Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

nozzferrahhtoo

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

I personally have met many pro choice ppl who try to dismiss, deny, or ignore that there is a viable life involved in abortion.

See how you are now shifting the goal posts though? In the post I replied to you said "two lives". Nothing more. Now you have introduced a new word "viable". You are back-pedaling what I rebutted as if no one will notice.

However I can only take your word for it that these people you claim to have met exist. And I do not take your word for it. I have not seen them on this forum. Or any other forum. And for all the work I did running up to the referendum...... and I did a LOT of work at that time..... and met a LOT of campaigners and people on the ground..... I met not one single person fitting your description.

The reality of the pro choice position in the people I met and worked with, and in me myself, is that they are perfectly aware of the fact it is "life". They just do not think the word "Life" alone is a relevant or useful or informative term in the context. It is a "life". So the hell what? So was the cow that went into the last burger I ate.

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

I also have witnessed pro choice ppl laughing and joking about it. So I stand by my original comments -some ppl try to avoid the reality.

Yes the people who just hide behind the word "life" like you do are indeed trying to ignore and avoid the reality. You should stop. Because the reality is that a 12 week gestated blob is not a person and is not even a "Life" in many senses of the word we mean it when we go around killing, say, a Cow for meat.

The reality is it is a completely non-sentient blob of living matter with no coherent basis for us affording it moral or ethical concern. The woman in which it is contained however.... very much is.

THAT is the reality that gets avoided. You need to get hip to it. Because your empty "it is life" rhetoric is what lost you guys the referendum and you lost it hard.

Beechwoodspark

Ok. Science 101. I hope everyone even at the back of the class is paying attention.

Biology shows that every human baby that is born is the direct consequence of developing in the womb for 9 months (with the exception of premature births obviously).

If it is decided to kill the unborn baby at 12 weeks say, or at ANY stage of its development, then the potential that child had of reaching full term has been destroyed.

That’s obvious and clear although I do realise that “pro choice” ppl don’t like contemplating it.

nozzferrahhtoo

^The pointlessly patronizing opening to that post aside, nothing you are saying in the rest of it is actually rebutting anything anyone is saying to you. Least of all me. You are pretending to be dumbing down stuff that no one has actually taken issue with, disagreed with, called into contention, or displayed even a modicum of ignorance of.

So these people who are not "contemplating it" as per your ongoing claim appear to be existing solely and entirely in your head. You claim to have met them. At least twice now. I simply suspect this to not be true.

eviltwin

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Ok. Science 101. I hope everyone even at the back of the class is paying attention

Biology shows that every human baby that is born is the direct consequence of developing in the womb for 9 months (with the exception of premature births obviously).

If it is decided to kill the unborn baby at 12 weeks say, or at ANY stage of its development, then the potential that child had of reaching full term has been destroyed.

That’s obvious and clear although I do realise that “pro choice” ppl don’t like contemplating it.

Why are we back to this again?

We've got the laws we've got, regardless of your personal opinion on the rights and wrongs of abortion women who chose to have one are not doing anything wrong and should be given the respect and privacy to exercise that choice without fear.

I have no problem with anyone sharing information about other options but there is a time and place. Unsolicited information on a public pavement on the day of her procedure is not it but information was never the intention here was it?

Hotblack Desiato

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

I personally have met many pro choice ppl

Oh wait, what's this? are you a "pro choice ppl" ?

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

I was a yes voter But from talking to some no voters they are totally against abortion of healthy babies.

I think that some no voters would’ve voted yes if the proposal was limited but it included the 12 week provision which was unacceptable to them.

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

No, I said at least once before on this thread that I was a yes voter. Can find the past messages if you wish.

So.. .here you are on this thread going on about harassing women to 'save lives'

Yet you say you were a yes voter in the full knowledge that this would lead to abortion on demand up to 12 weeks and this was acceptable to you

So, which of your posts above represents your true position - if any of them do?

Beechwoodspark

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Oh wait, what's this?





So.. .here you are on this thread going on about harassing women to 'save lives'

Yet you say you were a yes voter in the full knowledge that this would lead to abortion on demand up to 12 weeks and this was acceptable to you

So, which of your posts above represents your true position - if any of them do?

See above.I Do not condone harassment. Made that clear

oldrnwisr

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Ok. Science 101. I hope everyone even at the back of the class is paying attention.

Biology shows that every human baby that is born is the direct consequence of developing in the womb for 9 months (with the exception of premature births obviously).

If it is decided to kill the unborn baby at 12 weeks say, or at ANY stage of its development, then the potential that child had of reaching full term has been destroyed.

That’s obvious and clear although I do realise that “pro choice” ppl don’t like contemplating it.

OK, here's the thing.


What we're talking about here is a balance of rights debate. We have a mother and a conceptus, whose rights may, at some point come into conflict. What we have to decide is where along the line from conception to birth we should draw the line so that a fair balance of rights is achieved.


You see, we don't let people buy alcohol in Ireland until they're 18. But a person who is 17 years and 364 days old isn't any more or less responsible about alcohol than someone who is 18 years and 0 days old. You're drawing a line in a continuous process. Its just that 18 is a convenient demarcation to recognise that a step change in the person's maturity has occurred.

Similarly, we need to draw a line somewhere in the developmental process that recognises that the foetus is no longer just a clump of cells but is an individual that merits consideration.


Saying, as you have, that "killling" the unborn at ANY stage of development represents destroying the potential child with the obvious implication that brings is a bad argument. You see, a fertilised egg isn't alive in any meaningful sense of the word. It isn't possible to formulate a definition of life which would simultaneously include the zygote and exclude the sperm and egg which went before.


Of course most developmental biologists, already recognise this:


For example in Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects, Moore and Persaud write:

"Human development begins at conception or fertilization when a male gamete or sperm fuses with a female gamete or ovum to form a zygote (Br. zygotos, yoked together). This highly specialized, totipotent cell is the primordium of a new human being. By birth the zygote has given rise to millions of cells . Although large, the zygote is just visible to the unaided eye. It contains chromosomes and genes (units of genetic information) derived from the mother and father."

or as Lewis Wolpert, author of Principles of Development puts it:

"What I’m concerned with is how you develop. I know that you all think about it perpetually that you come from one single cell of a fertilized egg. I don’t want to get involved in religion but that is not a human being. I’ve spoken to these eggs many times and they make it quite clear … they are not a human being."

A zygote is just as Moore and Persaud describe it, a highly specialised totipotent cell. It has no heartbeat, no brainwave pattern, nothing that we would recognise as a unique individual. It is not meaningfully a human being in any sense of the word and describing it as such is arguing from a fallacy of equivocation.

Hotblack Desiato

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Ok. Science 101. I hope everyone even at the back of the class is paying attention.

Biology shows that every human baby that is born is the direct consequence of developing in the womb for 9 months (with the exception of premature births obviously).

If it is decided to kill the unborn baby at 12 weeks say, or at ANY stage of its development, then the potential that child had of reaching full term has been destroyed.

That’s obvious and clear although I do realise that “pro choice” ppl don’t like contemplating it.

Ah so you've now flip-flopped yet again, from 'viable life' to potential, you'll have a hard job finding any pro-choice person who denies that an implanted embryo is a potential life and that would be a pretty stupid claim to make tbh.

Hotblack Desiato

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

See above.I Do not condone harassment. Made that clear

Non-answer.

eviltwin

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

See above.I Do not condone harassment. Made that clear

So you said.

You do support protest though

The question is, does intercepting a woman on her way to have an abortion come under the definition of a protest. Is it harassment? That might not be the intention but if the woman, staff and other service users feel harassed then it becomes a problem that needs to be dealt with.

Odhinn

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

See above.I Do not condone harassment. Made that clear

So you won't condone the whole hanging around car parks thing?

Beechwoodspark

eviltwin wrote: »

So you said.

You do support protest though

The question is, does intercepting a woman on her way to have an abortion come under the definition of a protest. Is it harassment? That might not be the intention but if the woman, staff and other service users feel harassed then it becomes a problem that needs to be dealt with.

I support legal protest yes. Regardless of which side the protestors are on. It’s a basic civil liberty.

eviltwin

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

I support legal protest yes. Regardless of which side the protestors are on. It’s a basic civil liberty.

Do you consider intercepting women who are about to have an abortion as protest?

Beechwoodspark

eviltwin wrote: »

Do you consider intercepting women who are about to have an abortion as protest?

As I earlier stated I’m happy for the courts to hammer this out but generally I’m ok with information services and protests in public areas adjacent to TDs offices, Leinster House, hospitals/GPs once they are lawful and not obstructing rights of way.

I don’t condone screaming and shouting at women passing by if that’s what you are asking. I also don’t condone graphic imagery etc. On either side.

SusieBlue

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

As I earlier stated I’m happy for the courts to hammer this out but generally I’m ok with information services and protests in public areas adjacent to TDs offices, Leinster House, hospitals/GPs once they are lawful and not obstructing rights of way.

I don’t condone screaming and shouting at women passing by if that’s what you are asking. I also don’t condone graphic imagery etc. On either side.

Do you think its acceptable to approach upset looking women in car parks outside maternity hospitals in an effort to simply provide "information services"?

Beechwoodspark

SusieBlue wrote: »

Do you think its acceptable to approach upset looking women in car parks outside maternity hospitals in an effort to simply provide "information services"?

This is all so vague I find it hard to give answers to these scenarios

Say a trained counselor approaches a woman in a hospital carpark and offers support and advice. Is this to be made unlawful? You tell me.

Odhinn

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

This is all so vague I find it hard to give answers to these scenarios

That was a quite clear and specific scenario.

eviltwin

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

As I earlier stated I’m happy for the courts to hammer this out but generally I’m ok with information services and protests in public areas adjacent to TDs offices, Leinster House, hospitals/GPs once they are lawful and not obstructing rights of way.

I don’t condone screaming and shouting at women passing by if that’s what you are asking. I also don’t condone graphic imagery etc. On either side.

So you have no problem with someone who may be vulnerable and open to coercion to be targeted by someone with a specific agenda?

Does this work the other way? Are you okay with people standing outside crisis pregnancy agencies trying to convince a woman to have an abortion?

Bredabe

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

This is all so vague I find it hard to give answers to these scenarios

Say a trained counselor approaches a woman in a hospital carpark and offers support and advice. Is this to be made unlawful? You tell me.

Trained cllr's who are attached to the person's case, has an agreement on boundaries for situations like this.

Cllr's who dont have this agreement in place, and approach unless that person is in danger, are harassing the person in question and would be disciplined by their governing body.

eviltwin

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

This is all so vague I find it hard to give answers to these scenarios

Say a trained counselor approaches a woman in a hospital carpark and offers support and advice. Is this to be made unlawful? You tell me.

These people won't be trained counsellors and any legitimate counsellor wouldn't behave that way.

King Mob

Here's a clear scenario:
A person who is not a trained counselor, but who has been trained by a foreign anti-abortion group, goes up to a woman who he deems to "look upset" due to his "training."
This person then gives the woman information she neither wants, nor requires and then engages in trying to convince her of seeking other services that are specifically biased.
And let us also say that this information is rife with lies and propaganda and the person also uses disturbing and upsetting images in their signage and leaflets.

Ok, or not ok?

Beechwoodspark

King Mob wrote: »

Here's a clear scenario:
A person who is not a trained counselor, but who has been trained by a foreign anti-abortion group, goes up to a woman who he deems to "look upset" due to his "training."
This person then gives the woman information she neither wants, nor requires and then engages in trying to convince her of seeking other services that are specifically biased.
And let us also say that this information is rife with lies and propaganda and the person also uses disturbing and upsetting images in their signage and leaflets.

Ok, or not ok?

Just on the specifics. I don’t condone the bias or lies or propaganda imagery in your scenario. Such a person should not be providing medical advice to ppl full stop. Presumably there are medical council rules against it.

But in general -

If the woman is happy to engage the other person in conversation and assuming they are both adults in their full faculties, I don’t see the problem.

If the woman says go away no interest then all things being equal the other person should take heed and head off into the sunset.

It would head into harassment type behaviour if the person disregarded the woman’s wishes and kept engaging with her against her will.

But I mean, this is a free country, she potentially could ring the guards I suppose but what good will they do in such a situation?

I often see “chuggers” etc “harassing” ppl on the street. They avoid them and walk on.

Is it that the woman should somehow be chaperoned in and out of the hospital to avoid contact with these random ppl hanging around?

Hotblack Desiato

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Say a trained counselor approaches a woman in a hospital carpark and offers support and advice. Is this to be made unlawful? You tell me.

Your fanciful scenario would be extremely unprofressional and inappropriate.

Also you can get lost with your Trumpian "on both sides" nonsense. There is, and has only ever been, one side attempting to harass and intimidate vulnerable people using aggressive protest and graphic imagery.



FWIW I'll ask again, but you've already dodged the question once:

Yet you say you were a yes voter in the full knowledge that this would lead to abortion on demand up to 12 weeks and this was acceptable to you

So, which of your posts above represents your true position - if any of them do?

Beechwoodspark

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Your fanciful scenario would be extremely unprofressional and inappropriate.

Also you can get lost with your Trumpian "on both sides" nonsense. There is, and has only ever been, one side attempting to harass and intimidate vulnerable people using aggressive protest and graphic imagery.



FWIW I'll ask again, but you've already dodged the question once:

I was a yes voter. Not sure how I’d vote if it were held again. I have no interest in this being about me. It is about the debate of the issues.

Hotblack Desiato

The issues have been debated at great length, a referendum was held, the legislation has been passed, the debate of the issue is long over. Yet here you are with biology lessons and "potential life" talk like it's 2 years ago

So what exactly has changed in the last 9 months if you were happy to vote last May for repeal in the knowledge it would lead to abortion on demand up to 12 weeks? and now you're sticking up for obnoxious protestors and talking about "saving lives"?

King Mob

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Just on the specifics. I don’t condone the bias or lies or propaganda imagery in your scenario. Such a person should not be providing medical advice to ppl full stop. Presumably there are medical council rules against it.

Well we already have countless examples of these kind of anti-abortion cranks using such lies.
You assuming that these guys, who are being told to seek out and target people who look like they are upset and in distress, won't stoop to using similar misinformation is incredibly naive.

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

If the woman is happy to engage the other person in conversation and assuming they are both adults in their full faculties, I don’t see the problem.

If the woman says go away no interest then all things being equal the other person should take heed and head off into the sunset.

It would head into harassment type behaviour if the person disregarded the woman’s wishes and kept engaging with her against her will.

But again, the person is seeking out people who look upset and who are on their way into the clinic.
It should be a given that such people aren't interested in talking to random punters who want to stick their nose in their medical business.

And again, they are already using slimy tactics like targeting upset people. Assuming that they'll just politely go away is naive to the point of dishonesty.

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

I often see “chuggers” etc “harassing” ppl on the street. They avoid them and walk on.

But again, those people aren't upset and the "chuggers" aren't trying to stick their nose into their medical business.
Not comparable.

But you bring up a good point. Why can't these anti-abortion people offer their information on the high street instead of at a medical facility?
Oh.. right... the targets...

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Is it that the woman should somehow be chaperoned in and out of the hospital to avoid contact with these random ppl hanging around?

Or... crazy thought... some kind of "exclusion zone" to stop people from harassing them...

oldrnwisr

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Just on the specifics. I don’t condone the bias or lies or propaganda imagery in your scenario. Such a person should not be providing medical advice to ppl full stop. Presumably there are medical council rules against it.

The medical council doesn't have rules against it. Well, they do, but only for doctors. Because the medical council only regulates the behaviour and conduct of doctors. But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about some guy, just an ordinary person who is, without being solicited, engaging women entering hospitals and trying to persuade them using misinformation. This is not covered by anything the medical council does.



Which is why we need some kind of legislation about what constitutes an acceptable protest, which is what we've been discussing here. Unfortunately, all you've managed to contribute so far is that people should be allowed to protest, but not harass, that you don't condone harassment but won't say what it is, although if it saves lives you might be ok with it and that exclusion zones are bad while acknowledging that there are legitimate forms of protest and illegitimate ones. Like I said, mixed messages.

Beechwoodspark

oldrnwisr wrote: »

The medical council doesn't have rules against it. Well, they do, but only for doctors. Because the medical council only regulates the behaviour and conduct of doctors. But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about some guy, just an ordinary person who is, without being solicited, engaging women entering hospitals and trying to persuade them using misinformation. This is not covered by anything the medical council does.



Which is why we need some kind of legislation about what constitutes an acceptable protest, which is what we've been discussing here. Unfortunately, all you've managed to contribute so far is that people should be allowed to protest, but not harass, that you don't condone harassment but won't say what it is, although if it saves lives you might be ok with it and that exclusion zones are bad while acknowledging that there are legitimate forms of protest and illegitimate ones. Like I said, mixed messages.

I said about twice or three times I’m happy for the courts to adjudicate on it. And I said I am definitely supportive of the right to assemble and protest. Basic civil liberty.

volchitsa

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Let the legal eagles hammer that out and let the courts rule on it. I’m not in anyway an expert on it

So now you don't actually have an opinion on the matter. :rolleyes:

That's funny because that's not what you were saying earlier.

volchitsa

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

I said about twice or three times I’m happy for the courts to adjudicate on it. And I said I am definitely supportive of the right to assemble and protest. Basic civil liberty.

You would be hard pushed to find someone here who would disagree that there has to be a basic right to assemble and protest. The question you're being asked here is how you justify - as you seemed to do earlier - women being publicly harangued and/or lied to under the pretext of "providing information" as being part of that basic civil liberty.