Should a foetus have the right to life?

Ironicname

Hannibal_Smith wrote:

Is that not an opinion? Rather than fact? I wouldn't call expressing an opinion supplying information?

Yeah maybe. But when opinion is stated as fact, it becomes misinformation in my book.

Hannibal_Smith

Ironicname wrote: »

Yeah maybe. But when opinion is stated as fact, it becomes misinformation in my book.

Opinion isn't fact.

Ironicname

Hannibal_Smith wrote:

Opinion isn't fact.

I know. That's why I said "when opinion is stated as fact"

nthclare

notobtuse wrote: »

nthclare wrote: »

I think people are entitled to have a choice of what they want to do with their bodies etc their decision their responsibility.

Not mine or the public's responsibility, if I went out and got pregnant and it was due to lacking responsibility or not having the gumption to use the morning after pill,then I'd have to take it on the chin and bare maximum responsibility for my night of passion or whatever.

You'll have a lot of individuals who'll agree with me and a lot who won't.

But I think if I knew my mum was going to get rid of me I'd have a lot of thinking to do, I would be understanding.
But there would be a bit of resentment lingering through my thoughts...

Luckily I'm alive today and my mum didn't put her career or lifestyle before me.

I know a few women who made that trip and not one of them said they didn't think of how the kid would have turned out.

I know another lady who fot the whole month of October every year she's like a briar because she can't forgive herself.

Unfortunately she had one if those bell end boyfriend s who told her he'd support her if she got rid of it...

Did he f)UK he did a runner when they got off the boat and she's still struggling every now and again 17 year's later.

It's a touching subject....

It’s absolutely a touching subject for most. Abortion, which comes from the dehumanization of the unborn, serves as a legal coping mechanism because it is difficult for many to justify the killing of their unborn babies. It results in the termination of all future choices that unborn human might have taken… the thing all of us, who have survived, cherish most.

Exactly it's sad really that so much potential life is wiped out from existince.
Or having potential to add to the world around us.
My opinion on rape and a dead feutus is a different story.
I cannot maybe will not get into that side of the argument, but I can see why she'd want to get rid of anything to do with the traumatic event and I'd never judge her decision, no point in adding to someone's misery and emotional pain.

Ironically it's the professionals and people who have a lot to offer to society who choose to have an abortion because they think it'll take from them rather than give something to them.

So while certain people are breeding left right and centre so they can bleed the system, dragging innocent kid's up in horrific circumstances and addiction, criminality and dysfunction.

Then on the other side you've people who have a really good gene pool who'd be wonderful parents who are deciding to get rid of it...
Therefore taking from society rather than helping out.

Then again what would life be like for a child who's mother or father resented him or her.

There could be a strong case for a good thesis on that, I'm sure it's been done.

A lot of women are giving up on the whole femminist movement lately and it's probably a good thing.

I was told there's group therapy for women who are recovering femminists, it's really cool isn't it.

Femmimisn and liberalism are all the one too, because they're not actually adding anything to society.

Telling someone it's ok to have an abortion when they're not sure is really evil, telling someone to make up their own mind's is ok...

I remember when the yes came through all the cheering going on from the sjw's and bulls was sad very sad.

They've finally did it, meanwhile some poor soul is on their way home from the UK wondering was it the right Idea ?

Another guy with his face on his knees loosing out on the chance of fatherhood...

But yet the others are cheering, dancing and wearing stupid t-shirts....

Somewhere else there's another baby being ripped asunder somewhere...

It's humanity in a nutshell

Ironicname

Ironicname wrote: »

Yeah maybe. But when opinion is stated as fact, it becomes misinformation in my book.

I'll bite one more time.

You've been on a campaign of misinformation from the outset. Which brought censure by a mod. You preach the tolerance gospel yet there you are lambasting other posters with ad hominems ("I assume you are a feminist").

Time to hop off the carousel, you're getting nowhere.

Hotblack Desiato

Ironicname wrote: »

If you are trying to say that you can support something being legal while not supporting it morally then I disagree.

Well that's nonsense.
I oppose adultery, I think it's immoral, but would strongly oppose making it illegal. By your tortured grasp of logic, that would somehow make me "pro-adultery", which is utterly ridiculous.

If you were morally against homosexuality, I doubt you would vote for it

Most intelligent people can grasp the difference between having a moral position, and attempting to use the law to force a moral position upon everyone else.

Ironicname

Deleted User wrote:

You've been on a campaign of misinformation from the outset. Which brought censure by a mod. You preach the tolerance gospel yet there you are lambasting other posters with ad hominems ("I assume you are a feminist").

I think you may have me confused with someone else. Assuming someone is a feminist is hardly lambasting someone, but merely asking if my assumption was correct. If it was, it's my experience that most feminists would be proud to admit it. If I was wrong, there would be still no inferred insult

A campaign of misinformation? I amnt sure I understand what you mean. I was (rightly) pulled up about a point regarding the clarity the government provided and I gladly retracted my statement.

Would you care to explain?

Hannibal_Smith

Ironicname wrote: »

I know. That's why I said "when opinion is stated as fact"

When opinion is stated as fact its still opinion.

Saying a law says something it doesn't, that's misinformation :pac:

Faugheen

Ironicname wrote: »

It's quite simple, telling people that if they vote no, they hate women is a lie.

Why would you vote against women then? Because that's what a no vote was. I'm sorry you don't like the idea of that but that's exactly what it was.

Ironicname wrote: »

Telling people that if they were in any way uncomfortable with legalising abortion meant they were terrible people was a lie.

That's how it was false.

Because some people didn't want to give women bodily autonomy.

Ironicname wrote: »

It's not. There may have been a plethora of reasons for people to vote no. The fact that you are refuse to accept that makes you extremely intolerant.

I assume you you are a feminist? (3rd/4th/,modern wave/whatever they call it)

Heaven forbid I'd want my partner to get the best care possible if she found herself in a crisis pregnancy. Why should you or any other no voter get to decide that she shouldn't? Yet I'm the intolerant one?

For the record, we have a child, which we didn't terminate because we didn't want to. So much for me being 'pro-abortion', eh?

And the feminist comment sums you up to a tee. You're a no voter despite your claims to the contrary. The mask is finally slipping off.

Ironicname

Hotblack Desiato wrote:

Well that's nonsense. I oppose adultery, I think it's immoral, but would strongly oppose making it illegal. By your tortured grasp of logic, that would somehow make me "pro-adultery", which is utterly ridiculous.

Actually, I agree. That was ridiculous. I misspoke there.

notobtuse

nthclare wrote: »

Exactly it's sad really that so much potential life is wiped out from existince.
Or having potential to add to the world around us.
My opinion on rape and a dead feutus is a different story.
I cannot maybe will not get into that side of the argument, but I can see why she'd want to get rid of anything to do with the traumatic event and I'd never judge her decision, no point in adding to someone's misery and emotional pain.

Ironically it's the professionals and people who have a lot to offer to society who choose to have an abortion because they think it'll take from them rather than give something to them.

So while certain people are breeding left right and centre so they can bleed the system, dragging innocent kid's up in horrific circumstances and addiction, criminality and dysfunction.

Then on the other side you've people who have a really good gene pool who'd be wonderful parents who are deciding to get rid of it...
Therefore taking from society rather than helping out.

Then again what would life be like for a child who's mother or father resented him or her.

There could be a strong case for a good thesis on that, I'm sure it's been done.

A lot of women are giving up on the whole femminist movement lately and it's probably a good thing.

I was told there's group therapy for women who are recovering femminists, it's really cool isn't it.

Femmimisn and liberalism are all the one too, because they're not actually adding anything to society.

Telling someone it's ok to have an abortion when they're not sure is really evil, telling someone to make up their own mind's is ok...

I remember when the yes came through all the cheering going on from the sjw's and bulls was sad very sad.

They've finally did it, meanwhile some poor soul is on their way home from the UK wondering was it the right Idea ?

Another guy with his face on his knees loosing out on the chance of fatherhood...

But yet the others are cheering, dancing and wearing stupid t-shirts....

Somewhere else there's another baby being ripped asunder somewhere...

It's humanity in a nutshell

Many good points.

One thing I can't wrap my head around is many of the same people who champion the right to have an abortion are the very same people who are vehemently opposed to the death penalty.

Loafing Oaf

Ironicname wrote: »

Telling people that if they were in any way uncomfortable with legalising abortion meant they were terrible people was a lie.

Who was saying this, or anything like it?

Hotblack Desiato

dudara wrote: »

I am personally satisfied with the current legislation. In my mind, it strikes a good balance.

It is too restrictive. The three day wait is entirely unjustified medically and causes particular difficulties for women who need to travel due to the cowardice of their local doctors. The twelve week limit is too easily missed - irregular or no periods can mean a pregnancy is not discovered until too late. No provision is made for severe disability.

Hopefully within a few years we can address these issues, many women still have to travel to Britain.

I would support abortion for any reason up to 28 weeks.

notobtuse

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

When opinion is stated as fact its still opinion.

Saying a law says something it doesn't, that's misinformation :pac:

It's the ramifications of the law as written. Its not some alien concept. Can a woman have a late term abortion because some doctor has signed off on some paper that the woman is having emotional distress over the pregnancy?

Ironicname

Faugheen wrote:

Heaven forbid I'd want my partner to get the best care possible if she found herself in a crisis pregnancy. Why should you or any other no voter get to decide that she shouldn't? Yet I'm the intolerant one?

Faugheen wrote:

For the record, we have a child, which we didn't terminate because we didn't want to. So much for me being 'pro-abortion', eh?

Faugheen wrote:

And the feminist comment sums you up to a tee. You're a no voter despite your claims to the contrary. The mask is finally slipping off.

I've already stated I voted yes.

There is no mask.

ceadaoin.

notobtuse wrote: »

Many good points.

One thing I can't wrap my head around is many of the same people who champion the right to have an abortion are the very same people who are vehemently opposed to the death penalty.

And likewise, those who call abortion "murder" and all that are fine with people being murdered by the government. Weird isn't it?

Hotblack Desiato

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Who was saying this, or anything like it?

Exactly - the same poster spouting off about "misinformation" from others has had to make several retractractions already...

Hotblack Desiato

notobtuse wrote: »

It's the ramifications of the law as written. Its not some alien concept. Can a woman have a late term abortion because some doctor has signed off on some paper that the woman is having emotional distress over the pregnancy?

In Ireland? No.
Why are you dragging irrelevancies into the discussion?
This was tried numerous times last year, didn't work then either.

Hannibal_Smith

notobtuse wrote: »

It's the ramifications of the law as written. Its not some alien concept. Can a woman have a late term abortion because some doctor has signed off on some paper that the woman is having emotional distress over the pregnancy?

No. See my previous post about what the law says, I'm not typing it out again.

You said the law allows abortion for any reason. It doesn't. That was a lie and clear misinformation, not even Irish law allows that. But I doubt you've read that law either

notobtuse

ceadaoin. wrote: »

And likewise, those who call abortion "murder" and all that are fine with people being murdered by the government. Weird isn't it?

The reasoning on my part is easy. The death penalty is reserved for people who commit the most heinous crimes against society of their on volition. Abortion is the death penalty for the most innocent amongst us who’s only crime often is one of inconvenience.

So back to you… how do you support the right to perform an abortion, but not support the death penalty for the worst of criminals?

notobtuse

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

No. See my previous post about what the law says, I'm not typing it out again.

You said the law allows abortion for any reason. It doesn't. That was a lie and clear misinformation, not even Irish law allows that. But I doubt you've read that law either

I'd like to agree with you but then we'd both be wrong.

Let me explain, using common sense, how the written law is interpreted...

The RHA allows abortion under any of three conditions: (1) if it is performed earlier than 24 weeks of pregnancy; (2) in an “absence of fetal viability”; or (3) if necessary to “protect the patient’s life or health.” Therefore abortion is allowed without any restrictions during the first and second trimesters.

Later than that, the question is how fetal viability and protection of the life and health of the mother are determined. The RHA says that those judgments are to be made according to “the practitioner's reasonable and good faith professional judgment based on the facts of the patient's case”; it does not impose any objective medical standard.

The law points out that the exception for health, which is not restricted to a physical definition and can be interpreted to cover psychological and emotional health, subject only to the medical judgment of the abortion provider, is broad enough to cover basically any possible late-term abortion. Insofar as the goal of the law was to guarantee access to abortion and remove restrictions on it, this is part and parcel of that goal.

The new law does not contain any meaningful restriction that is likely to ever prevent an abortion.

That’s what laws that are purposely ambiguously written are meant to do… get away with, in a backhanded method, what they couldn’t get past the legislature.

pinkyeye

Ironicname wrote: »

Ugh. If polls were to believed hardly anyone was going to vote for Trump (or people in the electoral college who represent him).

They did.

This shows that people weren't being honest when polled.

The reason being that supporting trump was social suicide. Even though people preferred him than Clinton, they were afraid to admit it.

I'm wondering about, and have a feeling that, the same thing comes into play when discussing something as divisive as abortion.

I'm asking if any people who would claim to be pro abortion socially would actually be uncomfortable with it when privately thinking about it.

And for those who do support the availability of abortions, when is the cut off point where they no longer morally support the right to choose.

It's not a "gotcha" question. It's a question.

Do you not see where your presumption falls down.

People went into a voting booth which is secret and voted FOR abortion so it's nothing like the Trump situation at all. :rolleyes:

Hannibal_Smith

notobtuse wrote: »

I'd like to agree with you but then we'd both be wrong.

Let me explain, using common sense, how the written law is interpreted...



That’s what laws that are purposely ambiguously written are meant to do… get away with, in a backhanded method, what they couldn’t get past the legislature.

The sad thing is that you can't actually separate fact from fiction.

not babies
not murder

not worth discussing with anyone who insists otherwise

Calina

The only reasons you could possibly have for voting against allowing individual women to make the decision on a case by case basis are:

1) you don't trust women or
2) you want to control women.

Yoh certainly don't respect them as individual human beings with the ability to make decisions for themselves and their famies. No matter how much you want to avoid that reality, if you are against safe legal abortion, you de facto endorse unsafe illegal abortion.

Remember, a lot of silent abortion has historically been driven by stigmatisation of pregnant women. This is a social control and shaming practice, imposed more on the women than the men who got them pregnant.

OMM 0000

Calina wrote: »

The only reasons you could possibly have for voting against allowing individual women to make the decision on a case by case basis are:

1) you don't trust women or
2) you want to control women.

Yoh certainly don't respect them as individual human beings with the ability to make decisions for themselves and their famies. No matter how much you want to avoid that reality, if you are against safe legal abortion, you de facto endorse unsafe illegal abortion.

Remember, a lot of silent abortion has historically been driven by stigmatisation of pregnant women. This is a social control and shaming practice, imposed more on the women than the men who got them pregnant.

Oh for God's sake.

If you think the baby has a right to live, it's because you don't trust women or want to control women?

Can you please make an effort to think through what you're saying.

Repeating the "it's because men hate women!" line is so incredibly lazy and obviously nonsense.

OMM 0000

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Oh for God's sake.

If you think the baby has a right to live, it's because you don't trust women or want to control women?

Can you please make an effort to think through what you're saying.

Repeating the "it's because men hate women!" line is so incredibly lazy and obviously nonsense.

And I say this as someone who thinks let the woman decide what she wants to do.

God damn why do I read the stuff in here.

I'm not going to respond so go ahead and say whatever you want.

notobtuse

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

The sad thing is that you can't actually separate fact from fiction.

Sure I can... and do.

notobtuse

Deleted User wrote: »

not babies
not murder

not worth discussing with anyone who insists otherwise

Science says otherwise... but probably best to agree to disagree.

pinkyeye

Ironicname wrote: »

I've already stated I voted yes.

There is no mask.

There is absolutely not a hope in hell you voted yes. Liar.