Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

ABC101

lazygal wrote: »

And any chance of you telling us how your List of Shame would work for women and children who have abortions?

People who have no shame, are not easily shamed.

lazygal

ABC101 wrote: »

People who have no shame, are not easily shamed.

Frosty wants women and children who have abortions to have their names published on a list to shame them. What do you think, would that help the unborn?

PopePalpatine

lazygal wrote: »

And any chance of you telling us how your List of Shame would work for women and children who have abortions?

Probably like dumping a feminist's contact details on some shithole like /pol/ or Stormfront.

ABC101

lazygal wrote: »

What principles count? That women and children who can't afford abortions must stay pregnant?
Is there any bias in selecting a period in which a decomposing woman is being used as an incubator to promote the idea of media bias?

The principle of a humans right to life been upheld because it counts, because it is valued.

No nothing to do with money, pregnant women should be encouraged to deliver their precious baby healthily.

Many times it is the environment in which the woman lives which is at fault, not the fact that she is pregnant. Pregnancy is a wonderful natural event, and it should always be that way for all women.

WRT a decomposing body, not all of the 3500 (assuming this figure is correct?) women going abroad annually for abortions have decomposing bodies.

ABC101

lazygal wrote: »

ABC101 wrote: »

People who have no shame, are not easily shamed.

Frosty wants women and children who have abortions to have their names published on a list to shame them. What do you think, would that help the unborn?

It was you who brought up a list of Shame, not Frosty.

Frosty only asked who made you God.

I only highlighted that trying to shame a shameless person is rather futile. As you would well know.

Delirium

frostyjacks wrote: »

A brain-dead woman recently gave birth to a healthy baby. If you had your way, that child would never have seen the light of day. Who made you God?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/08/baby-born-to-brain-dead-mother-in-portugal

proving that some people are viewing women as nothing more than incubators (i.e dead womans body is kept alive for 4 months to allow foetus to develop).

ABC101

Delirium wrote: »

proving that some people are viewing women as nothing more than incubators (i.e dead womans body is kept alive for 4 months to allow foetus to develop).

Not quiet correct, technically a womb can be viewed as an type of incubator, providing the perfect environment for the developing baby.

To expand on this as some people view women as incubators is unfair.

lazygal

ABC101 wrote: »

The principle of a humans right to life been upheld because it counts, because it is valued.

No nothing to do with money, pregnant women should be encouraged to deliver their precious baby healthily.

Many times it is the environment in which the woman lives which is at fault, not the fact that she is pregnant. Pregnancy is a wonderful natural event, and it should always be that way for all women.

WRT a decomposing body, not all of the 3500 (assuming this figure is correct?) women going abroad annually for abortions have decomposing bodies.

Was pregnancy a wonderful natural event for Miss X, a raped 14 year old child?
Money means you can have an abortion.I can afford as many as I want. Poor women and children can't. Is that fair?

lazygal

ABC101 wrote: »

Not quiet correct, technically a womb can be viewed as an type of incubator, providing the perfect environment for the developing baby.

To expand on this as some people view women as incubators is unfair.

How do you view pregnant women and children? Can they choose whether to remain pregnant?

lazygal

ABC101 wrote: »

It was you who brought up a list of Shame, not Frosty.

Frosty only asked who made you God.

I only highlighted that trying to shame a shameless person is rather futile. As you would well know.

Are women and children who have abortions shameless?

Delirium

ABC101 wrote: »

Not quiet correct, technically a womb can be viewed as an type of incubator, providing the perfect environment for the developing baby.

To expand on this as some people view women as incubators is unfair.

not at all, woman dies and the body is kept alive to grow the foetus. That's pretty much using the dead womans body as an incubator.

And when you remove the womans right to choose to carry a pregnancy to term you reduce her to an incubator, i.e. she got pregnant and it's now her function to carry the foetus to term.

ABC101

lazygal wrote: »

Was pregnancy a wonderful natural event for Miss X, a raped 14 year old child?
Money means you can have an abortion.I can afford as many as I want. Poor women and children can't. Is that fair?

The X case was not a case of a rape in the normally understood event, although many pro choice / pro abortionist campaigners will never admit this fact.

The X case was a underage girl who was dating a man in his 20's or 30's with the full knowledge of her parents.

In the course of the relationship, the underage girl was raped on a technicality, I.e. Because she was under the age for consent it was considered rape.

It was not because she was coming home from school and in some dark alley way she was beaten half senseless and violently abused by some twisted stranger.

The entire fiasco could have been avoided if the parents had done their job as parents, told the man to sod off and that he has no business around their daughter. I know I would have.

These days somebody behaving that way would be considered a pedophile.

Nobody said life would be fair.

Given the fact you have lots on money you can always give your money to women who are seeking abortions.

lazygal

ABC101 wrote: »

The X case was not a case of a rape in the normally understood event, although many pro choice / pro abortionist campaigners will never admit this fact.

The X case was a underage girl who was dating a man in his 20's or 30's with the full knowledge of her parents.

In the course of the relationship, the underage girl was raped on a technicality, I.e. Because she was under the age for consent it was considered rape.

It was not because she was coming home from school and in some dark alley way she was beaten half senseless and violently abused by some twisted stranger.

The entire fiasco could have been avoided if the parents had done their job as parents, told the man to sod off and that he has no business around their daughter. I know I would have.

These days somebody behaving that way would be considered a pedophile.

Nobody said life would be fair.

Given the fact you have lots on money you can always give your money to women who are seeking abortions.

Or spend your money on getting yourself pregnant and enjoy playing God by travelling abroad for late term abortions.

My my. I think you've really shown us your true colours here. Do you also think in cases of legitimate rape girls can shut everything down and not get pregnant?

ABC101

On the contrary Lazygal, it is you who has shown your true colours.

lazygal

ABC101 wrote: »

On the contrary Lazygal, it is you who has shown your true colours.

I'm open about how I feel about abortion.
Any comments on legitimate rape and pregnancy?
Do you think its only rape if it's a stranger in a dark alley and extraneous violence is involved?

volchitsa

ABC101 wrote: »

The X case was not a case of a rape in the normally understood event, although many pro choice / pro abortionist campaigners will never admit this fact.

The X case was a underage girl who was dating a man in his 20's or 30's with the full knowledge of her parents.

In the course of the relationship, the underage girl was raped on a technicality, I.e. Because she was under the age for consent it was considered rape.

It was not because she was coming home from school and in some dark alley way she was beaten half senseless and violently abused by some twisted stranger.

The entire fiasco could have been avoided if the parents had done their job as parents, told the man to sod off and that he has no business around their daughter.

Are you saying that the parents were aware of a relationship between the two, and considered them as boyfriend and girlfriend?

Id be interested to know where you're getting that form, because it's not my recollection of the case, in fact my memory of it is that he was married.

Delirium

volchitsa wrote: »

Are you saying that the parents were aware of a relationship between the two, and considered them as boyfriend and girlfriend?

Id be interested to know where you're getting that form, because it's not my recollection of the case, in fact my memory of it is that he was married.

A 14-year-old girl is raped by a man known to her and her family. She becomes pregnant and it is later discovered that the teenager was being sexually abused by the same man for the previous two years.

Court judgements subsequently call him an “evil and depraved” man

source.

As you can see there's no mention of dating at all.

stinkle

ABC101 wrote: »

The X case was not a case of a rape in the normally understood event, although many pro choice / pro abortionist campaigners will never admit this fact.

The X case was a underage girl who was dating a man in his 20's or 30's with the full knowledge of her parents.

In the course of the relationship, the underage girl was raped on a technicality, I.e. Because she was under the age for consent it was considered rape.

It was not because she was coming home from school and in some dark alley way she was beaten half senseless and violently abused by some twisted stranger.

The entire fiasco could have been avoided if the parents had done their job as parents, told the man to sod off and that he has no business around their daughter. I know I would have.

These days somebody behaving that way would be considered a pedophile.

Nobody said life would be fair.

Given the fact you have lots on money you can always give your money to women who are seeking abortions.

That's not the only classification of rape. In fact, most rapists are known to their victims. This is a typical pro-lifer response that comes up time and again with respect to abortion in the case of rape. Cos as long as a woman isn't attacked down a lane she must have brought it on herself? :rolleyes:

volchitsa

Delirium wrote: »

source.

As you can see there's no mention of dating at all.

Yes, my memory of the case is that he was either a friend of her parents, or maybe a neighbour. And I'm fairly sure he was already married.

I wonder where ABC got this idea from. His own fevered brain, I suspect.

inocybe

stinkle wrote: »

That's not the only classification of rape. In fact, most rapists are known to their victims. This is a typical pro-lifer response that comes up time and again with respect to abortion in the case of rape. Cos as long as a woman isn't attacked down a lane she must have brought it on herself? :rolleyes:

And some are married to them.

stinkle

inocybe wrote: »

And some are married to them.

Indeed, and marital rape was only criminalised in 1990

Kiwi in IE

A 'pro lifer' expressing misogynistic views, satisfaction with cases where dead women are used as incubators and denying that a prosecuted rape was 'legitimate'! Surprise!

Absolam

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

We voluntarily signed up to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights you know. Do you think it's acceptable for states to sign up to these treaties and then blithely ignore the bodies charged with implementing them?

The Covenant doesn't confer a right to abortion though; it holds to the rights of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the European Convention on Human Rights which are worded to allow States to make their own decision in whether abortion should or should not be treated as a right, or even permitted.
That committees composed of countries who do see abortion as a right in line with the Convention are going to pillory the actions of countries that don't see abortion as a right in line with the Convention is hardly surprising; it has come up before on this thread and others. The Committees job isn't to implement the treaty; it's to monitor implementation of the Covenant.

Absolam

Cabaal wrote: »

Come on so, lets vote on it,
While the UN can't change the constitution, they can pressure Ireland to have a vote on the matter.

I'd rather not vote on it
And in the meantime, the pressure doesn't seem to be being felt anywhere, so not to worry....

Cabaal wrote: »

Something that governments are choosing to avoid year after year, even though there is demand to allow people to vote on the matter.

I have a feeling that when they think there's enough demand to make a difference to their election prospects they'll stop avoiding it...

Cabaal wrote: »

The constitution isn't set in stone, it must reflect our society and right now many feel it does not best serve women in our society so its important we have a democratic right to vote on changing that

It's certainly important that we have a democratic right to vote on it. We can also use our democratic right to advocate avoiding a vote, in case the vote doesn't produce the result we want....

Absolam

lazygal wrote: »

Was pregnancy a wonderful natural event for Miss X, a raped 14 year old child?
Money means you can have an abortion.I can afford as many as I want. Poor women and children can't. Is that fair?

It' certainly true that it's not fair that you can use your wealth to evade the law when others who are less affluent can't; something that can be said about a range of illegal activities, not just abortion. But surely that's a matter for your conscience, not ABC101s?

stinkle

It's not illegal to travel for an abortion though. The Irish people voted on that.

What isn't fair is that women who can afford to travel, can, while those who can't are stuck in Ireland or resort to importing pills that aren't legal there despite being deemed "essential medicine" by organisations like the WHO

Absolam

stinkle wrote: »

It's not illegal to travel for an abortion though. The Irish people voted on that.

I'm pretty sure no one said it was though? Lazygal feels it's unfair that she can do so, and thereby evade the law in Ireland, like other rich people can evade legal penalties by employing their wealth.

stinkle wrote: »

What isn't fair is that women who can afford to travel, can, while those who can't are stuck in Ireland or resort to importing pills that aren't legal there despite being deemed "essential medicine" by organisations like the WHO

Mmmmm... well. Misoprostol on it's own (as listed on the WHO Essential Medicines list) is available in Ireland. Mifepristone isn't listed on it's own on the WHO Essential Medicines list, and Mifepristone and Misoprostol together on the WHO Essential Medicines list come with a big note right underneath saying "Where permitted under national law and where culturally acceptable.", so it's fair to say that essential is as essential does....

But the argument is still essentially the same; those who have money have more chance of avoiding the law than those who don't.

robdonn

Absolam wrote: »

I'd rather not vote on it

...

It's certainly important that we have a democratic right to vote on it. We can also use our democratic right to advocate avoiding a vote, in case the vote doesn't produce the result we want....

Just as a matter of interest Absolam, if a referendum was held in the next 30-60 days, do you think the Irish people would vote to keep the Eighth Amendment or get rid of it?

Absolam

robdonn wrote: »

Just as a matter of interest Absolam, if a referendum was held in the next 30-60 days, do you think the Irish people would vote to keep the Eighth Amendment or get rid of it?

I think if it were simply a referendum to flatly repeal the 8th, it would probably fail. If it were a referendum to retain but modify it, it might pass depending on what the modifications were. I suspect you're not just asking as a matter of interest though... is there a follow on question in the offing?

stinkle

No one is using their wealth to evade the law, there's nothing to evade. They're taking advantage of the amendment to the constitution that was voted in by the people. No one is evading anything, nothing is stopping them except circumstances and that shouldn't be. It's just an inconvenient truth that there IS abortion in Ireland, lots of it according to the stats. It just doesn't actually take place on the island, except for those who ordered pills that got through customs. It;s not like anyone thinks "oh the 8th amendment exists, therefore I'd best sit tight and not have an abortion". It just exports the issue for those that have the luxury of time/money/personal support and that is shameful.