The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

AtomicHorror

professore wrote: »

Can't even what? If you have sex there is a chance you will get pregnant. You can't consent to getting pregnant. It either happens or it doesn't. You consent to have sex, which can cause you to get pregnant if you're female. If you make nonsensical statements expect to be called out on them.

Ok thanks I'll watch out so. Thanks.

professore wrote: »

How do you define the difference between moderately pro choice and strongly pro choice in scientific terms?

Who gives a ****?

thee glitz

AtomicHorror wrote: »

My stat was from the CA itself. Of course abstainers are not counted. Please stop patronising me.

A reasonable interpretation of your stat presentation is that 64% of people voted for abortion on demand. The actual result was 52% for, 29% against and 19% not giving an opinion.

AtomicHorror

thee glitz wrote: »

A reasonable interpretation of your stat presentation is that 64% of people voted for abortion on demand. The actual result was 52% for, 29% against and 19% not giving an opinion.

Take it up with the CA. Maybe they need a lesson in stats. I don't. Or I don't care. Whichever.

retro:electro

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I am very much pro choice but the "repeal the 8th crowd" sicken me hole even more than Iona do :mad:

I'm pro choice within reason. I feel that most of the Repeal the 8th camp are too militant and seem to want AOD up until due day- that makes me feel sick to be honest.

PopePalpatine

Deleted User wrote: »

I am very much pro choice but the "repeal the 8th crowd" sicken me hole even more than Iona do :mad:

May the Flying Spaghetti Monster help you if you ever dig deeper into pro-life/anti-choice activists' rhetoric.

January

anna080 wrote: »

I'm pro choice within reason. I feel that most of the Repeal the 8th camp are too militant and seem to want AOD up until due day- that makes me feel sick to be honest.

Because we know that AOD up until the due date doesn't mean ripping term babies from the womb and killing them.

thee glitz

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Take it up with the CA. Maybe they need a lesson in stats. I don't. Or I don't care. Whichever.

The CA gave poll results, statistics. You gave a potentially misleading interpretation of same. I don't know if you need a lesson in stats or not, but any useful analysis requires a closer look.

pilly

anna080 wrote:

I'm pro choice within reason. I feel that most of the Repeal the 8th camp are too militant and seem to want AOD up until due day- that makes me feel sick to be honest.

I have literally NEVER heard this view uttered.

retro:electro

pilly wrote: »

I have literally NEVER heard this view uttered.

I realise I've made this point before, but this is a different thread, with different posters. Some of the same points are being made over and over by many of the usual suspects. Cool of you to choose mine though.

thee glitz

pilly wrote: »

I have literally NEVER heard this view uttered.

Have you heard of abortionrightscampaign.ie?

Cosmicfox

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Unfortunately you're right. However, in all honesty, how much is that going to matter in this case? The issue is so contentious and such a sacred cow for people regardless of who's side they're on that I just can't imagine anybody being swayed by campaigning. Can you? Do you see a poster, a radio or TV ad, a debate etc changing anyone's pre-existing views on this? Do you see current undecideds, who IMO are the only ones who will potentially be convinced in such a manner, numbering anywhere near enough to swing the result in one direction or another?

In my view, this very simply will come down to whether the majority of the population is pro choice or not. The campaign, despite being inevitably massive, pervasive and ugly as you have predicted, will matter very little in terms of actually influencing the outcome.

I could be wrong in my assertion that on-the-fencers will be an extreme rarity in this, but I certainly can't think of a single person I know or have heard of in the media or elsewhere who hasn't had their mind made up on this for years and years, and in such a manner that nothing, not even God himself appearing in the clouds and making a declaration on the subject, would convince them to change it.

I definitely think there's people who'll change their minds. I was pro-life myself all my life until a few years ago whereas now I'd support abortion on demand until 20 weeks (and probably extreme situations after that, need more research on that area)

When all this really started kicking off I remember discussing it with a friend who was utterly disgusted with abortion for any reason. I've since seen her photos on FB campaigning to repeal the 8th. Something changed her stance

I also had a conversation with my mum and she was pro-life too, the usual the 'poor babies' thing. Then she saw a debate on TV and was so disgusted by how the pro life side acted that she did more research herself on the topic and is now pro-choice until 12 weeks.

Another girl in my family who wasn't bothered either way recently had a pregnancy scare and shocked that she found herself looking up information on abortion methods and clinics in the UK. She wasn't pregnant after all but it made her think about the subject far more seriously than ever before.

I think some people will probably be swayed on their stance in the future, but it's going to be ugly seeing what's happened so far

pilly

anna080 wrote:

I realise I've made this point before, but this is a different thread, with different posters. Some of the same points are being made over and over by many of the usual suspects. Cool of you to choose mine though.

That's not what I meant. I meant I have never heard anyone say they want abortion on demand up to due date

pilly

thee glitz wrote:

Have you heard of abortionrightscampaign.ie?

Nope

professore

Delirium wrote: »

professore wrote: »

Can't even what? If you have sex there is a chance you will get pregnant. You can't consent to getting pregnant. It either happens or it doesn't. You consent to have sex, which can cause you to get pregnant if you're female. If you make nonsensical statements expect to be called out on them.

So everyone who has sex, man or woman, is consenting to having a child?????

That's not what I said at all. You don't consent to get pregnant is what I said. Can you not read?

professore

Frank O. Pinion wrote: »

I think you should not get an abortion unless you need one. In which case you better get one. I mean, seriously, if you need an abortion, you better get one. Don't f*ck around. And hurry, not getting an abortion that you need is like not taking a sh*t, that's how bad that is. It's like not taking a sh*t.

I find this offensive - but then again I find nuns murdering children offensive too. I also find people not crirically thinking - and I mean thinking, not just listening to ideological groups - about when life begins. It's not a clear cut thing.

professore

I've had the following thought process about abortion pretty much all my life:

Is it OK to take a human life without the consent of that life?

If it's not, then the question is when is it a human life?

11 weeks
Your baby is almost fully formed. She's kicking, stretching, and even hiccupping as her diaphragm develops, although you can't feel any activity yet.

Your baby is the size of a fig.

Source: https://www.babycenter.com/fetal-development-week-by-week

Do I consider the above human life? I'd have to say yes. So I'd have to set the cutoff around 8-9 weeks. The only exceptions would be mother's life in danger, fatal fetal abnormalities or maybe rape or incest involving women under the age of consent, but really struggle even with this last one.

I really don't buy the it's a woman's body argument, as this is ideology, not fact, and is the exact same as quoting the Bible or Qur'an in support of an argument. Also don't buy the baby not being viable outside the womb argument - babies of 1 year old are not viable if you stop caring for them 24/7.

And before anyone asks, yes i have daughters and yes I feel the same way if they were in that situation.

Therefore personally I'd find it very difficult to hand this over and entrust it to bloody corrupt politicians do decide.

And also the argument about Ireland being backward on this - there were foundling hospitals all over Europe and the US up to the start of the 20th century which were basically state run infanticide centres. So just because everyone else is doing it doesn't make it right. And many countries like Germany only permit it in the first trimester, which is close to my position.

professore

Cosmicfox wrote: »

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Unfortunately you're right. However, in all honesty, how much is that going to matter in this case? The issue is so contentious and such a sacred cow for people regardless of who's side they're on that I just can't imagine anybody being swayed by campaigning. Can you? Do you see a poster, a radio or TV ad, a debate etc changing anyone's pre-existing views on this? Do you see current undecideds, who IMO are the only ones who will potentially be convinced in such a manner, numbering anywhere near enough to swing the result in one direction or another?

In my view, this very simply will come down to whether the majority of the population is pro choice or not. The campaign, despite being inevitably massive, pervasive and ugly as you have predicted, will matter very little in terms of actually influencing the outcome.

I could be wrong in my assertion that on-the-fencers will be an extreme rarity in this, but I certainly can't think of a single person I know or have heard of in the media or elsewhere who hasn't had their mind made up on this for years and years, and in such a manner that nothing, not even God himself appearing in the clouds and making a declaration on the subject, would convince them to change it.

I definitely think there's people who'll change their minds. I was pro-life myself all my life until a few years ago whereas now I'd support abortion on demand until 20 weeks (and probably extreme situations after that, need more research on that area)

When all this really started kicking off I remember discussing it with a friend who was utterly disgusted with abortion for any reason. I've since seen her photos on FB campaigning to repeal the 8th. Something changed her stance

I also had a conversation with my mum and she was pro-life too, the usual the 'poor babies' thing. Then she saw a debate on TV and was so disgusted by how the pro life side acted that she did more research herself on the topic and is now pro-choice until 12 weeks.

Another girl in my family who wasn't bothered either way recently had a pregnancy scare and shocked that she found herself looking up information on abortion methods and clinics in the UK. She wasn't pregnant after all but it made her think about the subject far more seriously than ever before.

I think some people will probably be swayed on their stance in the future, but it's going to be ugly seeing what's happened so far

So basically your mum was swayed by not wanting to be grouped with pro life religious types - I feel the same, they are disgraceful and irrational, but that doesn't make them totally wrong.

Your other family member was swayed by self interest - I have to say that's a very poor reason for changing your mind on something.

Aseth

For me it is quite clear that woman's body is her own to do what she wants with - and I do not know how anyone wants to explain (except with their own concept of morality or god or whatever) how does a woman's decision to have an abortion affects anyone else except maybe her own family? I don't see why she should even justify herself - it's not like there's a country that allows abortion till 6 month or later and we would be hard pressed to find many people even supporting it. Most countries go with 20 weeks and it's a good solution.
Anyway having a referendum would already be a big win giving each and every person a right to vote and express their opinion whatever it is.

professore

Aseth wrote: »

For me it is quite clear that woman's body is her own to do what she wants with - and I do not know how anyone wants to explain (except with their own concept of morality or god or whatever) how does a woman's decision to have an abortion affects anyone else except maybe her own family? I don't see why she should even justify herself - it's not like there's a country that allows abortion till 6 month or later and we would be hard pressed to find many people even supporting it. Most countries go with 20 weeks and it's a good solution.
Anyway having a referendum would already be a big win giving each and every person a right to vote and express their opinion whatever it is.

Your first sentence is factually incorrect. It's a distinct body with 50% of someone else's DNA not your body. By your logic you should be free to kill your adult children as "it's your body". It's as ridiculous and unscientific as the ancient Jewish belief that each sperm contained a fetish which simply grew inside the womb.

pjohnson

professore wrote: »

Your first sentence is factually incorrect. It's a distinct body with 50% of someone else's DNA not your body. By your logic you should be free to kill your adult children as "it's your body". It's as ridiculous and unscientific as the ancient Jewish belief that each sperm contained a fetish which simply grew inside the womb.

What?

Akrasia

anna080 wrote: »

I'm pro choice within reason. I feel that most of the Repeal the 8th camp are too militant and seem to want AOD up until due day- that makes me feel sick to be honest.

No sane person is going to decide after 8 and a half months that she wants an abortion just because.

Late term abortion is always because of severe complications that were not discovered until the end of the pregnancy.

Putting term limits on abortion can result in cases like what happened to Savita in Galway a few years ago.

Delirium

professore wrote: »

That's not what I said at all. You don't consent to get pregnant is what I said. Can you not read?

What about women who have IVF?

And you do realise people have sex for reasons other than having babies?

Samaris

professore wrote: »

So basically your mum was swayed by not wanting to be grouped with pro life religious types - I feel the same, they are disgraceful and irrational, but that doesn't make them totally wrong.

Your other family member was swayed by self interest - I have to say that's a very poor reason for changing your mind on something.

Well, it's a pretty common reason to be swayed by something. She was suddenly affected, she suddenly had the cold pit of fear that something had gone wrong, she reacted feeling the panic and alarm that other women feel. Maybe she just felt afterwards "Well, if I felt like that, maybe women getting abortions aren't just doing it like they're buying a carton of milk..maybe I should look into this more."

It's not an unreasonable progression, although yes, it was sparked off by suddenly being placed into that position. And yes, obviously I'm placing emotional reactions on her, but not unreasonable ones from the original post.


My issue with all the panicked sounds about (AOD?) up-to-delivery-date abortions is that it's all a bit hypothetical. If someone needs an urgent abortion at say, eight months (around then and after that tends to be the delivery of an emergency LIVE birth by C-section or something along those lines*.), it is almost certainly urgent enough not to be for the hell of it. If someone is in the position of needing an urgent abortion to save their live/prevent damage, then what on earth are we all doing putting blocks in their way? Say what you like, we all know what the most likely procedure needed was in Mrs. Hallapanavar's case, as much as people can shout about improper monitoring (which also contributed, but she seems to have been in that position because the proper procedure was being denied).

Late abortions are very, very rarely carried out for sh*ts and giggles. Late abortions are carried out because something has gone badly wrong.

Women are also rational actors - why would we choose to undergo a difficult, painful, debilitating procedure at eight months rather than a far easier one prior to 12 weeks, unless something serious had happened in the meantime? I won't say it would -never- happen, because human beings can do some remarkably strange things, but it is quite unlikely compared to the far more common scenarios.

Late-term abortions are, for the most part, a red herring that detracts from the essential debate.


*And will someone please explain to me what a day-before-delivery abortion looks like? I strongly suspect it looks like a live birth.

Akrasia

professore wrote: »

I find this offensive - but then again I find nuns murdering children offensive too. I also find people not crirically thinking - and I mean thinking, not just listening to ideological groups - about when life begins. It's not a clear cut thing.

They passage you replied to was a Louis CK joke. It was meant to be offensive but also kinda true.

From your posts, you seem to define human life as when something looks human.
For me, I define human life as when something can feel human (to itself)

We're just bags of meat, but our minds are what makes us human. Foetal brain development is more important than the impulsive non thinking reflexes of the human body.
A brain-dead adult can often breath and twitch by itself, but that person is dead when the mind no longer exists.

Frank O. Pinion

professore wrote: »

I find this offensive - but then again I find nuns murdering children offensive too. I also find people not crirically thinking - and I mean thinking, not just listening to ideological groups - about when life begins. It's not a clear cut thing.

It's now very common to hear people say, "I'm rather offended by that." As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more...than a whine. "I find that offensive." It has no meaning, it has no purpose, it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. "I am offended by that." Well, so f*cking what?

I think abortion is exactly like taking a sh*t. It's 100% the exact same thing as not taking a sh*t. Or it isn't. It is or it isn't. It's either taking a sh*t or it's killing a baby. It's only one of those two things. It's no other things. So if you didn't like hearing that it's like taking a sh*t, you think it's like killing a baby. That's the only other one you get to have.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Pro-choice but only up to a certain point implies an inherently deceptive position

One eyed Jack wrote: »

How that position is any different from pro-life/anti-choice/whoever disagrees with them... has never been explained to me by anyone.

Or, at least, you have simply ignored a lot of peoples explanations when they do not suit you, or your pretend narrative that people have not been explaining themselves.

Nor is there anything at all "deceptive" about being "pro-choice only up to a certain point". Despite your narrative to the contrary people have often been VERY clear as to why they hold that position, myself included.

But I am happy to explain it to you again so the pile of posts you simply ignore can be enlarged.

The simple fact is that many people are entirely ok with a person making ANY choice at all, up until the point the result of that choice impacts on the life, rights, or well being of another agent. The right I have to swing my arms wildly for example, without requirement of explanation or justification for my choices, ends at your face.

So the people who are "prochoice only to a point" are operating exactly on that premise. They have recognized that at many stages of fetal development, ESPECIALLY those when the VAST (well over 90%) of choice based abortions actually occur, there are no coherent arguments on offer for affording the fetus any moral or ethical concern, or rights. But they do not think that is true at EVERY stage of fetal development.

Now you might not agree with that. That is fine. You might FINALLY have come up with some counter arguments to it at last, unlike in the past. That is fine too. But the pretense that A) there is anything deceptive or unclear about that position or that it has not been explained to you in the past is just wanton dishonesty.

kunst nugget

Frank O. Pinion wrote: »

It's now very common to hear people say, "I'm rather offended by that." As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more...than a whine. "I find that offensive." It has no meaning, it has no purpose, it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. "I am offended by that." Well, so f*cking what?

I think abortion is exactly like taking a sh*t. It's 100% the exact same thing as not taking a sh*t. Or it isn't. It is or it isn't. It's either taking a sh*t or it's killing a baby. It's only one of those two things. It's no other things. So if you didn't like hearing that it's like taking a sh*t, you think it's like killing a baby. That's the only other one you get to have.

Are you just going to keep quoting comedians?

nozzferrahhtoo

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

The 'bundle of cells' argument is, and has always been, absurd, do we always have to have it on these threads? Technically we all just a bundle of cells.

Exactly, we are. As is every other bit of life on this planet. So when we move into discussing on things like ethics, morality and rights we have to distinguish clearly what it is we are hanging those concepts off. And I would suggest we hang it off more than "cells" or the DNA any particular cell happens to contain.......

....... and what a lot of anti-choice people do not like to acknowledge is that the results of such an inquiry tend to throw up things that the fetus, at the stages when the VAST majority of them are aborted, simply lack not just slightly, but entirely.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

A fetus has a heartbeat and brain waves. To describe them as just a bundle of cells just shows a desire to dehumanize fetuses so as to diminish the act of abortion.

The goal is not to "de-humanize" anything, but to be explicit and clear about what we mean when we use the word "human" in any given context and to ensure that something is not "Humanized" before it's due. One can not remove an attribute that is not actually there, they can just prevent people pretending it is there before it is.

So no, we are not dehumanizing anything, just preventing premature humanization of it. Much different, though this has been explained to you multiple times before.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

On one thread I find myself arguing that a man was harshly treated by receiving six years in prison for kissing and intimately touching a 15-year-old girl and yet here some of those same people, who found my opinion on the other thread so shocking, seemingly have no problem with a defenseless baby in the womb having it's body pulled apart and it's bloody remains binned.

No idea what your opinion on the other thread is, but the difference for me would be that the 15 year old girl is a real "person" and a conscious sentient agent for whom people like me hold should be afforded rights, and moral and ethical concern. A fetus at the stage when the VAST (well over 90%) majority of them are being aborted by choice however........ shows none of the pre-requisities that would warrant any such thing.

So it is not EVEN a comparison of apples and oranges you are offering here. More like Apples and WD40.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

The above is a fetus at 24 weeks

And the VAST majority of abortions by choice happen in or before week 12. Almost the totality by week 16. But you never show pictures of them, because they do not illicit the same emotional response you rely on to bypass any coherent and compelling argument that you actually lack.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Sentience, viability, ability to feel pain etc etc... are all red herrings. A fetus is a human being. They are alive.

The things you call "red herrings" are things you simply want to dismiss and ignore because they are inconvenient to you. The REAL red herring here is your wanton use of the term "alive". The entire meat industry kills things that are "alive" all the time. Much of the medication we take as humans does too either in it's production..... killing much flora and fauna......... or in it's application....... killing much bacteria. The paper you last wrote on came from dead trees. I could list deaths of "life" all day long.

We kill things that are are "alive" all day every day. So clearly merely being "alive" is not the mediation point for morality anywhere else. Yet suddenly, magically....... nay let's be honest DESPERATELY........ you pretend it should be here.

And why? Because the moment we delve into what differentiates this "life" from any other, and why we should be affording it the moral and ethical concern we do not apply anywhere else............ the result of that conversation throws up attributes that the fetus generally being aborted simply lacks.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

We declare death on the absence of a heartbeat

No. We do not. Which I have also explained to you before. It is ok to make an error as a complete lay man to biology. Nothing wrong with that. But to stick by an error when someone explains it to you, and make it again, is pretty embarrassing for you.

AGAIN: Since 1981 in the States for example, legally it is not the heart beat but brain activity that determines declaring death. This unrelated video, for example, discusses how death is determined and then called.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

and therefore we should accept that the presence of one means a life has begun.

But again morality and ethics seems to be mediated by more than simply being "alive". No one, that I am aware of, and certainly not me.. is denying that the fetus is "alive". The disagreements stem from how important that attribute alone is, or should be.

kunst nugget

professore wrote: »

I find this offensive - but then again I find nuns murdering children offensive too. I also find people not crirically thinking - and I mean thinking, not just listening to ideological groups - about when life begins. It's not a clear cut thing.

Relax, he's quoting a Louis CK bit. But if it really does offend you, you probably should step away from a thread debating abortion.

nozzferrahhtoo

pilly wrote: »

I have literally NEVER heard this view uttered.

It is relatively rare for sure. Just about every person I have met who identifies as "pro choice" does so with some cut off in mind. A cut off that almost invariably falls somewhere between 12 and 24 weeks of gestation.

There are a few who say that want to allow it any ANY stage of gestation without restriction however. Their arguments for this are pretty poor however. In one thread when I discussed it with a poster the only argument he really offered was that he felt Hilary Clinton agrees with him.

Other than that their position appears to be that somehow a fetus acquires rights on the trip down the birth canal. Like the Monopoly moral equivalent of "passing go and collecting $200". But I have not yet understood any arguments as to how this is doing anything but pretending rights should be mediates purely on location. Why an entity has no rights at one end of the birth canal and does magically a couple hours later (ideally) at the other end........ is certainly opaque to me.

Ash.J.Williams

one can be pro choice and aware you're aborting a potential baby. i wish people would stop arguing over at what stage it's a baby or not. If you are trying for a baby then a positive pregnancy test means you have one in your belly. Sadly a positive test can be extremely bad news for some people for many many complex reasons and it's those people we are trying to legislate for.

nozzferrahhtoo

professore wrote: »

Every time i drink I consent to ingesting alcohol but I don't consent to getting drunk. Your statement is equally logical.

Well a difference there being that drinking alcohol WILL inebriate you. Having sex MIGHT make you pregnant. So not quite the same thing.

A better comparison might be that any footballer who goes out on a pitch to play soccer, consents to the possibility they might obtain an injury.

But we do not withhold medical treatment for them because they "knew what the risks were". We offer them all the options to deal with their injury whether or not we want to pretend they "consented" to obtain one or not.

I think abortion is similar. Someone having sex is consenting not to get pregnant, but to take the risk of getting pregnant. And that they knew the risks is not relevant to whether or not they should be precluded from dealing with their pregnancy should one occur.

pilly

kunst nugget wrote: »

Relax, he's quoting a Louis CK bit. But if it really does offend you, you probably should step away from a thread debating abortion.

No I think someone quoting a comedian should step away from a thread debating abortion.

Frank O. Pinion

pilly wrote: »

No I think someone quoting a comedian should step away from a thread debating abortion.

Wait, is abortion NOT a hilarious topic? If Louis CK can find the humour in it, so can I.

kunst nugget wrote:

Are you just going to keep quoting comedians?

Are people just going to go round in circles in abortion debates?

pjohnson

Frank O. Pinion wrote: »

Wait, is abortion NOT a hilarious topic? If Louis CK can find the humour in it, so can I.


Are people just going to go round in circles in abortion debates?

I think the most offensive thing is the idea that anyone can find Louis CK funny.

AtomicHorror

thee glitz wrote: »

The CA gave poll results, statistics. You gave a potentially misleading interpretation of same. I don't know if you need a lesson in stats or not, but any useful analysis requires a closer look.

I said that 64% of the CA voted in favour of AOD. They did.

If you want to respond with comments about the caveats, I'm all good with that. I'll agree. There were non-opinions/non-voters (who won't count in a referendum either). There was AOD under different time limits. Nonetheless, 64% voted for AOD.

If you want to call it 50-something percent because of the non-voters, then be my guest. You can re-interpret the referendum result when that comes along too. Won't change the fact that referenda results are expressed in terms of who voted yes or no. The percentages presented in terms of the total yesses or nos. Not the non-voters, not the "dunnos", not the spoiled votes.

In the nit-pickers analysis, 37.4% of voters wanted to leave the EU, if you count the people who didn't vote. What does it matter? They're still leaving because that's not how you count votes in a referendum.

Which is maybe why the CA chose to count and present their results in the same way- whether people abstain, spoil or put in a ballot which expresses no opinion, they are not and cannot be counted in the total. They have ruled themselves out.

So call it 50-whatever percent in the CA. But if you're going to act like that's somehow more valid than the percentage I presented and which the CA themselves resented, I'll call horse****.

Patronise me about uncritically swallowing sources like the Indo (which I didn't)? Accuse me of (mis)interpreting the exact stat present by the source themselves? I've no time for that crap and you shouldn't either.

Now can we please cut this nit-picking crap and move on?

Akrasia

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

one can be pro choice and aware you're aborting a potential baby. i wish people would stop arguing over at what stage it's a baby or not. If you are trying for a baby then a positive pregnancy test means you have one in your belly. Sadly a positive test can be extremely bad news for some people for many many complex reasons and it's those people we are trying to legislate for.

A miscarriage is a huge personal loss to a couple who are trying for a baby and my deepest sympathies are with them if it occurs. In the case of a miscarriage, the tragedy is because of the pregnancy was tied up with so many positive hopes and aspirations for a baby that is wanted and would have been a treasured family member.

A miscarriage at very early stage of an unplanned pregnancy (before the woman even knows she is pregnant) is not a tragedy, there is no sense of loss, there is no harm. Which is good, because some studies say that about half of all pregnancies end in miscarriage, mostly before the woman ever knows she is pregnant. If we were to mourn for all of these miscarriages, it would lead to a lot of needless anguish.

Aseth

professore wrote: »

Your first sentence is factually incorrect. It's a distinct body with 50% of someone else's DNA not your body. By your logic you should be free to kill your adult children as "it's your body". It's as ridiculous and unscientific as the ancient Jewish belief that each sperm contained a fetish which simply grew inside the womb.

You have avoided to answer my question coming up with ridiculous argument of killing adult children which is cheap rhetorics at best.

ohnonotgmail

There are enough strawmen in this thread to fuel Moneypoint for a year.

AtomicHorror

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

There are enough strawmen in this thread to fuel Moneypoint for a year.

And more sea lions than Dublin Zoo.

ohnonotgmail

AtomicHorror wrote: »

And more sea lions than Dublin Zoo.

sea lions?

kunst nugget

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

sea lions?

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/sea-lioning

ohnonotgmail

kunst nugget wrote: »

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/sea-lioning

I see. Not what i thought it was at all.

pilly

kunst nugget wrote: »

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/sea-lioning

Very good, I didn't know about that one either. :)

A Little Pony

You do wonder what the next crusade will be for the progressives who seek to ruin everything and anything.

kunst nugget

A Little Pony wrote: »

You do wonder what the next crusade will be for the progressives who seek to ruin everything and anything.

They're going to cancel Christmas and force you to wear a dress…

infogiver

A Little Pony wrote: »

You do wonder what the next crusade will be for the progressives who seek to ruin everything and anything.

There wont be very much left but I imagine gender quotas here, there and everywhere will be next.
The very idea that I got a job or a promotion or anything just because an employer had a gender quota to fill and im the right gender is just so nauseating to me I think ill have to retire from this life altogether.

seamus

infogiver wrote: »

There wont be very much left but I imagine gender quotas here, there and everywhere will be next.

No, gender quotas is a separate matter that divides all sorts of groups. It is by default an anti-liberal and anti-equality measure, but it does have some benefit when applied in limited circumstances.

Progressives don't consider it a particularly important topic.

The two big topics after abortion are the right to euthanasia, which should be an easy no-brainer, and a more rational approach to drug controls.

infogiver

seamus wrote: »

No, gender quotas is a separate matter that divides all sorts of groups. It is by default an anti-liberal and anti-equality measure, but it does have some benefit when applied in limited circumstances.

Progressives don't consider it a particularly important topic.

The two big topics after abortion are the right to euthanasia, which should be an easy no-brainer, and a more rational approach to drug controls.

Why is euthanasia a no brainer?

ohnonotgmail

infogiver wrote: »

Why is euthanasia a no brainer?

if somebody is of sound mind and they want to end their life should they not be let do it with some dignity?