Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

uptherebels

King Mob wrote: »

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.

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.

Careful now! they will think you are trying to silence them.

King Mob

uptherebels wrote: »

Careful now! they will think you are trying to silence them.

Apparently
"Could you answer this question?" or "could you provide your evidence?" or "could you elaborate on your position?"
=
"Shut up."

Odhinn

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.

Actually I was referring to the part of your post that I put in bold, which was

.........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."

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109007912&postcount=8716

Hotblack Desiato

splinter65 wrote: »

Apparently they are offensive because a law was passed making abortion legal and that means that the discussion should be over?

The discussion IS 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.

Hmmm and do you report these PMs? Does Twitter find anything wrong with them?

end of the road

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

The discussion IS over.

as a whole it isn't. certain aspects maybe such as in relation to the specific elements of the law but the discussion on abortion in general will never end until AOD is no more.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Hmmm and do you report these PMs? Does Twitter find anything wrong with them?

i should hope they do. making threats toards people goes beyond anything reasonable.

Hotblack Desiato

There is as much likelihood of the Irish electorate banning abortion, as there is of them voting to ban contraception or divorce.

Zero.

Your posts have no basis in reality eotr.

King Mob

end of the road wrote: »

as a whole it isn't. certain aspects maybe such as in relation to the specific elements of the law but the discussion on abortion in general will never end until AOD is no more.

Any chance you'll be going back to evidence for your claim that the majority of people actually agree with your and are actually against abortion?

You previously rejected the fact that you guys had less support than those who opposed divorce and marriage equality.
So why do you think your side will be taken any more seriously or be any more influential than the cranks who want to reverse those referendums?
And please supply some evidence for your answer.

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.

Just FYI, never got these...

uptherebels

end of the road wrote: »

as a whole it isn't. certain aspects maybe such as in relation to the specific elements of the law but the discussion on abortion in general will never end until AOD is no more.


i should hope they do. making threats toards people goes beyond anything reasonable.

Well firstly you need to tell us of your alternative to 12 weeks in the case of rape victims.....

Secondly the Irish people have realised that baning abortions only makes them unsafe.
No more nimbyism regardless of how much you want it.

smacl

end of the road wrote: »

the discussion on abortion in general will never end until AOD is no more.

So you're saying that the discussion ends once your minority position is upheld against that held by the substantial majority following due democratic process? Thankfully that isn't how Irish society works any longer, nor is it ever likely to be again as we continue to shift further towards secular democracy and away dogmatic theocracy.

SusieBlue

end of the road wrote: »

as a whole it isn't. certain aspects maybe such as in relation to the specific elements of the law but the discussion on abortion in general will never end until AOD is no more.

Banning abortion doesn't stop abortions from occurring. Abortions have been happening since the dawn of time.
So long as there are women falling pregnant, there will be women who for their own reasons, will require a termination.
Banning them makes them unsafe and puts women at risk. It doesn't stop them from happening.

You have offered up absolutely zero conclusive solutions to deal with this fact.
I emphasised the word fact there, because that's exactly what it is.
Women will always seek abortions. That's just how it is, how it has always been, and how it will be in the future.
So it is disingenuous to suggest that if we ban abortion again, the problem will go away. Because it won't.

We can handle this issue this issue by making it safe, regulated, and ensuring they happen as early as possible.
Or we can put our fingers back in our ears, look the other way, and send our wives, sisters, daughters and friends back on the boats to the UK for them to deal with.
But either way abortions will still be happening and after years and years of seeing your posts on this matter, its about time you faced up to that fact.

end of the road

smacl wrote: »

So you're saying that the discussion ends once your minority position is upheld against that held by the substantial majority following due democratic process?

as we already know, the democratic process only asked about repealing the 8th and allowing the government to legislate for abortion. the people did not vote on the issue of abortion itself and we weren't asked to do so (i believe we should have got a vote on it) but we didn't. it was the government who decided that everyone who voted yes were all in favour of abortion being implemented rather then simply the politicians being able to legislate for it as asked on the ballot paper.

smacl wrote: »

Thankfully that isn't how Irish society works any longer, nor is it ever likely to be again as we continue to shift further towards secular democracy and away dogmatic theocracy.

the opposition to abortion which can come in many different forms has for many, absolutely nothing to do with theocracy or religion or all else, but simply on the issue's own merrits.

SusieBlue wrote: »

Banning abortion doesn't stop abortions from occurring. Abortions have been happening since the dawn of time.
So long as there are women falling pregnant, there will be women who for their own reasons, will require a termination.
Banning them makes them unsafe and puts women at risk. It doesn't stop them from happening.

You have offered up absolutely zero conclusive solutions to deal with this fact.
I emphasised the word fact there, because that's exactly what it is.
Women will always seek abortions. That's just how it is, how it has always been, and how it will be in the future.
So it is disingenuous to suggest that if we ban abortion again, the problem will go away. Because it won't.

We can handle this issue this issue by making it safe, regulated, and ensuring they happen as early as possible.
Or we can put our fingers back in our ears, look the other way, and send our wives, sisters, daughters and friends back on the boats to the UK for them to deal with.
But either way abortions will still be happening and after years and years of seeing your posts on this matter, its about time you faced up to that fact.

banning abortions apart from genuine circumstances where it is actually needed, such as where the mother's life is under threat, says that abortions other then where there is such a grave situation, has no place in society and is a want rather then a need. if someone doesn't want to be put at risk, then don't go killing their unborn child simply because they don't want it, should do it.
i have already offered a solution to the issue, that because someone may want something, it doesn't mean they have to get it, and we don't have an obligation to give it to them.
a bann doesn't need to stop abortion outright, and in actual fact nobody is looking for that in the first place. we can handle the issue by saying, an abortion will be provided where there is a serious threat, but if you want it simply because you don't want to be pregnant, then you will have to make your own provisions. i faced up decades ago to the fact that mass killing of unborn children happens, and it horrifies me just as much now as it did then.

SusieBlue

end of the road wrote: »

banning abortions apart from genuine circumstances where it is actually needed, such as where the mother's life is under threat, says that abortions other then where there is such a grave situation, has no place in society and is a want rather then a need. if someone doesn't want to be put at risk, then don't go killing their unborn child simply because they don't want it, should do it.
i have already offered a solution to the issue, that because someone may want something, it doesn't mean they have to get it, and we don't have an obligation to give it to them.
a bann doesn't need to stop abortion outright, and in actual fact nobody is looking for that in the first place. we can handle the issue by saying, an abortion will be provided where there is a serious threat, but if you want it simply because you don't want to be pregnant, then you will have to make your own provisions. i faced up decades ago to the fact that mass killing of unborn children happens, and it horrifies me just as much now as it did then.

And you, a stranger on the internet, are in no position to be making such a determination on my behalf, or on behalf of other women whose circumstances you are unaware of.
As someone with no information on my background, childhood, health and life in general I'm sure you can only agree that YOU have no business deciding whether I want or need an abortion.
To sum it up, its frankly absolutely none of your business.
The decision should be up to the owner of the uterus, and thankfully, the public agreed.
Why you feel you should have any say in the control of my reproductive organs still astonishes me, but here we are.

Regardless, your reply doesn't answer the point I made.
Which is that abortions have always happened and will continue to happen, regardless of the law.
Banning it will change absolutely nothing, only put lives at risk and ensure abortions occur at later gestations.
It isn't naivety on your part that you are ignoring this and denying this.
You are aware of it, you just don't care.

You are so obsessed with the contents of womens wombs, you are forgetting about the living, breathing woman attached to them.

I'm not about to get into another back and forth with you, because there is frankly no point, but its really disappointing to see you once again refuse to address any of the points that have been put to you.

You haven't come up with a solution, because there is no solution.
If there was a solution that could have avoided abortion being necessary, the 8th wouldn't have been Repealed.
The fact of the matter is that abortions have always and will always happen, and we as a country have voted to trust women with their own uteruses & own decisions and regulate the process in a legal manner.

King Mob

end of the road wrote: »

as we already know, the democratic process only asked about repealing the 8th and allowing the government to legislate for abortion. the people did not vote on the issue of abortion itself and we weren't asked to do so (i believe we should have got a vote on it) but we didn't. it was the government who decided that everyone who voted yes were all in favour of abortion being implemented rather then simply the politicians being able to legislate for it as asked on the ballot paper.

Do you have ANY evidence to support the idea that the majority of people would have voted against abortion in your scenario?

You keep claiming that your side is in the majority in apparent denial of reality.

end of the road

SusieBlue wrote: »

And you, a stranger on the internet, are in no position to be making such a determination on my behalf, or on behalf of other women whose circumstances you are unaware of.
As someone with no information on my background, childhood, health and life in general I'm sure you can only agree that YOU have no business deciding whether I want or need an abortion.
To sum it up, its frankly absolutely none of your business.
The decision should be up to the owner of the uterus, and thankfully, the public agreed.
Why you feel you should have any say in the control of my reproductive organs still astonishes me, but here we are.

Regardless, your reply doesn't answer the point I made.
Which is that abortions have always happened and will continue to happen, regardless of the law.
Banning it will change absolutely nothing, only put lives at risk and ensure abortions occur at later gestations.
It isn't naivety on your part that you are ignoring this and denying this.
You are aware of it, you just don't care.

You are so obsessed with the contents of womens wombs, you are forgetting about the living, breathing woman attached to them.

I'm not about to get into another back and forth with you, because there is frankly no point, but its really disappointing to see you once again refuse to address any of the points that have been put to you.

You haven't come up with a solution, because there is no solution.
If there was a solution that could have avoided abortion being necessary, the 8th wouldn't have been Repealed.
The fact of the matter is that abortions have always and will always happen, and we as a country have voted to trust women with their own uteruses & own decisions and regulate the process in a legal manner.

except you, i, and everyone else effectively make similar determinations on behalf of each other on a daily basis dispite backgrounds, circumstances etc, via the laws of the land, especially where and when it comes to harming others. so yes i believe that as a society, given abortion is the ending of a life of a human being, that it is it's business as to whether someone actually wants, or genuinely needs, an abortion or not and that the owner of the uterus, should not be able to decide that another's life should be ended except where there is a grave threat.
the public didn't necessarily agree that the owner of the uterus should be able to end the life of their unborn child, we weren't asked on such a matter. as i have said before abortion is only necessary in some cases. pro-choice people should accept and admit this to be the case and actually own it, after all, abortion for any reason is what they want so why not except that this means people having it because they want it rather then need it?
we as a country haven't voted to trust women at all, that was just a meaningless slogan which meant nothing. what we voted for, was to repeal the 8th and give the government the ability to legislate for abortion. we didn't vote on uteruses & own decisions anything else.

SusieBlue

end of the road wrote: »

except you, i, and everyone else effectively make similar determinations on behalf of each other on a daily basis dispite backgrounds, circumstances etc, via the laws of the land, especially where and when it comes to harming others.

so yes i believe that as a society, given abortion is the ending of a life of a human being, that it is it's business as to whether someone actually wants, or genuinely needs, an abortion or not and that the owner of the uterus, should not be able to decide that another's life should be ended except where there is a grave threat. the public didn't necessarily agree that the owner of the uterus should be able to end the life of their unborn child, we weren't asked on such a matter.
as i have said before abortion is only necessary in some cases. i would be willing to have respect for people who would accept and admit this to be the case, even if i would still disagree with them. but to deny that in most cases abortion is about a want rather then a genuine need is in my view an error of judgement. we as a country haven't voted to trust women at all, that was just a meaningless slogan which meant nothing. what we voted for, was to repeal the 8th and give the government the ability to legislate for abortion. we didn't vote on uteruses & own decisions anything else.

You don't half contradict yourself. There are no other laws of a similar capacity to the sh*tshow that the 8th Amendment was.
None. Zero.
If you are insisting otherwise, please point out another law that dictates your bodily autonomy and capacity to consent to medical procedures.
I know you're male so I'm particularly interested in hearing which laws effect you in a similar way that the 8th affected women.

You're tying yourself up in knots trying to justify your self appointed authority on other people's lives.
There is no justification for it, none.
You lost, the people have spoken, get over it.

end of the road

SusieBlue wrote: »

You don't half contradict yourself. There are no other laws of a similar capacity to the sh*tshow that the 8th Amendment was.
None. Zero.
If you are insisting otherwise, please point out another law that dictates your bodily autonomy and capacity to consent to medical procedures.
I know you're male so I'm particularly interested in hearing which laws effect you in a similar way that the 8th affected women.

You're tying yourself up in knots trying to justify your self appointed authority on other people's lives.
There is no justification for it, none.

clearly there aren't such laws on that particular matter, however consent to medical treatments was only a smaller part of the 8th campaign, and if it was just about that then there would likely have been no opposition to repeal at all. the majority part of the campaign, was about AOD. in relation to the ending of the life of the unborn, then the laws in relation to asalt etc would have some similarity in that they are designed to prevent harm to human beings regardless of whether they are born or not, except for very extreme circumstances.

SusieBlue wrote: »

You lost, the people have spoken, get over it.

irrelevant, and the people only spoke in relation to repeal of the 8th. those against brexit also lost that vote as another example, but it matters not. when something is wrong it's wrong, and it doesn't stop being wrong because of a vote. no amount of "you lost, get over it, remoaner" will change that.

King Mob

end of the road wrote: »

irrelevant, and the people only spoke in relation to repeal of the 8th. those against brexit also lost that vote as another example, but it matters not. when something is wrong it's wrong, and it doesn't stop being wrong because of a vote. no amount of "you lost, get over it, remoaner" will change that.

Again, provide evidence to show that a majority of people actually support your side.

Stop ignoring this question.

Bredabe

Stuck since this morning in a hospital with a very very sick child, as his GP is being flooded with calls by those with negative feelings about the practice being on the contact list for "My Options". Preventing his distraught parents getting an appointment and keeping him out of the hospital.

I dont understand the logic of it, preventing a terminally ill child getting health care because of a decision his DR made and has NOTHING to do with the child involved.

ohnonotgmail

Bredabe wrote: »

Stuck for since this morning in a hospital with a very very sick child, as his GP is being flooded with calls by those with negative feelings about the practice being on the contact list for "My Options". Preventing his distraught parents getting an appointment and keeping him out of the hospital.

I dont understand the logic of it, preventing a terminally ill child getting health care because of a decision his DR made and has NOTHING to do with the child involved.

They only care about babies that have not been born yet.

Bredabe

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

They only care about babies that have not been born yet.

Yup, as they seem to be intent on proving over and over.
I try to be moderate in all things not sugar, but what's happened today is horrendous and IF i was the parent, I would sue for 10 figure compensation from the organisations involved.

aloyisious

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.

Is that revision of its position relative to science in general or is it more specifically on medical scientific understanding of gynaecology and womens/girls reporoductve systems, and how abortion is not only something that women and girls should be allowed decide for themselves but is also a medical necessity that modern science recognizes?

Saying that the church's position on scientific understanding has changed is different from saying that the church understands or even accepts the validity of modern medical science and that science's essence when it comes to pregnant women and girls. Are you and I discussing the same thing, a specific medical need of and for pregnant women and girls?

It seems to me that the church [while some of it's members recognize that abortion through their chosen wording - terminations - are a necessity] does not itself accept that medical science is correct when it comes to the need for abortions and instead chooses traditional theology over science.

Igotadose

Bredabe wrote: »

Stuck since this morning in a hospital with a very very sick child, as his GP is being flooded with calls by those with negative feelings about the practice being on the contact list for "My Options". Preventing his distraught parents getting an appointment and keeping him out of the hospital.

I dont understand the logic of it, preventing a terminally ill child getting health care because of a decision his DR made and has NOTHING to do with the child involved.

Get the GP to get their names, and report names to the guards. If this is a coordinated effort likely charges can be brought. As always, the hateboth crowd shows their true colors.

Bredabe

Igotadose wrote: »

Get the GP to get their names, and report names to the guards. If this is a coordinated effort likely charges can be brought. As always, the hateboth crowd shows their true colors.

Dr's staff say that its ppl ranting down the phone like its on a loop and hitting the redial button when they hang up, still happening today. Its too easy going here so it will be a while before they report.

I assume the organisations involved haven't given any though to the consequences to pregnant ppl of their actions. I know they only care about the unborn, these actions seem to be blind to the consequences to them too. As for the effect of the support staff who are stressed up to the 9's trying to do their day's work(some of whom, may not be in agreement with the practices decision)

An_Toirpin

Bredabe wrote: »

Stuck since this morning in a hospital with a very very sick child, as his GP is being flooded with calls by those with negative feelings about the practice being on the contact list for "My Options". Preventing his distraught parents getting an appointment and keeping him out of the hospital.

I dont understand the logic of it, preventing a terminally ill child getting health care because of a decision his DR made and has NOTHING to do with the child involved.

They aren't preventing anyone get health care though. If I ring my doctor with a flu am I stopping sick kids getting sick. Get real

An_Toirpin

aloyisious wrote: »

Is that revision of its position relative to science in general or is it more specifically on medical scientific understanding of gynaecology and womens/girls reporoductve systems, and how abortion is not only something that women and girls should be allowed decide for themselves but is also a medical necessity that modern science recognizes?

Saying that the church's position on scientific understanding has changed is different from saying that the church understands or even accepts the validity of modern medical science and that science's essence when it comes to pregnant women and girls. Are you and I discussing the same thing, a specific medical need of and for pregnant women and girls?

It seems to me that the church [while some of it's members recognize that abortion through their chosen wording - terminations - are a necessity] does not itself accept that medical science is correct when it comes to the need for abortions and instead chooses traditional theology over science.

You are setting up a red herring. Most abortions are elective. Killing a healthy featus/ baby is not medical necessity. It is a question of ethics. The RCC doesn't prohibit abortion in life saving circumstances, in the same way killing someone in self defense isn't prohibited. Life saving abortions are never controversial. How can you sustain your argument? If this point wasn't true they still changed their policy on science to have a higher moral standard.

Timberrrrrrrr

An_Toirpin wrote: »

They aren't preventing anyone get health care though. If I ring my doctor with a flu am I stopping sick kids getting sick. Get real

How do you get to see your doctor to make an appointment when the lines are clogged with zealots blocking the lines with nuisance calls?

Bredabe

An_Toirpin wrote: »

They aren't preventing anyone get health care though. If I ring my doctor with a flu am I stopping sick kids getting sick. Get real

*These ppl not calling to book appointments, they are tying up the clinic's phone line deliberately.

If you call your Dr to get care for your flu(the child I was attending is much sicker) and cant get through for days because of a campaign of obstruction. Those ppl are deliberately blocking your route are denying you healthcare.

Had the Dr been contactable, the child involved would have been given the care needed in the clinic, so much stress foisted on the family of a terminally ill child due completely to this clinic being targeted.

LOL, "Get Real", I've not heard that since my teens, thanks for reminding me of it.:)

King Mob

An_Toirpin wrote: »

They aren't preventing anyone get health care though. If I ring my doctor with a flu am I stopping sick kids getting sick. Get real

I like how you say this after previously your anti-abortion buddy was claiming that his free speech was being suppressed cause he was getting nasty PMs.

Also, you again have missed my post:
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109008393&postcount=8718
Please address it.

Why do you guys keep ignoring questions?

An_Toirpin

King Mob wrote: »

I like how you say this after previously your anti-abortion buddy was claiming that his free speech was being suppressed cause he was getting nasty PMs.

Also, you again have missed my post:
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109008393&postcount=8718
Please address it.

Why do you guys keep ignoring questions?

The soul is a Catholic conceptional vehicle to explain the the human experience of mind and body. Why it begins at conception is because that is the only obvious biological threshold of new life. Other groups have other explainations but they all are referring to the same question, the beginning of human life. The Catholic Church made an inconvenient policy by sticking with the science to ensure a higher moralaity. While the pro abortion movement went in the other direction.