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

most politcally incorrect opinion?

2456789

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 862 ✭✭✭cautioner


    Abortion, hmmm, I'm againist it, as a general rule. However there are cases where I understand it's necessity. When it comes to aborting a child on the basis that it could have disabilities? I'm not really sure where I stand on that, I feel that it sort of depends on the case, but that is possibly a little hypocritical in itself
    Everyone knows someone with disabilities of some form. Where's the distinction? Who should be so badly disabled as to be put to death? (or terminated, if that's a less biased term?) What these people in my class were arguing was that it would be perfectly fair to declare that they won't enjoy life as much as they could and should therefore be killed. I'll be honest; I'm still trying to wrap my head around it. One claimed the same defence for blind/deaf baby. Mind-boggling.
    JC 2K3 wrote:
    As an extension to my previously shared opinion, I kind of also think that the normalisation of abortion as a valid and moral choice in the event of an unplanned pregnancy, as opposed to a guilt ridden grey area, would be a good thing for society. Now the possible argument against this is that not granting rights to the unborn would lead to a general disregard for the value of human life, and that infanticide could be justified etc., but I think the majority of people make a subconscious distinction between humans in and ex utero which is strong enough that this would not arise as a result.
    How exactly do you think it would improve society? I'm honestly curious, not trying to be snide or anything.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,231 ✭✭✭Fad


    I kinda share JC 2K3's sentiment on abortion.

    I dont really care.

    I dont think life really begins properly until a baby can survive without ridiculous measure, like being in a incubator for months or something. I dont mean if a baby is born prematurely its not alive, its just naturally it couldnt possibly survive without some unreal amount of mechanical assistance. (This is coming out kinda iffy, but hopefully you get what I mean)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 862 ✭✭✭cautioner


    Fad wrote: »
    I kinda share JC 2K3's sentiment on abortion.

    I dont really care.

    I dont think life really begins properly until a baby can survive without ridiculous measure, like being in a incubator for months or something. I dont mean if a baby is born prematurely its not alive, its just naturally it couldnt possibly survive without some unreal amount of mechanical assistance. (This is coming out kinda iffy, but hopefully you get what I mean)

    Again, this seems like a very iffy distinction; still leaves leeway for personal discretion. Even though I'm opposed to it almost entirely, I can't respect this method of thinking as much as I could, say, life beginning at 2 months of pregnancy, something definite and consistent.

    Not that I don't respect your opinion, Fad :pac:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 629 ✭✭✭blinkey 101


    yawn.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,231 ✭✭✭Fad


    cautioner wrote: »
    Again, this seems like a very iffy distinction; still leaves leeway for personal discretion. Even though I'm opposed to it almost entirely, I can't respect this method of thinking as much as I could, say, life beginning at 2 months of pregnancy, something definite and consistent.

    Not that I don't respect your opinion, Fad :pac:


    OMGWTFDUDETHATSSOTOTALLYNOTFAIRNOTAGREEINGWITHMEENTIRELY!RAWR

    I'm sort of a Nihilist, and I dont really think life means anything, so my definition of life is obviously enough gonna be a bit different to others :)


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,794 ✭✭✭JC 2K3


    cautioner wrote: »
    Everyone knows someone with disabilities of some form. Where's the distinction? Who should be so badly disabled as to be put to death? (or terminated, if that's a less biased term?) What these people in my class were arguing was that it would be perfectly fair to declare that they won't enjoy life as much as they could and should therefore be killed. I'll be honest; I'm still trying to wrap my head around it. One claimed the same defence for blind/deaf baby. Mind-boggling.
    Well you could argue that since people having children is essentially for the selfish purpose of fulfilling a natural urge and thus will bring them pleasure and gratification, that they would be entitled to not have to bring up a disabled child if they so wish.
    cautioner wrote: »
    How exactly do you think it would improve society? I'm honestly curious, not trying to be snide or anything.
    Guilt for things that there's no reason to feel guilty about is a bad thing. A girl who has an unplanned pregnancy and doesn't want a baby shouldn't have to go through that. It would also lessen the amount of kids growing up in less than ideal circumstances because they were unplanned and the mother felt obliged to have them. I mean in general, more control over when new people are brought into the world can only be good for society.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 862 ✭✭✭cautioner


    Life.

    Don't talk to me about life...


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,345 ✭✭✭SarcasticFairy


    cautioner wrote: »
    Everyone knows someone with disabilities of some form. Where's the distinction? Who should be so badly disabled as to be put to death? (or terminated, if that's a less biased term?) What these people in my class were arguing was that it would be perfectly fair to declare that they won't enjoy life as much as they could and should therefore be killed. I'll be honest; I'm still trying to wrap my head around it. One claimed the same defence for blind/deaf baby. Mind-boggling.

    I wasn't thinking they wouldn't enjoy life as much and therefore should be killed/terminated. Taking your example, that woman had several disabled kids. A child with disabilities needs more attention than your average child. With so many kids needing all her undivided attention, there's only so much she can take, as well as the fact that the new baby would need a lot of attention that it might not get, and so suffer further. Sort of, it's kind of hard to explain what I'm thinking (my mind is a bit frazzled at the mo :o). It is neither fair on her nor on the new child.

    Also, when you're talking about more than blindness/deafness (as awful as that would be, in all fairness), but as in Down's Syndrom, AIDS, etc., and you know that your future child will be afflicted with whatever for their lives, there is going to be, for me anyway, some kind of debate. You're stopping this 'childs' life before it has begun, but you're doing it for the right reasons, in a sense. That's kind of what I meant about it applying to each case seperately.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 862 ✭✭✭cautioner


    JC 2K3 wrote: »
    Well you could argue that since people having children is essentially for the selfish purpose of fulfilling a natural urge and thus will bring them pleasure and gratification, that they would be entitled to not have to bring up a disabled child if they so wish.
    Giving birth to someone does not necessarily entail bringing them up; I realise that carrying a baby for 9 months is a tremendous task even for planned mothers, but my thought on the matter has always been that if someone can make an effort and not take the easy option, and in the process save a life, then that's something special. That of course is where personal opinion comes into the matter. It is a huge ask of anyone but in my personal opinion if someone has it in their direct power to decide the fate of another it should be worth the toil. Others obviously don't feel the same way.
    JC 2K3 wrote:
    Guilt for things that there's no reason to feel guilty about is a bad thing. A girl who has an unplanned pregnancy and doesn't want a baby shouldn't have to go through that. It would also lessen the amount of kids growing up in less than ideal circumstances because they were unplanned and the mother felt obliged to have them. I mean in general, more control over when new people are brought into the world can only be good for society.
    I could whip out the tired old the-baby-could-be-the-next-Morgan-Freeman cliché and you could just as easily retort with old the-baby-could-be-the-next-Hitler, but I think that's a bit redundant in any case.
    What you call guilt, I would call a conscience. Neither of us are in any position to speak authoratively, but I do recall reading that a large number of women who do abort are dramatically affected for the rest of their lives: they'll estimate the baby's would-be birthday, note it each year, wonder what might have been, etc. I don't think you can define it as something there's no reason to feel guilty for. It's yet another matter of personal opinion.
    It's easy to imagine and pity children growing up in less than ideal circumstances, but children have been doing that for millenia and I daresay a couple of them turned out all right. A less-than-perfect childhood is not something I see as a grounds for humane termination. Children grow up.

    Why, oh why, do I always start Abortion debates when I should be studying... :pac:


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,440 ✭✭✭✭Piste


    My angle on abortion is a life only has value if it is valued- ie. it doesn't have an innate value. An unwanted foetus has no value as its parents don't want it and it isn't sentient so doesn't value its own life.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 862 ✭✭✭cautioner


    Potential value doesn't figure?
    Anyway, I'm sorry for hijacking this thread with my crazy theories and constant opposing, I shall now be leaving in order to watch the latest episode of Heroes.

    It's supposed to be a good one.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,440 ✭✭✭✭Piste


    Nope I don't believe in "potential" value. Potential means nothing unless it becomes a reality.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,196 ✭✭✭Crumble Froo


    yep, would mostly agree with piste on the abortion thing... personally, for me, i dont think i could ever have an abortion, but i don't see why my own personalised belief in it should affect what other women can do to their bodies.

    i suppose on other political opinions, i think it's complete bullshit that gay couples don't have marriage/partnership rights in ireland. i quite like new zealand's laws regarding common law partnership too, not to mention being able to get married anywehre you want (i think they recently passed something to that general effect in ireland, but that doesnt go quite as far). i think prostitution should be legal, and i'd like to see more open debate on legalising cannabis.


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,931 ✭✭✭✭challengemaster


    Piste wrote: »
    Potential means nothing unless it becomes a reality.
    Dare you to say that to a physicist! :pac:


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,375 ✭✭✭fonpokno


    its the risk you take in life this hole pysche everybody has in peoples head these days is quite lasy as if they where to get pregant the anser is ah sure you could get a abortion

    it is a tough one

    but im not in favour

    Abortion isn't exactly a walk in the park!
    cautioner wrote: »
    I'm not here to bash anyone's opinion, but this is a mentality I simply do not understand. I don't think I ever will. I've been told it's because I have a ding dong and not a vajingo but I'd like to think my feelings on the matter would be the same otherwise.

    Well it's a very personal thing.

    Me, I'm very much pro-abortion. If i got pregnant I'd be straight off to England, not a second thought about it. The only thing that would concern me would be the cost. This country is still so bound up by the catholic guilt that it's ridiculously difficult to even get the morning after pill. Ireland is such a backwards freaking country it's ridiculous.

    Abortion should be legal here. Total bollocks that it isn't.


    Mind you, we don't even have public transport in this country after midnight. God knows what kind of an arse they'd make out of abortion. We'd probably be left with a 6 month waiting list...


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,196 ✭✭✭Crumble Froo


    fonpokno wrote: »
    Mind you, we don't even have public transport in this country after midnight. God knows what kind of an arse they'd make out of abortion. We'd probably be left with a 6 month waiting list...

    *shudders*

    oh christ, i can picture it now...


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,440 ✭✭✭✭Piste


    Lol "sure you can get an abortion, but you'll be waiting for 9 months.."


  • Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 30,832 Mod ✭✭✭✭Insect Overlord


    fonpokno wrote: »
    Mind you, we don't even have public transport in this country after midnight. God knows what kind of an arse they'd make out of abortion. We'd probably be left with a 6 month waiting list...

    Quote of the day material right there :)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 862 ✭✭✭cautioner


    Heroes wasn't the best...

    Would it annoy everyone if I argued a point with fonpokno? I feel like I'm being really... what's the word... anal.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,231 ✭✭✭Fad


    cautioner wrote: »
    Heroes wasn't the best...

    Would it annoy everyone if I argued a point with fonpokno? I feel like I'm being really... what's the word... anal.


    Yes...........


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 8,375 ✭✭✭fonpokno


    cautioner wrote: »
    Heroes wasn't the best...

    Would it annoy everyone if I argued a point with fonpokno? I feel like I'm being really... what's the word... anal.

    Argue away! I'm fervently pro-abortion but can never put my thoughts down without going wildly off-topic.

    It's on dude. *ding ding*


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 862 ✭✭✭cautioner


    Cool beans.

    Moving on, we were studying genetics in Biology last week and the teacher was telling us about variations due to irregular numbers of chromosomes. She asked us what would happen if somehow an egg were to donate 2 X chromosomes, both being fertilised by a male Y. She drew an XXY zygote and said it happens quite often and the result is a "super-female". Oooh, intriguing.

    "What's that?"
    "It's a male with... female tendencies. I'll leave it up to ye to decide what that means. ;)"
    ":confused: ...Heh?"
    "Well, they'd be male, but... they'd be gay, wouldn't they!?"
    "Oh...
    I always thought it was a psychological thing or something to be honest miss?"
    "Oh God no, it's all in the genes"

    She then proceeded to make clear that she "didn't mind" the gays and that she couldn't "hold it against them" because it's in their genetic make-up.

    Is this as shockingly backwards as I think it is? She told us all this as firm fact, whereas I'm almost sure the whole thing is still a bit of a mystery...


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,365 ✭✭✭Aisling(",)


    I'm pro choice when it comes to abortion.
    If i found myself pregnant id definietly want to at least have the option of a termination even if i dont go through with it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,375 ✭✭✭fonpokno


    Cautioner, is it the genetic "fact" that was presented to you that's backwards or the fact that she felt the need to tell you all that she didn't mind "the gays"?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 862 ✭✭✭cautioner


    Bit of both. Mainly the fact; I found the whole "don't mind" thing more of an endearing sign of a woman born in a very different world.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 367 ✭✭anladmór


    i think the roma are the most unfairly treated people in ireland and indeed all of europe today. never had a bad experience.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 11,148 ✭✭✭✭KnifeWRENCH


    fonpokno wrote: »

    Abortion should be legal here. Total bollocks that it isn't.

    +1.
    I am pro-choice also. The illegality of abortion is one of the very few things I hate about Ireland.
    I've mentioned this on a few other threads before but I don't believe an unborn child should have the same human rights as the mother. The mother's rights should always take precedence imo.
    God knows what kind of an arse they'd make out of abortion. We'd probably be left with a 6 month waiting list...

    Lol :pac:
    i suppose on other political opinions, i think it's complete bull**** that gay couples don't have marriage/partnership rights in ireland. i quite like new zealand's laws regarding common law partnership too, not to mention being able to get married anywehre you want (i think they recently passed something to that general effect in ireland, but that doesnt go quite as far). i think prostitution should be legal, and i'd like to see more open debate on legalising cannabis.
    +1 to all the above. Gay marriage should definitely be legal here.
    I'm undecided as to whether cannabis should be legalised or not (leaning towards it should be legal) but there should definitely be more debate about it.

    Not sure if I have any other "controversial" or "politically incorrect" opinion per se. I definitely think there should be harsher sentences for crimes in this country, but that's just common sense.
    I think prison should focus more on punishment than rehabilitation. Prisoners shouldn't be given any ****ing luxuries - it's not supposed to be a hotel or a holiday camp ffs.
    Life sentence should actually mean a life sentence. I am however opposed to the death penalty, mainly on the grounds that murderers/rapists/arsonists should not be provided with the luxury a quick and relatively painless death.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,196 ✭✭✭Crumble Froo


    +1 to all the above.

    :cool:

    Not sure if I have any other "controversial" or "politically incorrect" opinion per se. I definitely think there should be harsher sentences for crimes in this country, but that's just common sense.
    I think prison should focus more on punishment than rehabilitation. Prisoners shouldn't be given any ****ing luxuries - it's not supposed to be a hotel or a holiday camp ffs.
    Life sentence should actually mean a life sentence. I am however opposed to the death penalty, mainly on the grounds that murderers/rapists/arsonists should not be provided with the luxury a quick and relatively painless death.

    the can has been opened.

    i agree with you here to a degree. some of the sentences being doled out are just a joke... but i do also think that there should be a lot more done to help with rehabilitation and helping a person get on their feet when they get out of prison, especially with regard to the more long-termers who become institutionalised.

    no matter what you think about people in certain social/demographics having as much free will as anyone else, the fact is, there are different cultures, different opportunities and different expectations put on people in different areas etc, and that the proof is in the prisons that there are certain groups of people a lot more likely to end up in there.

    i think a lot more effort needs to go into education in those areas, and not just education, but recreation, hobbies...

    government needs to sort out it's social housing policies.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,269 ✭✭✭cocoa


    cautioner wrote: »
    Cool beans.

    Moving on, we were studying genetics in Biology last week and the teacher was telling us about variations due to irregular numbers of chromosomes. She asked us what would happen if somehow an egg were to donate 2 X chromosomes, both being fertilised by a male Y. She drew an XXY zygote and said it happens quite often and the result is a "super-female". Oooh, intriguing.

    "What's that?"
    "It's a male with... female tendencies. I'll leave it up to ye to decide what that means. ;)"
    ":confused: ...Heh?"
    "Well, they'd be male, but... they'd be gay, wouldn't they!?"
    "Oh...
    I always thought it was a psychological thing or something to be honest miss?"
    "Oh God no, it's all in the genes"

    She then proceeded to make clear that she "didn't mind" the gays and that she couldn't "hold it against them" because it's in their genetic make-up.

    Is this as shockingly backwards as I think it is? She told us all this as firm fact, whereas I'm almost sure the whole thing is still a bit of a mystery...

    If you're interested in all the genes malarky, checking the wikipedia article on klinefelter's syndrome (AKA XXY) would be a good place to start. Also, although it is one of the more common chromosome disorders, 1 in 500 males is hardly common... And although the nature versus nurture debate is ongoing, no, klinefelter's syndrome does not cause 'teh ghey'...

    It's actually kind of funny to see what happens when someone scrapes the surface of chromosome biology, ignores the conclusions of experts in the field and decides to draw their own instead... 'female tendencies', sheesh...


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 416 ✭✭Hamiltonion



    a inner city mans view on are liberal middle class college society

    Great spelling in this entry by someone bemoaning a middle class college society:rolleyes:


Advertisement