The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

Charmeleon

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Ah, so time does matter then? It's not really a human being, in the non taxonomy sense of the word, until time has passed? Thank you for conceding!

Hold on, where did I say it wasn’t human until it had sexual characteristics? If you were serious about that point you could also say ‘so you are saying children aren’t human until breasts or facial hair appear after puberty?’. Humans pass through stages over a very long time but remain human throughout.

blanch152

up for anything wrote: »

I'm wondering why there aren't warehouse facilities dotted around the countryside containing non-viable humans on life support. Life is life according to pro-lifers. Therefore just because that life isn't sentient or capable of staying alive without help surely no one has the right to just switch off the machinery keeping the body functioning? The machinery should be obliged to run for as long as it takes for the body to die or for something to bring the person back to normal life. If it's legal to turn off life support machinery then it should be equally legal to obtain an abortion in this country. There's not much difference to my mind.

Those on life support don't have an equal right to life as the mother so they don't have constitutional protection.

It really shows up how bizarre the current constitutional provision is.

mrkiscool2

Charmeleon wrote: »

Hold on, where did I say it wasn’t human until it had sexual characteristics?

Let's have a look back at our conversation.

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Why are hampering your point by saying week 11? The haploid cell of the father already contains either the X or Y chromosome so, from minute 1, whatever forms is either going to be male or female.

You see the problem here? The anti-choice/pro-birth side keeps picking and choosing certain points, making an argument for emotion rather than anything (a fallacy, seeing as how Pleas Advice loves them).

A blank human would be one which is not alive. Which an 11 week old fetus isn't. A fetus at 12 weeks could still never make it to life. It might be a miscarriage, FFA, stillbirth etc. It's not a life. It is still developing and is therefore still a blank canvas or, to be nicer, a canvas that has been whitewashed.

It also brings me to another argument the anti-choice/pro-birth side makes. "That fetus could have the cure for cancer/be the next Da Vinci/something else great!". What's equally as likely is that it could be the next serial killer/mob boss/sexual assaulter ala Weinstein and the USA gynmastic doctor. Your making arguments to emotion, not to reason, which says it all really.

Charmeleon wrote: »

Because the sexual characteristics of the phenotype don’t begin to diverge until a few weeks in.

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Ah, so time does matter then? It's not really a human being, in the non taxonomy sense of the word, until time has passed? Thank you for conceding!

You never say that they aren't human, but you do admit that time is important. And, unfortunately for you, that leans more towards the point that a fetus takes a while to develop from a fused sperm-and-egg into a human we can attribute rights to.

Charmeleon wrote: »

If you were serious about that point you could also say ‘so you are saying children aren’t human until breasts or facial hair appear after puberty?’. Humans pass through stages over a very long time but remain human throughout.

Oh, this old gem! "Well, if you are going by the scientific definition of life, then a human before puberty isn't life cause it can't reproduce, hurr durr." Actually, the definition is "have the ABILITY to reproduce". Which, as you've kind of pointed out, is once they have sex organs. So, in this case, a fetus passes that checkpoint at week 11. Even though those organs may not currently (or ever, in some unfortunate cases) produce or release (seeing as how females have the eggs for reproduction in their ovaries) the haploid cells necessary, they have all the biological means to reproduce.

See, if you actually fully followed this, you'd know we don't actually define life based on whether or not someone is actually capable of being able to get someone/be pregnant. It's on their biological ability to do so. Hell, if we used the "reproduce" part in the literal sense, like you suggest, everytime someone has sex and doesn't get an non-pregnant person pregnant or doesn't get pregnant themselves, they aren't alive. Pretty stupid, right?

EDIT: I also forgot to put in the point that reproduction isn't just for offspring, it's also the ability for the body to reproduce cells. Sorry, I was just so annoyed at the post I hit send far too early.

Charmeleon

up for anything wrote: »

I'm wondering why there aren't warehouse facilities dotted around the countryside containing non-viable humans on life support. Life is life according to pro-lifers. Therefore just because that life isn't sentient or capable of staying alive without help surely no one has the right to just switch off the machinery keeping the body functioning? The machinery should be obliged to run for as long as it takes for the body to die or for something to bring the person back to normal life. If it's legal to turn off life support machinery then it should be equally legal to obtain an abortion in this country. There's not much difference to my mind.

So if a person is on life support and non-sentient but the prognosis is that they will fully recover and lead a normal life in six months time, is it ok to kill them?

zedhead

Charmeleon wrote: »

So if a person is on life support and non-sentient but the prognosis is that they will fully recover and lead a normal life in six months time, is it ok to kill them?

If the life support meant they had to be hooked up to a sentient and conscious person with life limiting results, possible medical complications, change in lifestyle & physcial changes which they did not choose would it be ok to keep them like that for 6 months?

Charmeleon

zedhead wrote: »

If the life support meant they had to be hooked up to a sentient and conscious person with life limiting results, possible medical complications, change in lifestyle & physcial changes which they did not choose would it be ok to keep them like that for 6 months?

The state does not impregnate anyone, unless there’s some diabolical plan to contaminate tampons with semen and I am not aware of it. Whether the pregnancy occurs in circumstances that are good, bad or indifferent, it is the interaction of two private individuals. The question is not whether the mother is ‘forced’ to continue a pregnancy, it is whether the state is obliged to permit facilities where the developing child can be terminated on the wishes of the mother.

mrkiscool2

Charmeleon wrote: »

The state does not impregnate anyone, unless there’s some diabolical plan to contaminate tampons with semen and I am not aware of it. Whether the pregnancy occurs in circumstances that are good, bad or indifferent, it is the interaction of two private individuals. The question is not whether the mother is ‘forced’ to continue a pregnancy, it is whether the state is obliged to permit facilities where the developing child can be terminated on the wishes of the mother.

And the Irish state doesn't put anyone into a coma. The question is not whether the family is "forced" to continue a life, it is whether the state is obliged to permit facilities where the sustained life can be terminated on the wishes of the family.

blanch152

Charmeleon wrote: »

The state does not impregnate anyone, unless there’s some diabolical plan to contaminate tampons with semen and I am not aware of it. Whether the pregnancy occurs in circumstances that are good, bad or indifferent, it is the interaction of two private individuals. The question is not whether the mother is ‘forced’ to continue a pregnancy, it is whether the state is obliged to permit facilities where the developing child can be terminated on the wishes of the mother.

What will the pro-lifers come up next in their bizarre world?

Bannasidhe

Charmeleon wrote: »

The state does not impregnate anyone, unless there’s some diabolical plan to contaminate tampons with semen and I am not aware of it. Whether the pregnancy occurs in circumstances that are good, bad or indifferent, it is the interaction of two private individuals. The question is not whether the mother is ‘forced’ to continue a pregnancy, it is whether the state is obliged to permit facilities where the developing child can be terminated on the wishes of the mother.

No. The issue is whether the State can force a woman or girl to continue with a pregnancy against her will.

ForestFire

zedhead wrote: »

If the life support meant they had to be hooked up to a sentient and conscious person with life limiting results, possible medical complications, change in lifestyle & physcial changes which they did not choose would it be ok to keep them like that for 6 months?

If you go into Temple street hospital, you will see plenty of parents who care for their sick children, who's life has been put on hold indefinitely until there child recovers.

This could be months or years in some cases and including careers on hold or lost, stress and mental complications, Change in lifestyle etc.

Should they have the right to abandon their children in hospital?

mrkiscool2

ForestFire wrote: »

If you go into Temple street hospital, you will see plenty of parents who care for their sick children, who's life has been put on hold indefinitely until there child recovers.

This could be months or years in some cases and including careers on hold or lost, stress and mental complications, Change in lifestyle etc.

Should they have the right to abandon their children in hospital?

They....do have that right though. Does that mean that the vast, vast majority of parents (specifically mothers) do this? No, but they do have the choice. Especially as the child is in a safe haven (AKA the hospital).

I'm not saying it's right, but your argument falls when that right already exists.

zedhead

ForestFire wrote: »

If you go into Temple street hospital, you will see plenty of parents who care for their sick children, who's life has been put on hold indefinitely until there child recovers.

This could be months or years in some cases and including careers on hold or lost, stress and mental complications, Change in lifestyle etc.

Should they have the right to abandon their children in hospital?

I think they do have that right?

Anyway its not the same thing. They have a duty of care to their children who are born. I am sure there are some parents who do the bare minimum that is required of them, and I would imagine some do go and get on with their life.

up for anything

blanch152 wrote: »

Those on life support don't have an equal right to life as the mother so they don't have constitutional protection.

It really shows up how bizarre the current constitutional provision is.

You're absolutely right. The thought just came to me and I got it down without thinking it through before I'd forgotten it. There are a lot of holes in my analogy.

January

ForestFire wrote: »

If you go into Temple street hospital, you will see plenty of parents who care for their sick children, who's life has been put on hold indefinitely until there child recovers.

This could be months or years in some cases and including careers on hold or lost, stress and mental complications, Change in lifestyle etc.

Should they have the right to abandon their children in hospital?

They absolutely do have the right to abandon their child in hospital and I actually know someone that did just that.

Charmeleon

Bannasidhe wrote: »

No. The issue is whether the State can force a woman or girl to continue with a pregnancy against her will.

That was the case before contraception and the right to travel were corrected in law. If you want to prevent pregnancy, have an abortion or the morning after pill the state will not stand in your way. The question is whether abortion should be permitted as a service within the state.

mrkiscool2

Charmeleon wrote: »

That was the case before contraception and the right to travel were corrected in law. If you want to prevent pregnancy, have an abortion or the morning after pill the state will not stand in your way. The question is whether abortion should be permitted as a service within the state.

So you're saying it's morally okay for the state to have an attitude that is basically "Not in our backyard"? Kind of disgusting, especially when you consider for FFA the women going to England have to come back on the ferry as it's the only way to bring the remains home.

Charmeleon

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

So you're saying it's morally okay for the state to have an attitude that is basically "Not in our backyard"? Kind of disgusting, especially when you consider for FFA the women going to England have to come back on the ferry as it's the only way to bring the remains home.

That’s not the state’s position, it isn’t dependent on whether abortion is available in other countries or not. It would not change if abortion was suddenly banned in all other countries.

kylith

Charmeleon wrote: »

That was the case before contraception and the right to travel were corrected in law. If you want to prevent pregnancy, have an abortion or the morning after pill the state will not stand in your way. The question is whether abortion should be permitted as a service within the state.

I have yet to see any good reason why it should not be permitted within the state.

mrkiscool2

Charmeleon wrote: »

That’s not the state’s position, it isn’t dependent on whether abortion is available in other countries or not. It would not change if abortion was suddenly banned in all other countries.

So, the state's position depends upon other state's positions? You do realise how silly that is? Also, if the UK banned it, I know what you'd say. "Well, other countries are banning it now so we shouldn't have it either!". It's amazing you can have two different perspectives based on the situation, huh? One thing remains constant, opposition to abortion for women.

Charmeleon

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

So, the state's position depends upon other state's positions? You do realise how silly that is? Also, if the UK banned it, I know what you'd say. "Well, other countries are banning it now so we shouldn't have it either!". It's amazing you can have two different perspectives based on the situation, huh? One thing remains constant, opposition to abortion for women.

You may have misread my post. Compare what I said to what you say I said, they are opposite.

ForestFire

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

They....do have that right though. Does that mean that the vast, vast majority of parents (specifically mothers) do this? No, but they do have the choice. Especially as the child is in a safe haven (AKA the hospital).

I'm not saying it's right, but your argument falls when that right already exists.

I never said they do not have the right and I was not asking for the current legal status, I asked should they have the right and you seemed to agree they should not have this right?

That is the same simple question we are asking about for the unborn..Should they have the right?

mrkiscool2

Charmeleon wrote: »

You may have misread my post. Compare what I said to what you say I said, they are opposite.

I did. But, essentially, most of your point is removed if other countries (specifically the UK) outlawed abortion for non-citizens. So then what happens? Also, the morning after pill reduces in effictiveness per hour after sex. And stuff like broken condoms, failed female contraception etc won't be stuff you get the MAP for. Also, the MAP has a proven failure rate after being used by a woman more than 3 times. It is not a solution like you hold it up to be. It can be a last line of defense but it is not as effective as you hold it up to be.

mrkiscool2

ForestFire wrote: »

I never said they do not have the right and I was not asking for the current legal status, I asked should they have the right and you seemed to agree they should not have this right?

That is the same simple question we are asking about for the unborn..Should they have the right?

From the way the post was worded it seemed like you were saying that. Sorry if you knew the law! It's still a fcuking really disgusting question to ask.

I think it should be. I don't have to agree with it but I will never have to walk in a woman's shoes and pray I never have to experience that myself. I don't want kids anyway, but if I ever had one, for whatever reason, and my child was in hospital for a long, long time, I wouldn't abandon it. But I can't put my viewpoints, morality or situation on others. So yes, it should be.

Edward M

blanch152 wrote: »

What will the pro-lifers come up next in their bizarre world?

Probably that the earth is flat!

2wsxcde3

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

But I can't put my viewpoints, morality or situation on others.

Would you object to FGM being legalized in this country so? Some want it legalized. Or would you try to impose your viewpoints and morality on others by insisting it stay illegal.

Are you pro-choice for these women:

Why Some Women Choose to Get Circumcised
An anthropologist discusses some common misconceptions about female genital cutting, including the idea that men force women to undergo the procedure.
(Source: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/04/female-genital-mutilation-cutting-anthropologist/389640/ )

SusieBlue

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

Would you object to FGM being legalized in this country so? Some want it legalized. Or would you try to impose your viewpoints and morality on others by insisting it stay illegal.

Why on earth do you keep bringing up FGM, it has absolutely nothing to do with abortion?

mrkiscool2

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

Would you object to FGM being legalized in this country so? Some want it legalized. Or would you try to impose your viewpoints and morality on others by insisting it stay illegal.

I'm not even going to dignify this with an answer. What woman, in their right fcuking mind, would want FGM?

ForestFire

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

It's still a fcuking really disgusting question to ask.
.

Jesus, now we can't even ask questions....

That is the question the the referendum is asking us by the way, and for a lot of people it the same type of questions based on their morals?

Can you understand that?

(And the reason I asked was directly to someone talking about someone on life support, so I don't see the difference???)

2wsxcde3

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

What woman, in their right fcuking mind, would want FGM?

Are you pro-choice for these women:

Why Some Women Choose to Get Circumcised
An anthropologist discusses some common misconceptions about female genital cutting, including the idea that men force women to undergo the procedure.
(Source: https://www.theatlantic.com/internat...logist/389640/ )

Ali Selim said on Prime Time:

You can't control people, it's against the law to practice abortion but people just cross the border and come back.

Should we stop forcing women to travel abroad to get this procedure done? And allow them to have it performed here in Ireland under safe medical supervision. Pro-choicers should be looking to repeal the 2012 law that made FGM/Female Circumcision illegal here if they really believe a woman has the ultimate choice over her own body.

mrkiscool2

ForestFire wrote: »

Jesus, now we can't even ask questions....

That is the question the the referendum is asking us by the way, and for a lot of people it the same type of questions based on their morals?

Can you understand that?

(And the reason I asked was directly to someone talking about someone on life support, so I don't see the difference???)

No, you can ask questions. Never said you couldn't. And actually, originally, I thought you were asking should we in the sense should we make it law, which was fine. Again, I can find your question revolting but you have every right to ask it.

And no, the question isn't asking do we think it's okay to abandon one's sick child because it is sick. It is asking whether or not a woman should be allowed to choose whether they go through with 9 months of highly difficult pregnancy followed by (at minimum) 18 years of supporting that fetus once it's born (and becomes a child).

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

Are you pro-choice for these women:

Why Some Women Choose to Get Circumcised
An anthropologist discusses some common misconceptions about female genital cutting, including the idea that men force women to undergo the procedure.
(Source: https://www.theatlantic.com/internat...logist/389640/ )

Gonna give you the benefit of the doubt. The link doesn't work. You can repost and I'll read it and THEN answer you.

volchitsa

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

Would you object to FGM being legalized in this country so? Some want it legalized. Or would you try to impose your viewpoints and morality on others by insisting it stay illegal.

But FGM is inflicted on people who have feelings and wishes and moreover will suffer the consequences throughout their whole life.

Even so, if it had to be done to a fetus to enable the woman to survive childbirth, we'd do it without a second thought - because the thinking, breathing woman takes priority over the fetus.

So the question isnt really about whether we'd copy other countries "just because", it's why we continue to deny human rights to women on the pretext that they can avail of them by travelling to other countries.

IMO that safety valve is the main reason the law hasnt been changed long ago.

2wsxcde3

Here is the link again:

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/04/female-genital-mutilation-cutting-anthropologist/389640/

Khazan: And where is the support for this practice coming from?

Shell-Duncan: ...But when you talk to people on the ground, you also hear people talking about the idea that it’s women’s business. As in, it’s for women to decide this. If we look at the data across Africa, the support for the practice is stronger among women than among men.

I don't believe people should just be able to choose whatever they want to do. These women in support of this practice are perpetuating the problem in my opinion. That's why i don't agree with their support if it.

mrkiscool2

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

Here is the link again:

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/04/female-genital-mutilation-cutting-anthropologist/389640/

Khazan: And where is the support for this practice coming from?

Shell-Duncan: ...If we look at the data across Africa, the support for the practice is stronger among women than among men.

So....your evidence for women wanting to get FGM (or FGC, as they call it) is from cultures that have highly patriarchal societies that still, for the most part, view women as objects and breeders? Wow, much evidence, such persuasion! :rolleyes:

sondagefaux

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

Here is the link again:

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/04/female-genital-mutilation-cutting-anthropologist/389640/

Khazan: And where is the support for this practice coming from?

Shell-Duncan: ...If we look at the data across Africa, the support for the practice is stronger among women than among men.

You seem to have missed this bit:

Khazan: Do you think it’s a global-health imperative that we work to stop this?

Shell-Duncan: There's no question this is a global-health issue. In the U.S., adult women are capable of giving consent for surgical procedures. But what would it take to get a woman in an African country to the same position of being able to give consent? Social pressures [in the nations that practice FGC] are so strong that no woman could ever opt out. Everybody would come down on her. That’s the problem. Why can we give consent and they can’t?

2wsxcde3

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

So....your evidence for women wanting to get FGM (or FGC, as they call it) is from cultures that have highly patriarchal societies that still, for the most part, view women as objects and breeders? Wow, much evidence, such persuasion! :rolleyes:

We live in a patriarchal society. Just look at Dail Eireann. So, do you support these womens right to choose to have FGM done to them? It's kind of shameful we are making women travel abroad to other countries to have this done, making them feel like criminals.

sondagefaux

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

Here is the link again:

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/04/female-genital-mutilation-cutting-anthropologist/389640/

Khazan: And where is the support for this practice coming from?

Shell-Duncan: ...But when you talk to people on the ground, you also hear people talking about the idea that it’s women’s business. As in, it’s for women to decide this. If we look at the data across Africa, the support for the practice is stronger among women than among men.

I don't believe people should just be able to choose whatever they want to do. These women in support of this practice are perpetuating the problem in my opinion. That's why i don't agree with their support if it.

You also seem to have missed this bit:

Khazan: I also read that in surveys, large numbers of women and men no longer favor the practice, but they have their daughters cut regardless. Why do they keep doing it?

Shell-Duncan: This is not an individual behavior. For example, if I decide I want to lose weight, and that I'm going to start exercising on a daily basis, I can decide that all by myself. If I decide I don't want to circumcise my daughter, that’s not an individual behavior. I would have to answer to my husband, to my mother-in-law, my mother-in-law would have to answer to her friends throughout the community, my father-in-law would have to answer to people in the community, so there's societal pressure. So understanding what is a collective decision versus individual is really important. You can go and tell an individual mother what the health risks are and she can believe you, but it doesn’t mean, first of all, that she has the power to make that decision, or even that she has the authority to impart that information to her mother-in-law and other senior people in the society who are the decision-makers. Who wants to be the first one to change? Who wants to be the odd man out?
Khazan: What seems like an eradication strategy that might work, given those pressures?
Shell-Duncan: What we're coming to realize is that programs that target individual mothers are completely ineffective. Mothers are not solely in charge of the decisions for their daughters. We need to be targeting people who are in the extended family, and we know that we need to figure out who are the figures of authority in these families, and who are the influences on them in the community. We need to do male elders, but also female elders.

mrkiscool2

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

We live in a patriarchal society. Just look at Dail Eireann. So, do you support these womens right to choose to have FGM done to them? It's kind of shameful we are making women travel abroad to other countries to have this done, making them feel like criminals.

We live in a society that is still feeling the after effects of patriarchy but is not in and of itself patriarchal. Even if you want to argue that it is patriarchal, it is in noway as patriarchal as the places mentioned in this article.

Again, not going to dignify your question with an answer. Two entirely separate issues. And, from the women I know, they much prefer not having FGM cause it means they also get to enjoy sex.

Annasopra

Andrew Beef wrote: »

Yes, I do.

I support abortion in certain circumstances; medical cases (e.g. the Savita case), rape cases, and incest cases. And to answer another poster’s question, I support abortion in cases of rape and incest because I believe that the woman’s right to bodily integrity trumps the unborn child’s right to life in such circumstances. As previously stated, I oppose abortion in “plain vanilla” circumstances and believe that women who procure abortions either at home or abroad should be criminalised. My “Rape Committee” solution of a senior Garda, a GP, and clinical psychologist for rape/incest cases has already been put forward. My thought process is therefore clear and I have done my best to address the incessant and repetitive questioning from the pro-abortion lobby. Beyond that, I have nothing further to say, other than to express hope that the debate, both here and further afield, can remain civil.

My opinion of your rape committee idea is that it is worse than the 8th and deeply mysogystic and judgemental and scarring of women.

2wsxcde3

Some women are pressurized into FGM the same way some women are pressurized by abusive boyfriends into getting an abortion.

But some women choose to do FGM of their own accord. Are you pro-choice for these women?

I'm guessing no. Why? Because you want to see the practice as a whole stamped out. Hmmm, sounds much like the pro-life position.

Annasopra

david75 wrote: »

Well the timing is very strange but this is happening

Seven judges to hear appeal over rights of unborn
Judgment may affect the wording of the referendum on the Eighth Amendment

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/supreme-court/seven-judges-to-hear-appeal-over-rights-of-unborn-1.3399385

The timing is being rushed so that there will be legal clatity before the referendum.

sondagefaux

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

So....your evidence for women wanting to get FGM (or FGC, as they call it) is from cultures that have highly patriarchal societies that still, for the most part, view women as objects and breeders? Wow, much evidence, such persuasion! :rolleyes:

We live in a patriarchal society. Just look at Dail Eireann. So, do you support these womens right to choose to have FGM done to them? It's kind of shameful we are making women travel abroad to other countries to have this done, making them feel like criminals.

You've either deliberately or mistakenly left out the parts of the interview which show that for many girls and women, their consent is not given freely and is the result of social pressures put on women in the societies they live.
You also neglect to quote from the interview where the researcher explicitly says that decisions about circumcision are generally not individual decisions, but are collective decisions taken by the extended family and other influential members of the community. 
Once again, your argument is based on incomplete information.

mrkiscool2

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

Some women are pressurized into FGM the same way some women are pressurized by abusive boyfriends into getting an abortion.

But some women choose to do FGM of their own accord. Are you pro-choice for these women?

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT! Oh my glob, I'm done talking to you. You're a fcuking vile person and I pity any woman in your life.

2wsxcde3

sondagefaux wrote: »

You've either deliberately or mistakenly left out the parts of the interview which show that for many girls and women, their consent is not given freely and is the result of social pressures put on women in the societies they live.
You also neglect to quote from the interview where the researcher explicitly says that decisions about circumcision are generally not individual decisions, but are collective decisions taken by the extended family and other influential members of the community. 
Once again, your argument is based on incomplete information.

We have societal pressures too. Women must have a good career etc etc. And so a child would stop that. Women who stay at home minding children are often stigmatized in this country for "scrounging off the state". Women are under pressure from society to not be one of these moms.

Grayson

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

Would you object to FGM being legalized in this country so? Some want it legalized. Or would you try to impose your viewpoints and morality on others by insisting it stay illegal.

Are you pro-choice for these women:

Why Some Women Choose to Get Circumcised
An anthropologist discusses some common misconceptions about female genital cutting, including the idea that men force women to undergo the procedure.
(Source: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/04/female-genital-mutilation-cutting-anthropologist/389640/ )

A couple of things.

1) please stop posting the same thing over and over again.

2) is fgm illegal? I mean just about any cosmetic surgery can be gotten by a consenting adult. It might be stupid but there's any amount of scarification I could get done. I know FGM is condemned and it's illegal to do it to teenagers but is the procedure actually illegal in all cases?

3) What has it got with the right of a woman to chose to terminate a pregnancy.

pitifulgod

Charmeleon wrote: »

That was the case before contraception and the right to travel were corrected in law. If you want to prevent pregnancy, have an abortion or the morning after pill the state will not stand in your way. The question is whether abortion should be permitted as a service within the state.

That's not true, if you can't travel to the UK due to being an asylum seeker or not meeting visa requirements or if you simply can't afford to travel. So yep, the state does prevent certain people from having abortions due to not everyone having same advantages to travel to UK.

2wsxcde3

Grayson wrote: »

What has it got with the right of a woman to chose to terminate a pregnancy.

I'm testing the consistency of the pro-choice position (which is a fair thing to do in any argument). If you truly believe a woman should be able to do whatever she wants with her body, then you have to follow that position to its natural conclusion.

But we seem to be seeing that pro-choice people don't believe that women who follow a religion or culture different from their own should have the choice to do whatever she wants with her own body.

Pro-life people are often viewed as "controlling a woman and her body" if they are against abortion. But you can see from your own position on FGM (which i presume you are against it), your position is out of compassion for how the procedure impacts other people (such as women who don't want FGM) and children who are given no say in the procedure (like the unborn child). And so you don't believe the procedure should be legalized simply to placate women who do want FGM ...due to the effect it will have on those who don't want it.

Grayson

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

I'm testing the consistency of the pro-choice position (which is a fair thing to do in any argument). If you truly believe a woman should be able to do whatever she wants with her body, then you have to follow that position to its natural conclusion.

But we seem to be seeing that pro-choice people don't believe that women who follow a religion or culture different from their own should have the choice to do whatever she wants with her own body.

Pro-life people are often viewed as "controlling a woman and her body" if they are against abortion. But you can see from your own position on FGM (which i presume you are against it), your position is out of compassion for how the procedure impacts other people (such as women who don't want FGM) and children who are given no say in the procedure (like the unborn child). And so you don't believe the procedure should be legalized simply to placate women who do want FGM ...due to the effect it will have on those who don't want it.

What you're suggesting is a slippery slope argument. It's bollox.

For what it's worth, if anyone of their own free will wants to change their genitals then they can work away. I'm not about to stop a bloke getting a prince albert even though I personally consider it stupid.

Edit: Btw, the issue most people have with FGM is someone being forced to endure it. I'm against that. Just as I'm against someone being forced to carry a pregnancy to term or being forced to have a termination.

Note the word forced. As in it's not their choice.

2wsxcde3

Grayson wrote: »

For what it's worth, if anyone of their own free will wants to change their genitals then they can work away.

Then it would need to be legalized in this country first and practiced under a safe medical environment in our hospitals.

SusieBlue

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

I'm testing the consistency of the pro-choice position (which is a fair thing to do in any argument). If you truly believe a woman should be able to do whatever she wants with her body, then you have to follow that position to its natural conclusion.

But we seem to be seeing that pro-choice people don't believe that women who follow a religion or culture different from their own should have the choice to do whatever she wants with her own body.

Pro-life people are often viewed as "controlling a woman and her body" if they are against abortion. But you can see from your own position on FGM (which i presume you are against it), your position is out of compassion for how the procedure impacts other people (such as women who don't want FGM) and children who are given no say in the procedure (like the unborn child). And so you don't believe the procedure should be legalized simply to placate women who do want FGM ...due to the effect it will have on those who don't want it.

I’ll humour you.

I disagree with FGM, it’s misogynic, barbaric and and used as a means to control women.

However if a living, sentient woman WANTS and CONSENTS to having her genitals mutilated, then who am I to stop her?

sondagefaux

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

sondagefaux wrote: »

You've either deliberately or mistakenly left out the parts of the interview which show that for many girls and women, their consent is not given freely and is the result of social pressures put on women in the societies they live.
You also neglect to quote from the interview where the researcher explicitly says that decisions about circumcision are generally not individual decisions, but are collective decisions taken by the extended family and other influential members of the community. 
Once again, your argument is based on incomplete information.

We have societal pressures too. Women must have a good career etc etc. And so a child would stop that. Women who stay at home minding children are often stigmatized in this country for "scrounging off the state". Women are under pressure from society to not be one of these moms.

You're reaching now. The Irish state provides child benefit to support child-rearing. It also provides paid parental leave from work and employers are legally constrained from either firing or treating pregnant women or recent mothers in unjustified discriminatory ways - there have been multiple cases where women have successfully sued employers for unfairly discriminating against them on those grounds. 

Women who stay at home minding children are often stigmatized in this country for "scrounging off the state".

Can you provide some evidence of this stigmatisation, especially evidence that it 'often' occurs? Over one-in-three births in Ireland are to women who aren't married at the time of the birth, although many of these women have partners. Many of these women without partners are entitled to One Parent Family Payments. If the degree of stigmatisation you claim is true, I would have thought that only a very small percentage of women would contemplate having children outside of marriage, especially those who will end up reliant on state support while raising their children. And yet Ireland has a high rate of non-marital births (https://phys.org/news/2016-04-unmarried-births-norm-western-europe.html), with 36.5% of all births in 2015 being non-marital births (http://www.cso.ie/en/csolatestnews/pressreleases/2016pressreleases/pressreleasebirthsdeathsandmarriagesin2015/).
If it's such a stigma, you'd think the rates of non-marital births, especially to women without long-term partners who may have to rely on state support while raising their children, would be much lower, around the levels that prevail in eastern Poland for example (see map in first article linked to above).