Petition to impeach pro life UCD SU President...

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Lucille Thundering Ringworm wrote: »

I do not believe it is a separate issue at all. You are discussing the right for an individual to end the life of another person, yet there is no meaningful discussion of the right of an individual to end their own life.

No, it's discussing the right of a woman to terminate a pregnancy, and more broadly discussing the right a woman has over her medical care while pregnant. Equating an embryo or foetus with a dying person is inaccurate.

ct5amr2ig1nfhp

I didn't want to get into a discussion on, is it a person, is it an egg, is it an X. In my view, you are ending a pregnancy as you say yourself. There is potential there for embryo, egg, foetus, X or whatever you want to call it to become a person.

Abortion is the deliberate termination of a pregnancy. I don't believe there is an definition of the stage?

volchitsa wrote: »

If you mean abortion, no we're not, we're discussing whether or not a woman can end a pregnancy that has already begun, and if so, up to what stage.

Some people believe that the fertilized egg is already a person, but I think the evidence says that that is basically a religious point of view, and most non religious people wouldn't really agree.

If you have any evidence of when the fertilized egg becomes a person, do let us know, won't you?

Generally, we can all agree that a fertilized egg becomes a person after about 40 weeks.
From conception to birth is an open debate.

volchitsa wrote: »

...If you have any evidence of when the fertilized egg becomes a person, do let us know, won't you?

Grayson

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

good god no. I was forced to watch that in school. once was enough. yikes.

Reminds me of the Dara O'Brian bit where he's talking about the woman in the prenatal class who says "Now for something you all have to consider... Cut or tear"

Lucille Thundering Ringworm

Lucille Thundering Ringworm wrote: »

I do not believe it is a separate issue at all. You are discussing the right for an individual to end the life of another person, yet there is no meaningful discussion of the right of an individual to end their own life.

Nobody was discussing the right to end the life on another person.

Thread is about the impeachment of a SU president

Lucille Thundering Ringworm

Lucille Thundering Ringworm wrote: »

I didn't want to get into a discussion on, is it a person, is it an egg, is it an X.

This is literally the entire crux of the matter, if the issue is abortion

Odhinn

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

good god no. I was forced to watch that in school. once was enough. yikes.

Remember a young woman I worked with coming in after what was her first antenatal class....gone was the rosy glow and big smile of previous months....."whats wrong with ye" sez I, "ye've been in great form".....".....it has to come out though" sez she, staring off into the distance.....

splinter65

....... wrote: »

Same way I dont like looking at images of kidneys inside people or brains or any other image taken inside the body.

Heck I even find tonsils pretty disturbing looking.

Whats your obsession with displaying images of developing fetuses? Do you have the same interest in developing fetuses of non human animals, horse fetuses, dogs etc? Do you want to display images of developing elephants? And if not why not?

I’ve already explained but you can’t be bothered to read the thread and that’s ok I’ll just explain again.
In the course of a debate there’s argument and counter argument.
You’ll frequently have pro repeal posters stating that a developing baby of 16/21/24 weeks is just a bunch of cells and refer to “it” as a “fetus”.
The obvious response to this is to show a picture of a baby developing in the womb at those week stages.
Let people make their own minds up about it.
Pro repealers don’t seem to like this in fact it makes some of them very angry indeed and I can’t understand why.

Fuzzytrooper

frag420 wrote: »

With regards to the pro birth side, would any of you have any issues with images and videos of still birth and miscarriages. How about videos and images of an actual birth,the babies head squeezing out of the ladies vagina, all that blood and body fluid followed by the lady sh1tting herself as happens often during birth, it’s all nature after all!?

I shall assume if I rocked up to a crowd of pro birth campaigners on the street with the above images and a big tv showing live births that nobody would have an issue with it. None of the old men or priests will mind seeing a woman’s bloody vagina with a babies head squeezing out of it with Pro Life Emblazoned across it?.

This is the goal right, to have a birth so why not show it in all its gory glory?

Just a thought....

No major issues to be honest. I can see how people might be upset by it but having been there for 2 births including cutting for one to prevent a tear. It's great seeing the little head poking out.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

splinter65 wrote: »

I’ve already explained but you can’t be bothered to read the thread and that’s ok I’ll just explain again.
In the course of a debate there’s argument and counter argument.
You’ll frequently have pro repeal posters stating that a developing baby of 16/21/24 weeks is just a bunch of cells and refer to “it” as a “fetus”.
The obvious response to this is to show a picture of a baby developing in the womb at those week stages.
Let people make their own minds up about it.
Pro repealers don’t seem to like this in fact it makes some of them very angry indeed and I can’t understand why.

1) There are all sorts of things that are bunches of cells that I'm not keen to look at. Other people's shít is cells. My used tampons are covered in cells. There is nothing wrong with pooping and perioding, but it doesn't mean anyone wants to look at those bunches of cells and people would probably get bemused if I insisted on showing them photos of them.

2) Much as the pictures of abortions which pro-life groups display deliberately misrepresent facts, the images of foetuses in utero they use are misleading. It's not just a case of disinterestedly presenting a neutral image and 'letting people make up their own minds'. There is an agenda and a bias and the usual loose relationship with truth and reality there. It's that agenda and bias that angers people for the most part.

Hotblack Desiato

mikhail wrote: »

I loath the uptick in the use of "anti-choice". It's distortion of a PR term used to frame a political debate, the vile influence of marketing tactics on public discourse. Most of those people are no more anti-choice than you and I are pro-death.

Perhaps you'd engage with the actual post, instead of just tone-policing?

But if you want to talk about the language, Anti-choice is accurate and not derogatory. They don't want pregnant women to have the choice to terminate their pregnancy.

Pro-life is not an accurate term. The 8th amendment has cost women their lives, how 'pro-life' is that? and pro-choice is not anti-life.

Pro-abortion is perjorative also. Abortion is necessary but that doesn't mean it's desirable, in an ideal world nobody would be pregnant if they didn't want to be, and everyone who did want to be would have no health issues etc. associated with it. But the world is not ideal.

Anyway by all means let us know what your preferred terminology is and give reasons as to why.

mikhail

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Perhaps you'd engage with the actual post, instead of just tone-policing?

Sure. Why not? (Tone-policing? Cool, a new label to dismiss something with without engaging it.) EDIT: No, that's not fair. You did, in fairness, engage with it.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

You are showing them respect for their view which is a good thing, but they have zero respect for your view if they want to use the law to coerce women.

"You have zero respect for their view if you want to legalise the murder of foetuses."

This is not my opinion, but rather a mirroring of your post. I have a problem with people like you who cannot empathise with what for many people is a genuinely held belief that ending the life of a foetus is a serious thing, no less than I have a massive problem with people who dismiss the physical and emotional well-being of a mother or her right to control her body.

But if you want to talk about the language, Anti-choice is accurate and not derogatory. They don't want pregnant women to have the choice to terminate their pregnancy.

Sure. But by the same logic, pro-death is also fair for anyone in favour of abortion on demand. After all, something dies, without getting into the debate about what is and isn't a human life.

Pro-life is not an accurate term. The 8th amendment has cost women their lives, how 'pro-life' is that? and pro-choice is not anti-life.

A fair point. The 8th amendment, however, is a sliver of the full debate. Say someone is completely in favour of abortion in situations of rape, incest, foetal abnormality, and risk to the mother. However, this theoretical person is also opposed to abortion on demand.

Firstly, I don't know what percentage of the populace that would characterise, but it's probably a fair description of most of the swing vote for the referendum. Now, do you want to alientate those people by calling them anti-choice, or do you want to discuss things with them respectfully?

Secondly, such a person can be quite fairly characterised as pro-life. Yes, it's an umbrella term that doesn't capture every nuance of the debate. If you don't respect their labels, why should they respect yours?

The fact is that I detest the binary nature of the labels. They tribalise the discussion, and make it easy to demonise those voting in another way. Most people don't believe in a woman's right to abort right up to birth. Most people (over 70% - even with the distorted debate - in a poll I recall published recently) don't believe that there are no situations in which abortion is reasonable. If we didn't insist on reducing the whole argument down to two syllables, if there was room for nuance, it'd be a lot easier to discuss this sensibly, instead of flinging **** and calling out the other guys for flinging it back. (That's not me, I'm sure you believe. But read the two "zero respect" quotes above and think again. But it's different, of course, because you're right and they're wrong.)

Pro-abortion is perjorative also. Abortion is necessary but that doesn't mean it's desirable, in an ideal world nobody would be pregnant if they didn't want to be, and everyone who did want to be would have no health issues etc. associated with it. But the world is not ideal.

Why would I defend a position I don't hold? I don't use that term. Where it's used to negatively characterise pro-choice people or arguments, I object to it just the same as any other negative labelling tactic. Furthermore, I'm not clear on your motives for bringing it up. Are you trying to put words in my mouth? It kind of feels like that.

Hotblack Desiato

You surely know who the term 'anti-choicer' refers to - it's certainly not swing voters. It's SPUC (still around), YD, Iona, etc. etc. who were opposed to the X case, opposed POLDPA, in other words showed no regard for the lives of women put at risk by pregnancy. It is the loud, vocal and small in number campaigners on that side who gain media exposure out of all proportion to the small percentage of the public who actually supports their extreme position.

I put no words in your mouth, but as you wanted to discuss labels then let's discuss ALL the labels thrown around.

mikhail

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

You surely know who the term 'anti-choicer' refers to - it's certainly not swing voters. It's SPUC (still around), YD, Iona, etc. etc. who were opposed to the X case, opposed POLDPA, in other words showed no regard for the lives of women put at risk by pregnancy. It is the loud, vocal and small in number campaigners on that side who gain media exposure out of all proportion to the small percentage of the public who actually supports their extreme position.

It is not used in such a limited - and reasonable - way in my experience.

I put no words in your mouth, but as you wanted to discuss labels then let's discuss ALL the labels thrown around.

Ok. I've made my position clear, I think.