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

RBG, abortion and Ireland

Options
12345679»

Comments

  • Options
    #242
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,462 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    nolivesmatter wrote: »
    ...as expected.

    oh noes, you have bested me in debate. luckily it matters not a jot and the law recognises that a woman has more rights than a fetus.


  • Options
    #243
    nolivesmatter
    Registered Users Posts: 895 ✭✭✭nolivesmatter


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    oh noes, you have bested me in debate. luckily it matters not a jot and the law recognises that a woman has more rights than a fetus.

    What can I do, I can't debate someone that refuses to engage. The threads been derailed long enough so we'll have leave it there. Good luck.


  • Options
    #244
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    nolivesmatter wrote: »
    end of the road is only "anti-women" in your view because you don't place the same value on the unborn. Placing value on the unborn is not anti-women.

    What would any of us even have to gain from being "anti-women" anyway? It just comes off as an attempt to discredit a person rather than tackle their ideas. Why can't people here disagree without resorting to that?

    As per the 8th amendment, the fetus has an equal right to life as that of the pregnant woman. Imagine holding a woman’s right to life at the same standard as a 10 week gestated zygote?
    Anyone who supports and wishes to uphold a law that holds a living breathing woman and a fetus at equal value and worth is anti women, in my opinion.
    The well-being, needs and wants of a living breathing woman should come first unless she chooses to put her pregnancy first (which most women happily do anyway).


  • Options
    #245
    uptherebels
    Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭uptherebels


    nolivesmatter wrote: »
    end of the road is only "anti-women" in your view because you don't place the same value on the unborn. Placing value on the unborn is not anti-women.

    What would any of us even have to gain from being "anti-women" anyway? It just comes off as an attempt to discredit a person rather than tackle their ideas. Why can't people here disagree without resorting to that?

    When that value elevates a zygote/foetus above the woman carrying it, then yes it is.
    Who is "us" do you hold the same opinion?
    I have no idea what you would gain! But then I am unable to understand the mentality that would prefer to punish a rape victim over allowing an abortion.


  • Options
    #246
    nolivesmatter
    Registered Users Posts: 895 ✭✭✭nolivesmatter


    SusieBlue wrote: »
    As per the 8th amendment, the fetus has an equal right to life as that of the pregnant woman. Imagine holding a woman’s right to life at the same standard as a 10 week gestated zygote?
    Anyone who supports and wishes to uphold a law that holds a living breathing woman and a fetus at equal value and worth is anti women, in my opinion.
    The well-being, needs and wants of a living breathing woman should come first unless she chooses to put her pregnancy first (which most women happily do anyway).

    end of the road said they agreed with repealing the 8th.
    end of the road wrote:
    i wouldn't have voted for the 8th, given i did agree with it's repeal, just not the follow up legislation.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #247
    Gervais08
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,612 ✭✭✭Gervais08


    nolivesmatter wrote: »
    end of the road said they agreed with repealing the 8th.

    Well that’s ok then .....


  • Options
    #248
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    nolivesmatter wrote: »
    end of the road said they agreed with repealing the 8th.

    End of the road must have a very short memory because anyone who frequented the abortion threads in 2018 will recall how entirely opposed he was to repealing the 8th. So opposed he did in fact vote No in the referendum, which is not the actions of someone in favour of repealing.


  • Options
    #249
    Gervais08
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,612 ✭✭✭Gervais08


    SusieBlue wrote: »
    End of the road must have a very short memory because anyone who frequented the abortion threads in 2018 will recall how entirely opposed he was to repealing the 8th. So opposed he did in fact vote No in the referendum, which is not the actions of someone in favour of repealing.

    I wasn’t around then - what was it like, debate wise ? I had some vile experiences with the No side but generally speaking most campaigners on both sides were reasonable - entrenched in their voting way yeah, but if you says you’d made up your mind - leaving you be.

    I don’t see how anyone can proclaim to be in favour of Repeal and voting no ??? Makes no sense surely ??


  • Options
    #250
    nolivesmatter
    Registered Users Posts: 895 ✭✭✭nolivesmatter


    Gervais08 wrote: »
    Well that’s ok then .....

    I'm sure you're implying something but I'm not sure what.

    To be clear Susieblue said that the 8th equated a fetus life to a womans. Given that she feels that equating the two is anti-women if someone agrees with it's repeal it goes along way to discrediting any notion even by her standards that someone is anti-women.


  • Options
    #251
    Gervais08
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,612 ✭✭✭Gervais08


    nolivesmatter wrote: »
    I'm sure you're implying something but I'm not sure what.

    To be clear Susieblue said that the 8th equated a fetus life to a womans. Given that she feels that equating the two is anti-women if someone agrees with it's repeal it goes along way to discrediting any notion even by her standards that someone is anti-women.

    The 8th specifically placed equal value on the foetus and women. Not just foetuses - possible foetuses.

    Unfortunately I have some experience with cancer, there are times when a matter of days in starting treatment can have a different outcome. Women have been denied X-rays, MRIs etc just because they are women of reproductive years (which is half our life technically).

    The 8th wasn’t just about termination of pregnancy - it was treating a living, breathing, independent, sentient, woman - as more than a potential life. As we always should have.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #252
    nolivesmatter
    Registered Users Posts: 895 ✭✭✭nolivesmatter


    Gervais08 wrote: »
    The 8th specifically placed equal value on the foetus and women. Not just foetuses - possible foetuses.

    Unfortunately I have some experience with cancer, there are times when a matter of days in starting treatment can have a different outcome. Women have been denied X-rays, MRIs etc just because they are women of reproductive years (which is half our life technically).

    The 8th wasn’t just about termination of pregnancy - it was treating a living, breathing, independent, sentient, woman - as more than a potential life. As we always should have.

    You won't hear me disagree with any of that.


  • Options
    #253
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 29,101 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    uptherebels wrote: »
    My point of view? You can't claim the be as far from anti woman as possible, while simultaneously telling rape victims to effectively suck it up. There is only one way to "see" that. Your mental gymnastics doesn't change that.


    yes, your point of view, seeing as what you are claiming about me is not fact but an opinion which is in no way true, hence i can absolutely state i'm not anti-woman because it's fact that it is the case, since if i was then i would be very much honest enough to admit it.
    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    placing the same value on the unborn as you do on actual living women is anti-women.


    it's not, since some unborn will be female, and some women agree with the view that the unborn human beings should have an equal right to life as much as it can be practical to uphold that right.
    and no, those women aren't anti-women, given it would be impossible for people to be against themselves, and it wouldn't make any sense in any sort of universe.
    SusieBlue wrote: »
    End of the road must have a very short memory because anyone who frequented the abortion threads in 2018 will recall how entirely opposed he was to repealing the 8th. So opposed he did in fact vote No in the referendum, which is not the actions of someone in favour of repealing.

    yes susie, which is no different to what i said in this thread.
    opposed repeal to stop the now current legislation, but agreed with specifically repealing the 8th of it's own merrit.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #254
    KiKi III
    Registered Users Posts: 2,653 ✭✭✭KiKi III


    end of the road wrote: »
    yes, your point of view, seeing as what you are claiming about me is not fact but an opinion which is in no way true, hence i can absolutely state i'm not anti-woman because it's fact that it is the case, since if i was then i would be very much honest enough to admit it.




    it's not, since some unborn will be female, and some women agree with the view that the unborn human beings should have an equal right to life as much as it can be practical to uphold that right.
    and no, those women aren't anti-women, given it would be impossible for people to be against themselves, and it wouldn't make any sense in any sort of universe.



    yes susie, which is no different to what i said in this thread.
    opposed repeal to stop the now current legislation, but agreed with specifically repealing the 8th of it's own merrit.

    You come across pretty anti-woman to me as well.

    Now, maybe us women all misinterpret your pro-womanness, but maybe women are a better judge of how supportive you are of them than you are yourself.

    Maybe you’re very pro-woman and it just doesn’t come across that way here. At all.


  • Options
    #255
    KiKi III
    Registered Users Posts: 2,653 ✭✭✭KiKi III


    I see Bertie’s Horse is the latest poster in the thread but sadly I can’t see the post as I put him on ignore months ago.

    Is it a predictable pop at me? Bet ya it is.


  • Options
    #256
    Gervais08
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,612 ✭✭✭Gervais08


    KiKi III wrote: »
    I see Bertie’s Horse is the latest poster in the thread but sadly I can’t see the post as I put him on ignore months ago.

    Is it a predictable pop at me? Bet ya it is.

    I’m not sure but s/he’s flat out accused me of lying about how I’m unfortunately too familiar with cancer treatments. I don’t understand how someone can be so awful.


  • Options
    #257
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    nolivesmatter wrote: »
    end of the road is only "anti-women" in your view because you don't place the same value on the unborn. Placing value on the unborn is not anti-women.

    "Anti Woman" is probably not the right phrase. As I said earlier in another post there has only been one, not much more, posters who's position came across as being completely toxic to women. Rather it came across as a sort of "benign dictator" which saw middle class men as some kind of parental figure who should be leading these infant minded women forward by showing them what their goals should be, their incentives should be, and forcing things like unwanted pregnancies on them as a form of motivating them to do what THEY (the men) feel they should be doing with/in their life.

    So I would not really move to use the anti woman phrase myself. What I would say myself is that there is something seriously morally suspect about curtailing the rights, choices, and well being of sentient agents (in this case women) in deference to something that is not, and never has been, a sentient agent of any sort and lacks all capacity for choice, goals, well being or suffering.

    Until someone FINALLY comes up with a reason to be doing THAT.... I am afraid my position on abortion is quite fixed and the user who predicts us all looking back at ourselves in shame in 30 years could not be more wrong.
    nolivesmatter wrote: »
    What would any of us even have to gain from being "anti-women" anyway?

    Not sure myself but looking at history, structures and traditions in things like religion, and more.... my first suspicion would be "control". Men seeking to control women has been an unfortunate attribute of many aspects our our religions, our societies, our political systems and more throughout the short history of our species.

    So were I to be interested in answering the question you ask.... I'd probably start my investigation there.


  • Options
    #258
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 35,078 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    end of the road wrote: »
    it's not, since some unborn will be female

    Disingenuous nonsense as you are opposed to aborting a foetus whether it is male or female.
    and some women agree with the view that the unborn human beings should have an equal right to life

    Those women are perfectly free to never have an abortion themselves. But a viewpoint or legislation can be anti-woman even if some (or many) women support it, as was the case in 1983. Logic does not apply to religious worldviews.
    yes susie, which is no different to what i said in this thread.
    opposed repeal to stop the now current legislation, but agreed with specifically repealing the 8th of it's own merrit.

    Yet you endlessly argued against repeal, the internet always remembers. You never proposed any workable alternative to the proposed legislation, because you know there wasn't one. "Rape panels" were not an option. So you can spare us the guff.

    © 1982 Sinclair Research Ltd



  • Options
    #259
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 29,101 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    Disingenuous nonsense as you are opposed to aborting a foetus whether it is male or female.

    i am opposed to it regardless of gender/sex, which makes it the opposite of disingenous nonsense, or both separately.
    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    Those women are perfectly free to never have an abortion themselves.

    ultimately irrelevant. it's a non-argument.
    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    But a viewpoint or legislation can be anti-woman even if some (or many) women support it, as was the case in 1983. Logic does not apply to religious worldviews.

    if it is specifically designed to target women, yes . if it wasn't, which the 8th wasn't all be it it did cause many problems, then it can't.
    women are not going to be anti-themselves, it makes no logical or any sort of sense in any sort of reality or universe.
    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    Yet you endlessly argued against repeal, the internet always remembers.

    argued against it on the basis of the proposed legislation and with no alternative that could achieve what i was looking for, funnily enough mentioned in this thread so no got ya here.
    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    You never proposed any workable alternative to the proposed legislation, because you know there wasn't one.

    no, there was a workable one, it doesn't suit what you were looking for hence you deciding in your opinion that it isn't workable.
    massive difference between something not being workable in one's opinion because it doesn't meet the goals they are looking for, and being actually unworkable.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #260
    Mr. CooL ICE
    Registered Users Posts: 17,589 ✭✭✭✭Mr. CooL ICE


    end of the road wrote: »
    no, there was a workable one, it doesn't suit what you were looking for hence you deciding in your opinion that it isn't workable.
    massive difference between something not being workable in one's opinion because it doesn't meet the goals they are looking for, and being actually unworkable.

    What was it?

    And by workable, it is possible to legislate for.


  • Options
    #261
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 35,078 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Mr. CooL ICE wrote: »
    What was it?

    And by workable, it is possible to legislate for.

    *tumbleweed*

    © 1982 Sinclair Research Ltd



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #262
    nolivesmatter
    Registered Users Posts: 895 ✭✭✭nolivesmatter


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    *tumbleweed*

    You must be bored lol


Advertisement