Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

Frank Bullitt

DickSwiveller wrote: »

I don't know what human rights are. Given that you believe a woman should have full autonomy over her body, and therefore should be able to choose to do with said body whatever she chooses, are you in favour of abortion one week before the baby is due?

No I'm not, and thats not what was agreed on before. So your argument here is null and void.

You really should read up on a few issues regarding human rights, its clear from your posts that you are in the dark.

smacl

DickSwiveller wrote: »

I don't know what human rights are.

Clearly

DickSwiveller

Gintonious wrote: »

No I'm not, and thats not what was agreed on before. So your argument here is null and void.

You really should read up on a few issues regarding human rights, its clear from your posts that you are in the dark.

No-one has ever been able to provide me with a good explanation. I thought you said it was wrong to dictate to women what they can and can't do with their bodies??

Frank Bullitt

DickSwiveller wrote: »

No-one has ever been able to provide me with a good explanation. I thought you said it was wrong to dictate to women what they can and can't do with their bodies??

A good explanation for what? Abortion?

How about the cases of rape? Or where there is a danger to the woman?

Abortion as a free for all (which most pro-lifers seem to think this is) isn't what is being voted on, it is a medical procedure that gets carried out by doctors and professionals. Doing an abortion as late as you said, would be stupid and also not a realistic scenario, your red herrings won't work.

Kiwi in IE

Gintonious wrote: »

You really should read up on a few issues regarding human rights, its clear from your posts that you are in the dark.

It is you who are in the dark! Human rights apply to humans only, not potential humans. Think of it this way, animal rights that are afforded to chickens would not apply to fertile eggs. Same concept!

Frank Bullitt

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

It is you who are in the dark! Human rights apply to humans only, not potential humans. Think of it this way, animal rights that are afforded to chickens would not apply eggs. Same concept!

Are you comparing chickens to women? And human embryos to eggs on a shelf in a super market? New lows are being reached.

You seem to have an incorrect stance on what human rights are. If you are advocating for the life of a 4 week old embryo at all costs, you instantly neglect the rights of the woman carrying that embryo. Its a plain as that.

Kiwi in IE

Gintonious wrote: »

Are you comparing chickens to women? And human embryos to eggs on a shelf in a super market? New lows are being reached.

You seem to have an incorrect stance on what human rights are. If you are advocating for the life of a 4 week old embryo at all costs, you instantly neglect the rights of the woman carrying that embryo. Its a plain as that.

I think you might have taken me up wrong...... totally wrong

I do not think a 4 week old foetus has any rights except what the woman carrying it chooses to afford it. My chicken/egg comparison was not comparing women to chickens, my point was that a feotus is to a born person as an egg is to a chicken...... not the same thing at all and therefore shouldn't have the same rights.

Frank Bullitt

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I think you might have taken me up wrong...... totally wrong

I do not think a 4 week old foetus has any rights except what the woman carrying it chooses to afford it. My chicken/egg comparison was not comparing women to chickens, my point was that a feotus is to a woman as an egg is to a chicken...... not the same thing at all and therefore shouldn't have the same rights.

I apologise sir, I have been at this all day on Twitter as well. I am in fight mode.

Kiwi in IE

Gintonious wrote: »

I apologise sir, I have been at this all day on Twitter as well. I am in fight mode.

Haha no worries! I actually changed my post from 'a foetus is to a woman as an egg is to a chicken' to 'a foetus is to a born person....' in case it really did sound like I was comparing women to chickens. Definitely not my intention!

DickSwiveller

Gintonious wrote: »

A good explanation for what? Abortion?

How about the cases of rape? Or where there is a danger to the woman?

Abortion as a free for all (which most pro-lifers seem to think this is) isn't what is being voted on, it is a medical procedure that gets carried out by doctors and professionals. Doing an abortion as late as you said, would be stupid and also not a realistic scenario, your red herrings won't work.

So you don't believe that a woman has full autonomy as to what happens with her body.

aloyisious

DickSwiveller wrote: »

So you don't believe that a woman has full autonomy as to what happens with her body.

Some people don't believe in women having full body autonomy. Just look at some male members of the Abortion Committee.

Odhinn

DickSwiveller wrote: »

You're obsessed with women's bodies. I care about the innocent baby.

Seeing as Irish "care about the innocent baby" has led to septic tank burials, an underclass abused by clergy and god knows who else with untold suffering that goes on to this today, no, I'll go with "obsessed with women's bodies" as the healthy alternative.

Cabaal

DickSwiveller wrote: »

The religion of selfism has one out; the religion that elevates personal selfishness above everything else. The idiotic slogan 'my body my choice' - as if our personal actions don't affect other people - sums up modern Irish society.

You're right, we should go back to the good old days where a pregnant woman could be handed over to the catholic church and the women could do selfless work that would benefit the church.

When the women came to term she could then have a fine selfless childbirth by not having any pain relief, before, during or after.

Then the women could have selfless time after the childbirth by ensuring she wasn't selfish by spending time with her child, instead she should do work for the church... Laundry was the best.

If the child died the women could remain selfless by not being told where its body was dumped or buried... After all it would be selfish to know where the body is.

Finally, the women could do the most selfless act by having the baby sold without her permission so mother church could make extra money.

Oh the good old days... People weren't so selfish back then. It was all about what the church wanted.... Which was generally money.

frag420

DickSwiveller wrote: »

The religion of selfism has one out; the religion that elevates personal selfishness above everything else. The idiotic slogan 'my body my choice' - as if our personal actions don't affect other people - sums up modern Irish society.

Oh the irony...

Its your personal selfishness of imposing your beliefs on others that are affecting the other people - Irish women!!

As if your personal actions doesn't affect other people - would you like it if you were told you were not aloud to masturbate anymore as it effected potential life?

nozzferrahhtoo

DickSwiveller wrote: »

The religion of selfism has one out; the religion that elevates personal selfishness above everything else. The idiotic slogan 'my body my choice' - as if our personal actions don't affect other people - sums up modern Irish society.

Or rather it sums up the philosophy that where people ARE making choices that do not affect another PERSON, they what they do with their own body or it's contents should not be anyone's business but their own?

The near totality (usually in the order of 98%) of abortions by choice happen in or before week 16 of gestation. At this point in time there is no other "person" in play. In terms of sentience and consciousness the fetus is the equivalent of a rock at that point.

So yes it is "her body her choice" at that point, because there is no "one" else there "who"'s body is affected.

DickSwiveller wrote: »

You're obsessed with women's bodies. I care about the innocent baby.

WE ALL care about "innocent babies" thanks. The difference solely lies in where we each define the term "innocent baby" to be applicable and relevant. For many of us here a 12/16 week fetus does not qualify. And you have yet to offer any reason why it should.

DickSwiveller wrote: »

I don't know what human rights are.

Then that would be a good starting point for your education on the abortion debate. You should work out what human rights are, what they and they application is predicated on, what the goal of them is, and how and why they are mediated.

What you will find is that all the meaningful attributes you learn about and come up with....... are ALL not just slightly but ENTIRELY missing in a fetus at 12/16 weeks gestation.

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Given that you believe a woman should have full autonomy over her body, and therefore should be able to choose to do with said body whatever she chooses, are you in favour of abortion one week before the baby is due?

Most people do not believe "a woman should have full autonomy over her body" but believe "a woman should have full autonomy over her body when the exercise of that autonomy does not impact on another sentience entity".

For example I think you have the right to swing your fists around as you want. Your right to do that however ends at my face.

While we do have some people on boards (I have counted three ever, though I might have missed one or two) who advocate abortion at ANY point in gestation, their arguments shown to me for that range from ludicrous (like "Hilary Clinton agrees with me, so there") to pretty much non-existent. And they refuse to be clear on what form they think termination of the pregnancy should take, and what implications it can or should have for the child.

A baby one week before normal birth is a sentient agent. A fetus at 12/16 weeks is not. This is not a difference you should ignore.

DickSwiveller wrote: »

I don't understand.

I think I can help there.

Termination of a pregnancy and termination of the fetus/child are two different things. For example inducing birth or using cesarean to remove the child from the womb would be a termination of the pregnancy. Abortion at 12 weeks of a fetus terminated the pregnancy AND the fetus.

Was that the part you were not understanding? Or do you have another question?

DickSwiveller wrote: »

No-one has ever been able to provide me with a good explanation. I thought you said it was wrong to dictate to women what they can and can't do with their bodies??

If any part of the explanations that I just wrote in this post are not clear, you are more than welcome to ask. My time is yours. You will find me very generous with it.

DickSwiveller

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Or rather it sums up the philosophy that where people ARE making choices that do not affect another PERSON, they what they do with their own body or it's contents should not be anyone's business but their own?

The near totality (usually in the order of 98%) of abortions by choice happen in or before week 16 of gestation. At this point in time there is no other "person" in play. In terms of sentience and consciousness the fetus is the equivalent of a rock at that point.

So yes it is "her body her choice" at that point, because there is no "one" else there "who"'s body is affected.



WE ALL care about "innocent babies" thanks. The difference solely lies in where we each define the term "innocent baby" to be applicable and relevant. For many of us here a 12/16 week fetus does not qualify. And you have yet to offer any reason why it should.



Then that would be a good starting point for your education on the abortion debate. You should work out what human rights are, what they and they application is predicated on, what the goal of them is, and how and why they are mediated.

What you will find is that all the meaningful attributes you learn about and come up with....... are ALL not just slightly but ENTIRELY missing in a fetus at 12/16 weeks gestation.



Most people do not believe "a woman should have full autonomy over her body" but believe "a woman should have full autonomy over her body when the exercise of that autonomy does not impact on another sentience entity".

For example I think you have the right to swing your fists around as you want. Your right to do that however ends at my face.

While we do have some people on boards (I have counted three ever, though I might have missed one or two) who advocate abortion at ANY point in gestation, their arguments shown to me for that range from ludicrous (like "Hilary Clinton agrees with me, so there") to pretty much non-existent. And they refuse to be clear on what form they think termination of the pregnancy should take, and what implications it can or should have for the child.

A baby one week before normal birth is a sentient agent. A fetus at 12/16 weeks is not. This is not a difference you should ignore.



I think I can help there.

Termination of a pregnancy and termination of the fetus/child are two different things. For example inducing birth or using cesarean to remove the child from the womb would be a termination of the pregnancy. Abortion at 12 weeks of a fetus terminated the pregnancy AND the fetus.

Was that the part you were not understanding? Or do you have another question?



If any part of the explanations that I just wrote in this post are not clear, you are more than welcome to ask. My time is yours. You will find me very generous with it.

Thank you for the reply. Your first paragraph is patent nonsense. What we do with our bodies does affect other people. The teenager in inner city Dublin using heroin is effecting his family who care for him. Do you really think they should just keep their nose out of his business? The junkie who robs shops to feed his habit is affecting other people. That is why their is something called the law: To protect people in society from the selfish decisions made by others. I don't understand how an intelligent person can use this silly argument.

You say that sentience dictates whether the 'fetus' is human or not. Does that mean someone in a coma is not a human?

nozzferrahhtoo

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Your first paragraph is patent nonsense. What we do with our bodies does affect other people.

Nothing nonsense about it. There are things we do with our body that affect other people. There are things we do with our body that do not.

I just punched the air three times a moment ago. Tell me who I affected by doing so? Perhaps some bacteria were drifting by that felt a bit put out by it. But should we concern ourselves for them? However if it was not the air, but your face, I was punching we could certainly concern ourselves with that.

A woman having an abortion at 12/16 weeks is making a decision about her own body that is not affecting another PERSON. It affects another LIFE, sure, but not a PERSON. And therein lies the distinction that is A) important and can not be dismissed with throw away phrases like "patent nonsense".

To be clear however what I mean by "affect" is that it does not affect the RIGHTS of another sentient entity. I do not mean it has zero affect AT ALL of any type.

Abortion does not "affect" any other person in that sense. In YOUR sense of "affect" sure.... maybe her partner or some friend of hers feels something negative about her choice to abort. But that is not the "affect" I am talking about.

So rather than intelligent people using silly arguments, perhaps it is intelligent people using arguments you have a silly interpretation of?

DickSwiveller wrote: »

You say that sentience dictates whether the 'fetus' is human or not. Does that mean someone in a coma is not a human?

A person in a coma HAS the faculty of consciousness. That faculty is perturbed or operating with curtailed function, but it is there.

A fetus at 12/16 weeks is not something with that faculty, only it has not been turned on yet. Rather it lacks the faculty ENTIRELY.

Think of radio for a moment. Radio waves are broadcast by a radio tower. Let us imagine the radio waves are "consciousness".

In a coma patient the radio waves are weak or off line, or the tower is non-functional.

In a fetus at 12/16 weeks the radio waves are not only absent ENTIRELY.... but in fact no one has actually gotten around to even building the broadcasting tower yet.

In other words: The two things are massively different.

aloyisious

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Thank you for the reply. Your first paragraph is patent nonsense. What we do with our bodies does affect other people. The teenager in inner city Dublin using heroin is effecting his family who care for him. Do you really think they should just keep their nose out of his business? The junkie who robs shops to feed his habit is affecting other people. That is why their is something called the law: To protect people in society from the selfish decisions made by others. I don't understand how an intelligent person can use this silly argument.

You say that sentience dictates whether the 'fetus' is human or not. Does that mean someone in a coma is not a human?

Out of natural curiousity, seeing as you're posting about women's right to choose and pregnancy, is your objection to a woman, any woman, having bodily autonomy over being pregnant based on a religious belief or one that has at it's core life-saving of a feotus within her womb due to your perception of how the natural order of things should proceed?

Re your [to protect people in society from the selfish decisions made by others], that is posited on the basis that there is an actual conection between the example you gave. Would you maintain the same opinion if it was a man in Dundalk opposing a woman in Carrigaline choosing to have an abortion when they have no knowledge at all of each others existance? Is it not remotely possible that Mr Black is being the selfish one in this case?

Under the present law situation on abortion here, the example I gave in Question 1, Para 2 above is the actual situation here at the moment by way of people supporting article 40.3.3 being in our constitution.

DickSwiveller

aloyisious wrote: »

Out of natural curiousity, seeing as you're posting about women's right to choose and pregnancy, is your objection to a woman, any woman, having bodily autonomy over being pregnant based on a religious belief or one that has at it's core life-saving of a feotus within her womb due to your perception of how the natural order of things should proceed?

Re your [to protect people in society from the selfish decisions made by others], that is posited on the basis that there is an actual conection between the examples you gave. Would you maintain the same opinion if it was a man in Dundalk opposing a woman in Carrigaline choosing to have an abortion when they have no knowledge at all of each othes existance? Is it not remotely possible that Mr Black is being the selfish one in this case?

Firstly, I don't recognise a 'right' to choose. All these so-called rights are completely arbitrary and there seems to be a new one everyday. Secondly, I am religious, but I consider liberal secularism to be a religion, just like any other belief system eg. American exceptionalism etc. Actually, a lot of these groups are for more fanatical than most of the religious people I meet.

As your second paragraph, does the father of the child not have a connection to the pregnant woman? Does he not have a say?

aloyisious

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Firstly, I don't recognise a 'right' to choose. All these so-called rights are completely arbitrary and there seems to be a new one everyday. Secondly, I am religious, but I consider liberal secularism to be a religion, just like any other belief system eg. American exceptionalism etc. Actually, a lot of these groups are for more fanatical than most of the religious people I meet.

As your second paragraph, does the father of the child not have a connection to the pregnant woman? Does he not have a say?

Re your 1st sentence above on recognition of a right to choose, that seems rather arbitrary, given you are using it to deny pregnant women any right to choose what they can do, as individuals, with their pregnancies.

Your other questions have been answered, and keep on being answered in our courts so I am going to concentrate on the pregnant women being denied, by virtue of 40.3.3, the right you have; that is to decide what happens to their pregnancies.

frag420

But you seem to believe in the right to chose to impose your beliefs on women you dont know?

Regarding your second point, what if the woman was raped? Do you think a rapist should have the right to tell his victim what she should do with her body considering he has already imposed his will against her?

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Firstly, I don't recognise a 'right' to choose. All these so-called rights are completely arbitrary and there seems to be a new one everyday. Secondly, I am religious, but I consider liberal secularism to be a religion, just like any other belief system eg. American exceptionalism etc. Actually, a lot of these groups are for more fanatical than most of the religious people I meet.

As your second paragraph, does the father of the child not have a connection to the pregnant woman? Does he not have a say?

DickSwiveller

frag420 wrote: »

But you seem to believe in the right to chose to impose your beliefs on women you dont know?

ehm, yes, it's called the law. Do you want no laws?

frag420

Yes it is a law, which we are voting to change! So I will assume once it passes that you will adhere to the law of the land yeah!?

And the second part of my post, care to address that too?

DickSwiveller wrote: »

ehm, yes, it's called the law. Do you want no laws?

nozzferrahhtoo

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Firstly, I don't recognise a 'right' to choose. All these so-called rights are completely arbitrary and there seems to be a new one everyday.

You do not believe in the right to choose? So when you go into a shop full of coke or pepsi, you do not believe you have the right to choose one or neither? Who should be making your choices for you then?

I think your idea that rights are changing every day is a massive exageration to be honest, but I would say that this is not per se a bad thing. Morality and ethics and right should not be some etched in stone mausocracy that we worship at the foot of.

Rather it should be an ongoing iterative discussion in a changing world, with changing circumstances, changing science and knowledge, and a changing people. It should be an active entity evolving along side us as a species. It SHOULD change.

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Secondly, I am religious, but I consider liberal secularism to be a religion

I assume you are using one of the less common definitions of the word "religion" for this then, as none of the more common ones would fit. Without a deity at it's center, or the requirement to believe anything on insufficient (read: non-existent) evidence, like you need to believe our universe is the product of the actions of a non-human intentional intelligent agent..... it is difficult to put "secularism" into the box of "religion".

DickSwiveller wrote: »

As your second paragraph, does the father of the child not have a connection to the pregnant woman? Does he not have a say?

That one I am very open to discussion on but my general feeling is no, I do not think beyond the bounds of mere social etiquette that a man has or at least should have any say in the matter.

I am however very open to the ideas people have of a man being able to legally abort himself from the parental process in the early stages should a women he wants to have an abortion, refuses to do so. But that is a massively different conversation to this one I feel.

But if a pregnant women chooses to abort, I see little reason why the man who impregnated her can or should have any say in that at all to be honest.

aloyisious

RTER drivetime news progrmme reporting that one F/G member of the Oireachtas committee has walked out of it [missed the name]. The meeting started at 5 in private session, going public session about now. Can't find a live feed link yet.

DickSwiveller

aloyisious wrote: »

RTER drivetime news progrmme reporting that one F/G member of the Oireachtas committee has walked out of it [missed the name]. The meeting started at 5 in private session, going public session about now. Can't find a live feed link yet.

Is the Oireachtas Committee not finished?. I thought yesterday was the last day.

aloyisious

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Is the Oireachtas Committee not finished?. I thought yesterday was the last day.

No. they were meeting to vote on the different motions put forward by each member for inclusion on the final [advice] report on it's findings. A meeting is planned for the 20th ref that report for submission to both houses of the Oireachtas.

Odhinn

DickSwiveller wrote: »

ehm, yes, it's called the law. Do you want no laws?

I'd like laws that aren't based on catholic morality, and indeed to see those laws enforced on all citizens, regardless on what kind of uniform they were.

DickSwiveller

Odhinn wrote: »

I'd like laws that aren't based on catholic morality, and indeed to see those laws enforced on all citizens, regardless on what kind of uniform they were.

Wow, the people in this thread are absolutely obsessed with the church. I don't get the second part of your post.

Kiwi in IE

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Wow, the people in this thread are absolutely obsessed with the church. I don't get the second part of your post.

What is 'the church'? Generally normal people refer to particular religious sects by name, for example the Church of Ireland, the Roman Catholic Church, the Presbyterian Church, the Church of the Latter Day Saints etc, etc, or if they are talking on a more personal level they may say 'my church'. The fact that you refer to a particular one as 'The Church', as if it's the only religion in existence, and the only one allowed to claim to be a church at all, is a pretty clear indication of who is actually obsessed!