RBG, abortion and Ireland

nozzferrahhtoo

Colton Odd Strife wrote: »

I struggle to understand it.

Probably because you are looking at the wrong thing to try and understand. For example you mention the "Ultra Sound".

Things like that only impress the people who have no arguments against abortion other than "arguments from emotion". We a have a poster on this thread already for example who historically has no arguments against abortion so the best he can do is misrepresent the motion of the fetal tongue.

However you do appear to be making a lot of assumptions about the positions held by Americans on the matter. I simply do not believe you at this time about who, or how many, Americans actually have a problem with the current laws on the matter.

Or as the phrase goes: citations needed.

Manach wrote: »

That this striped the right from the unborn

Manach wrote: »

which had been part of common law since its earliest, shows both an ignorance and a moral bakruptacy that modern Ireland is prey to.

I myself have never found tradition or perpetuity to be morally interesting. I have no interest in what "earliest" laws have been. Especially if they were formed in a period of relative ignorance in our species.

I do not think we have "stripped" anyone's rights at all. We have clarified them. As we move forward as a species learning more and more about ourselves I think it is natural to clarify what we hold dear, and why.

Over 20+ years I have explored the concepts of things like "morals" and "rights" and asked what they are, how we assign them, and why. And my conclusion has been that there is no coherent basis to assign them, or to have moral and ethical concern, to a 12 week old fetus.

The only "bankruptcy" I would see therefore is the intellectual bankruptcy of merely declaring people "morally bankrupt" solely because they have come to conclusions I disagree with.

nozzferrahhtoo

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

The US absolutely needs tightening up of their abortion laws

Well as someone who is pretty much ENTIRELY against abortion you would say that. You might as well inform us water is wet for all the utility your post offers therefore.

I would say that if you want to make any change to abortion laws either here in Ireland or there in the US... you might want to THIS time actually come out with some arguments, evidence, data or reasoning to support your positions. Rather than simply posts random ultra sound images, wilfully misunderstand them, and hope that will do the work for you.

A better approach however might be one I mentioned multiple times but you never seemed interested in. Which is to acknowledge that.... your us/them liberal/conservative black/white polarised thinking aside....... one common goal unifies people on nearly ALL sides of the abortion debates. Which is that pretty much all of us want LESS (ideally no) abortions to ever happen.

We simply disagree that banning it, criminalising people who perform or receive it, is the methodology by which to attain that ideal.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Telling the public all abortions under 12 weeks would be by way of pills, that a fetus at 10 weeks is just a zygote

Early term abortions is primarily and preferentially done by way of medication yes. What is your issue with that claim?

As for people still calling it a "zygote" at 12 weeks... could you quote the people who did that. I just want to be sure you are not simply making it up (as usual) before I educate people on proper terminology for no reason.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

dehumanizing developing fetuses is quite common for prochoicers

Not so. Rather pre-humanizing them is quite common for anti-choicers. Though predominantly YOU personally as you are possibly the main proponent of that canard on the forum.

Other than biological taxonomy, on which I have no argument, you have simply failed to offer ANY shred of argument for humanizing the fetus in the first place. I can no more "dehumanize" something you have not humanised than I can refuse peas at the dinner table if you offer me an empty bowl.

Your attempts to humanise the fetus were based on appeals to emotion only. Such as posting out of context quotes from a paper which described the motion of the tongue as being LIKE the fetus was trying to speak.

Quantum Erasure

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Other than biological taxonomy, on which I have no argument, you have simply failed to offer ANY shred of argument for humanizing the fetus in the first place. I can no more "dehumanize" something you have not humanised than I can refuse peas at the dinner table if you offer me an empty bowl..

Mange tout, Rodney, mange tout

circular flexing

Did I just wake up in 2018 again? If so I should warn ye about this pandemic that's going to happen in 2020.

Necro

circular flexing wrote: »

Did I just wake up in 2018 again? If so I should warn ye about this pandemic that's going to happen in 2020.

It's the Boards glitch, it has now warped us back through time. Think I'm gonna start wearing a mask, I've a feeling I might need it soon.

Igotadose

Bonniedog wrote: »

And you do I suppose?

In what way?

I also assume that you apply your rigorous scientific categories to the fact that people who are biological born as one of the two sexes cannot on a whim decide to be the other one?

Wow! Sexual Orientation bigotry! Let's add that to the bingo card (retitled: Right-wingnut memes).

Go read some history books and get back to us.

8kczg9v0swrydm

Mongfinder General wrote: »

I don't really get why conservatives in America and Ireland are worried about the abortion regimes in their respective countries. I'm not a supporter of liberal abortion practices but the way I look at it, it's going to be people of a liberal mindset having the abortion in most cases. That means fewer kids being raised with liberal, progressive values. Why would conservatives want to discourage abortion in these cases. Better off just leaving people of that mindset be. They're destroying their own.

Would not agree with this at all. Better that these children have a shot at life, parents being liberal or conservative does not matter an iota.

nozzferrahhtoo

Colton Odd Strife wrote: »

Would not agree with this at all. Better that these children have a shot at life, parents being liberal or conservative does not matter an iota.

Not every blueprint HAS to become a house. But when we decide to take a blue print and make a house we should do it to the best of our ability in a way that benefits all concerned.

Similarly not every zygote HAS to become a fetus and not every fetus HAS To become a person. Our moral and ethical concern should be for the ones where the people involved have decided to go on and create a person.

I think it a failure of intellect and morality.... and more an exercise in imagination and fantasy.... to look at these blueprints and imagine the people involved and then worry about those imaginary people without due.

There are enough EXISTING people in the world, sentient agents capable of well being and suffering, to be concerned with without wasting time imagining non-existent ones to be concerned about too. Or in the case of all too many anti-choice people I have met in my life..... instead. (There is a mostly but not entirely unfair mantra the pro choice camp has for example about how many anti choicers only worry about the fetus until it is born and then could not care less afterwards.).

nolivesmatter

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Not every blueprint HAS to become a house. But when we decide to take a blue print and make a house we should do it to the best of our ability in a way that benefits all concerned.

Similarly not every zygote HAS to become a fetus and not every fetus HAS To become a person. Our moral and ethical concern should be for the ones where the people involved have decided to go on and create a person.

I think it a failure of intellect and morality.... and more an exercise in imagination and fantasy.... to look at these blueprints and imagine the people involved and then worry about those imaginary people without due.

There are enough EXISTING people in the world, sentient agents capable of well being and suffering, to be concerned with without wasting time imagining non-existent ones to be concerned about too. Or in the case of all too many anti-choice people I have met in my life..... instead. (There is a mostly but not entirely unfair mantra the pro choice camp has for example about how many anti choicers only worry about the fetus until it is born and then could not care less afterwards.).

Wow. Where to start with this?

1. It's very cold and inappropriate to compare an abortion to casually deciding not to implement house blue prints. As many pro-choice people will tell you the decision for a woman to have an abortion can be a very difficult one.
2. No use calling peoples morality into question here, that can more than easily be thrown right back at you in this context.
3. Who are you or anyone to determine there are "enough" existing people in the world? What even is "enough"?
4. Attempting to deflect to the issue of uncared for born children does not detract from the issues people have specifically with abortion. By all means advocate for born children to be cared for. But this is an abortion thread. Let's stick to that topic instead of making baseless assumptions about people.

ohnonotgmail

nolivesmatter wrote: »

Wow. Where to start with this?

1. It's very cold and inappropriate to compare an abortion to casually deciding not to implement house blue prints. As many pro-choice people will tell you the decision for a woman to have an abortion can be a very difficult one.
2. No use calling peoples morality into question here, that can more than easily be thrown right back at you in this context.
3. Who are you or anyone to determine there are "enough" existing people in the world? What even is "enough"?
4. Attempting to deflect to the issue of uncared for born children does not detract from the issues people have specifically with abortion. By all means advocate for born children to be cared for. But this is an abortion thread. Let's stick to that topic instead of making baseless assumptions about people.

any chance you might say something new and not stuff that has been done to death already?

nolivesmatter

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

any chance you might say something new and not stuff that has been done to death already?

I've haven't been rude to you, please if you have no interest in a discussion then don't participate.

nozzferrahhtoo

nolivesmatter wrote: »

1. It's very cold and inappropriate to compare an abortion to casually deciding not to implement house blue prints. As many pro-choice people will tell you the decision for a woman to have an abortion can be a very difficult one.

I do not accept the charge of it being inappropriate at all. Nothing wrong with the comparison that I can see.

The charge of being "Cold" I can take, though I think that is an emotive word to use for it. Detached is probably a better word. Or I would describe it as logical and not unnecessarily emotive.

And yes the choice of abortion CAN be very difficult for women. As can, for example, miscarriage. Arguably the latter is even more emotional for many reasons.

And in both of those scenarios it is justifiable to lay out which spades to call spades calmly and without emotion. For good reasons. Reasons which calling it "cold" do not convey. One example is that the REASON the choice for abortion is so emotive for those women making that choice in the first place can often be because of the unwarranted arguments from emotion that have been piled into the topic by anti-abortion campaigners.

It might SEEM cold to explain to a woman who had a miscarriage at 12 weeks that it was a mere fetus devoid of personhood or humanity. But is it really problematic given often much (not all) of the emotion she suffers is due to perhaps holding the opposite narrative to be true without reason? There is reason why we actually do do that. Reasons that merely calling it "Cold" would not negate.

nolivesmatter wrote: »

2. No use calling peoples morality into question here, that can more than easily be thrown right back at you in this context.

Which they are perfectly welcome to do IF They can back up their moral claims with decent argument, evidence, data or reasoning. If they merely want to shout at me that they find me or my positions immoral however then they become merely like those old men selling pencils from a cup in the high street who are shouting random expletives for no discernible reason.

I did not, and never would, merely call the morality into question. What I did was to explain WHY I do so, and the basis for it. And I see nothing wrong with doing that. At all.

nolivesmatter wrote: »

3. Who are you or anyone to determine there are "enough" existing people in the world? What even is "enough"?

I did not say that at all. I think you might have mis-read what I wrote.

Maybe read it again and try again. And if it is still not clear come back to me and I will clarify whatever the point of miscommunication is.

I suspect if you read the sentence again without the text between the first and second comma (you can simply delete it) you will see my meaning more clearly and your error will fall away. It is possible the text between the two commas was too long and so the meaning did not carry across the sentence well. Mea culpa if so.

nolivesmatter wrote: »

4. Attempting to deflect to the issue of uncared for born children does not detract from the issues people have specifically with abortion. By all means advocate for born children to be cared for. But this is an abortion thread. Let's stick to that topic instead of making baseless assumptions about people.

It is not baseless assumption at all but merely an anecdotal reference to experience many of us have had during threads of this topic. You appear as a new user of only some days. Some of us have been having this discussion on this forum for decades.

However I take your point that the distinction I make could derail the thread. Let us pre-empt that. The sole point of the distinction was to highlight that my moral concern is for actual sentient agents, not POTENTIAL sentient agents. And one of the derailing points in the abortion debate tends to be that one side treats the potentials as actuals. The other side (mine) does not. And that is one of the main chasms between the sides in these discussions (again, in my experience, YMMV).

Achebe

Mr. Karate wrote: »

They didn't undo Roe V Wade once Kavanaugh was installed. So I doubt they'll do it once Comey is. And once again the Left will end up looking like hysterical idiots again.

The court can only set precedent if a relevant case arrives in front of them.

ohnonotgmail

Achebe wrote: »

The court can only set precedent if a relevant case arrives in front of them.

you can be assured that a relevant case will appear as soon as they think they have the numbers on the supreme court.

Achebe

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you can be assured that a relevant case will appear as soon as they think they have the numbers on the supreme court.

Yeah, it will. They'll find a perfect plantiff and it'll work its way up to the supreme court.

uptherebels

nolivesmatter wrote: »

Oh, well that settles that so. Everything that was ever legal was right and illegal was wrong so. Sure if you should have rights, you would have rights.

Not at all, but you trying to attribute rights to a foetus doesn't make it so. If a foetus was a person it would acquire all the rights every other person in ireland has. The 8th amendment wouldn't have been needed.

Bonniedog

Igotadose wrote: »

Wow! Sexual Orientation bigotry! Let's add that to the bingo card (retitled: Right-wingnut memes).

Go read some history books and get back to us.

The only nuts on this issue are ones who believe that a biological male or female can on a whim decide to be the other.

Gender dysphoria is a psychological condition.

As for susie blue's reticence in revealing how she helps all the born children - unlike all those pro life people who are doctors, nurses, teachers, sports coaches and so on* - I can only assume she mistakes political affiliation with actually "doing something."

* There are undoubtedly pro abortion people who also do so, but I don't assume that they are all exactly the same as one another. Unlike Susie it would appear.

Pherekydes

Bonniedog wrote: »

The only nuts on this issue are ones who believe that a biological male or female can on a whim decide to be the other.

Gender dysphoria is a psychological condition

Biology is about sex; gender is about identity.

Bonniedog

Pherekydes wrote: »

Biology is about sex; gender is about identity.

:rolleyes:

So no different than the condition whereby some people identify as elves and stuff?

Try getting a cert stating that you are an elf, see how you get on

TheRepentent

Have to laugh at the Irish anti-choicers pi$$ing and moaning still. You lost. The Irish people told you to to go and get fukked , so please do that.


And using RBG's death to bring it up is sad.

In regards to RvW , the US is full of religious fukwits that like their Irish brethen have a weird fixation on zygotes and fetuses while ignoring science and logic and quite happily stop giving a sh1te once they are born.

SusieBlue

Bonniedog wrote: »

As for susie blue's reticence in revealing how she helps all the born children - unlike all those pro life people who are doctors, nurses, teachers, sports coaches and so on* - I can only assume she mistakes political affiliation with actually "doing something."

* There are undoubtedly pro abortion people who also do so, but I don't assume that they are all exactly the same as one another. Unlike Susie it would appear.

So only pro life people can be doctors and nurses and teachers is it? Only pro life people can be upstanding pillars of the community?

Pull the other one. You and your ilk would happily sacrifice the well-being and future of women and girls in order to impose your personal morals on them, even if they don’t agree with you.
That is the opposite of caring about the born. If you cared about what kind of life these children would have you would have the respect to listen to the person who will be responsible for said child when she says she can’t do it.

Being born at all costs, including to the detriment of the mother, will never be a success story for humanity.

Your post is full of projections, I wouldn’t oblige you by answering your personal question because it was clear no answer would be good enough for you, and yet you still cast judgment on me based off nothing but your own imagination. Sad.

end of the road

TheRepentent wrote: »

Have to laugh at the Irish anti-choicers pi$$ing and moaning still. You lost. The Irish people told you to to go and get fukked , so please do that.


And using RBG's death to bring it up is sad.

In regards to RvW , the US is full of religious fukwits that like their Irish brethen have a weird fixation on zygotes and fetuses while ignoring science and logic and quite happily stop giving a sh1te once they are born.

incorrect.
the irish people voted to repeal the 8th amendment of the irish constitution.
they did not tell anyone where to go on the issue of abortion, as while legislation came out of the repeal vote, there was no question on the ballot paper as to whether you agree with or disagree with abortion.
people who do not share the same view as you are not going to simply go away because you throw down a rant and order them to do so, that is not how the world works and you are in for a major shock if you haven't realised this by now.
you should also realise that there are plenty of non-religious people who are in favour of very restricted abortion, or "anti-choice"

SusieBlue wrote: »

So only pro life people can be doctors and nurses and teachers is it? Only pro life people can be upstanding pillars of the community?

Pull the other one. You and your ilk would happily sacrifice the well-being and future of women and girls in order to impose your personal morals on them, even if they don’t agree with you.
That is the opposite of caring about the born. If you cared about what kind of life these children would have you would have the respect to listen to the person who will be responsible for said child when she says she can’t do it.

Being born at all costs, including to the detriment of the mother, will never be a success story for humanity.

Your post is full of projections, I wouldn’t oblige you by answering your personal question because it was clear no answer would be good enough for you, and yet you still cast judgment on me based off nothing but your own imagination. Sad.

not what he said, as you know.
what he said, is that pro-life people come in many forms and that doing good is not exclusive to pro-choice people.
as for the second part of this post, it's just a generalisation based on wishful thinking, which while it may apply to some, it has no basis when and where one tries to claim it across the board.

TheRepentent

incorrect.

The Irish people told you to to go and get fukked , so please do that.

Pherekydes

Bonniedog wrote: »

:rolleyes:

So no different than the condition whereby some people identify as elves and stuff?

Try getting a cert stating that you are an elf, see how you get on

What kind of stupidity is this? The thing about gender identity is that it's how one identifies, not how you identify them.

Have a look at your own birth cert. See what your gender is.

end of the road

TheRepentent wrote: »

incorrect.

they didn't.
even if they did, quite rightly it's not going to happen as it's not the job of people to stop expressing their views to suit you or others.

Yellow_Fern

suicide_circus wrote: »

Figures vary but in 1990 abortions reached their highest with about 1.5 million carried out in the US. In 2014 there were about 600k so for whatever reason - likely education plus contraception - the numbers are steadily decreasing.

Also young people are having less sex.

Yellow_Fern

SusieBlue wrote: »

Pull the other one. You and your ilk would happily sacrifice the well-being and future of women and girls in order to impose your personal morals on them, even if they don’t agree with you. That is the opposite of caring about the born. If you cared about what kind of life these children would have you would have the respect to listen to the person who will be responsible for said child when she says she can’t do it.

Being born at all costs, including to the detriment of the mother, will never be a success story for humanity.

Your post is full of projections, I wouldn’t oblige you by answering your personal question because it was clear no answer would be good enough for you, and yet you still cast judgment on me based off nothing but your own imagination. Sad.

No one is forced to be a mother. There is adoption.

SusieBlue

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

No one is forced to be a mother. There is adoption.

Adoption is pretty much non existent in Ireland, there were 5 infants domestically adopted in 2016 according to the CSO.
There are probably more recent statistics available now but those are the ones I’m familiar with.
I don’t think it’s ethical to force a woman to gestate a pregnancy just to resign an innocent child to a life stuck in the foster care system.
Regardless, adoption is of no help to a woman who cannot or will not stay pregnant.

The referendum is over, these same points were raised ad nauseam before it and the majority of people saw through them for what they are. Farcical.
The 2018 deja vu is intense tonight.

bfa1509

SusieBlue wrote: »

PS. Abortion is as much as an issue for men as it is women. Most men want their wife, daughter, sister or mother to have a choice if they find themselves having a crisis pregnancy.

The end.

My very own sister had an unplanned pregnancy at 19 in the early 90s. But she was looked after and reassured that everything would work out, and it did, and there was never any question that it wouldn't. What do you think her reaction would be if I asked her or her 28 year old daughter now if she would have had an abortion if it was available to her? I would have two black eyes and rightly so.

If I was the polititian who was to put forward a referendum it would be a referendum to change the societal stigma associated with unplanned pregnancies, not to obliterate the only innocent party! It is outrageous what we did. We decided to keep the stigma and sweep the problem under the carpet.

Mr. CooL ICE wrote: »

When I read uninformed nonsense like this, it makes me think that perhaps pro lifers don't disagree with the pro choice position; they probably just don't understand it.

My girlfriend recently gave birth to our second child. If we had a problem with the pregnancy and had to choose between my girlfriend's life and the baby's, you bet your ass we'd choose my girlfriend's life. My girlfriend's life is more important to all than any unborn child (there's already a living child that benefits from having its mother around). But this flippant 'ranking system' comes across as little more than a lame attempt to belittle choices some parents have to make in unfortunate circumstances.

I'd love to think that posters like this aren't that disrespectful and simply don't understand what why one would be pro choice, but I just don't know.

I never said there shouldn't be abortions in exceptional circumstances. Giving medically necessary abortions was legal if I'm not mistaken.

osarusan wrote: »

Inclusion of 'men' at the bottom of the list tells you all you need to know about this particular victimhood complex.

The whole yes campaign was fueled by a 3rd wave feminist victimhood complex.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The useful question then to ask is what moral relevance have organs in isolation? A corpse and a mannequinn have limbs too for example. So what? We do not mediate moral and ethical concern on limbs. A human PERSON born without limbs has, and damn well should have, all the same rights as as person born with all of them. Siamese Twins born SHARING limbs and organs do not have half the moral and ethical concern as "normal" twins either.

Who's side are you arguing? This is an argument not to have an abortion

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Limbs and organs are simply not relevant to moral and ethical philosophy in my view. Nor have I seen a reason as to why they should be.

Do you think we should "abort" someone in a coma? They are essentially a bundle of cells.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Actually I think most people do yes. I suspect if you are honest about it you do too. For example I think if most people were running from a burning building and they could save one of two boxes, that nearly all people would make the same choices when told what is in the boxes.

The burning building analogy should be used for the exceptional circumstances, the times when only one can be saved. This is the typical example of using the hard cases to argue for full unrestricted abortion.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Errrrrrrr..... we already do!?! We offer cancer patients a range of treatment options and they are entirely free to choose which one they want or...... in fact...... to refuse any and all treatment....... PERCISELY because it is their body. It is their choice.

Foot in mouth often?

What do you mean "foot in mouth often" you are acting like you have achieved some kind of victory here. Far from it. Patients don't get to choose their own chemo don't be ridiculous.

circular flexing wrote: »

Did I just wake up in 2018 again? If so I should warn ye about this pandemic that's going to happen in 2020.

Amount of lives lost to abortion 2019 - 6666
Amount of lives lost to Covid19 - 1802 so far

More chance of dying in the womb.

ohnonotgmail

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

No one is forced to be a mother. There is adoption.

no woman should be forced to give birth.