Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

oscarBravo

Electric Sex Pants wrote: »

I never said it was murder, i said it was killing, the child is alive and after the abortion its dead, thats killing a child.

It's not a child.

Electric Sex Pants

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's not a child.

Yes it is.

Cabaal

Electric Sex Pants wrote: »

Yes it is.

Except its not, its a fetus. If you think a fetus is like a child that's born then by all means pick the "child" below (without using google)

oscarBravo

Electric Sex Pants wrote: »

Yes it is.

So killing it is murder?

Electric Sex Pants

Cabaal wrote: »

Except its not, its a fetus. If you think a fetus is like a child that's born then by all means pick the "child" below (without using google)

So what??? just because they look alike somehow they are all the same?

Electric Sex Pants

oscarBravo wrote: »

So killing it is murder?

There are alot of different kinds of killing, murder is just one of them.

One eyed Jack

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

I'm talking about the proportion of pro-lifers who are agnostic/atheist. In the real world, as far as I can tell, this is negligible, whereas on the Internet it appears to be very high. The only reasonable explanation of this that I can see is that a significant number of the cyber-warriors are telling porkies...

That's the key difference though between the offline and online worlds - you're not going to get as much variation of opinion among your peers offline as you will get online among people who aren't your peers. Of course it appears very high on the internet, because it confirms your bias. That doesn't mean they're telling porkies.

For example I know far more people who are non-religious who are pro-life, and most of my friends are women, than I know people who are even religious! I'm religious myself, and "pro-choice" (I explained earlier the reason why I normally neither identify as either pro-choice or pro-life - because both sides are as bad as each other, two cheeks of the same arse basically), so I wouldn't assume automatically that people are telling porkies online either, until I see my friends who are pro-life offline, espousing a pro-choice position online.

I'm not going to question them about it though, they're my friends, and I don't like putting people in awkward positions like that, unless they start pointing fingers. Then I'm going to suggest they remove the beam from their own eye before they pass judgement on anyone else.

oscarBravo

Electric Sex Pants wrote: »

There are alot of different kinds of killing, murder is just one of them.

You're claiming that abortion is killing a child. How is that not murder?

One eyed Jack

Electric Sex Pants wrote: »

I never said it was murder, i said it was killing, the child is alive and after the abortion its dead, thats killing a child.

No, this was your original question:

Electric Sex Pants wrote: »

So she has the right to kill a child?

Now you might like to play fast and loose with your layman's terms, but your misunderstanding of the legal system does not make you correct and everyone else wrong.

A legal abortion procedure is performed by medical professionals, not by the pregnant woman herself, because no woman has the right to kill her own unborn child, because that would indeed be the unlawful destruction of human life, for which a woman could face prosecution.

I would suggest reading the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act if you want to get familiar with some of the legal definitions instead of applying layman's terms as though they are legally recognised.

Cabaal

oscarBravo wrote: »

You're claiming that abortion is killing a child. How is that not murder?

Its a good one,
If the abortion is intentional and abortion is killing then somebody has intentionally killed a "child" but thats not murder according to Electric Sex Pants.

Must remember that next time I read a case about somebody murdering something, its not actually murder when they planned it all out.

Cabaal

Electric Sex Pants wrote: »

So what??? just because they look alike somehow they are all the same?

You keep saying its a child but you've provided nothing to support this,
Any evidence shown to you that it is not equal to a child you simply disregard

So where's your evidence that for example a 10 week old fetus is equal to a child?

Loafing Oaf

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's the key difference though between the offline and online worlds - you're not going to get as much variation of opinion among your peers offline as you will get online among people who aren't your peers. Of course it appears very high on the internet, because it confirms your bias. That doesn't mean they're telling porkies.

For example I know far more people who are non-religious who are pro-life, and most of my friends are women, than I know people who are even religious! I'm religious myself, and "pro-choice" (I explained earlier the reason why I normally neither identify as either pro-choice or pro-life - because both sides are as bad as each other, two cheeks of the same arse basically), so I wouldn't assume automatically that people are telling porkies online either, until I see my friends who are pro-life offline, espousing a pro-choice position online.

I'm not going to question them about it though, they're my friends, and I don't like putting people in awkward positions like that, unless they start pointing fingers. Then I'm going to suggest they remove the beam from their own eye before they pass judgement on anyone else.

Well I have no way of verifying what you are saying about your peer group, and the same would go for you and mine. The only empirically testable way of helping to resolve this issue that I can think of is to look at the public figures who describe themselves as pro-life/anti-abortion. Could you name even one in Ireland who is a declared atheist/agnostic?

Or if you have any other solid evidence that significant numbers of pro-life people are non-religious I'd be very interested to hear...

One eyed Jack

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Well I have no way of verifying what you are saying about your peer group, and the same would go for you and mine. The only empirically testable way of helping to resolve this issue that I can think of is to look at the public figures who describe themselves as pro-life/anti-abortion. Could you name even one in Ireland who is a declared atheist/agnostic?

I don't think there even is any testable way of proving anything one way or the other as people are inherently inconsistent.

For example, former Irish President Mary McAleese identifies as a Roman Catholic feminist who advocated a Yes vote in the marriage equality referendum, and who is pro-life, and then there is a group in the States called 'Catholics for Choice', who, obviously, are pro-choice.

I can't even think of too many public figures in Ireland who identify as non-religious or atheist, and yet survey after survey suggests that there is massive public support for broadening current legislation regarding abortion.

It appears as though people hold different views in private to the views they express in public.

Or if you have any other solid evidence that significant numbers of pro-life people are non-religious I'd be very interested to hear...

I really don't I'm afraid, although I never said there were significant numbers either. I have no doubt they're a fairly small number, as are the numbers of pro-choice people, and then there is the vast majority of people who are in between and have no particular opinion either way on the issue.

Shawn Michaels

This is not a topic that I would get involved with normally, but I was struck by that article in the weekend's Irish Times about the woman whose IUD failed. A touching story, but my reading of it was that ultimately it was the hassle of having to travel to the UK that stopped her from having an abortion. Now they have a baby who they love. I'll be shot by the pro-choicers, but the law as it stands saved that child's life. I do not want to see abortion in this country, other than in circumstances such as the Savita case (which wasn't abortion per se).

One eyed Jack

Shawn Michaels wrote: »

This is not a topic that I would get involved with normally, but I was struck by that article in the weekend's Irish Times about the woman whose IUD failed. A touching story, but my reading of it was that ultimately it was the hassle of having to travel to the UK that stopped her from having an abortion. Now they have a baby who they love. I'll be shot by the pro-choicers, but the law as it stands saved that child's life. I do not want to see abortion in this country, other than in circumstances such as the Savita case (which wasn't abortion per se).

I don't think anyone would shoot you for that (it usually turns out that the only shooting done in relation to abortion is done by pro-life people, ironically!). Her story had a good outcome for her, and that's great, for her. But for many women in this country who give birth because they do not have the means to avail of an abortion, the story is not so good, either for themselves, or the children that they gave birth to.

I know personally of one man who fathered many children by a couple of different mothers, and he has neglected every single one of them. That's quite a number of children who don't have their father in their lives, and their mothers are basically unavailable to them due to ill mental health and other issues.

What sort of a life is that for those children?

The Randy Riverbeast

Shawn Michaels wrote: »

This is not a topic that I would get involved with normally, but I was struck by that article in the weekend's Irish Times about the woman whose IUD failed. A touching story, but my reading of it was that ultimately it was the hassle of having to travel to the UK that stopped her from having an abortion. Now they have a baby who they love. I'll be shot by the pro-choicers, but the law as it stands saved that child's life. I do not want to see abortion in this country, other than in circumstances such as the Savita case (which wasn't abortion per se).

Cant say Im fond of the idea that the protection a child has is affected by the wealth of the parents.

It can be abortion or not abortion. Savita didn't have one afaik.

Shawn Michaels

She had booked flights, but didn't travel etc...the sense I got was that if there was a clinic in Ireland, the child who she now loves wouldn't be alive. A very thought provoking article.

One eyed Jack

Shawn Michaels wrote: »

She had booked flights, but didn't travel etc...the sense I got was that if there was a clinic in Ireland, the child who she now loves wouldn't be alive. A very though provoking article.

Tbh when I read stories like that, I think it's fantastic for those women and their children, but I never lose sight of the fact that were abortion available in this country, and women given a choice, there would be far less children born who are abused and neglected by their parents in this country.

We have to trust women to be able to make choices for themselves, because that doesn't just benefit women, but it benefits children too in that they aren't born into suffering from the moment they're born.

Electric Sex Pants

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, this was your original question:





Now you might like to play fast and loose with your layman's terms, but your misunderstanding of the legal system does not make you correct and everyone else wrong.

A legal abortion procedure is performed by medical professionals, not by the pregnant woman herself, because no woman has the right to kill her own unborn child, because that would indeed be the unlawful destruction of human life, for which a woman could face prosecution.

I would suggest reading the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act if you want to get familiar with some of the legal definitions instead of applying layman's terms as though they are legally recognised.

I am not talking about legality, I am talking about morality!

oscarBravo

Electric Sex Pants wrote: »

I am not talking about legality, I am talking about morality!

Right, but you're also talking about killing children. How is that not murder?

One eyed Jack

Electric Sex Pants wrote: »

I am not talking about legality, I am talking about morality!

Your personal morality then is a whole different ball game. At that rate you could say whatever the hell you like and it would be completely irrelevant because it has no legal standing. That's the problem with introducing your personal morality into the discussion. You have to acknowledge that other people will reject the imposition of your personal morality because they will sooner apply their own personal morality, thereby rendering your imposition irrelevant.

eviltwin

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Tbh when I read stories like that, I think it's fantastic for those women and their children, but I never lose sight of the fact that were abortion available in this country, and women given a choice, there would be far less children born who are abused and neglected by their parents in this country.

We have to trust women to be able to make choices for themselves, because that doesn't just benefit women, but it benefits children too in that they aren't born into suffering from the moment they're born.

That story wouldn't be quite as heart warming if the mum was a single girl on welfare and the baby was her third or fourth. Or maybe I'm just being cynical

Absolam

eviltwin wrote: »

You have an opinion that's all. You can't force a woman to continue a pregnancy she doesn't want to keep.

That's an opinion. It's readily apparent a woman could be detained and forced to carry a pregnancy to term, if you actually wanted to force a woman to continue a pregnancy she doesn't want to keep. It may be illegal, it may be wrong, but it can be done.

eviltwin wrote: »

A woman has the right to have an abortion. As OEJ said it's not a child. No country that has abortion is okay with people killing children.

Nope. In some countries a woman may be permitted to avail of, even entitled to have, an abortion in certain circumstances. In Ireland a doctor/doctors may decide a woman's unborn child should be aborted, though a woman may refuse. That's quite a different thing to the wildly inaccurate blanket statement that a woman has a right to have an abortion.

aloyisious

Shawn Michaels wrote: »

She had booked flights, but didn't travel etc...the sense I got was that if there was a clinic in Ireland, the child who she now loves wouldn't be alive. A very thought provoking article.

Her attitude towards the feotus in her womb changed as time went, firstly (as I recall) when she learned the pregnancy was NOT ectopic. She and her partner decided that the pregnancy would proceed to birth and she ditched thoughts about having the baby put up for adoption afterwards, instead keeping her in the family. One major point in the story is that she never changed her opinion from pro-choice to pro-life and still supports other womens right to choose.

Cabaal

Prepare for another goverment to kick the issue down the road and ignore any polls on the matter
:mad:

http://www.thejournal.ie/government-talks-independent-deal-2752630-May2016/

The draft programme has a proposal for the establishment of a citizens assembly which will look at issues including the repeal of the controversial 8th amendment of the constitution

No doubt it'll have a randomly selected priest on it, either that or an Iona member at random

aloyisious

If I recall correctly from what was in the papers a few months ago, the Citizens Assembly would send recommendations to the Govt, who would turn them over to a committee of the Dail to consider. The committee would provide a report to the Govt and Oireachtas recommending what to do about the 8th; legislation or referendum. The only success would be a delay in acting one way or the other, coincidentally something politicians like when faced with awkward decisions affecting their standing at constituency level.

The Black Oil

Dollars, innit.

https://twitter.com/loughlin/status/728872090477137920

https://twitter.com/loughlin/status/728873071042539520

Cabaal

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/exclusive-audio-abortion-law-an-outrage-says-wife-of-president-34696971.html

Exclusive audio: Abortion law 'an outrage' says wife of President
President's wife weighs into the Eighth Amendment debate

....went on to describe the fact that a woman may be made to carry a pregnancy to term in such circumstances "an outrage against women".

and she's certainly correct, it's an insane setup

Lurkio

...the "incubator" as was predicted by a number of folk.

Wouldn't say she'll be getting e-mailed thanks from Edna and co over that one.

aloyisious

The Black Oil wrote: »

Dollars, innit.

https://twitter.com/loughlin/status/728872090477137920

https://twitter.com/loughlin/status/728873071042539520

I assume this possible link to a US charity wouldn't affect the Irish Charity's standing in irish law?