Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

Options
1…1314161819…325

Comments

  • Options
    #452
    kylith
    Registered Users Posts: 17,736 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    sean635 wrote: »
    Let me say this clearly: I believe a person is defined as an individual human being.

    And I don’t belive it is an individual human being until it is sufficiently developed to live without being dependent on the placenta.


  • Options
    #453
    MilesMorales1
    Registered Users Posts: 6,431 ✭✭✭MilesMorales1


    sean635 wrote: »
    From the moment of conception it is a separate organism with it’s own separate DNA. It is absolutely an individual human being and absolutely a person.

    No, its a foetus with no thoughts or consciousness or feeling until a certain point of conception. According to the UK NHS, thats up to 24 weeks, so 6 months roughly. Think I'll take their words over your bizarre rotten moralising drivel, frankly. Must be terrifying being a woman in Ireland with people like you attempting to police their bodies.


  • Options
    #454
    Outlaw Pete
    Registered Users Posts: 10,423 ✭✭✭✭Outlaw Pete


    Martina1991 wrote: »
    Abortion pills at 9 months? What are you on about. You're clutching at straws.

    It happens, but look, you're missing the point to focus on that as I am not suggesting that women are queuing up to have very late stage abortions. Nor am I saying that repealing the 8th will result in that (and most of the users thanking your post know that by the way, trust me ;)).

    The point is that you will often hear people make comments like: 'How dare you support a law that forces women to remain pregnant' or 'Every woman should be able to do WHATEVER she wants with her own body' etc etc but everybody (including those people) have a limit in mind at which they feel a woman should not be able to procure an abortion at. They may not admit it, but they do (I have many prochoice friends - haven't met one in my 40+ years that doesn't believe there should be a cut off point).

    For some that point is 0, others 12 weeks, and others still it's 24, but beyond that, most (sane) people wouldn't support the legal availability of abortion (other than for therapeutic reasons of course) and would in fact very much support laws being in place that would make it illegal for abortionists like this lovely chap to set up offering late stage terminations.

    But here's the crucial point: if those people (that pontificate to others that women should be able to do what they like with their own bodies) truly believed in body automony (as they claim) then they would support laws that made it legal for abortionists like Gosnell to legally offer his services but they wouldn't. So why then is it not okay to believe in laws that force a woman to remain pregnant at 12 weeks when they believe in laws that force women to remain pregnant at 38 weeks? Shouldn't they just take their own advice and mind their own business? And let women do what they want with their own bodies, like they keep telling others to do?

    You see, the truth is that the reason some people support women legally being able to have an abortion at 12 weeks, has nothing at all to do with body automony. They may say it has, and post long convoluted arguments in an attempt to back it up and why it's okay for them to hold two contradictory positions, simultaneously, but it's nonsense. Such people are just trying to save face given that the body automony mantras are so ingrained in the prochoice movement and who can blame them.

    No, the real reason some people support the legal availability of abortions at 12 weeks (or 16, 20 etc) is because of how they see the fetus with regards to it's development. We know this as that is the only thing that differs between a healthy woman who is pregnant at 12 weeks and a healthy woman pregnant that is almost due. So the body automony nonsense (with regards to pregnancy at least) needs to end. It's not helpful, nobody believes in it and all it does is distract away from what's really important here: the health of all concerned and the level of development which the fetus has reached.


  • Options
    #455
    Cody montana
    Registered Users Posts: 5,324 ✭✭✭Cody montana


    sean635 wrote: »
    Why am I being demeaned simply for having the opinion that children conceived through raped still have a right life? I’m not ridiculing and demeaning anyone else for their opinion. This is very unfair now.

    It’s up to the woman to decide, not you.


  • Options
    #456
    sean635
    Registered Users Posts: 81 ✭✭sean635


    eviltwin wrote: »
    If you ever find yourself pregnant as a result of rape and you decide to continue with the pregnancy I'd say everyone here would support you in that. It's your insistence that every other woman or girl pregnant by rape should be forced to follow your moral code is what people can't accept.

    I’m not insisting that my point of view is superior just because it’s my opinion. I’m making an argument in favor of it. You should try doing the same instead of invoking moral superiority over me.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #457
    sean635
    Registered Users Posts: 81 ✭✭sean635


    Cody montana wrote: »
    It’s up to the woman to decide, not you.

    Why?


  • Options
    #458
    _Dara_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,971 ✭✭✭_Dara_


    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    It happens, but look, you're missing the point to focus on that as I am not suggesting that women are queuing up to have very late stage abortions. Nor am I saying that repealing the 8th will result in that (and most of the users thanking your post know that by the way, trust me ;)).

    The point is that you will often hear people make comments like: 'How dare you support a law that forces women to remain pregnant' or 'Every woman should be able to do WHATEVER she wants with her own body' etc etc but everybody (including those people) have a limit in mind at which they feel a woman should not be able to procure an abortion at. They may not admit it, but they do (I have many prochoice friends - haven't met one in my 40+ years that doesn't believe there should be a cut off point).

    For some that point is 0, others 12 weeks, and others still it's 24, but beyond that, most (sane) people wouldn't support the legal availability of abortion (other than for therapeutic reasons of course) and would in fact very much support laws being in place that would make it illegal for abortionists like this lovely chap to set up offering late stage terminations.

    But here's the crucial point: if those people (that pontificate to others that women should be able to do what they like with their own bodies) truly believed in body automony (as they claim) then they would support laws that made it legal for abortionists like Gosnell to legally offer his services but they wouldn't. So why then is it not okay to believe in laws that force a woman to remain pregnant at 12 weeks when they believe in laws that force women to remain pregnant at 38 weeks? Shouldn't they just take their own advice and mind their own business? And let women do what they want with their own bodies, like they keep telling others to do?

    You see, the truth is that the reason some people support women legally being able to have an abortion at 12 weeks, has nothing at all to do with body automony. They may say it has, and post long convoluted arguments in an attempt to back it up and why it's okay for them to hold two contradictory positions, simultaneously, but it's nonsense. Such people are just trying to save face given that the body automony mantras are so ingrained in the prochoice movement and who can blame them.

    No, the real reason some people support the legal availability of abortions at 12 weeks (or 16, 20 etc) is because of how they see the fetus with regards to it's development. We know this as that is the only thing that differs between a healthy woman who is pregnant at 12 weeks and a healthy woman pregnant that is almost due. So the body automony nonsense (with regards to pregnancy at least) needs to end. It's not helpful, nobody believes in it and all it does is distract away from what's really important here: the health of all concerned and the level of development which the fetus has reached.

    The ‘bodily autonomy’ thing reeeeaaally bothers you, doesn’t it?


  • Options
    #459
    MilesMorales1
    Registered Users Posts: 6,431 ✭✭✭MilesMorales1


    sean635 wrote: »
    Why?

    Because you're not a woman, can't get pregnant, and thus you are viewing this from a male viewpoint of having no experience of this besides an abstract theory of morality that men love to cling to in these scenarios because it continues to give them power over women they've enjoyed for years through various means.


  • Options
    #460
    sean635
    Registered Users Posts: 81 ✭✭sean635


    MilesMorales1 wrote: »
    No, its a foetus with no thoughts or consciousness or feeling until a certain point of conception. According to the UK NHS, thats up to 24 weeks, so 6 months roughly. Think I'll take their words over your bizarre rotten moralising drivel, frankly. Must be terrifying being a woman in Ireland with people like you attempting to police their bodies.

    It doesn’t need thoughts or consciousness to be a person. Why is a person in a coma considered a person then?


  • Options
    #461
    RobertKK
    Registered Users Posts: 33,749 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    eviltwin wrote: »
    A stunt. Wow, what an insult to the family of that woman and her medical team.

    The family who wanted their family member to be allowed be dead and not what transpired.
    The family had to go to the courts because someone did decide to use that woman.
    It was her doctors who abused that woman and I would guess they are pro-choice and used her thinking they could make the 8th amendment look retarded and failed, when the courts decided it didn't apply.
    It was a disgrace what that woman's medical team did to that family.
    The father of that woman said he found the doctors decision to keep his dead daughter on life support “extremely distressful”.
    One can only say it was a stunt give prochoice and repeal groups here and abroad were wrongly blaming the 8th amendment when it was doctors who chose to make an example of her and it took the courts to tell them what they were doing was really wrong.
    I don't know anyone who thought what those doctors were doing was right, and one can only assume it was a stunt to wrongly highlight the 8th amendment, given they used it as an excuse for what they did, when the woman was already dead. They were a disgrace.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #462
    sean635
    Registered Users Posts: 81 ✭✭sean635


    MilesMorales1 wrote: »
    Because you're not a woman, can't get pregnant, and thus you are viewing this from a male viewpoint of having no experience of this besides an abstract theory of morality that men love to cling to in these scenarios because it continues to give them power over women they've enjoyed for years through various means.

    How does my gender disqualify me from an opinion on the matter? Immoral things are still moral regardless of whether I’m a man or not. I’m not arguing this point of view because I like tormenting women. I argue it because I think killing foetuses is wrong.


  • Options
    #463
    MilesMorales1
    Registered Users Posts: 6,431 ✭✭✭MilesMorales1


    sean635 wrote: »
    It doesn’t need thoughts or consciousness to be a person. Why is a person in a coma considered a person then?

    Because a person in a coma has presumably lived a life, had thoughts, done 'stuff' loved, had dreams, etc. A foetus doesn't even have a consciousness until a certain point.


  • Options
    #464
    MilesMorales1
    Registered Users Posts: 6,431 ✭✭✭MilesMorales1


    sean635 wrote: »
    How does my gender disqualify me from an opinion on the matter? Immoral things are still moral regardless of whether I’m a man or not. I’m not arguing this point of view because I like tormenting women. I argue it because I think killing foetuses is wrong.

    You are not worth discussing this issue with then.


  • Options
    #465
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    Just as an aside, I don’t think the pro life side realize that the hyperbole they are posting is doing nothing but veering more and more people to the pro choice side.

    When I first started reading these threads a year or two ago, I was pro choice but honestly didn’t have very strong views on it.
    The more I read, the angrier I got. The control, the judgement, the disdain, the selfishness I read from the pro life side did nothing but make my beliefs stronger and stronger.
    They compelled me to join a local repeal group. To donate to the repeal movement. To speak to friends and family about the issue. To wear my ‘repeal’ jumper with pride.
    To share stories of women affected by the 8th on social media.

    All things I probably wouldn’t have done if I hadn’t read all those pro-life opinions online. I’m not saying it swayed me but it certainly compelled me to be more pro-active about my views.
    Which in turn helped me convince more friends, family and even strangers to repeal the 8th as well.

    I’m sure many other pro choicers here are exactly the same.
    So they can keep posting what they’re posting because all it’s doing is turning more and more people away from a No vote.


  • Options
    #466
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 5,917 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    sean635 wrote: »
    Why is a person in a coma considered a person then?
    Because they graduated from being a fetus to being a person by being born. Before that they are a fetus not a person.


  • Options
    #467
    sean635
    Registered Users Posts: 81 ✭✭sean635


    MilesMorales1 wrote: »
    You are not worth discussing this issue with then.

    Why, just because you don’t agree with me? Sorry but it seems kind of intolerant.


  • Options
    #468
    Cody montana
    Registered Users Posts: 5,324 ✭✭✭Cody montana


    sean635 wrote: »
    Why?

    Why???
    Because the woman was raped.


  • Options
    #469
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 41,072 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    sean635 wrote: »
    we cannot prosecute people for crimes they committed in other jurisdictions. We can’t prosecute someone who goes to Brussel’s to smoke weed just as we can’t prosecute someone who goes to England for an abortion.

    Not true - prosecution for sex abuse abroad is possible

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Options
    #470
    MilesMorales1
    Registered Users Posts: 6,431 ✭✭✭MilesMorales1


    sean635 wrote: »
    Why, just because you don’t agree with me? Sorry but it seems kind of intolerant.

    You're claiming intolerance when you don't want to tolerate a woman having autonomy over her own body? Alright I'm done with you, good luck.


  • Options
    #471
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    sean635 wrote: »
    Why, just because you don’t agree with me? Sorry but it seems kind of intolerant.

    A bit like your intolerance to allow other people to have their say on their own reproductive organs.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #472
    sean635
    Registered Users Posts: 81 ✭✭sean635


    DubInMeath wrote: »
    Because they graduated from being a fetus to being a person by being born. Before that they are a fetus not a person.

    So you have to be born to be a person as well as having sentient thought as you said before? Please explain to me how the vaginal canal confers personhood when the baby passes through it at birth.


  • Options
    #473
    david75
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,611 ✭✭✭david75


    Sean seems to be brand new to boards and has a strikingly similar posting style to a poster previously banned from the thread.

    Reported.


  • Options
    #474
    sean635
    Registered Users Posts: 81 ✭✭sean635


    SusieBlue wrote: »
    A bit like your intolerance to allow other people to have their say on their own reproductive organs.

    I’m not infringing on your bodily autonomy in your own organs. I simply do not believe that bodily autonomy extends to other human beings


  • Options
    #475
    Outlaw Pete
    Registered Users Posts: 10,423 ✭✭✭✭Outlaw Pete


    _Dara_ wrote: »
    The ‘bodily autonomy’ thing reeeeaaally bothers you, doesn’t it?

    All nonsense bothers me, Dara.


  • Options
    #476
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    sean635 wrote: »
    I’m not infringing on your bodily autonomy in your own organs. I simply do not believe that bodily autonomy extends to other human beings

    And I disagree with you. Why is your opinion superior to mine? Why should my life be restricted by your beliefs?


  • Options
    #477
    January
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,862 ✭✭✭✭January


    sean635 wrote: »
    So you have to be born to be a person as well as having sentient thought as you said before? Please explain to me how the vaginal canal confers personhood when the baby passes through it at birth.

    What? You really do not understand the process that occurs during birth?


  • Options
    #478
    sean635
    Registered Users Posts: 81 ✭✭sean635


    david75 wrote: »
    Sean seems to be brand new to boards and has a strikingly similar posting style to a poster previously banned from the thread.

    Reported.

    I assure you that I’m not impersonating anyone else who was banned. I’m not trying to be demeaning or disrespectful. I’m simply advocating my position as it is. It seems intolerant to call for me to be banned just because people in the thread think my view is wrong.


  • Options
    #479
    sean635
    Registered Users Posts: 81 ✭✭sean635


    January wrote: »
    What? You really do not understand the process that occurs during birth?

    The other poster was saying that a someone has to be born in order to be considered a person. I was asking them to explain how that happens.


  • Options
    #480
    eviltwin
    Registered Users Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    sean635 wrote: »
    I’m not insisting that my point of view is superior just because it’s my opinion. I’m making an argument in favor of it. You should try doing the same instead of invoking moral superiority over me.

    "Because I say so" isn't an argument


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #481
    sean635
    Registered Users Posts: 81 ✭✭sean635


    SusieBlue wrote: »
    And I disagree with you. Why is your opinion superior to mine? Why should my life be restricted by your beliefs?

    I neve said that my opinion was superior. Seriously, I never said that. I think my opinion is right because every human has the right to bodily autonomy to the extent that they don’t infringe upon anyone else’s. That is what abortion does. It kills another human being.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement