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
Second coming of the Pope to coincide with General Election issue of 8th amendment?
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Sure, I'm not married to the term in fairness. So...A fetus is not a child.
I obviously can't speak for ucseae1, and apparently (even evidently) need things dumbed down for me, but I would have taken ucseae1s point as being;
It's wrong for someone to be raped.
It's wrong to kill the foetus.
That doing a second wrong thing to address a first wrong thing doesn't make the second wrong thing into a right thing. Perhaps it's just a dumb idiom.
If you want to look at it that way you can also say a man is to be considered a "means" to make babies, since it takes both. But I'm reasonably sure even dumb people know we can be considered as more than just one of the things we can do. What do you think?So a woman is to be considered a "means" to make babies?
Ah now; that's 100% more than your own contribution in fairness (200% if you draw out the contraction), and I offered an opinion on when I think a Papal visit might signify an attempt to exert influence. But I doubt we'll be competing for publishers, all the sameI'm sorry I don't have an insight as deep as your "I don't". Two whole words! Have you shopped it around to publishers yet?
0 -
Sure, I'm not married to the term in fairness. So...
I obviously can't speak for ucseae1,
It hasn't exactly stopped you, has it?
I agree.and apparently (even evidently) need things dumbed down for me, but I would have taken ucseae1s point as being;
It's wrong for someone to be raped.It's wrong to kill the foetus.
I disagree.That doing a second wrong thing to address a first wrong thing doesn't make the second wrong thing into a right thing.
We only disagree on which "second thing" is wrong. To you, it's the termination of the fetus. To me, it's forcing a woman to carry her rapist's baby against her will, essentially extending the ripping away of her bodily autonomy that began with the rape.Perhaps it's just a dumb idiom.
I didn't introduce the idiom, take that up with uscae1.If you want to look at it that way you can also say a man is to be considered a "means" to make babies, since it takes both. But I'm reasonably sure even dumb people know we can be considered as more than just one of the things we can do. What do you think?
I think when a man can be forced by authorities to carry a rapist's offspring to term then you might call that a fair comparison.Ah now; that's 100% more than your own contribution in fairness (200% if you draw out the contraction), and I offered an opinion on when I think a Papal visit might signify an attempt to exert influence. But I doubt we'll be competing for publishers, all the same
I think there's a decent chance that the papal visit might be an attempt to exert influence in the result of the election. It may also be a coincidence.
As to your notion that the visit would be timed to just before a referendum if it were intended to influence the result, why would they wait? Wouldn't it be better to influence events so that such a referendum never happens at all? Why take such a risk?0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
Fair enough, I'm sure ucseae1 will eventually pop along to tell us if, contrary to his own assertion, that was two wrongs that made a right. I have a feeling he's not likely to say it was though.I stand by it, because I believe my interpretation is correct and yours is incorrect. I'm under no obligation to accept your interpretation.
I don't, but I don't think it's solely up to ucseae1 to decide whether or not you misinterpreted their position, is it? We're all capable of seeing what you said.Let's let ucsae1 decide who was misinterpreting their position. Unless you claim to speak for him/her?.
So, just to be clear, you think in the Miss Y case both men and women being a means to make babies were reduced to nothing? That's an odd notion. But anyway, outside of rape you say both men and women can certainly be considered a means to make babies. Another odd notion, but it seems you're full of them. Don't you think we'd all be better off of we considered men and women to be more than just a means to make babies? Without demeaning their facility to do so nonetheless, of course.Considered, certainly. Reduced to nothing but, as in the Miss Y case, absolutely not.
You don't? Sure you might as well, at least it would be on topicI don't really need to point out the flaw in that argument where it relates to the Church in Ireland, do I? It's been done enough times. Well, maybe not, the Miss Y thing was a bit of a non sequitur after all, but maybe all the same? 0 -
*sigh*Fair enough, I'm sure ucseae1 will eventually pop along to tell us if, contrary to his own assertion, that was two wrongs that made a right. I have a feeling he's not likely to say it was though.
I never claimed that ucsae had stated two wrongs made a right. I said the opposite of that.I don't, but I don't think it's solely up to ucseae1 to decide whether or not you misinterpreted their position, is it? We're all capable of seeing what you said.
You're absolutely entitled to your opinion. You're just not entitled to have it taken seriously.So, just to be clear, you think in the Miss Y case both men and women being a means to make babies were reduced to nothing? That's an odd notion.
It certainly would be, had I expressed it. What I implied was that Miss Y had been reduced to a means to make a baby by authorities, much as she had been used as a means to cause suffering by her rapist.
I have no clue where you got "both men and women being a means to make babies were reduced to nothing" from. That's barely a sentence, much less an opinion.But anyway, outside of rape you say both men and women can certainly be considered a means to make babies. Another odd notion, but it seems you're full of them. Don't you think we'd all be better off of we considered men and women to be more than just a means to make babies? Without demeaning their facility to do so nonetheless, of course.
Yes. In fact, that was my entire point. Well done.You don't? Sure you might as well, at least it would be on topic Well, maybe not, the Miss Y thing was a bit of a non sequitur after all, but maybe all the same?
The church's record on protecting life, in particular the lives of babies in Ireland, is well known. Of course those probably don't count because they'd already been born, so to hell with them, right? Not worth bothering with if you can't use them to punish women anymore.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
So, when you said "That's two wrongs which, according to you, made a right" you "never claimed that ucsae had stated two wrongs made a right". But I'm the one being deliberately obtuse or not paying attention?Clearly in reference to uscae1's belief that forcing a rape victim to give birth to her rapist's baby is a good thing. You're either being deliberately obtuse or not paying attention.
Would you quote the particular legal passage that demands it? I'm pretty certain that no such demand exists in the legislation.The reason they did so was because the current unjust law demands it.
No, you said that that Miss Y had been reduced to a means to make a baby by authorities; I asked you what reason you've made up for their doing so on their behalf. Since, as you've acknowledged, they never said they did any such thing. Or had any reason to do any such thing. No one involved in the process ever siad that they did, or should, or even could, put aside her personhood, did they?I never claimed they had said as much, only that that is how they acted. Her personhood was put aside because her rapist had impregnated her. As long as the fetus was unharmed she didn't matter.
None that you're aware of? None at all? You're familiar with the fact that she was afforded refugee status.None that I am aware of, no. She was treated as an unwilling incubator.
You're familiar with the fact that she was given health screening.
You're familiar with the fact that she was assisted by IFPA in reviewing pregnancy options.
You're familiar with the fact that she received assistance from the immigration council
You're familiar with the fact that she was provided with both physical and mental health care by Spirasi.
You're familiar with the fact that she received GP care from two GPs
You're familiar with the fact that she was assessed by two psychologists who agreed her pregnancy should be terminated.
You're familiar with the fact that she was assessed by an obstetrician who did in fact terminate her pregnancy.
And yet you're not aware that she was treated as more than just a means to make a baby. Do you think your awareness may be somewhat selective?
No, I actually don't think the Miss Y case involved either a man or a woman being reduced to a means to make babies; I acknowledge that there is no reason to imagine anyone involved intended or was prepared to reduce the people involved to such a nonsensically ridiculous position, either in word or deed.You seem to think the Miss Y case involved both a man and woman being reduced to a means to make babies. Only a woman was.
Sure, that's why I said it's good to see some agreement.I don't see any contradiction there.
Interesting how much easier it is to find consensus on topic than it is on introduced diversionsFair point. 0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement