Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

uptherebels

splinter65 wrote: »

Your approach to the provision of free contraception is that it’s just common sense. You’ve made that point several times. And you’ve thrown the spectre of the Magdalene laundries as an example of what happens if casual sex isn’t viewed as perfectly natural.
It’s as if there couldn’t possibly be a middle ground somewhere between families dumping their daughters in the Convent because they had a fumble round the back of the village hall and putting even more pressure on young adults to compromise their self esteem and self respect by making sure that they’re “intercourse ready” with baskets of condoms positioned carefully all over the place.
I’ve a daughter at WIT and I don’t agree.
I’m lucky that she and I can have honest discussions about this stuff and I can tell you that the combination of huge amounts of cheap booze and drugs and “no strings attached” sex is destroying the self esteem of both sexes.
There has to be some way of encouraging them to be the best they can be in a way that allows them to not have so many regrets? Because there appears to be a lot of anguish.

No the laundries is an example that the unavailability of contraception to any a hindrance to casual sex. Nothing to do with how casual sex I'd viewed.
Again you seem to be hung up on viewing available contraception as intercourse ready instead of being "safe" intercourse ready.
How can promoting safe sex diminish anyone's self respect?
What do you consider the best they can be?

Timberrrrrrrr

e1vwdgzy4l9uom wrote: »

You think it's a good idea to distribute free condoms in schools and colleges?

Yes

splinter65

uptherebels wrote: »

No the laundries is an example that the unavailability of contraception to any a hindrance to casual sex. Nothing to do with how casual sex I'd viewed.
Again you seem to be hung up on viewing available contraception as intercourse ready instead of being "safe" intercourse ready.
How can promoting safe sex diminish anyone's self respect?
What do you consider the best they can be?

I can’t see how having condoms in your wallet or handbag ISNT “intercourse ready”...maybe that is just me... however...
The best they can be? Well I know what the “best they can be” isn’t for sure, and that’s meeting a guy you really like at college and then realizing that it’s not going to happen for you because you’ve already slept with his brother and his room mate. That’s really **** to be honest. It’s also meeting a really great girl at a party and finding out that she’s slept with your brother and your roommate. On the same night. Absolute ****.
It’s getting the “pre drinks” wrong AGAIN and waking up in a strange bedroom in a house you don’t know in a street you don’t know and having to ring your friends AGAIN to rescue you cos you’ve no money for a taxi.
The only thing is now at least guys don’t have to worry anymore if they didn’t use a condom or used it wrong because right up to 12 weeks later it’s nothing to do with them any more. It used to be a bit stressful getting the money together in the morning for the MAP but now not only is the abortion legal but it’s free.
It’s just the girl has to have the abortion she has to take the pills she has to have the cramps and the bleeding, but it’s great all the same.
It’s also great that if the girl you thought was a college student in the club turns out to be doing her junior cert and turns up on your doorstep later with a pregnancy tester, she can get an abortion and her parents don’t need to know. That’s great.

Igotadose

uptherebels wrote: »

No the laundries is an example that the unavailability of contraception to any a hindrance to casual sex.

The laundries were full of young (13 years old, younger) girls 'donated' by their parents to help with the fact that the family had too many mouths to feed. As the church so zealously guards any information about the laundries, it's hard to say how many girls entered the laundries this way, but if you read some of the recent interviews with Magdalene survivors, it was pretty common. The laundries were simply another example of the church demonizing and exploiting women, like their long-standing opposition to contraception. I have a theory that the parents got 'something' as a result - perhaps the priest approved a land purchase the parents wanted, or a loan, or some other kickback in exchange for giving the daughter into church-run slave-based profit centers like the laundries. Encouraging enormous families works very well with that business model. There'll always be extra daughters around that parents would part with.

Also, the Church wasn't anti-abortion until the 19th century. IMO it started coincidentally with the ability of women to hold down jobs outside the house and be successful without children. Church couldn't abide that - it's about keeping men supreme and women down, best way is to ensure women didn't have any rights.

uptherebels

splinter65 wrote: »

I can’t see how having condoms in your wallet or handbag ISNT “intercourse ready”...maybe that is just me... however...
The best they can be? Well I know what the “best they can be” isn’t for sure, and that’s meeting a guy you really like at college and then realizing that it’s not going to happen for you because you’ve already slept with his brother and his room mate. That’s really **** to be honest. It’s also meeting a really great girl at a party and finding out that she’s slept with your brother and your roommate. On the same night. Absolute ****.
It’s getting the “pre drinks” wrong AGAIN and waking up in a strange bedroom in a house you don’t know in a street you don’t know and having to ring your friends AGAIN to rescue you cos you’ve no money for a taxi.
The only thing is now at least guys don’t have to worry anymore if they didn’t use a condom or used it wrong because right up to 12 weeks later it’s nothing to do with them any more. It used to be a bit stressful getting the money together in the morning for the MAP but now not only is the abortion legal but it’s free.
It’s just the girl has to have the abortion she has to take the pills she has to have the cramps and the bleeding, but it’s great all the same.
It’s also great that if the girl you thought was a college student in the club turns out to be doing her junior cert and turns up on your doorstep later with a pregnancy tester, she can get an abortion and her parents don’t need to know. That’s great.

So you just have issues with sex in general?

I mean meeting a girl you like but can't do anything with because she had sex with your brother and your roommate! Most people you meet out of their teenage years aren't going to be virgins, if you are concerned with them having had previous sexual encounters, maybe a serious relationship isn't for you.

Again people aren't going to stop using contraception because they can now get a tablet from a doctor instead of the internet.

You have an issue with abortion but also have a problem with free contraception to reduce the need for abortions!

An_Toirpin

It is certainly a myth that the laundries we're full of women who had sex outside marriage. Many were orphans or from broken families or petty criminals. Others were out there to excape poverty or abuse in the home. There is pretty reasonable statistics available on this now.

An_Toirpin

Igotadose wrote: »

Also, the Church wasn't anti-abortion until the 19th century. IMO it started coincidentally with the ability of women to hold down jobs outside the house and be successful without children. Church couldn't abide that - it's about keeping men supreme and women down, best way is to ensure women didn't have any rights.

The church changed it's position on abortion due to the revolution in our understand about human development in the womb. It was purely based on on science and frankly I'm glad it stood on the right side of history. Your theory is absurd.

Calina

An_Toirpin wrote: »

The church changed it's position on abortion due to the revolution in our understand about human development in the womb. It was purely based on on science and frankly I'm glad it stood on the right side of history. Your theory is absurd.

No. The Church's current stance on abortion is not based on science. It is based on punishing women, fallen women.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

"Fallen women", haven't heard that for a long time.

King Mob

An_Toirpin wrote: »

It was purely based on on science and frankly I'm glad it stood on the right side of history.

The science that the soul enters the body at the moment of conception?
Evidence for this please. Should be easy since it's purely based on science and all.

Pherekydes

e1vwdgzy4l9uom wrote: »

"Fallen women", haven't heard that for a long time.

I know, it's fallen out of favour in step with the catholic church's fall from grace.

Calina

e1vwdgzy4l9uom wrote: »

"Fallen women", haven't heard that for a long time.

I grew up in Ireland in the 1980s. That is what women who dared have sex outside the limits defined by the Catholic Church were painted as. I resented it then and I resent the Chuech thinking it has any moral authority on abortion given how it treats the living and how it treated many children and women in the past.

wench

An_Toirpin wrote: »

The church changed it's position on abortion due to the revolution in our understand about human development in the womb. It was purely based on on science and frankly I'm glad it stood on the right side of history. Your theory is absurd.

You'd think for something so important, God would have taken some time away from discussing mildew to mention it.
A one liner, "the unborn have souls, don't abort them", could surely have been fitted in somewhere.

aloyisious

An_Toirpin wrote: »

The church changed it's position on abortion due to the revolution in our understand about human development in the womb. It was purely based on on science and frankly I'm glad it stood on the right side of history. Your theory is absurd.

Do you mean scientific understanding about human development in the womb being brought up to date with the church changing it's priority of stressing the importance of traditional church teaching of what God intended for the human race being foremost?

I doubt if the church changed its traditional position on abortion due to any change in its understanding about human development in the womb based solely on science. Do you mean a different science than that of female gynaecological medical science, maybe something like scientific theory and not actual scientific understanding?

Odhinn

splinter65 wrote: »

Your approach to the provision of free contraception is that it’s just common sense. You’ve made that point several times. And you’ve thrown the spectre of the Magdalene laundries as an example of what happens if casual sex isn’t viewed as perfectly natural.
It’s as if there couldn’t possibly be a middle ground somewhere between families dumping their daughters in the Convent because they had a fumble round the back of the village hall and putting even more pressure on young adults to compromise their self esteem and self respect by making sure that they’re “intercourse ready” with baskets of condoms positioned carefully all over the place.
I’ve a daughter at WIT and I don’t agree.
I’m lucky that she and I can have honest discussions about this stuff and I can tell you that the combination of huge amounts of cheap booze and drugs and “no strings attached” sex is destroying the self esteem of both sexes.
There has to be some way of encouraging them to be the best they can be in a way that allows them to not have so many regrets? Because there appears to be a lot of anguish.

...a post which embodies the absurdity of the church position.

An_Toirpin

aloyisious wrote: »

Do you mean scientific understanding about human development in the womb being brought up to date with the church changing it's priority of stressing the importance of traditional church teaching of what God intended for the human race being foremost?

I doubt if the church changed its traditional position on abortion due to any change in its understanding about human development in the womb based solely on science. Do you mean a different science than that of female gynaecological medical science, maybe something like scientific theory and not actual scientific understanding?

Actually the RCC did revise it's position based on the rise in scientic understanding. That has long been how the RCC did things. Not always but frequently.

King Mob

An_Toirpin wrote: »

Actually the RCC did revise it's position based on the rise in scientic understanding. That has long been how the RCC did things. Not always but frequently.

Sorry, you seem to have missed my post.

The Catholic Church's position is that a person's soul is implanted in the body at conception.
That is the basis for their opposition.

Please supply the science that backs this position up.

splinter65

Odhinn wrote: »

...a post which embodies the absurdity of the church position.

The only mention of the church is from you. Why oh why do you always have to resort to this?

Odhinn

splinter65 wrote: »

The only mention of the church is from you. Why oh why do you always have to resort to this?

Whether you know it or not you're taking the same stance.

splinter65

Odhinn wrote: »

Whether you know it or not you're taking the same stance.

No odhinn. Your problem is that science is your friend when science supports the case for abortion but when science supports the case against abortion you have to revert to accusing the entire prolife community of playing the God card.
Neonatal care advances in the last 10 years have escalated to the point where preemies are enjoying excellent outcomes they didn’t before and this is causing abortion activists much trouble on the US in particular where you have the extraordinary situation in any given hospital of a baby of 21 weeks being aborted in one room while pediatricians fight to save the life of a preemie of 21 weeks down the hall.

ohnonotgmail

splinter65 wrote: »

No odhinn. Your problem is that science is your friend when science supports the case for abortion but when science supports the case against abortion you have to revert to accusing the entire prolife community of playing the God card.
Neonatal care advances in the last 10 years have escalated to the point where preemies are enjoying excellent outcomes they didn’t before and this is causing abortion activists much trouble on the US in particular where you have the extraordinary situation in any given hospital of a baby of 21 weeks being aborted in one room while pediatricians fight to save the life of a preemie of 21 weeks down the hall.

Hos is any of that relevant to an abortion at 12 weeks?

King Mob

splinter65 wrote: »

No odhinn. Your problem is that science is your friend when science supports the case for abortion but when science supports the case against abortion you have to revert to accusing the entire prolife community of playing the God card.
Neonatal care advances in the last 10 years have escalated to the point where preemies are enjoying excellent outcomes they didn’t before and this is causing abortion activists much trouble on the US in particular where you have the extraordinary situation in any given hospital of a baby of 21 weeks being aborted in one room while pediatricians fight to save the life of a preemie of 21 weeks down the hall.

Any chance you'll go back and answer my question you also seem to have missed:
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=108952073&postcount=8639

You guys miss a lot of questions...

Timberrrrrrrr

King Mob wrote: »

Any chance you'll go back and answer my question you also seem to have missed:
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=108952073&postcount=8639

You guys miss a lot of questions...

They don't miss them, they deliberately ignore them because they can't answer.

splinter65

King Mob wrote: »

What efforts are being made to silence them?

You can’t be serious. Do you do social media at all? Twitter in particular is hilarious. Tweets are reported (including my own) constantly by repeal the 8th activists to this day, pointlessly it turns out as Twitter can’t find anything wrong with them.
Apparently they are offensive because a law was passed making abortion legal and that means that the discussion should be over?
I don’t know about you but getting threatening PMs from people who don’t think you should be allowed to voice your opinion is pretty much an attempt to silence.

splinter65

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

They don't miss them, they deliberately ignore them because they can't answer.

I’ve just answered. Try to respond to me rather then start a tag team with another poster.

King Mob

splinter65 wrote: »

You can’t be serious. Do you do social media at all? Twitter in particular is hilarious. Tweets are reported (including my own) constantly by repeal the 8th activists to this day, pointlessly it turns out as Twitter can’t find anything wrong with them.
Apparently they are offensive because a law was passed making abortion legal and that means that the discussion should be over?
I don’t know about you but getting threatening PMs from people who don’t think you should be allowed to voice your opinion is pretty much an attempt to silence.

Cool beans.
Any evidence for any of that?
And could you explain how this "silences" you exactly?

Could you also explain why you ignored my question the first time around?

splinter65

King Mob wrote: »

Cool beans.
Any evidence for any of that?
And could you explain how this "silences" you exactly?

Could you also explain why you ignored my question the first time around?

I’ll pm you emails from twitter to me informing me of which tweets if mine were reported, the grounds of the report and the desicion of twitter.

I’m not on boards all the time. If I am I spend a lot of time solving problems in state benefits. You can see this in my post history. As it’s holiday time there aren’t many posts there so I’m here.

King Mob

splinter65 wrote: »

I’ll pm you emails from twitter to me informing me of which tweets if mine were reported, the grounds of the report and the desicion of twitter.

Ok, but now you're ignoring questions again.

How does this silence you?

Why did you ignore my question previously.
Why did you ignore my questions just now.

I'm disinclined to believe your claims when you do things like that.
I'm disinclined to believe your claims when such tactics seem to be common to you guys.

splinter65

King Mob wrote: »

Ok, but now you're ignoring questions again.

How does this silence you?

Why did you ignore my question previously.
Why did you ignore my questions just now.

I'm disinclined to believe your claims when you do things like that.
I'm disinclined to believe your claims when such tactics seem to be common to you guys.

I edited my post so you’ll have to go back and read it again.

King Mob

splinter65 wrote: »

I edited my post so you’ll have to go back and read it again.

Ok, doesn't really answer my questions.

It doesn't explain why you dodged my question initially.
I simply do not buy that you "just missed it."

You and your buddies do that constantly.

It doesn't explain why you are still ignoring my other question.
Or the question put to you by ohnonotgmail.

But I've learned when I ask you guys a question 3 times and you're still dodging it. You're not going to answer it.