woman refused abortion - Mod Note in first post.

conorh91 · 27-08-2014 9:19pm

swampgas wrote: »

I think it's slightly more nuanced than that. If a foetus is killed in utero, the "harm" is two-fold. Obviously the foetus itself is destroyed. But I think most people are empathising, not with the foetus in such a situation, but with the woman. A wanted baby being killed is a crime, it could be argued, less against the foetus but more against the parents. So the victim could be the woman or parents moreso than the foetus itself.

When I mentioned the woman's "injury", I should have clarified that this includes the emotional injury of losing a child.

Nevertheless, I do believe that where a foetus is killed, in utero, in the course of any kind of attack (particularly at viability, but probably soon before viability), most people would classify the foetus as a "victim" of the attack, as well as the mother.

That's why I raised a situation comparable to Baby Doherty

I accept that not everyone will agree, I just think that what I have described is a view commonly held.

Thus, the foetus's right to life is a view commonly held.

swampgas · 27-08-2014 9:24pm

conorh91 wrote: »

When I mentioned the woman's "injury", I should have clarified that this includes the emotional injury of losing a child.

Nevertheless, I do believe that where a foetus is killed, in utero, in the course of any kind of attack (particularly at viability, but probably soon before viability), most people would classify the foetus as a "victim" of the attack, as well as the mother.

That's why I raised a situation comparable to Baby Doherty

I accept that not everyone will agree, I just think that what I have described is a view commonly held.

Thus, the foetus's right to life is a view commonly held.

I'm not sure the last part holds though. Yes the foetus can be a victim, and be killed, but that does not mean that the foetus had or has a right to life. Although I do accept that it is a commonly held view.

conorh91 · 27-08-2014 9:31pm

swampgas wrote: »

Yes the foetus can be a victim, and be killed, but that does not mean that the foetus had or has a right to life.

It does not mean that the foetus had an absolute right to life.

However, if a foetus is a victim because he was killed, that victimhood can only have descended from an initial right to life: the right not to be killed in a bomb, or whatever.

swampgas · 27-08-2014 9:35pm

conorh91 wrote: »

It does not mean that the foetus had an absolute right to life.

However, if a foetus is a victim because he was killed, that victimhood can only have descended from an initial right to life: the right not to be killed in a bomb, or whatever.

Here we agree. I suspect where we differ is on how to balance the non-absolute right of a foetus to life with the non-absolute right of a fully grown woman to decide for herself whether to put herself through an unwanted pregnancy.

conorh91 · 27-08-2014 11:15pm

swampgas wrote: »

Here we agree. I suspect where we differ is on how to balance the non-absolute right of a foetus to life with the non-absolute right of a fully grown woman to decide for herself whether to put herself through an unwanted pregnancy.

Not necessarily. I'd prefer more liberal abortion rights in favor of the woman.

The reason I got into this "victim status" issue is to counter a more extreme view that a foetus is only ever a clump of cells, or that the foetus never has a right to life.

Personally, I'd define a foetus as an unborn baby with some rights to life, even on the brink of (or before) viability. All in all, I think it's a logical definition, but I accept not everyone agrees.

irishpancake · 28-08-2014 3:03am

conorh91 wrote: »

Not necessarily. I'd prefer more liberal abortion rights in favor of the woman.

The reason I got into this "victim status" issue is to counter a more extreme view that a foetus is only ever a clump of cells, or that the foetus never has a right to life.

Personally, I'd define a foetus as an unborn baby with some rights to life, even on the brink of (or before) viability. All in all, I think it's a logical definition, but I accept not everyone agrees.

So, you have argued against a "more extreme view" by espousing an "extreme view" which is less than "more extreme"??

Gatica · 01-09-2014 11:45am

Interesting article...

http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/abortion-laws-ireland-1644005-Sep2014/

irishpancake · 01-09-2014 1:38pm

Gatica wrote: »

Interesting article...

http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/abortion-laws-ireland-1644005-Sep2014/

Very, do you mind if I quote just from the beginning??

‘DO NO HARM’ and ‘assume the best of each other’ are common phrases that capture some of our deepest ethical commitments.
People are upset and angry right now because Irish society has not only failed to prevent harm to Ms Y, but we’ve actually increased her suffering.

Forcibly hydrating, and essentially refusing an abortion to this vulnerable, suicidal rape victim, has not assumed the best of her.

What’s worse is that we don’t seem to have learned from previous experiences.

Our emotional reactions to this recent case tell us something important; that even if we disagree about abortion, reducing harm to sentient beings ought to be the starting point for our law and policy.
The failure to perform an abortion was wrong because it produced more harm than good.

More generally, we know that restricting access to abortion does not stop abortion; it just makes the experience more harmful.

If Irish society is serious about reducing harm to pregnant women, including the harms of disrespecting their autonomy and bodily integrity, the state needs to change how it thinks about pregnancy and abortion.

The recognition of woman and foetus as legal equals has been harmful, and needs to change.

There are so many obvious truths in just those two paragraphs.

Momentum to regain elected democratic control over law making will be maintained, and I foresee this odious Amendment being put to the people before very long.

This social experiment has been a complete and utter disaster, no matter which perspective you have.

The Purveyor of Truth · 01-09-2014 2:05pm

Went to see Obvious Child this week and there is a line it where a bitter feminist type, has a little rant about the patriarchy and abortion and says:

We already live in a patriarchal society where a group of weird old white men in robes get to legislate our cunts.

One group of women cheered and starting clapping when she said it. If only I had a fcuking Uzi.

The story is about a woman who gets pregnant by a really nice guy and she chooses not to tell him face to face, but through a stand-up routine and even then, it's done in 'poor me' style, with zero thought for the guy. *Spoiler alert* from this point on.

So next we see of him after seeing the stand-up and discovering that she is to have an abortion, is when he shows up as she is on the way to the clinic with flowers never once mentioning what they are doing. They joke at the clinic and when we see her having the abortion, it's (literately) portrayed as a bunch of women at a hairdressers.

The next scene is the last and thought at least now we will get some real conversation, when she will explain why she decided to have an abortion, without even discussing it with the man who made her pregnant, who is sound and who she, seemingly, still wishes to date.. but nothing, nada, zip. What happens instead is that they start joking that have just spent the day at the DMV (American Motor Tax office) and that that is why they were sitting in a waiting room filling out forms.

I know it's only a film but it's infuriating to think that such people exist, that not only think that this is not just an excusable way of behaving, but one to glorify and present as being the correct way and one not to feel guilty about or need to apologize for. A selfish, self centered, whinge fest that really just screamed female entitlement, while somehow also simultaneously playing the female oppression card and all while dismissing men off as not being deemed worthy of being told that a woman they have got pregnant is about to have an abortion, let alone that they could or should be part of any decision making process.

Misandrist tripe but unfortunately, as can be seen from some comments on this thread, quite reflective of society no doubt.

Now where did I put me patriarchal robe.

01-09-2014 2:32pm

The Purveyor of Truth wrote: »

Went to see Obvious Child this week and there is a line it where a bitter feminist type, has a little rant about the patriarchy and abortion and says:[...] One group of women cheered and starting clapping when she said it. If only I had a fcuking Uzi.

Nothing teaches those bitter feminists not to hate men like opening fire with an Uzi over a line in a movie, eh?

That'll cure their misandry.

irishpancake · 01-09-2014 2:34pm

The Purveyor of Truth wrote: »

Went to see Obvious Child this week and there is a line it where a bitter feminist type, has a little rant about the patriarchy and abortion and says: One group of women cheered and starting clapping when she said it. If only I had a fcuking Uzi.

The story is about a woman who gets pregnant by a really nice guy and she chooses not to tell him face to face, but through a stand-up routine and even then, it's done in 'poor me' style, with zero thought for the guy. *Spoiler alert* from this point on.

So next we see of him after seeing the stand-up and discovering that she is to have an abortion, is when he shows up as she is on the way to the clinic with flowers never once mentioning what they are doing. They joke at the clinic and when we see her having the abortion, it's (literately) portrayed as a bunch of women at a hairdressers.

The next scene is the last and thought at least now we will get some real conversation, when she will explain why she decided to have an abortion, without even discussing it with the man who made her pregnant, who is sound and who she, seemingly, still wishes to date.. but nothing, nada, zip. What happens instead is that they start joking that have just spent the day at the DMV (American Motor Tax office) and that that is why they were sitting in a waiting room filling out forms.

I know it's only a film but it's infuriating to think that such people exist, that not only think that this is not just an excusable way of behaving, but one to glorify and present as being the correct way and one not to feel guilty about or need to apologize for. A selfish, self centered, whinge fest that really just screamed female entitlement, while somehow also simultaneously playing the female oppression card and all while dismissing men off as not being deemed worthy of being told that a woman they have got pregnant is about to have an abortion, let alone that they could or should be part of any decision making process.

Misandrist tripe but unfortunately, as can be seen from some comments on this thread, quite reflective of society no doubt.

Now where did I put me patriarchal robe.

:eek: !!!!

One group of women cheered and starting clapping when she said it. If only I had a fcuking Uzi.

"Pro life" statement of this decade, and you are not alone, Purveyor of Hate and Misogyny.....

In every sense of that word "fcuking" you betray your disgusting predilections towards a real live group of women with whom you disagree.

Poor guy!!!! ....

fcuk you too, with knobs on.

Smidge · 01-09-2014 2:43pm

The Purveyor of Truth wrote: »

Went to see Obvious Child this week and there is a line it where a bitter feminist type, has a little rant about the patriarchy and abortion and says: One group of women cheered and starting clapping when she said it. If only I had a fcuking Uzi.

The story is about a woman who gets pregnant by a really nice guy and she chooses not to tell him face to face, but through a stand-up routine and even then, it's done in 'poor me' style, with zero thought for the guy. *Spoiler alert* from this point on.

So next we see of him after seeing the stand-up and discovering that she is to have an abortion, is when he shows up as she is on the way to the clinic with flowers never once mentioning what they are doing. They joke at the clinic and when we see her having the abortion, it's (literately) portrayed as a bunch of women at a hairdressers.

The next scene is the last and thought at least now we will get some real conversation, when she will explain why she decided to have an abortion, without even discussing it with the man who made her pregnant, who is sound and who she, seemingly, still wishes to date.. but nothing, nada, zip. What happens instead is that they start joking that have just spent the day at the DMV (American Motor Tax office) and that that is why they were sitting in a waiting room filling out forms.

I know it's only a film but it's infuriating to think that such people exist, that not only think that this is not just an excusable way of behaving, but one to glorify and present as being the correct way and one not to feel guilty about or need to apologize for. A selfish, self centered, whinge fest that really just screamed female entitlement, while somehow also simultaneously playing the female oppression card and all while dismissing men off as not being deemed worthy of being told that a woman they have got pregnant is about to have an abortion, let alone that they could or should be part of any decision making process.

Misandrist tripe but unfortunately, as can be seen from some comments on this thread, quite reflective of society no doubt.

Now where did I put me patriarchal robe.

You do realise it was a...........movie???
You know, a work of fiction?
Still, I suppose, any aul tripe dressed up as an argument eh?

The Purveyor of Truth · 01-09-2014 2:46pm

Smidge wrote: »

You do realise it was a...........movie???

Ahem..

The Purveyor of Truth wrote: »

I know it's only a film *but*..

marienbad · 01-09-2014 2:48pm

The Purveyor of Truth wrote: »

Ahem..

It obliviously wasn't only a film to you though.

Smidge · 01-09-2014 2:49pm

So you ARE aware its a movie but STILL use it as an argument? :rolleyes:

irishpancake · 01-09-2014 2:58pm

The Purveyor of Truth wrote: »

Ahem..

Ahem me arse.....

Originally Posted by The Purveyor of Truth View Post
I know it's only a film *but*..

to continue.......

I know it's only a film *but*......."it's infuriating to think that such people exist, that not only think that this is not just an excusable way of behaving, but one to glorify and present as being the correct way and one not to feel guilty about or need to apologize for."

"But" usually indicates that you wish it were other than what you say, as in, you have a way to ensure that such infuriating people no longer exist......

your ultimate "Pro life" argument, regarding a group of real live women who infuriated you in a cinema in Ireland.

Your Final Solution......

One group of women cheered and starting clapping when she said it. If only I had a fcuking Uzi.

You disgusting piece of filth!!!

The Purveyor of Truth · 01-09-2014 3:03pm

marienbad wrote: »

It obliviously wasn't only a film to you though.

There is no such thing as 'only a movie' when it comes to films which are very clearly attempting to make a quite specific social and political comment. Leftist libs and feminist bloggers have been all over this film like white on rice. You're naive, in the extreme, if you think it doesn't reflect a certain section of society.

01-09-2014 3:06pm

Smidge wrote: »

So you ARE aware its a movie but STILL use it as an argument? :rolleyes:

It was a glimpse of hate-trimmed Freudian slip. The posters agenda has long been obvious, and now the feelings behind it are crystal clear.

irishpancake wrote: »

Ahem me arse.....

And his.

Smidge · 01-09-2014 3:06pm

The Purveyor of Truth wrote: »

There is no such thing as 'only a movie' when it comes to films which are very clearly attempting to make a quite specific social and political comment. Leftist libs and feminist bloggers have been all over this film like white on rice. You're naive, in the extreme, if you think it doesn't reflect a certain section of society.

If thats really what you think and its how your mind works then I would suggest you steer clear from "Shaun of the Dead".....................................it gives Zombies a really bad image.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5 · 01-09-2014 3:06pm

The Purveyor of Truth wrote: »

There is no such thing as 'only a movie' when it comes to films which are very clearly attempting to make a quite specific social and political comment. Leftist libs and feminist bloggers have been all over this film like white on rice. You're naive, in the extreme, if you think it doesn't reflect a certain section of society.

Personally speaking that American film about an American woman accessing abortion in America has really clarified my thinking about the case of the asylum seeker denied an abortion in Ireland. Which I'm sure was your aim when you made that post, not getting a dig at dem dam leftist feminazis. Did you go to that film to deliberately annoy yourself or what?

01-09-2014 3:08pm

The Purveyor of Truth wrote: »

There is no such thing as 'only a movie' when it comes to films which are very clearly attempting to make a quite specific social and political comment. Leftist libs and feminist bloggers have been all over this film like white on rice. You're naive, in the extreme, if you think it doesn't reflect a certain section of society.

And what section of society does a man who wants to turn a machine gun on a group of women over their reaction to a line in a movie represent?

The Purveyor of Truth · 01-09-2014 3:11pm

Smidge wrote: »

If thats really what you think and its how your mind works then I would suggest you steer clear from "Shaun of the Dead".....................................it gives Zombies a really bad image.

Eh..

The Purveyor of Truth wrote: »

..when it comes to films which are very clearly attempting to make a quite specific social and political comment.

As far as I am aware Simon and Nick weren't attempting to make a film which had a social or political narrative. I could be wrong.

Smidge · 01-09-2014 3:17pm

The Purveyor of Truth wrote: »

Eh..

As far as I am aware Simon and Nick weren't attempting to make a film which had a social or political narrative. I could be wrong.

Well considering you wanted to kill a group of people, strangers, with an uzi because of a movie, I just thought that maybe your grasp of reality wasn't wrapped to tight.
But clearly, you seem perfectly normal :rolleyes:

01-09-2014 3:22pm

Smidge wrote: »

Well considering you wanted to kill a group of people, strangers, with an uzi because of a movie, I just thought that maybe your grasp of reality wasn't wrapped to tight.
But clearly, you seem perfectly normal :rolleyes:

Shaun of The Dead is a terrible example.

It's a filthy, hate-filled, misandrous piece of work that portrays men as being at their ex-girlfriends beck-and-call, unmotivated, adult house sharing, game-playing, simple-minded slackers who think all of life's problems, including the Zombie apocalypse, can be cured by a few pints down the pub.

Personally, I think it should be banned.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5 · 01-09-2014 3:27pm

All messing aside, is Obvious Child any good? On a shíts-and-giggles scale ranging from 4 Months 3 Weeks and 2 Days to Knocked Up where does it rank in the greater scheme of abortiony films?

irishpancake · 01-09-2014 3:32pm

Smidge wrote: »

Well considering you wanted to kill a group of people, strangers, with an uzi because of a movie, I just thought that maybe your grasp of reality wasn't wrapped to tight.
But clearly, you seem perfectly normal :rolleyes:

And, to be clear, it was not just any people he wished this fate upon

If only I had a fcuking Uzi.

It was:

One group of women cheered and starting clapping when she said it.

That is, a group of real, live, identifiable women who were in that cinema, who had the temerity to indicate their approval of what they heard and saw in this piece of fiction........

something which he so disagrees with, he would not only deny their right of free expression, but would contemplate silencing them forever.

And of course, there is the "fcuking" thing, which probably needs psychiatric or psychological evaluation.

Smidge · 01-09-2014 3:37pm

Candie wrote: »

Shaun of The Dead is a terrible example.

It's a filthy, hate-filled, misandrous piece of work that portrays men as being at their ex-girlfriends beck-and-call, unmotivated, adult house sharing, game-playing, simple-minded slackers who think all of life's problems, including the Zombie apocalypse, can be cured by a few pints down the pub.

Personally, I think it should be banned.

But...but....Candie!!
It said so in a movie so it must be an accurate description of men today:eek:
I'm so glad that someone has recognised my genius

01-09-2014 3:39pm

Smidge wrote: »

But...but....Candie!!
It said so in a movie so it must be an accurate description of men today:eek:
I'm so glad that someone has recognised my genius

It definitely made me want to shoot someone anyway.:)

irishpancake · 01-09-2014 3:43pm

Gustavo CoolS Quote wrote: »

All messing aside, is Obvious Child any good? On a shíts-and-giggles scale ranging from 4 Months 3 Weeks and 2 Days to Knocked Up where does it rank in the greater scheme of abortiony films?

I'd say it could be discussed in another thread, just IMO.

This person, this Purveyor of Lies and Filth, brought his apparently pathological desires and fantasies into a thread about a young, apparently raped, certified as suicidal woman/girl being denied an abortion by the actions of the servants of this State.

For the information of posters here, his fantasy actions are not unheard of, by those who claim tom be "Pro Life", [actually Anti Choice].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence

Anti-abortion violence is violence committed against individuals and organizations that provide abortion.

Incidents of violence have included destruction of property, in the form of vandalism; crimes against people, including kidnapping, stalking, assault, attempted murder, and murder; and crimes affecting both people and property, including arson and bombings.

humanji · 01-09-2014 3:55pm

irishpancake wrote: »

And, to be clear, it was not just any people he wished this fate upon

If only I had a fcuking Uzi.

It was:

That is, a group of real, live, identifiable women who were in that cinema, who had the temerity to indicate their approval of what they heard and saw in this piece of fiction........

something which he so disagrees with, he would not only deny their right of free expression, but would contemplate silencing them forever.

And of course, there is the "fcuking" thing, which probably needs psychiatric or psychological evaluation.

The fact that you can't tell the difference between hyperbole and intent, while claiming that someone else can't tell the difference between reality and a film is quite bizarre. The user had no intention of of killing anyone and that is painfully clear. Now get over it and move on.

woman refused abortion - Mod Note in first post.

Comments