The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

Zubeneschamali

bubblypop wrote: »

I don't think there is anyone looking for late term terminations?

I am in favour of no time limits as in Canada.

Zubeneschamali

I believe it is a matter for a woman and her doctor, and we should completely remove the shadow of police and lawyers peering over the doctors shoulder. Let them do their jobs and deliver the best care.

Zubeneschamali

What do you propose to do about a case where a doctor decides to perform an abortion at 17 weeks? How do you propose we monitor all pregnant women to know if they at 16 or 17 weeks along? Will you ban travel to the UK? If not, what's the fecking point: same as today, create hard cases of women in institutions

Make a doctor tick a medical needs box? Make the woman claim rape?

All for what?

Woodville56

I've yet to hear an expectant mother talk of her unborn child as a feotus. Seems to me if it's planned or wanted , the unborn is a baby, if it's unwanted or an inconvenience it's a feotus or a "clump of cells" as described in these posts regularly. Personally, I'm also apprehensive about allowing the Oireachtas the power to legislate on this issue - it's much too important to entrust as a bargaining chip to a bunch of career politicians, whose sole purpose in life is to attain/ retain power and the cushy salary - pension. The people should always have the final say in this issue, irrespective of the number of referenda it takes to get the balance right between a restrictive and liberal abortion regime.

Absolam

volchitsa wrote: »

I haven't seen anyone arguing for killing healthy term or near term babies. I think you're making that up. Also, weren't we told that Ms Y got a termination? Her baby's alive, right?

I think we're usually told Miss Y didn't receive the termination of the life of her child in accordance with her wishes that some would prefer she be entitled to, rather than the termination of her pregnancy in accordance with the law she was entitled to.

I think all that wordplay really says is some people are prepared to be disingenuous when it comes to the use of the word termination (or abortion) pretending they think it's being applied to a pregnancy or life when it's generally readily apparent from their target's usage how they really intended it.... substituting apparent point scoring for their lack of a substantive argument for their position. A bit like the "What's your solution for women who don't want to remain pregnant" schtick.

professore

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I am in favour of no time limits as in Canada.

This is why we need whatever replaces the 8th to be written into the constitution IMO. A lot of the people on here are taking a "sure it'll be grand - no one is talking about late stage terminations on demand" approach - but leaving it up to the politicians makes this a real possibility. If you are OK with that, great, but I'm not OK with it.

For people like Zubeneschamali too ... if the 8th is repealed and then the politicians just make the law reflect the status quo - also a possibility, especially if the likes of the Healy Raes hold the balance of power - then they will be very unhappy too - as I would be.

As for the doctors know best argument ... all you have to do is look at some of the horrific cosmetic surgeries or doctors prescribing their patients lots of addictive medication to see that this is not always the case at all. In fact the Savita case is a good example of this. They could have aborted the baby completely legally in that case, but chose not to. Not saying it would have made a difference but they legally could have done it.

B0jangles

Quick question, when you were pregnant infogiver , did you tell people ' I have a baby' or would you have said 'i'm expecting a baby'? Did you call yourself a 'mother' or an 'expectant mother'?

pjohnson

infogiver wrote: »

Well, she was using the correct terminology for her circumstances apparently.
If she's happy to be pregnant we will allow her to call the contents of her womb a "baby" , even though there is a risk that if she is overheard by someone who has had an abortion that that person might be offended and hurt and that's dreadfully unfair, seemingly.
However if she's unhappy then everyone must refer to the contents as a foetus or "bunch of cells" is acceptable too.
Also it's not an abortion it's a termination
zubenshemaile prefers if you use these terms for 40 weeks.
Despite you seeing a baby come out of your girlfriend, if she had chosen to abort it a few days before hand, as she is entitled to do in Canada (some posters here won't be happy till we have that here) then it wouldn't have been a baby at all, it would be a foetus.
It seems it's all about how you "feel" about being pregnant.

You really do have issues regarding the scientific vs. everyday terminology. Never seen anyone struggle this badly.

AnGaelach

infogiver wrote: »

If she's happy to be pregnant we will allow her to call the contents of her womb a "baby" , even though there is a risk that if she is overheard by someone who has had an abortion that that person might be offended and hurt and that's dreadfully unfair, seemingly.

What a stupid point to raise, "I made a decision and now I want to police what you say because it might inadvertently offend me".

Outlaw Pete

Here we have the remarkable story of where a blob of biological matter became a baby for a short while (just so it could be operated on) and then immediately went back to being a bunch of cells right after.

Amazing, must be some kind of mutant...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c70FBEwshrE

pjohnson

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Here we have the remarkable story of where a blob of biological matter became a baby for a short while (just so it could be operated on) and then immediately went back to being a bunch of cells right after.

Amazing, must be some kind of mutant...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c70FBEwshrE

Maybe you lot should stop trying to use terms ya'll cant understand.

Outlaw Pete

B0jangles wrote: »

Quick question, when you were pregnant infogiver , did you tell people ' I have a baby' or would you have said 'i'm expecting a baby'? Did you call yourself a 'mother' or an 'expectant mother'?

Here's a neonatal surgeon and during an operation, and multiple times afterwards, he refers to the baby as a baby (oftentimes when the mother is not around).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLjfmRacgYw

B0jangles

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Here's a neonatal surgeon and during an operation, and multiple times afterwards, he refers to the baby as a baby (oftentimes when the mother is not around).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLjfmRacgYw

That is not an answer to the question I asked, nor was the question directed at you.

sean8carthy

6 million jews killed in the second world war. a terrible attrocity and is still being talked about today seventy years later.
40 million american babies killed by abortion since the seventies to today and only very few people care! where has the compassion gone?

NuMarvel

professore wrote: »

This is why we need whatever replaces the 8th to be written into the constitution IMO. A lot of the people on here are taking a "sure it'll be grand - no one is talking about late stage terminations on demand" approach - but leaving it up to the politicians makes this a real possibility. If you are OK with that, great, but I'm not OK with it.

It took 20 years, a case being brought to the ECHR, and public outcry to the death of a pregnant woman for our politicians to legislate just for abortions when there's a real risk to a woman's life.

I do not consider it at all likely that our politicians will do a complete 180 on the matter and allow abortion without any restrictions as to reason or gestation. Some of them are already balking at the recommendations of the CA, so we'll be lucky if even those passed.

Most countries manage to legislate for abortion without resorting to constitutional provisions. And out of those countries, I can't think of any where politicians have gone on to allow "late stage abortions on demand". There is not reason to believe Ireland would be any different, and every reason to believe we won't be.

Zubeneschamali

sean8carthy wrote: »

6 million jews killed in the second world war. a terrible attrocity and is still being talked about today seventy years later.
40 million american babies killed by abortion since the seventies to today and only very few people care! where has the compassion gone?

Everyone including you knows abortion is not murder. Look it up. Never was, never will be.

pjohnson

sean8carthy wrote: »

6 million jews killed in the second world war. a terrible attrocity and is still being talked about today seventy years later.
40 million american babies killed by abortion since the seventies to today and only very few people care! where has the compassion gone?

Bahahahahahaha hahahaha

Oh well I have to say the consistently well educated views from the anti-choice is certainly entertaining.

farmer john8

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Everyone including you knows abortion is not murder. Look it up. Never was, never will be.

the nazis were responsible whether the jews lived or died the same as the mother carrying the baby. why cant the woman who decides to end the life of her unborn baby be allowed to press some device set up by the doctors to end the babys life and take full responsibility for her actions

The_Valeyard

pjohnson wrote: »

Bahahahahahaha hahahaha

Oh well I have to say the consistently well educated views from the anti-choice is certainly entertaining.

As can be the hysteria from the pro-death side.

frag420

The_Valeyard wrote: »

As can be the hysteria from the pro-death side.

Yeah the Irish Undertakers Society are always hysterical!!

pjohnson

farmer john8 wrote: »

the nazis were responsible whether the jews lived or died the same as the mother carrying the baby. why cant the woman who decides to end the life of her unborn baby be allowed to press some device set up by the doctors to end the babys life and take full responsibility for her actions

farmer john8 wrote: »

i used to be very opposed to the liberal agenda but over the years i have mellowed quiet a bit .
1 abortion if people want to kill their unborn children let them the kids would only turn out like their parents anyway
2 gay if they wish hence no procreation
3 Euthanasia then they can go and kill themselves
all this will only insure that there are less lefty atheists around in the future

Emm

pjohnson

The_Valeyard wrote: »

As can be the hysteria from the pro-death side.

Yes when people dare start using scientific terms such as foetus the anti choicers instantly think that fetus and baby are two separate things. I can only imagine the overwhelming confusion if someone called an elderly person an "octogenarian".............but but you cant be an elderly AND an octogenarian.......

njs030

farmer john8 wrote: »

the nazis were responsible whether the jews lived or died the same as the mother carrying the baby. why cant the woman who decides to end the life of her unborn baby be allowed to press some device set up by the doctors to end the babys life and take full responsibility for her actions

Like swallowing the abortion pill do you mean?

infogiver

B0jangles wrote: »

Quick question, when you were pregnant infogiver , did you tell people ' I have a baby' or would you have said 'i'm expecting a baby'? Did you call yourself a 'mother' or an 'expectant mother'?

It was 20 years ago. From the day I knew I was pregnant she was my baby. When I went to my ante natal check ups at Holles St starting at 18 weeks the midwives would have used the expression "have you felt baby move yet?" and subsequently "have you felt baby move much?", even though posters here who claim to work in the oby/gynae world claim that only the expression "foetus" is used.
I'm afraid no one told the midwives in Holles St that in 1997.
It strikes me that a lot of the politics of the pro abortion lobby is tied up with terminology and phrases.
For example, even though you are either "pro water charges" or "anti water charges" you cannot use the expression "pro abortion" . The lobby insists its "pro choice ".
It's not aborting a baby or even a foetus, it's "terminating a pregnancy ".
And it's definitely not a baby. The contents of my 40 week gestation womb is a foetus even though once it's travelled down the 4 or 5 inches of my vagina(sometimes quite quickly) it then becomes a baby.
It strikes me that in order to "sell" abortion to the masses, the exhausting mental gymnastics is like a strict code to make it palatable to people, and there's a level of dishonesty there that's disturbing.

pjohnson

infogiver wrote: »

It was 20 years ago. From the day I knew I was pregnant she was my baby. When I went to my ante natal check ups at Holles St starting at 18 weeks the midwives would have used the expression "have you felt baby move yet?" and subsequently "have you felt baby move much?", even though posters here who claim to work in the oby/gynae world claim that only the expression "foetus" is used.
I'm afraid no one told the midwives in Holles St that in 1997.
It strikes me that a lot of the politics of the pro abortion lobby is tied up with terminology and phrases.
For example, even though you are either "pro water charges" or "anti water charges" you cannot use the expression "pro abortion" . The lobby insists its "pro choice ".
It's not aborting a baby or even a foetus, it's "terminating a pregnancy ".
And it's definitely not a baby. The contents of my 40 week gestation womb is a foetus even though once it's travelled down the 4 or 5 inches of my vagina(sometimes quite quickly) it then becomes a baby.
It strikes me that in order to "sell" abortion to the masses, the exhausting mental gymnastics is like a strict code to make it palatable to people, and there's a level of dishonesty there that's disturbing.

"Mental Gymnastics" is also known as Science and relies on facts. Its not for everyone I guess.

infogiver

neonsofa wrote: »

I referred to my child as "it" for the entire pregnancy as I didn't know the gender. Then when her uncle regularly referred to her as "it" after the birth it started to sound kind of rude. It's all about context and who is saying it. Expectant parents are obviously going to be more likely to use affectionate terms.

But when you had a scan of your womb when you were pregnant you didn't see any baby?

neonsofa

infogiver wrote: »

But when you had a scan of your womb when you were pregnant you didn't see any baby?

You went to the bother of quoting my post so im unsure how you then failed to read what I actually said.

infogiver

pjohnson wrote: »

"Mental Gymnastics" is also known as Science and relies on facts. Its not for everyone I guess.

Mental gymnastics is being on gaurd all the time when speaking about pregnancy and childbirth so as not to confer personhood on the contents of a pregnant woman's womb.
You think you sound very clever, I'm not afraid to point out your just coming across as unbearably arrogant by dismissing the opinion of someone who doesn't agree with you.
Arrogant and immature to be precise.

infogiver

infogiver wrote: »

But when you had a scan of your womb when you were pregnant you didn't see any baby?

I just wanted you to confirm that you didn't see a baby on screen at any of your scans.
You've confirmed now that you didn't.
No offence intended.

neonsofa

infogiver wrote: »

I just wanted you to confirm that you didn't see a baby on screen at any of your scans.
You've confirmed now that you didn't.
No offence intended.

I've confirmed what exactly? I'm sure you have some sort of point to make but it's absolutely lost on me. As for offence, again, no idea what you're even referring to.

eviltwin

infogiver wrote: »

But when you had a scan of your womb when you were pregnant you didn't see any baby?

It's a developing baby.

pjohnson

infogiver wrote: »

Mental gymnastics is being on gaurd all the time when speaking about pregnancy and childbirth so as not to confer personhood on the contents of a pregnant woman's womb.
You think you sound very clever, I'm not afraid to point out your just coming across as unbearably arrogant by dismissing the opinion of someone who doesn't agree with you.
Arrogant and immature to be precise.

No despite your confusion and hysterics at the idea that a foetus can become a baby simply by travelling through a female is laughable. That is the literal definition of baby. The Foetus is the correct term between embryo and birth. So while you seem to be trying your best to I dunno disprove foetus is a viable term? You are just showing a hilarious lack of understanding. The foetus going through the 4-5 inches of your vagina IS the foetus becoming a baby.


You also seem to be remarkably confused in your insistence that the term "baby" and "foetus" cannot coexist. You insisting on calling your foetus a baby for its entire gestation does not alter all the scientific knowledge in the area. You can call your foetus cletus/baby/sink/thundertron2000.....its still a foetus. It doesnt become a sink/thundertron2000 because you call it one (It may become a Cletus). You cant (but you certainly are trying) just ignore facts. It IS a foetus until birth whether you like it or not. What you label the foetus is unique to you it does not mutate it from being an actual foetus. You may choose to call it "baby" but until it exits your vagina it is an actual foetus.


I'm sorry facts inconvenience/confuse you.

PopePalpatine

pjohnson wrote: »

Emm

You forgot this one:

farmer john8 wrote: »

if the scumbag lefty liberals want to abort their own children they can go right ahead and jump on a ferry to the uk and on the way back jump off.they wont dictate to the ordinary decent people of ireland

Of course Mr "Pro-Abort Hussies Get Out REEEEEEEEE!" thanked it. :rolleyes:

One eyed Jack

pjohnson wrote: »

No despite your confusion and hysterics...

I'm sorry facts inconvenience/confuse you.

Does the fact that the 8th amendment uses the legal term "the unborn" with reference to human life, confuse you? Because to refer to it as human life (as distinct from other forms of life) is far more scientifically accurate than your insistence upon using medical terminology while ignoring terms that are commonly used in a social context.

pjohnson

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Does the fact that the 8th amendment uses the legal term "the unborn" with reference to human life, confuse you? Because to refer to it as human life (as distinct from other forms of life) is far more scientifically accurate than your insistence upon using medical terminology while ignoring terms that are commonly used in a social context.

"Unborn" means foetus not baby. Without being born it is not a baby...........

One eyed Jack

pjohnson wrote: »

"Unborn" means foetus not baby. Without being born it is not a baby...........

Nope, you're still wrong. The unborn is a legal term -

"unborn”, in relation to a human life, is a reference to such a life during the period of time commencing after implantation in the womb of a woman and ending on the complete emergence of the life from the body of the woman


http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2013/act/35/enacted/en/pdf

When referring to human life in the context of the 8th amendment, you're going to have to restrict yourself to legal definitions, not medical terminology. Your attempts to suggest that the foetus is more scientifically accurate and to hold people to those definitions, ignores the fact that statistically speaking, more abortions are performed before the developing human life ever develops to a point where it meets the medical definition of foetus.

PopePalpatine

pjohnson wrote: »

"Unborn" means foetus not baby. Without being born it is not a baby...........

And that's before you consider who decided the 8th Amendment's wording.

Zubeneschamali

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Does the fact that the 8th amendment uses the legal term "the unborn" with reference to human life, confuse you?

Yes.

It confuses our High Court judges too, and I"d say the supreme court are hoping we erase the term before they have to rule on what it might mean.

pjohnson

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Nope, you're still wrong. The unborn is a legal term -

"unborn”, in relation to a human life, is a reference to such a life during the period of time commencing after implantation in the womb of a woman and ending on the complete emergence of the life from the body of the woman


http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2013/act/35/enacted/en/pdf

When referring to human life in the context of the 8th amendment, you're going to have to restrict yourself to legal definitions, not medical terminology. Your attempts to suggest that the foetus is more scientifically accurate and to hold people to those definitions, ignores the fact that statistically speaking, more abortions are performed before the developing human life ever develops to a point where it meets the medical definition of foetus.

Yes but I was in the most part adressing a person who has repeatedly shown that she does not believe a foetus exists and seems to find it bewildering. She believes that from day 1 it is a baby which I think you can agree is just hilariously wrong. I think trying to break that news to someone is somewhat easier as a starting point. You've got to move these things slowly. You cant give someone advanced gymastics when they are just beginning to learn.


Furthermore the fact that you admit that the statistics show that most abortions occur before a foetus is even developed does also crap all over the anti choice hysteria that full term babies will be executed. Most abortions occur long before thier hysterics. Facts really dont suit the anti choice side. But that doesnt stop them posting pictures of full term often born babies and claiming how abortion will "kill the babiez". Yet again propaganda trumps fact with that lot.

One eyed Jack

PopePalpatine wrote: »

And that's before you consider who decided the 8th Amendment's wording.

That would be the Oireachtas PP, and we're about to let them do the very same again if they choose to adopt the recommendations of the Citizens Assembly. Abortion was already illegal in Ireland before the 8th amendment, and the introduction of the 8th amendment didn't prevent the Oireachtas from introducing legislation that would allow for abortion in circumstances other than those already legislated for. It only places an onus on the State to uphold the right to life of the unborn as equal to that of the mother as far as practicable.

It's simply not practical for the State to try and prevent women from travelling abroad to procure an abortion in order to end the life of the unborn, but it was clear from recent legal cases that the State can impose restrictions and medical practitioners have quite considerable leverage to act one way or the other in terms of the services they will and won't provide to women seeking an abortion who are suicidal - a termination of their pregnancy with an unexpected outcome, due to semantics around the issue of abortion.

infogiver

pjohnson wrote: »

Yes but I was in the most part adressing a person who has repeatedly shown that she does not believe a foetus exists and seems to find it bewildering. She believes that from day 1 it is a baby which I think you can agree is just hilariously wrong. I think trying to break that news to someone is somewhat easier as a starting point. You've got to move these things slowly. You cant give someone advanced gymastics when they are just beginning to learn.


Furthermore the fact that you admit that the statistics show that most abortions occur before a foetus is even developed does also crap all over the anti choice hysteria that full term babies will be executed. Most abortions occur long before thier hysterics. Facts really dont suit the anti choice side. But that doesnt stop them posting pictures of full term often born babies and claiming how abortion will "kill the babiez". Yet again propaganda trumps fact with that lot.

Your making yourself incredibly upset because I don't agree with you.
You've gone to a lot of effort to dehumanise an unborn baby so that it becomes palatable to you to dispose of it because it has inconvenienced you.
You becoming increasingly patronising and condescending with every post and I can only imagine how frustrated you must feel in your real life when you encounter real people making idiotic mistakes like Serena Williams during the week referring to not just her unborn baby but an unborn child!!
And her only 20 weeks pregnant with a bunch of cells!!
Carry on.

One eyed Jack

pjohnson wrote: »

Yes but I was in the most part adressing a person who has repeatedly shown that she does not believe a foetus exists and seems to find it bewildering. She believes that from day 1 it is a baby which I think you can agree is just hilariously wrong. I think trying to break that news to someone is somewhat easier as a starting point. You've got to move these things slowly. You cant give someone advanced gymastics when they are just beginning to learn.

I believe from day one it's a baby too, and I'm not wrong. I've met men who claim they are women, I'm not going to tell them they're wrong either, even if science is more on my side than theirs. The gender recognition act says they're right too. I hope that's not going too fast for you that you can't understand the influence of context upon understanding in a discussion. I'm not too bothered what someone else may refer to it as, I can still work within whatever framework they choose, whether it be legal, medical, philosophical, political, religious, scientific or social.

The problems only arise when people start trying to restrict other people to terminology that suits their argument, because that's the only argument they know, as opposed to being capable of objectively making their arguments in other contexts.

Furthermore the fact that you admit that the statistics show that most abortions occur before a foetus is even developed does also crap all over the anti choice hysteria that full term babies will be executed. Most abortions occur long before thier hysterics. Facts really dont suit the anti choice side. But that doesnt stop them posting pictures of full term often born babies and claiming how abortion will "kill the babiez". Yet again propaganda trumps fact with that lot.

Ohh I don't think that point of view is solely the purview of the anti-choice perspective. I've seen plenty within the pro-choice movement that would suggest they aren't immune to propaganda and claiming some rather hairy nonsense as 'facts' to support their beliefs either. Many of them don't appear to understand the difference between their personal morality and ethics as it is.

neonsofa

infogiver wrote: »

Your making yourself incredibly upset because I don't agree with you.
You've gone to a lot of effort to dehumanise an unborn baby so that it becomes palatable to you to dispose of it because it has inconvenienced you.
You becoming increasingly patronising and condescending with every post and I can only imagine how frustrated you must feel in your real life when you encounter real people making idiotic mistakes like Serena Williams during the week referring to not just her unborn baby but an unborn child!!
And her only 20 weeks pregnant with a bunch of cells!!
Carry on.

Again, expectant parents are obviously going to use affectionate terms. It's the same as how a couple will say they are "trying for a baby" rather than trying to conceive, the baby is the end result, they do not try to create a fully formed baby from the get go- they are well aware of how conception and pregnancy works- but they are referring to the whole idea of "the baby", long before it is a baby. Claiming that the use of the term baby somehow proves something is pointless.

pjohnson

infogiver wrote: »

Your making yourself incredibly upset because I don't agree with you.
You've gone to a lot of effort to dehumanise an unborn baby so that it becomes palatable to you to dispose of it because it has inconvenienced you.
You becoming increasingly patronising and condescending with every post and I can only imagine how frustrated you must feel in your real life when you encounter real people making idiotic mistakes like Serena Williams during the week referring to not just her unborn baby but an unborn child!!
And her only 20 weeks pregnant with a bunch of cells!!
Carry on.

No its riotously amusing trying to explain what should have been thought in basic biology. I'm still using too many big words for you I'll stick with Serena since you like her.

Serena is not wrong I never said she is. She can call it an unborn baby or an unborn child or an ukelele or a fridge or a koala or a fire engine or John Lennon or a kalashnikov if she wants.

None of that changes the fact that she is actually pregnant with a bunch of cells that is called a foetus.


You still seem to think that since you believe it can only be called a baby that makes it a baby for everyone. Science be damned lol.

njs030

infogiver wrote: »

Your making yourself incredibly upset because I don't agree with you.
You've gone to a lot of effort to dehumanise an unborn baby so that it becomes palatable to you to dispose of it because it has inconvenienced you.
You becoming increasingly patronising and condescending with every post and I can only imagine how frustrated you must feel in your real life when you encounter real people making idiotic mistakes like Serena Williams during the week referring to not just her unborn baby but an unborn child!!
And her only 20 weeks pregnant with a bunch of cells!!
Carry on.

Have you anything to contribute other than bitchy comments and constant repetitions about your issues with wording?
Genuine serious question?

Instead of the obsession with what words people use maybe have a little more empathy and caring for your fellow humans.

One eyed Jack

pjohnson wrote: »

No its riotously amusing trying to explain what should have been thought in basic biology. I'm still using too many big words for you I'll stick with Serena since you like her.

I can't tell do you mean 'thought', or 'taught', as both words would make sense in that context, a bit like the terms 'foetus', 'baby', 'clump of cells', 'human life', 'unborn', 'pre-born', describe pretty much the same concept, and indeed are often used interchangeably (and that's just in the english language!).

Serena is not wrong I never said she is. She can call it an unborn baby or an unborn child or an ukelele or a fridge or a koala or a fire engine or John Lennon or a kalashnikov if she wants.

None of that changes the fact that she is actually pregnant with a bunch of cells that is called a foetus.

So you respect Serena's choice to refer to her baby as she chooses, but you still expect that she should give a tuppeny fcuk for how you want to refer to her baby? Don't get too hysterical about that, it's a common theme I've noticed among people who claim to support women who want to make choices for themselves... as long as those women's choices agree with theirs. Otherwise, they're apparently stupid women who should make better choices.

You still seem to think that since you believe it can only be called a baby that makes it a baby for everyone. Science be damned lol.

I don't think that's been infogiver's position at all, whereas it's yourself who seems insistent that the terminology you use is the terminology that should apply regardless of context. Not so much science be damned, as "anyone who doesn't agree with me be dammed", but as I said earlier - an understandably common theme among people who proclaim to be promoting the rights of other people to make choices for themselves, as long as those people agree with the choices other people would make for them.

njs030

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't think that's been infogiver's position at all, .

Unfortunately it is. It's almost the only thing she says and has been since day one, it's the reason people get so annoyed with her.
She disappears for a few days then reappears, quotes a post she agrees with and makes a snotty little comment that's derogatory to pro-choice, mentions the words fetus= baby and abortion = termination and usually levers in 9 month abortions along the way.

It's an ongoing little game of hers that she seems to enjoy.

pjohnson

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I can't tell do you mean 'thought', or 'taught', as both words would make sense in that context, a bit like the terms 'foetus', 'baby', 'clump of cells', 'human life', 'unborn', 'pre-born', describe pretty much the same concept, and indeed are often used interchangeably (and that's just in the english language!).





So you respect Serena's choice to refer to her baby as she chooses, but you still expect that she should give a tuppeny fcuk for how you want to refer to her baby? Don't get too hysterical about that, it's a common theme I've noticed among people who claim to support women who want to make choices for themselves... as long as those women's choices agree with theirs. Otherwise, they're apparently stupid women who should make better choices.





I don't think that's been infogiver's position at all, whereas it's yourself who seems insistent that the terminology you use is the terminology that should apply regardless of context. Not so much science be damned, as "anyone who doesn't agree with me be dammed", but as I said earlier - an understandably common theme among people who proclaim to be promoting the rights of other people to make choices for themselves, as long as those people agree with the choices other people would make for them.

1. Like I said call it a fridge if you want. Doesn't mutate it into an actual fridge.

2. No I dont give a flying fcuk what Serena thinks but again I was trying to address infogiver who struggles to differentiate these big words. I dont care what the fcuk she calls the foetus but infogiver believes that since she can cite someone who calls it a baby then its 100% a baby and she has disproved the existence of a foetus.

3. I dont really care overall about terminology but when someone does not even seem capable of comprehending any of the embryo's development it is exceptionally amusing. I believe the reproductive system is taught to 15 year olds nowadays.

Maybe its a generational thing she did say she was pregnant 20 years ago. Curriculums have changed since then.

One eyed Jack

notjustsweet wrote: »

Unfortunately it is. It's almost the only thing she says and has been since day one, it's the reason people get so annoyed with her.
She disappears for a few days then reappears, quotes a post she agrees with and makes a snotty little comment that's derogatory to pro-choice, mentions the words fetus= baby and abortion = termination and usually levers in 9 month abortions along the way.

It's an ongoing little game of hers that she seems to enjoy.

You could have just described many posters on both sides in the thread there if I'm to be completely honest with you. I mean, I've seen plenty of posts from both sides that are less about fostering discussion, and more about point scoring for thanks. Honestly that's why I bailed out early when I saw that's the way the thread was going.

Posters objected to an observable statistic that more unmarried women availed of abortion due to socioeconomic circumstances than married women. Their objection appeared to be based on their perception that I was inferring something untoward about unmarried women. I didn't make up the categories for these surveys and reports. I couldn't care less for a pregnant woman's marital status personally. It appears those posters who objected to my use of the term cared more about their perception of unmarried women who would choose to avail of an abortion than I do, and they chose to project their perceptions and preconceived ideas onto my observations.

In the very same way, pjonston (among others) has chosen to project their perceptions onto other posters and characterise their posts in such a fashion rather than make any attempt to understand their position. It's an ongoing game of snotty little comments and derogatory remarks that posters entrenched in their positions on either side of the discussion, appear to engage in.

For what it's worth btw, I have always made arguments from a humanitarian ethical perspective, rather than a religious moral perspective, which is the position those who disagree with my position appear to assume I would take. Their perspective appears to be based upon their political perspective, which is why they may never understand the idea of working class morality.

infogiver

pjohnson wrote: »

No its riotously amusing trying to explain what should have been thought in basic biology. I'm still using too many big words for you I'll stick with Serena since you like her.

Serena is not wrong I never said she is. She can call it an unborn baby or an unborn child or an ukelele or a fridge or a koala or a fire engine or John Lennon or a kalashnikov if she wants.

None of that changes the fact that she is actually pregnant with a bunch of cells that is called a foetus.


You still seem to think that since you believe it can only be called a baby that makes it a baby for everyone. Science be damned lol.

...and more condescending prattle as you become increasingly frustrated.
Do you use that kind of patronising language in real life with people who simply don't agree with you and won't acquiesce to your demands or do you reserve it for your anonymous persona?