Colombia legalises abortion up to 24 weeks!

Was replying to the poster that asked what the bearded sky faery thought.

Well as someone who is absolutely Pro Choice... I would very much love to hear what the "many hypocrisies and double standards" are in my position so I can correct them. I can not think of a single one. So if you find any in my posts... by all means do not hesitate to point them out to me! You would be helping me and I would consider it a favor and thank you for it, should I find your concerns to be well founded.

Until then though... I hope I can point out a few issues I find in your post.

Firstly to answer the question you ask, yes, most pro choice people I have encountered (which is relatively quite a lot given how active I was during the referendum time) also strongly support Euthanasia. Not all of them though... but I find the reasons they give for this are not as hypocritical or internally inconsistent as you might think. For example the most common disagreement I find with Euthanasia lies in the potential for it to be abused. They have a very justifiable fear that a sick and relatively helpless person might feel compelled or cajoled into choosing death when they otherwise might. And that is a conversation absolutely worth having even among the most ardent and strident of pro euthanasia advocates!

The first and most obvious example that jumps to mind in Irish Society is Michael Nugent. He campaigned a lot for pro choice on abortion. He also campaigns a lot for Euthanasia. His own wife died of a condition where they both agreed that, despite the law, he would assist her suicide should the time and need arise. And he would have faced and accepted the repercussions of this. I respect him for that. His love for his beautiful wife was such that he would accept prison and punishment in order to respect her right to die and her wish to die, at her chosen time.

Second... I have to say of all the many many pro choice people I have encountered I can not really think of any who espouse the "Life begins at birth" position you describe. I fear you may be very much misrepresenting and strawmanning the pro choice position. Though I withhold jumping to the conclusion you do so deliberately.

In fact right this moment the ONLY person I can think of who espoused the "Live begins at birth" position actually later switched to being ANTI choice, and espousing equally absurd anti abortion arguments. My suspicion is he (a board poster as it happens) was simply doing a "poe" on the Pro Choice position and was espousing a ridiculous version of it in order to make it look silly. As I recall one of his defenses of this position was.... I kid you not..... to claim that Mary Robinson agreed with him. But later switched to claiming abortion was bad because it prevented working and lower class women from bettering themselves. Again, I kid you not. To this day I am unsure if he was poe'ing either position or both.

Third when you say "it is still a different person in its early developmental stages" this is where I as a pro choice advocate would most strongly disagree with you. It may be a different biological entity and organism, despite it's attachment to the mother. That much I would agree with. But to call it a "person" for me strikes my ears as a nonsense. What aspect of a fetus would you assign "personhood" to? Most abortions occur in the area of 12 to 16 weeks development where, among other things, the faculty of consciousness has not even BEGUN to form. For me I see no more reason to consider such a fetus a "person" than I do a rock or a leg off a table. So when you are calling this thing a "person".... what attributes are you hanging that use of the word off exactly?

Fourth.... you ask why would people post pictures of things like a sonogram. That is an easy question to answer. The reason is because of "narrative". The people who post pictures of their fetus in development are showing us part of their story. A story that they believe and hope culminates in the production of a new person, a new baby, and a new stage in their life. Such a sonogram picture represents not their opinions of the state of "personhood" of the fetus in the moment of the image. But of the beginning of a beautiful story arc of the person they hope to create and bring into their lives and ours. As such there is NO contradiction between such an image, and a pro choice position. And the failure to realise such a story and see the unwanted death of such a fetus as an ending of that story arc... can be no less tragic or relevant. Even without recognising the death of the fetus as the death of an actual person.

Finally when you call people "degenerates" because they choose abortion for reasons you do not agree with (such as a one night stand) I would be compelled to press you to consider such a position more deeply. The abortion debate really comes down to one main question. Is there any reason to afford a fetus human rights.... or to afford it moral or ethical concern? If there is.... then of course we need to justify the reasons we might seek to abort. I would absolutely agree with you there. But if there is not.... and at 12/16/20 weeks I really think there is not..... then the REASONS someone might choose to abort are irrelevant. Even if they are distasteful to us, they are irrelevant. And none of our business.

Let me give you a weird analogy to food. But bear with me. I absolutely think you have the right to eat McDonalds. But your REASON for eating it might be distasteful to me. You might eat it because, for example, you are hungry and have no time to cook a good meal. Great. But your reason might be that you want to get super fat so you can get so obese you can claim disability allowance. I would find that reason MASSIVELY distasteful and immoral and disgusting. But I would STILL defend your right to choose to eat McDonalds. Because you have that right, whether I like your reason to exercise it or not, or I hate you for your agendas and incentives.

So unless you can find a reason to afford moral or ethical concern to a fetus, and assign it rights..... your distaste for why someone might have an abortion is your problem not theirs surely?

If someone for example told me they were having an abortion because they were trying to set the world record for most amount of abortions in a 10 year period I would find this disgusting and want to keep that person out of my life. I would STILL defend their right to have an abortion however. Just like if someone told me they were eating McDonalds because they have never had a heart bypass and were aspiring to get unfit enough to qualify for one.... I would be disgusted by this person and their motives.... but still defend their right to eat what they want.

As such... to go back to how I started this post.... I look forward to you finding any inconsistencies or hypocrisies or double standards in my position, points, opinions and claims. I have spent about 25 years weeding them out. So I would be grateful.... though very surprised.... if you find any more for me.

Absolutely right, and it’s a disgrace that Irish women in this situation still have to travel abroad, denied medical treatment here.

Has the bearded sky faery told you any different ? Sure pope Benny the Nazi was just caught lying and he actually faciltated child abuse before he was made chief zombie worshipper and while I don't pander to delusional adults normally I think the popes are supose to be the gods representive on earth ?