore the findings of the researchers, and assert -- without proof -- that the morning after pill (a.k.a. emergency contraception) can prevent implantation in the inner wall of the uterus.

The banner on the paper from the issuing party (Canadian) can be read as self-explanatory....

Link: https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=12&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjF-465xJ_TAhWrB8AKHVKfCTwQFghgMAs&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.religioustolerance.org%2Fabo_fetu.htm&usg=AFQjCNFHcxQ0iPPgFPC-7UpCBeYjmoSEKA

Absolam

looksee wrote: »

I think we should also consider the evil acts of all those men who 'spill their seed', directly in contravention of God's law. These sperm are all potential life, they should be treated with respect, masturbation is ultimately contraception. We just need to put it into law somehow, we can't have men making decisions about what they can do to their own bodies.

Or even decisions about what they can do to their sperm? I'm sure you'll find some Christians who'll support you in your campaign, after all there are some people who'll go along with all sorts of nonsense. But I think it's unlikely you'll find much support for what you want to put into law I'm afraid....

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

Umm, on what I wrote about MAP above, I see this about it's effect and what it's claimed to do. Conception starting when a sperm enters an egg and mixes with the egg's contents, this is what the link below describes (in part) about what can happen, and also what could happen, prior to sex and/or conception.....

Yep, that would definitely support what I said about recent studies suggesting it doesn't inhibit implantation right enough. The manufacturers of Plan B themselves say different, obviously, and drugs.com reports the same thing about Preven, a similar MAP. I think most people will tend to prefer the information that best aligns with their own point of view....or at least helps them feel better about their course of action in a tricky situation.

Delirium

looksee wrote: »

I think we should also consider the evil acts of all those men who 'spill their seed', directly in contravention of God's law. These sperm are all potential life, they should be treated with respect, masturbation is ultimately contraception. We just need to put it into law somehow, we can't have men making decisions about what they can do to their own bodies.

Seems like someone in Texas heard you

Texas anti-masturbation bill moves closer to becoming law

A bill that would see Texas men fined $100 (€94) for masturbating has taken a step closer to becoming law after it received its first reading in the state's House of Representatives.




Under section 173.010 of House Bill 4260, the Man's Right to Know Act, Texas men would only be allowed to masturbate under supervision, inside approved health care and medical facilities.



Any "unregulated masturbatory emissions outside of a woman's vagina, or created outside of a health or medical facility, will be charged a $100 civil penalty for each emission, and will be considered an act against an unborn child, and failing to preserve the sanctity of life."

She's being satirical as there are parts of the bill that are clearly mocking/satirising some of the laws regulating women and some of the nonsense they've to go through to get an abortion.