Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Abortion Discussion, Part Trois
Options
Comments
-
end of the road wrote: »yes that is correct.
i would include her freedom to think and decide matters for herself in my definition of her having control of her body and full bodily autonomy yes . she's just not allowed to decide to kill her unborn child for social, economic or lifestyle and other ultimately trivial reasons.
So now you are prohibiting women from making decisions, what are you? The thought police.0 -
aloyisious wrote: »On the basis of your replies, and thinking things through, I assume that the Pro-life protestors also mentioned in this thread accept that a pregnant woman who has full control of her body and full bodily autonomy also has full freedom to think and decide matters for herself within that control and autonomy, and that is why they would try to change her mind if she had not the same position on abortion to them..
The protestors have the same autonomy rights and the same right to think things through for themselves as the pregnant woman before they decided what position it is they hold on abortion. Even here in this debate, we give each other autonomy rights extra to those outlined in the site rules and conduct-regulations. We don't rule by dictat.
Your position is clearly different to that of the protestors in that you would not allow the woman have a right to choose within the freedom to think and decide and the full bodily autonomy you ascribe to her when it comes to abortion unless you permit it. That is limited freedom by dictat from you.
my position on AOD is the same as not allowing someone to commit any other act that causes actual bodily harm to another.ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.
0 -
end of the road wrote: »my position on AOD is the same as not allowing someone to commit any other act that causes actual bodily harm to another.
And what about the harm (physical and/or mental) to the pregnant person caused by forcing them to carrying a pregnancy to term without their consent?If you can read this, you're too close!
0 -
end of the road wrote: »my position on AOD is the same as not allowing someone to commit any other act that causes actual bodily harm to another.
But there is no "other" as you have yet to provide an argument as to why a not slightly but COMPLETELY non-sentient entity should have any rights.
Direct question: Why should a non-sentient 12 week old fetus have rights at all? Let alone ones that curtail the rights, well being, or free choice of an ACTUAL sentient agent?0 -
And what about the harm (physical and/or mental) to the pregnant person caused by forcing them to carrying a pregnancy to term without their consent?
mental harm can be treated with the appropriate treatment in relation to mental health. if there is a risk of serious and permanent physical harm then that would come under the same rules which allow abortion where the mother's life is under threat. mental health is not a justification for killing unborn human beings.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »But there is no "other" as you have yet to provide an argument as to why a not slightly but COMPLETELY non-sentient entity should have any rights.
Direct question: Why should a non-sentient 12 week old fetus have rights at all? Let alone ones that curtail the rights, well being, or free choice of an ACTUAL sentient agent?
there is another, a human being which is unborn. it is entitled to the right to life because it's a human being and we prohibit the killing of all other human beings except in extreme circumstances. no free choice or well being or rights are being curtailed by preventing the killing of unborn human beings for social and lifestyle and convenience reasons, for which i am satisfied are the reasons for most abortions.ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.
0 -
Advertisement
-
end of the road wrote: »there is another, a human being which is unborn. it is entitled to the right to life because it's a human being and we prohibit the killing of all other human beings except in extreme circumstances.
Except it is not a human being in anything but taxonomy. It is a fetus. A biological machine that is building a person. It is not a person. You have said as much yourself in the past when you said yourself it is BECOMING a person. Because you can not be X and be becoming X at the same time. You are either X or not X.
So you have not answered the question I asked, but one of your own invention. Upon what basis do we afford rights to a completely.... COMPLETELY.... non-sentient agent? And on what basis do we presume to do so in a way that curtails the rights, well being, and free choice of an ACTUAL sentient agent?
Further you just asserted as fact that it is entitled to a right to life. Where is this written, or is it just your opinion?end of the road wrote: »no free choice or well being or rights are being curtailed by preventing the killing of unborn human beings
And no rights, well being, or free choice is being curtailed by killing a fetus either. Is has no well being, as it is ENTIRELY non-sentient. It has no free choice at all, or the capacity for it, for the same reason. And you have demonstrably, even when DIRECTLY asked like I just did in the post above, failed to provide a single argument as to why it should have rights. A failure that is at the very core, I believe, of why you failed the referendum and failed it massively.0 -
Hi, you again seem to have missed my previous post addressed to you.end of the road wrote: »mental harm can be treated with the appropriate treatment in relation to mental health. if there is a risk of serious and permanent physical harm then that would come under the same rules which allow abortion where the mother's life is under threat. mental health is not a justification for killing unborn human beings.
there is another, a human being which is unborn. it is entitled to the right to life because it's a human being and we prohibit the killing of all other human beings except in extreme circumstances. no free choice or well being or rights are being curtailed by preventing the killing of unborn human beings for social and lifestyle and convenience reasons, for which i am satisfied are the reasons for most abortions.
Please address it now.
If you aren't going to address it, at least have the courtesy to say you will not and explain why.
Ignoring points as you are doing has left with the reputation you have now and why you are banned from many many forums and threads.
For your convenience:
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109125819&postcount=91830 -
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Except it is not a human being in anything but taxonomy. It is a fetus. A biological machine that is building a person. It is not a person. You have said as much yourself in the past when you said yourself it is BECOMING a person. Because you can not be X and be becoming X at the same time. You are either X or not X.
So you have not answered the question I asked, but one of your own invention. Upon what basis do we afford rights to a completely.... COMPLETELY.... non-sentient agent? And on what basis do we presume to do so in a way that curtails the rights, well being, and free choice of an ACTUAL sentient agent?
Further you just asserted as fact that it is entitled to a right to life. Where is this written, or is it just your opinion?
And no rights, well being, or free choice is being curtailed by killing a fetus either. Is has no well being, as it is ENTIRELY non-sentient. It has no free choice at all, or the capacity for it, for the same reason. And you have demonstrably, even when DIRECTLY asked like I just did in the post above, failed to provide a single argument as to why it should have rights. A failure that is at the very core, I believe, of why you failed the referendum and failed it massively.
a fetus is a human being. the term fetus i believe means baby or child either in greek or italian. it is not a term which came to be in the aim of trying to deny humanity to the unborn. human being doesn't have to automatically mean person, it simply means human being.
the right to life is being curtailed by killing an unborn human being fetus. sentience is irrelevant to the debate as i explained before as it is not the ultimate dictation of whether something is alive but is 1 of many factors, some of which the unborn fetus will have at a very early stage and i'm not going to get into that whole debate again as i've done it already.ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.
0 -
Getting into a debate requires engaging with points and answer questions.end of the road wrote: »i'm not going to get into that whole debate again as i've done it already.
You have run away from every difficult question put to you.
You are doing so in that post above.
You do every time you butt in on my posts, then ignore them when I ask you follow up questions.
You do not get into any debates at all. You declare your points, then stick your fingers in your ears, close your eyes and pretend you aren't just embarrassing yourself and the entire anti-abortion side.0 -
end of the road wrote: »mental harm can be treated with the appropriate treatment in relation to mental health. if there is a risk of serious and permanent physical harm then that would come under the same rules which allow abortion where the mother's life is under threat. mental health is not a justification for killing unborn human beings.
.
So its "screw you, woman" and make her have the baby because you don't take mental health seriously.0 -
Advertisement
-
end of the road wrote: »a fetus is a human being. the term fetus i believe means baby or child
noun, plural fe·tus·es. Embryology.
(used chiefly of viviparous mammals) the young of an animal in the womb or egg, especially in the later stages of development when the body structures are in the recognizable form of its kind, in humans after the end of the second month of gestation.
Are you trying to tell me that despite scientific bodies labeling it otherwise, a fetus/embryo is a fully formed and fledged human being? Are you telling me that a fetus is a human being or a potential human being?0 -
Getting into a debate requires engaging with points and answer questions.
You have run away from every difficult question put to you.
You are doing so in that post above.
You do every time you butt in on my posts, then ignore them when I ask you follow up questions.
You do not get into any debates at all. You declare your points, then stick your fingers in your ears, close your eyes and pretend you aren't just embarrassing yourself and the entire anti-abortion side.
To be fair they probably did more to ensure people voted yes than most of us here.0 -
end of the road wrote: »mental harm can be treated with the appropriate treatment in relation to mental health. if there is a risk of serious and permanent physical harm then that would come under the same rules which allow abortion where the mother's life is under threat. mental health is not a justification for killing unborn human beings.
Mental health is EQUALLY as important as physical health.
You may choose to hold no importance or care in your own mental health, which I have no problem with, but you don't get to dismiss and disregard other peoples struggles.
All your posts are all about you, your feelings, your thoughts and opinions, your personal take on the predicament. But that's all relative to you.
You are so self centered you can't see beyond the end of your nose.
Nothing of the woman, nothing of her circumstances or struggles, just I, I, I, I, over and over again.
Repeated concern for the embryo with none at all for the living woman in which it grows.
Your opinions won't lessen the burden of an unwanted pregnancy, they won't help mental health issues, they won't cure an FFA, they won't love and financially support a child.
Your thoughts and opinions are of NO value and NO help to a woman in the midst of a crisis.
What she needs is support without judgment and options. That's what she needs.
The sooner you stop making this all about you, the bigger the chance that you might be able to find a bit of compassion deep down and maybe see this is a bigger issue than being just about YOU.0 -
end of the road wrote: »a fetus is a human being. the term fetus i believe means baby or child either in greek or italian. it is not a term which came to be in the aim of trying to deny humanity to the unborn.
The issue is one can not "deny" what is not there. You are just pretending "humanity" and then acting like others are removing it. You have done nothing except appeals to taxonmy to assign that attribute.
You are simply begging the question. I ask you twice now on what basis you think it has rights, and twice you just basically answer me that it has rights. Like here...end of the road wrote: »the right to life
.... after I ask you on what basis it has any rights, you just go on asserting that it has this one. Thus, as ever, refusing to answer the question ACTUALLY asked of you and going off on an (at best) tangential diatribe that dodges it.
Nothing new here. And no you have not "done it already". You simply never have answered this direct challenge. I doubt you EVER will. You. Just. Can't.0 -
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Nothing new here. And no you have not "done it already". You simply never have answered this direct challenge. I doubt you EVER will. You. Just. Can't.
So what's the bets?
Will he:
A: Declare he has already answered this, provide no evidence for that, then ignore the question.
B: Decide he'll throw a huff about some point or another being disrespectful and say he doesn't have to address it.
C: Drop out of the thread for a few days, then butt in on another point and ignore these points entirely.0 -
So its "screw you, woman" and make her have the baby because you don't take mental health seriously.
i take mental health very seriously. it is very important that all of us look after our mental health. however i cannot and will not agree that it is okay to specifically and deliberately kill an unborn human being in the aim of treating mental health when mental health can be treated without doing so.Mentalhealth is EQUALLY as important as physical health.
agreed.You may choose to hold no importance or care in your own mental health, which I have no problem with, but you don't get to dismiss and disregard other peoples struggles.
i haven't dismissed or disregarded anything.All your posts are all about you, your feelings, your thoughts and opinions, your personal take on the predicament. But that's all relative to you.
You are so self centered you can't see beyond the end of your nose.
Nothing of the woman, nothing of her circumstances or struggles, just I, I, I, I, over and over again.
Repeated concern for the embryo with none at all for the living woman in which it grows.
Your opinions won't lessen the burden of an unwanted pregnancy, they won't help mental health issues, they won't cure an FFA, they won't love and financially support a child.
Your thoughts and opinions are of NO value and NO help to a woman in the midst of a crisis.
What she needs is support without judgment and options. That's what she needs.
The sooner you stop making this all about you, the bigger the chance that you might be able to find a bit of compassion deep down and maybe see this is a bigger issue than being just about YOU.
there is plenty of concern for both mother and baby hence my opposition to abortion on demand. she has plenty of options without resorting to killing her unborn child when there is no serious medical reason to do so. where there is such a serious medical reason then that is a different story and such a situation is not one where i have opposition to an abortion being carried out. the issue is about in most cases, the killing of unborn healthy human beings for what are in reality trivial reasons.ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.
0 -
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »The issue is one can not "deny" what is not there. You are just pretending "humanity" and then acting like others are removing it. You have done nothing except appeals to taxonmy to assign that attribute.
You are simply begging the question. I ask you twice now on what basis you think it has rights, and twice you just basically answer me that it has rights. Like here...
.... after I ask you on what basis it has any rights, you just go on asserting that it has this one. Thus, as ever, refusing to answer the question ACTUALLY asked of you and going off on an (at best) tangential diatribe that dodges it.
Nothing new here. And no you have not "done it already". You simply never have answered this direct challenge. I doubt you EVER will. You. Just. Can't.
humanity is there. humanity isn't simply having 2 legs, walking and talking etc. humanity is simply being of the human race. a fetus is of the human race, and is at the main stage where it is on the way to developing personhood.ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.
0 -
Except questions you find inconvenient.end of the road wrote: »
i haven't dismissed or disregarded anything.
Please go back and address my post please.
Or simply say that you will not and explain why.
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109125819&postcount=91830 -
end of the road wrote: »i take mental health very seriously. it is very important that all of us look after our mental health. however i cannot and will not agree that it is okay to specifically and deliberately kill an unborn human being in the aim of treating mental health when mental health can be treated without doing so.
...............
Not when the pregnancy is the cause of the mental affliction, eg rape.0 -
end of the road wrote: »humanity is there.
Only in terms of taxonomy. Nothing AT ALL else.end of the road wrote: »humanity isn't simply having 2 legs, walking and talking etc. humanity is simply being of the human race.
That still does not answer the question I actually asked. Again. But you are right on one thing, Humanity is more than mere legs, or mere DNA, or any other trait. There is only one thing that distinguishes Humanity really from any other animal. For humanity is just another animal, right.
And that one thing that distinguishes it is the very thing that a fetus at 12 weeks simply does not have. The very thing you need to make your nonsense about rights meaningful. This is why you fail to answer the question, because you know the answer you want is not actually there.end of the road wrote: »at the main stage where it is on the way to developing personhood.
EXACTLY! On it's way to developing it. Which means it has not got it. It is not a person. Nothing. It is just a biological structure that will at some point be a human person.
Mere taxonomy alone is the only "human" aspect about it. Nothing to which we assign, or should assign, actual rights.
So once again I ask you WHY it should have rights and once again you simply can not answer.0 -
Advertisement
-
end of the road wrote: »
there is plenty of concern for both mother and baby hence my opposition to abortion on demand. she has plenty of options without resorting to killing her unborn child when there is no serious medical reason to do so. where there is such a serious medical reason then that is a different story and such a situation is not one where i have opposition to an abortion being carried out. the issue is about in most cases, the killing of unborn healthy human beings for what are in reality trivial reasons.
1. She doesn't need you to choose which options she can avail of.
2. She doesn't need to you to make the choice on her behalf by restricting certain options.
3. She doesn't need your opinion as to whether you feel its a trivial reason or not. Your opinion on whether its a trivial reason or not is completely irrelevant.
4. She doesn't need to be saved from herself by you.
5. She is more than capable of making up her own mind without you sticking your nose in.0 -
splinter65 wrote: »You do realise that in the 46 years since Roe vs Wade that the protests and objections arguments have never ceased? And this is replicated all over the civilized world?
It really isn't. America is very much an outlier and has a vast number of religious nutcases. In most of the rest of the world, abortion is not controversial.
BTW your constitutional right to protest is constrained by law. You can't protest wherever you want, whenever you want, and in whatever way you want. There is no suggestion from any credible source that I have seen which even suggests Harris's proposed law might be unconstitutional, and he will have taken the advice of the attorney general in this regard.splinter65 wrote: »but I voted no, I’m not even Irish
Only Irish citizens are allowed to vote in referendums
So, did you vote illegally?© 1982 Sinclair Research Ltd
0 -
On the other hand children with Downs Syndrome cost an awful lot in State resources and their numbers will drop to one in ten being born within five years so huge savings will be made there.
Unless we change the law again, that's just not going to happen. Any woman seeking to abort a DS pregnancy will have to go to the UK. But this has already been pointed out to you multiple times, so your motivation in repeatedly posting obvious falsehoods has to be called into question.© 1982 Sinclair Research Ltd
0 -
Society will be a lot better off those without the children of these scrotes, that is an undeniable fact.
I have to say that for somebody who's makes such a public fuss about being "pro-life", your commitment to the actual "life" bit of that does seem to waver, ever so slightly, from time to time.Economically speaking abortion will be great for our finances.0 -
So again, because none of you guys answered the very direct question:
Why would the doctors be unwilling to name themselves as refusing to offer abortion services?
By arguing that they should be allowed to remain anonymous, you are offering them protection from protests and interfering with people's rights to protest these people.
I answered your question yesterday. I gave you I think three possible reasons. You just want to keep pretending that you don’t get replies. I have no idea why you think that’s a good arguing strategy0 -
Except questions you find inconvenient.
Please go back and address my post please.
Or simply say that you will not and explain why.
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109125819&postcount=9183
that point was addressed by me. both in the post you quoted in the post you linked in and in a couple of others.ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.
0 -
Terrified old ppl scared of the ppl standing outside of their dr's offices in two counties and at least one other dr's offices disrupted for days due to callers on a loop objecting to the clinic being on 'my options'.
Not one of these ppl I mention have anything to do with the clinic's decision but still negatively impacted by these actions.
Not the riots in Venezuela as you say but still impacting on ppl who should not be involved in this at all. Just because YOU dont think its scary doesn't mean it isn't.
So where is your evidence of these “terrified old people”?0 -
Another reason why they are protesting :
Often when abortion is legalised, the overall rate goes down
1.) They are panicking in case this happens here ( over ... say 3 years etc)
2.) If the rate does go down, they'll claim it was their protesting that caused the reduction
.0 -
Hotblack Desiato wrote: »It really isn't. America is very much an outlier and has a vast number of religious nutcases. In most of the rest of the world, abortion is not controversial.
BTW your constitutional right to protest is constrained by law. You can't protest wherever you want, whenever you want, and in whatever way you want. There is no suggestion from any credible source that I have seen which even suggests Harris's proposed law might be unconstitutional, and he will have taken the advice of the attorney general in this regard.
Only Irish citizens are allowed to vote in referendums
So, did you vote illegally?
Where is your right to engage in peaceful assembly constrained by law, case law please.
The Constitution specifically states citizens have the right to peaceful assembly and in order to amend this right another referendum will have to be called. Any new laws introduced cannot conflict with fundamental constitutional rights. The Gardai can do nothing about peaceful assemblies except sit on their bikes looking on.0 -
Advertisement
-
Where is your right to engage in peaceful assembly constrained by law, case law please.
The Constitution specifically states citizens have the right to peaceful assembly and in order to amend this right another referendum will have to be called. Any new laws introduced cannot conflict with fundamental constitutional rights. The Gardai can do nothing about peaceful assemblies except sit on their bikes looking on.
Governments elsewhere fixed it with this sort of thing :
"The Council has had particular regard to the rights and freedoms set out in Article 10 (right of freedom of expression) and Article 11 (right of freedom of assembly) of the European Convention on Human Rights and has concluded that the restrictions on such rights and freedoms imposed by this Order are lawful, necessary and proportionate. "
"ORDER
ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR, CRIME AND POLICING ACT 2014, SECTION 59
PUBLIC SPACES PROTECTION ORDER
This order is made by the London Borough of Ealing (the ‘Council’) and shall be known as the Public Spaces Protection Order (Address) 2018.
PRELIMINARY
1. The Council, in making this Order is satisfied on reasonable grounds that:
The activities identified below have been carried out in public places within the Council’s area and have had a detrimental effect on the quality of life of those in the locality, and that: the effect, or likely effect, of the activities:
is, or is likely to be, of a persistent or continuing nature, is, or is likely to be, such as to make the activities unreasonable, and justifies the restrictions imposed by the notice.
2. The Council is satisfied that the prohibitions imposed by this Order are reasonable to impose in order to prevent the detrimental effect of these activities from continuing, occurring or recurring, or to reduce that detrimental effect or to reduce the risk of its continuance, occurrence or recurrence.
3. The Council has had regard to the rights and freedoms set out in the European Convention on Human Rights. The Council has had particular regard to the rights and freedoms set out in Article 10 (right of freedom of expression) and Article 11 (right of freedom of assembly) of the European Convention on Human Rights and has concluded that the restrictions on such rights and freedoms imposed by this Order are lawful, necessary and proportionate.
THE ACTIVITIES
4. The Activities prohibited by the Order are:
i Protesting, namely engaging in any act of approval/disapproval or attempted act of approval/disapproval, with respect to issues related to abortion services, by any means.
This includes but is not limited to graphic, verbal or written means, prayer or counselling,
ii Interfering, or attempting to interfere, whether verbally or physically, with a service user or member of staff,
iii Intimidating or harassing, or attempting to intimidate or harass, a service user or a member of staff,
iv Recording or photographing a service user or member of staff of the Clinic whilst they are in the Safe Zone,
v Displaying any text or images relating directly or indirectly to the termination of pregnancy, or
vi Playing or using amplified music, voice or audio recordings."
.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement