Abortion

OldNotWIse · 27-04-2012 10:37am

Greentopia wrote: »

I see. If abortion was introduced and paid for by the HSE obviously it would be just another service covered by taxes. No "sponsorship" needed.

Or perhaps pro-choicers should randomly stop lone women of a certain age category going through our airports who look like they might be on their way to the U.K. for abortions? Perhaps we should ask them to kindly identify themselves by wearing a sticker or a t-shirt that states their intentions. :pac:

There are pro-choice crisis pregnancy organisations who do what they can within the narrow constraints of the law here to help provide councelling and information about abortion options in the U.K., and who actively campaign for a change in legislation to allow abortion here. That's the most can be done right now.

I would prefer the thought of pro-choicers sponsoring abortions than thinking about my taxes being used to pay for something I do not think is right.

OldNotWIse · 27-04-2012 10:57am

Sharrow wrote: »

My point is that there is not the want or will to prosecute women for having abortions. So what do you think the consequences should be?

It's not up to me to decide what punishments fits but certainly law breakers should be brought to justice on some level, regardless of the crime. A law not being implemented is a case for making changes so that said law is implemented, it is not a case for removing said law.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Mainly because I do not think mere convienience is enough of an argument. Either there is good arguments for assigning a fetus rights at 20 weeks... or there is not. It is not both. So while you or I might have some personal emotional distaste at the concept of abortion at 20 weeks... our distaste does not equate to an argument against it or the morality of it.

However I am sure one could construct arguments taking the form of pointing out that the later the term at abortion the more psychological issues the mother can have with the decision both at the time and retrospectively. Using such arguments one could push the cut off term back to 16 or 12 weeks if one was fighting for the pro-choice side. That would at least make some sense and your own anecdote about how a mother can feel like she "lost a baby" or the earlier anecdote on this thread of the user who was unconvincable that her 12 week old fetus did not die in agony should just how strong the psychological arguments on that point could be.

Nothing wrong with me to my knowledge. Like I said while I have sympathy for the emotional turmoil of the experience... that does not in any way preclude me from also having an intellectual response to the situation. So let us not act like just because I am discussing the latter with you that I am somehow devoid of the former.

The intellectual and factual response simply is that her fear/belief that the fetus under went or experienced any discomfort, let alone pain, much let alone pain on the level she described, is false. Unfounded. Baseless. Untrue. No I am not, as you put it, expecting her to just "Shake it off" but at the same time I am not expecting her to beat herself up further by imagining the whole thing is not just worse but MASSIVELY worse than it actually was.

While I can sympathise with her emotional turmoil, and we all should because miscarriage of a pregnancy can be horrific on many levels, let us not pretend that some of the reasons for that turmoil in her specific case are simply false and she is beating herself up over nothing. Miscarriage is horrific and emotionally devastating enough without inventing imaginary reasons to make it worse.

So in short you seem to have got the impression that I am saying she should not have been emotionally invested AT ALL and that it was "just a bunch of cells" and she should just "shake it off". I never said or even hinted at any of that. All I said, in her particular case, is that she ALSO thinks the fetus underwent massive amounts of pain and this belief is frankly baseless on every level.

Like the pro-abortionists say, you cannot judge until you have been "in their shoes" so I would ask you to apply the same to the woman in question and do not try to lay down the law about how you think she should feel or whether she is right or wrong in her method of grief. In fact, I think you were wrong to bring her into this argument in the first place. You claim you want to discuss on an intellectual level (fine of course) then why hash up stories about a grieving woman who has lost her unborn baby and (shock horror) cannot see through "baseless" fears that her baby mght have suffered. Pretty poor form to use such a plight to drive your own agenda. (As far as I remember you introduced this in an effort to convey how pro-lifers can be emotionaly charged and incapable of detracted, intellectual discussion, right?) I think this argument needs to be dropped as it is insensitive to her and others who have lost their babies, and it brings nothing to the table.

OldNotWIse · 27-04-2012 11:01am

true-or-false wrote: »

Sorry, but that's utter nonsense! What makes you think that?

You're talking about other people's carelessness - if you ask me it's pretty careless to use protection and ignore the fact that it states it's not 100% effective.

True, I think they only have 97% or something (maybe less). We joke that the cheapo ones have 50% success lol. I think it is ridiculous to claim that anything is 100% effective, but of course the vast majority of abortions carried out are not the "3%" where the condom didn't work.

nozzferrahhtoo · 27-04-2012 11:07am

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Like the pro-abortionists say, you cannot judge until you have been "in their shoes" so I would ask you to apply the same to the woman in question and do not try to lay down the law about how you think she should feel or whether she is right or wrong in her method of grief.

Thankfully I do not see ANY reason to believe that cliche. If I did then clearly I would never have a say in the rights of the homeless, womens rights, animal rights, politics in foreign countries, cancer issues and much MUCH more because I have never actually BEEN any of those things.

The idea that one has to reserve judgement until one has actually directly experienced a thing is simply bogus and I would not subscribe to it as readily as you appear to.

Again I am well aware of why a woman in such a position would feel emotionally distraught. All I am doing is simply pointing out that adding to that distress by ALSO being upset about things there is no reason to be upset about is to me simply absurd. I see nothing wrong with pointing that out and certainly make no apology for it.

OldNotWIse wrote: »

why hash up stories about a grieving woman who has lost her unborn baby

Get off the high horse there son, you in fact did it first. You brought your mothers loss into it as an example for your own position, a person who is not even ON this thread posting and hence you dragged into this yourself.

I merely added to your example by mentioning one of my own and at least I had the decency to mention someone who was ON this thread willingly and willingly posted their own story.

So not only did you do it first, but you did it using a person who did not even come here and willingly post their own story. You have no pedestal at all therefore with which to presume to judge my "form". Check the mirror first and then come back to us.

Seachmall · 27-04-2012 11:17am

OldNotWIse wrote: »

but of course the vast majority of abortions carried out are not the "3%" where the condom didn't work.

"Fifty-four percent of women who have abortions had used a contraceptive method (usually the condom or the pill) during the month they became pregnant."

- Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States

The Majority of women who have had abortions did use contraception but either used it incorrectly or it failed.

steddyeddy · 27-04-2012 2:21pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Given the right manipulations any cell "can". I am not pretending that we currently have the ability to make such manipulations though, do not get me wrong. However there is little reason to think that we can not achieve that if we were capable of introducing or removing the relevant elements to any cell.

However again you are focusing too much on this point and missing the actual point I am making which is that simply containing Human DNA is not really that compelling an argument for assigning human rights. While emotionally we might want to treat one cell different to another, the arguments appear to be emotional only and I see no argument being made as to why a cell containing human DNA requires "rights" simply because it has more potential than some other cell to become something else. The whole use of the words "become" and "human" to me tells us we all recognise it is NOT "human" now.

I dont or didnt say the foetus should have human rights nor do I think it should. However I think that a tumor and a foetus are very differnt ball games.

nozzferrahhtoo · 27-04-2012 2:55pm

steddyeddy wrote: »

I dont or didnt say the foetus should have human rights nor do I think it should. However I think that a tumor and a foetus are very differnt ball games.

I am responding to the point in general not just to things you said directly. Sorry if that was not clear. Not everything is a direct reply to everything else but a continuation from it and a discussion together had about the same topic.

Whether two things are different or not depends on context. Clearly apples and oranges are different but if I am merely talking in the general context of "fruit" then they are the same.

So yes clearly the fetus and the tumor cells are different things, but in the context of a discussion on abortion and application of human rights and the like I do not see them as that different at all. They are just cells loaded with Human DNA and I simply do not see containing Human DNA as a basis for assigning rights.

Clearly however I differ on that from many of the anti abortion advocates here who very much do think a clump of cells containing Human DNA is deserving of human rights for no other reasons than they might become something else in the future.

partyatmygaff · 27-04-2012 2:57pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So yes clearly the fetus and the tumor cells are different things, but in the context of a discussion on abortion and application of human rights and the like I do not see them as that different at all. They are just cells loaded with Human DNA and I simply do not see containing Human DNA as a basis for assigning rights.

Clearly however I differ on that from many of the anti abortion advocates here who very much do think a clump of cells containing Human DNA is deserving of human rights for no other reasons than they might become something else in the future.

Put it this way.

If I managed to kill all the stem cells currently in your body, what would I have done to you?

Seachmall · 27-04-2012 3:06pm

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Put it this way.

If I managed to kill all the stem cells currently in your body, what would I have done to you?

His point, I believe, is that in terms of complexity it is more comparable to a tumor than an adult, for example.

Essentially, the complexity of our make up is what makes us distinguishable from underdeveloped fetuses in the same way complexity is the difference between a 2 foot wall and the pyramids.

partyatmygaff · 27-04-2012 3:15pm

Seachmall wrote: »

His point, I believe, is that in terms of complexity it is more comparable to a tumor than an adult, for example.

Essentially, the complexity of our make up is what makes us distinguishable from underdeveloped fetuses in the same way complexity is the difference between a 2 foot wall and the pyramids.

What gave him the idea that a gastrula (Because I highly doubt anyone would know they're pregnant until around that stage) is less complex than a tumour?

A tumour cell is a malformed cell that has suffered some form of genomic damage to reduce from a fully differentiated and functioning somatic cell to an uncontrolled, aimless dedifferentiated cell that has no goal other than to keep making even more damaged copies of itself.

A gastrula (Or any stage of development really) is far more "complex" than a tumour cell. The intricate mechanistic proteins and pattern generators it expresses gives the organism an ultimate aim. It has structure and order. Something a tumour cell distinctly lacks.

As I said in my previous post... if I killed all your current stem cells, what would I have done to you?

Seachmall · 27-04-2012 3:17pm

partyatmygaff wrote: »

What gave him the idea that a gastrula (Because I highly doubt anyone would know they're pregnant until around that stage) is less complex than a tumour?

A tumour cell is a malformed cell that has suffered some form of genomic damage to reduce from a fully differentiated and functioning somatic cell to an uncontrolled, aimless dedifferentiated cell that has no goal other than to keep making even more damaged copies of itself.

A gastrula (Or any stage of development really) is far more "complex" than a tumour cell. The intricate mechanistic proteins and pattern generators it expresses gives the organism an ultimate aim. It has structure and order. Something a tumour cell distinctly lacks.

I never said it was less complex than a tumor, I said in terms of complexity it was more comparable to a tumor than an adult.

davet82 · 27-04-2012 3:19pm

have we not sorted this out yet? sheesh!

:P

nozzferrahhtoo · 27-04-2012 3:37pm

partyatmygaff wrote: »

If I managed to kill all the stem cells currently in your body, what would I have done to you?

Invaded my personal space?

Not to mention invented a cell targetting weapon so specific that you may also be on a route to curing cancer?

Sorry, really not sure what you are asking me or where you are going with that.

partyatmygaff · 27-04-2012 3:48pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Invaded my personal space? Not to mention invented a cell targetting weapon so specific that you may also be on a route to curing cancer?

Sorry, really not sure what you are asking me or where you are going with that.

If I kill your stem cells, you'll die. Perhaps not instantly but fairly soon afterwards. To put it one way, they're really the main cells keeping you alive.

nozzferrahhtoo · 27-04-2012 4:09pm

partyatmygaff wrote: »

If I kill your stem cells, you'll die. Perhaps not instantly but fairly soon afterwards. To put it one way, they're really the main cells keeping you alive.

Indeed but I am still not seeing what the point is here

You seem to have gone off on an interesting but unrelated tangent so I apologize if I am unsure how to continue the conversation.

partyatmygaff · 27-04-2012 4:48pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Indeed but I am still not seeing what the point is here You seem to have gone off on an interesting but unrelated tangent so I apologize if I am unsure how to continue the conversation.

Those stem cells currently in your body aren't hugely different from the stem cells that existed when you were nothing more than a blastula.

Your stem cells are your "lifeline" and are essentially the only cells keeping you from withering away and dying.

Go back in time to when you were a newborn baby and imagine a doctor who could and was instructed to selectively kill your stem cells. Why would that doctor's actions (Essentially, preventing you from "growing and generating") be considered immoral then but perfectly acceptable a few weeks previous?

Seachmall · 27-04-2012 4:55pm

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Go back in time to when you were a newborn baby and imagine a doctor who could and was instructed to selectively kill your stem cells. Why would that doctor's actions (Essentially, preventing you from "growing and generating") be considered immoral then but perfectly acceptable a few weeks previous?

Because having stem cells does not make a fetus the same as an adult anymore than having bricks makes a wall the same as the pyramids.

Composition is only one aspect of what makes us people with rights, it's not the definitive one.

partyatmygaff · 27-04-2012 4:58pm

Seachmall wrote: »

Because having stem cells does not make a fetus the same as an adult anymore than having bricks makes a wall the same as the pyramids.

Composition is only one aspect of what makes us people with rights, it's not the definitive one.

A brick can be used to make anything providing it's structured and ordered by an outside force. Without someone to order and structure it alongside more bricks it will just remain a brick.

A developing foetus on the other hand is capable of structuring and ordering itself in to something bigger without any outside element orchestrating things.

Seachmall · 27-04-2012 5:02pm

partyatmygaff wrote: »

A developing foetus on the other hand is capable of structuring and ordering itself in to something bigger without any outside element orchestrating things.

Indeed. But what it will become is not the same as what it is.

I will die. I am not dead.

partyatmygaff · 27-04-2012 5:07pm

Seachmall wrote: »

Indeed. But what it will become is not the same as what it is.

By that same logic, there's nothing inherently wrong with killing stem cells as they're yet to "become human" (Something I disagree with).

In that case, is it considered murder if you selectively kill someone's stem cells? Haematopoietic stem cells for example. If someone collectively killed your haematopoietic cells (Which do nothing other than "generate and grow") would they be killing you or just killing a few cells?

Seachmall · 27-04-2012 5:16pm

partyatmygaff wrote: »

By that same logic, there's nothing inherently wrong with killing stem cells as they're yet to "become human" (Something I disagree with).

True.

In that case, is it considered murder if you selectively kill someone's stem cells? Haematopoietic stem cells for example. If someone collectively killed your haematopoietic cells (Which do nothing other than "generate and grow") would they be killing you or just killing a few cells?

Depends on how many haematopoietic stem cells you kill and where they're located, I guess.

If you kill enough of them to kill me, then you've killed me.

If you don't kill enough of them to kill me, then you won't have killed me.

I'm not sure what the point of this is.

partyatmygaff · 27-04-2012 5:20pm

Seachmall wrote: »

True.

Depends on how many haematopoietic stem cells you kill and where they're located, I guess.

If you kill enough of them to kill me, then you've killed me.

If you don't kill enough of them to kill me, then you won't have killed me.

I'm not sure what the point of this is.

I kill all of them or to put it another way I cut off their blood supply and interfere with them so that they do.

The above situation would be little different to inducing the death of a gastrula. You kill a few differentiated cells which cause the stem cells and hence the entire organism to wither and die.

MoonDancer · 27-04-2012 5:37pm

Personally myself, I am pro life, but I support pro choice.

I don't think it's fair to force my views onto someone else.

Everyone should have the right to choose.

27-04-2012 5:40pm

partyatmygaff wrote: »

By that same logic, there's nothing inherently wrong with killing stem cells as they're yet to "become human" (Something I disagree with).

They're yet to become differentiated cells, that's nothing to do with being human and even if it was it's relevance is questionable.

In that case, is it considered murder if you selectively kill someone's stem cells?

The question at hand isn't what kind of cells are you killing when you get an abortion. We all agree that killing a birthed human is wrong, so yes, if it leads to death it's wrong. It being wrong doesn't have anything to do with abortion being wrong. The tumor/foetus comparison was not about what the cells are doing at that stage, the whole point of it was to point out that having cells doesn't give you rights.

MoonDancer wrote: »

Personally myself, I am pro life, but I support pro choice.

I don't think it's fair to force my views onto someone else.

Everyone should have the right to choose.

That's not pro-life. That's pro-choice.

MoonDancer · 27-04-2012 5:44pm

true-or-false wrote: »

That's not pro-life. That's pro-choice.

I know what I am... pro life

nozzferrahhtoo · 27-04-2012 9:08pm

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Those stem cells currently in your body aren't hugely different from the stem cells that existed when you were nothing more than a blastula.

Your stem cells are your "lifeline" and are essentially the only cells keeping you from withering away and dying.

Go back in time to when you were a newborn baby and imagine a doctor who could and was instructed to selectively kill your stem cells. Why would that doctor's actions (Essentially, preventing you from "growing and generating") be considered immoral then but perfectly acceptable a few weeks previous?

I am still not sure where you are going with this because where it SEEMS you are going with it is really unexpected.

It SOUNDS like you are trying to differentiate between killing cells in a zygote and killing cells in me that would ALSO kill me. But if you are then this actually makes my point for me about how human DNA needs something more attached to it before you assign rights to it. Which is just fine by me!

I am actually curious though how you reached the conclusion that the sudden death of all the stem cells in my body would kill me.

nozzferrahhtoo · 27-04-2012 9:11pm

MoonDancer wrote: »

I know what I am... pro life

Thing is most pro choice people are pro "life" too. The only difference is where you define the word "life". That is why these emotional labels are not worth the toilet paper they were written on

We are all pro "life". But when it comes to things like human rights and morality we are equivocating over the word "life".

MoonDancer · 27-04-2012 9:32pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Thing is most pro choice people are pro "life" too. The only difference is where you define the word "life". That is why these emotional labels are not worth the toilet paper they were written on

We are all pro "life". But when it comes to things like human rights and morality we are equivocating over the word "life".

Well being as simple as possible and not getting into any of the extended arguments, I would believe that pro life is anti-abortion, and pro choice, is just that, the right for one to choose an abortion if they want.

Thats my simple view on it, A "when life begins" debate is a whole other topic.

partyatmygaff · 27-04-2012 9:44pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am still not sure where you are going with this because where it SEEMS you are going with it is really unexpected.

It SOUNDS like you are trying to differentiate between killing cells in a zygote and killing cells in me that would ALSO kill me. But if you are then this actually makes my point for me about how human DNA needs something more attached to it before you assign rights to it. Which is just fine by me!

I'm not trying to differentiate between the two. I'm trying to show you how the two are more or less the same. No stem cells ultimately leads to a dead human.

Essentially, what i'm saying is: You consist of many differentiated cells and stem cells. A gastrula also consists of differentiated cells and stem cells (Obviously a lesser number of cells and lesser degree of differentiation).

It's not human DNA that i'm assigning rights to. DNA is nothing more than a "recipe book" for proteins. It's not capable of anything and has no real worth on its own. What i'm assigning rights to is the entity as a whole. Biologically, at the most fundamental level, the main differences between a gastrula and a newborn are the number of cells, the proportion that are differentiated and their degree of differentiation.

I am actually curious though how you reached the conclusion that the sudden death of all the stem cells in my body would kill me.

Most of your cells are constantly being recycled (With a few exceptions). The most obvious example of a cell that's constantly being recycled are your red blood cells. If your haemocytoblasts are all dead then your body will stop growing and generating new blood cells and you'll die.

Turtyturd · 27-04-2012 9:44pm

partyatmygaff wrote: »

A brick can be used to make anything providing it's structured and ordered by an outside force. Without someone to order and structure it alongside more bricks it will just remain a brick.

A developing foetus on the other hand is capable of structuring and ordering itself in to something bigger without any outside element orchestrating things.

Make me a fully functioning car out of a brick, complete with radio.

Paddy Cow · 30-04-2012 1:26am

I haven't read all the pages in this thread so I don't know if this has already been said but I don't think politicians are still dragging their heels because they are afraid to make tough decisions but I think they are too afraid to face the consequences of these decisions.

I remember the divorce referendum and how highly emotional that got. There were signs that read "Hello Divorce, Bye bye Daddy". There was one particular time I recall a couple being on the Late Late Show and they said they were happy as a couple and couldn't imagine divorcing but didn't want other people being able to divorce in case it somehow became the norm. Their whole arguement really boiled down to "I don't want other people to be able to divorce as it will mean that marriage isn't taken seriously and people will only marry with the view of 'If it doesn't work out then we have a get out clause'". When asked about situations such as cheating, domestic abuse etc they were very cadgey and said things like people should take the time to get to know each other properly before committing to a long term relationship so that issues such as this wouldn't be a problem.

When divorce was finally introduced in Ireland it didn't mean that people suddenly thought that marrigae was something to be entered into lightly or that divorce was an easy get out clause. Divorce is not comparable to abortion but certain values are deeply entrenched in our society and it is going to be very hard to change them.

One of the biggest misconceptions about abortion being legalised is that it will become a form of contraception on demand. There is this myth out there that the only women who want abortions are promiscous teenagers who need better education or promiscous older women who are too busy chasing their careers to have time for a baby and both will quite happily "kill the baby" and then get on with their lives.

Neither generalisation is true. Abortion is not that black and white. Most women (and their husbands/partners) agonise over the decision and it is one that they have to live with for the rest of their lives. It makes the decision even harder when they not only have to go abroad but also have to pretend that it never happened because it's not something we talk about here.

So anyway, back to my point and why did I bring up divorce? At the time, the idea of divorce was appalling to many people and in the referendum, it won but it wasn't by a landslide. To get a divorce you need to go to a solicitor and blah blah blah it takes years for it to be finalised. A solicitor doesn't just deal with divorce. One office can deal with many branches of law. No one is going to know if you are going into see your solicitor about getting a divorce or finalising a will.

Getting an abortion is much different. There are specialised clinics abroad, equipped to deal with the physiological and psychological aspects of going through (or not going through with) an abortion and I'm not sure Ireland is ready to handle that. If abortion was legalised in the morning and there was a list of HSC clinics, what would the reaction be?

Would everyone just accept it or would we have a repeat of what has happened in pretty much every other country where they legalised abortion which is to pickett the abortion clinics, send death threats to the dotcors and nurses and scapegoat the women going for abortions?

Ireland is a pretty small country and with the curtain twitchers constantly on alert it's hard to do anything without being noticed. The politicians know this and it is for this reason they are dragging their heels. It would be easy to pass laws legalising abortion but it would be much harder to protect the people who need to use them.

As hard as it is for Irish women who have to go abroad for abortions, how hard would it be to turn up to an Irish clinic with the local news outside waiting to broadcast your buisness to the nation?

For the record I am pro-choice. I have never been in the awful situation where I have had to chose between continuing with a pregnancy or terminating it and I hope I never have to. Personally I think that we should have the option in this country but I'm not sure the politicians have the balls to deal with the fallout of it.

policarp · 30-04-2012 1:49am

Divorce yesterday.
Abortion today.
Euthanasia tomorrow.
Genetic engineering next week.
Then what?

seenitall · 30-04-2012 2:53am

policarp wrote: »

Divorce yesterday.
Abortion today.
Euthanasia tomorrow.
Genetic engineering next week.
Then what?

Artificial intelligence, is my guess... but isn't this going rather off topic..?

Yes, it should be available in Ireland.

I am pro-choice. Killing an embryo doesn't bother me. I'm much more concerned that a woman has the choice on whether to let the life inside her grow or not.

(Yes, I know, I'm going straight to hell. But, BUT; some women at least have to be baby-murdering sluts, right? Otherwise what would all the heaven-dwellers have to chat about over their tea and McVities' finest? It would be too bad to deprive them, so I hope to give them much more material for their rightousness yet, before I have to shuffle off for my date with the guy who has da horn(s)

Dyr · 30-04-2012 8:01am

policarp wrote: »

Divorce yesterday.
Abortion today.
Euthanasia tomorrow.
Genetic engineering next week.
Then what?

casual friday?

30-04-2012 8:27am

seenitall wrote: »

policarp wrote: »

Divorce yesterday.
Abortion today.
Euthanasia tomorrow.
Genetic engineering next week.
Then what?

Artificial intelligence, is my guess... but isn't this going rather off topic..?

Yes, it should be available in Ireland.

I am pro-choice. Killing an embryo doesn't bother me. I'm much more concerned that a woman has the choice on whether to let the life inside her grow or not.

(Yes, I know, I'm going straight to hell. But, BUT; some women at least have to be baby-murdering sluts, right? Otherwise what would all the heaven-dwellers have to chat about over their tea and McVities' finest? It would be too bad to deprive them, so I hope to give them much more material for their rightousness yet, before I have to shuffle off for my date with the guy who has da horn(s)

Your post might Of been aiming at black humour but it fell short geez baby murdering sluts ?.......nice

nozzferrahhtoo · 30-04-2012 8:49am

MoonDancer wrote: »

Well being as simple as possible and not getting into any of the extended arguments, I would believe that pro life is anti-abortion

Indeed, that is what the term actually means. If you are "pro life" you are against abortion. The reasons why they chose that term are clear too however, it is to make it sound like if you are not "pro" life then perhaps you are "anti" life. It's a linguistic propaganda trick just like those on threads like this who call people like me "pro abortion" or like Philologos who came on here with a line like "Because I am interested in human rights I am against abortion". The inference being clear that if you are pro choice on the matter than you are not interested in human rights.

I know we need labels, and the tricks people play with language are interesting, but it pays to be aware of them too and how labels are cleverly chosen to implement those tricks.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

It's not human DNA that i'm assigning rights to. DNA is nothing more than a "recipe book" for proteins. It's not capable of anything and has no real worth on its own. What i'm assigning rights to is the entity as a whole.

Which is just a lot of human DNA really. I still think any grounding for rights needs a little more than being a lump of cells containing DNA, and equivocation over how differentiated those cells are at each stage is likely not going to get us there. While it clearly should not be left out of the discussion entirely, I think it just a first of many steps.

seenitall · 30-04-2012 9:52am

Lawrence Brief Guillotine wrote: »

Your post might Of been aiming at black humour but it fell short geez baby murdering sluts ?.......nice

No, not nice but it's the reality of some of the attitudes that women having gone through with abortion and having confided in their friends and family have encountered (or they have not been able to confide even to close family because of the same attitudes).

Read a few posts from the recent abortion thread in the Ladies' Lounge and see for yourself how much I'm conjuring out of thin air with my "black humour".

OldNotWIse · 30-04-2012 10:22am

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Thankfully I do not see ANY reason to believe that cliche. If I did then clearly I would never have a say in the rights of the homeless, womens rights, animal rights, politics in foreign countries, cancer issues and much MUCH more because I have never actually BEEN any of those things.

The idea that one has to reserve judgement until one has actually directly experienced a thing is simply bogus and I would not subscribe to it as readily as you appear to.

Again I am well aware of why a woman in such a position would feel emotionally distraught. All I am doing is simply pointing out that adding to that distress by ALSO being upset about things there is no reason to be upset about is to me simply absurd. I see nothing wrong with pointing that out and certainly make no apology for it.

Get off the high horse there son, you in fact did it first. You brought your mothers loss into it as an example for your own position, a person who is not even ON this thread posting and hence you dragged into this yourself.

I merely added to your example by mentioning one of my own and at least I had the decency to mention someone who was ON this thread willingly and willingly posted their own story.

So not only did you do it first, but you did it using a person who did not even come here and willingly post their own story. You have no pedestal at all therefore with which to presume to judge my "form". Check the mirror first and then come back to us.

Er...I'm actually female so you can keep the "son" to yourself (though even addressing a male in this way is quite patronising, and quite telling of your argumentative style that you have to resort to such patronising ways)

I'm not getting into the "he said/she said" type of puppet show antics you clearly want, so fine if you said I said it first, no big deal. My family's experience is mine to talk about, the experience of a stranger on boards is not yours to throw about on some point scoring whim. Not to mention the fact that actually, what you did was far worse, given that the woman you are talking about can see your posts and see your accusations that she is not grieving properly and assigning feelings and emotions to her fetus "wrongfully" - the person I am (anonymously) talking about does not know and even if she did, I am quite clearly on her side.

OldNotWIse · 30-04-2012 10:26am

Seachmall wrote: »

"Fifty-four percent of women who have abortions had used a contraceptive method (usually the condom or the pill) during the month they became pregnant."

- Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States

The Majority of women who have had abortions did use contraception but either used it incorrectly or it failed.

During the month they became pregnant??

nozzferrahhtoo · 30-04-2012 10:37am

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Er...I'm actually female so you can keep the "son" to yourself (though even addressing a male in this way is quite patronising, and quite telling of your argumentative style that you have to resort to such patronising ways)

Again the only person patronising is the one coming in here declaring there is something "wrong" with me and I "left my heart" at home when all I did was support something you said (I was not even disagreeing with you at the time) by reference to an example on THIS thread.

So I happily stand by the comments I made. I did nothing wrong and you have no derailed discussion by going on an off topic attack about whether I am emotionally sound or not.

So let me put it back on the rails by returning to what the point ACTUALLY was at the time.

You were talking about how women, using your mother as an example, when they miscarry can be emotionally invested in the event. Even at early stages in the pregnancy.

My only point in the reply to that was to actually wholly agree with you.... which makes a mockery of your "points scoring" accusation.

I used an example of someone who has been posting on this thread to support the position we both agree with. The idea was to show that the emotional investment not only exists but can powerfully overwhelm rationality to the point that such women will actually feel emotional turmoil over things that are patently not true and will even indicate their intellectual unwillingness to be divested of that either. The emotions can be so strong to the point a user like that can say on this thread that although she knows there is no reason whatsoever to think a 12 week old fetus can feel any pain whatsoever she STILL indicates that "nothing will convince" her that the fetus did not undergo a lot of pain.

My point leading from there was to show that this kind of intellectual dissonance... where a person can hold two completely different and incompatible things in their head at the same time... is certainly a problem in the realm of discourse on abortion topics. Equally therefore it should be recognized that while people might become that emotionally invested... one person believing for nothing but emotional reasons that the fetus can feel pain therefore does nothing but cloud rather than further discourse on the topic and we have to be aware of that and deal with it.

What certainly will not help such discussions of course is you wading in making crass generalizations about my emotional state and capabilities. Again I repeat the most important retort to this which I said in post 1048. Just because I am discussing the intellectual response to such things does not mean I am precluded from having, or never had, an emotional one. If one is going to enter into discussions on topics like abortion however one must be aware of such emotions and... while not becoming an emotionless unreacting automoton... must maintain a clear awareness of when and where to apply such things and when and where to step back and say "While you have my sympathy.... and you do.... this simply is not applicable in the debate".

OldNotWIse · 30-04-2012 10:45am

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Again the only person patronising is the one coming in here declaring there is something "wrong" with me and I "left my heart" at home when all I did was support something you said (I was not even disagreeing with you at the time) by reference to an example on THIS thread.

So I happily stand by the comments I made. I did nothing wrong and you have no derailed discussion by going on an off topic attack about whether I am emotionally sound or not.

So let me put it back on the rails by returning to what the point ACTUALLY was at the time.

You were talking about how women, using your mother as an example, when they miscarry can be emotionally invested in the event. Even at early stages in the pregnancy.

My only point in the reply to that was to actually wholly agree with you.... which makes a mockery of your "points scoring" accusation.

I used an example of someone who has been posting on this thread to support the position we both agree with. The idea was to show that the emotional investment not only exists but can powerfully overwhelm rationality to the point that such women will actually feel emotional turmoil over things that are patently not true and will even indicate their intellectual unwillingness to be divested of that either. The emotions can be so strong to the point a user like that can say on this thread that although she knows there is no reason whatsoever to think a 12 week old fetus can feel any pain whatsoever she STILL indicates that "nothing will convince" her that the fetus did not undergo a lot of pain.

My point leading from there was to show that this kind of intellectual dissonance... where a person can hold two completely different and incompatible things in their head at the same time... is certainly a problem in the realm of discourse on abortion topics. Equally therefore it should be recognized that while people might become that emotionally invested... one person believing for nothing but emotional reasons that the fetus can feel pain therefore does nothing but cloud rather than further discourse on the topic and we have to be aware of that and deal with it.

What certainly will not help such discussions of course is you wading in making crass generalizations about my emotional state and capabilities. Again I repeat the most important retort to this which I said in post 1048. Just because I am discussing the intellectual response to such things does not mean I am precluded from having, or never had, an emotional one. If one is going to enter into discussions on topics like abortion however one must be aware of such emotions and... while not becoming an emotionless unreacting automoton... must maintain a clear awareness of when and where to apply such things and when and where to step back and say "While you have my sympathy.... and you do.... this simply is not applicable in the debate".

Sorry...what?

nozzferrahhtoo · 30-04-2012 10:47am

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Sorry...what?

Honestly not sure how to help you with such a laconic line of questioning. If you have something more specific to ask then I am here for you. Until then the best I can do is say read it and read it again until you either understand it... or you can at least get to the point where you can frame a coherent question I can then deal with.

OldNotWIse · 30-04-2012 10:55am

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Honestly not sure how to help you with such a laconic line of questioning. If you have something more specific to ask then I am here for you. Until then the best I can do is say read it and read it again until you either understand it... or you can at least get to the point where you can frame a coherent question I can then deal with.

I dont have that much time tbh, I skimmed through but I just see more of the same from your previous posts. Life is short

OldNotWIse · 30-04-2012 10:57am

Turtyturd wrote: »

Make me a fully functioning car out of a brick, complete with radio.

I think the poster said, "without someone to order and structure it" - that was the point.

nozzferrahhtoo · 30-04-2012 10:58am

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I dont have that much time tbh, I skimmed through but I just see more of the same from your previous posts. Life is short

Ah I see. I am more of the "If I have nothing to say, I say nothing" style of posting I must admit. I find it nicer to other people rather than clog up their threads with meaningless and empty posts. I also tend to actually read what people have written before replying. If you decide to ask anything, or add anything on topic to the thread in the future however I look forward to it.

OldNotWIse · 30-04-2012 11:01am

Paddy Cow wrote: »

I haven't read all the pages in this thread so I don't know if this has already been said but I don't think politicians are still dragging their heels because they are afraid to make tough decisions but I think they are too afraid to face the consequences of these decisions.

I remember the divorce referendum and how highly emotional that got. There were signs that read "Hello Divorce, Bye bye Daddy". There was one particular time I recall a couple being on the Late Late Show and they said they were happy as a couple and couldn't imagine divorcing but didn't want other people being able to divorce in case it somehow became the norm. Their whole arguement really boiled down to "I don't want other people to be able to divorce as it will mean that marriage isn't taken seriously and people will only marry with the view of 'If it doesn't work out then we have a get out clause'". When asked about situations such as cheating, domestic abuse etc they were very cadgey and said things like people should take the time to get to know each other properly before committing to a long term relationship so that issues such as this wouldn't be a problem.

When divorce was finally introduced in Ireland it didn't mean that people suddenly thought that marrigae was something to be entered into lightly or that divorce was an easy get out clause. Divorce is not comparable to abortion but certain values are deeply entrenched in our society and it is going to be very hard to change them.

One of the biggest misconceptions about abortion being legalised is that it will become a form of contraception on demand. There is this myth out there that the only women who want abortions are promiscous teenagers who need better education or promiscous older women who are too busy chasing their careers to have time for a baby and both will quite happily "kill the baby" and then get on with their lives.

Neither generalisation is true. Abortion is not that black and white. Most women (and their husbands/partners) agonise over the decision and it is one that they have to live with for the rest of their lives. It makes the decision even harder when they not only have to go abroad but also have to pretend that it never happened because it's not something we talk about here.

So anyway, back to my point and why did I bring up divorce? At the time, the idea of divorce was appalling to many people and in the referendum, it won but it wasn't by a landslide. To get a divorce you need to go to a solicitor and blah blah blah it takes years for it to be finalised. A solicitor doesn't just deal with divorce. One office can deal with many branches of law. No one is going to know if you are going into see your solicitor about getting a divorce or finalising a will.

Getting an abortion is much different. There are specialised clinics abroad, equipped to deal with the physiological and psychological aspects of going through (or not going through with) an abortion and I'm not sure Ireland is ready to handle that. If abortion was legalised in the morning and there was a list of HSC clinics, what would the reaction be?

Would everyone just accept it or would we have a repeat of what has happened in pretty much every other country where they legalised abortion which is to pickett the abortion clinics, send death threats to the dotcors and nurses and scapegoat the women going for abortions?

Ireland is a pretty small country and with the curtain twitchers constantly on alert it's hard to do anything without being noticed. The politicians know this and it is for this reason they are dragging their heels. It would be easy to pass laws legalising abortion but it would be much harder to protect the people who need to use them.

As hard as it is for Irish women who have to go abroad for abortions, how hard would it be to turn up to an Irish clinic with the local news outside waiting to broadcast your buisness to the nation?

For the record I am pro-choice. I have never been in the awful situation where I have had to chose between continuing with a pregnancy or terminating it and I hope I never have to. Personally I think that we should have the option in this country but I'm not sure the politicians have the balls to deal with the fallout of it.

For someone who holds a completely different view than mine, this is the most coherent and non-confrontational post I have read on this thread. Imagine if everyone was this mature and willing to debate without getting snarly when they are challenged or hopelessley trying to "convert" others. Catch more flies with honey etc and it's the non-hostile, non-inflammatory posts like these that say the most.

I think you are right there would be protesters a plenty but after a while, I imagine the numbers would fall off?

OldNotWIse · 30-04-2012 11:03am

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Ah I see. I am more of the "If I have nothing to say, I say nothing" style of posting I must admit. I find it nicer to other people rather than clog up their threads with meaningless and empty posts. I also tend to actually read what people have written before replying. If you decide to ask anything, or add anything on topic to the thread in the future however I look forward to it.

Please stop badgering.

nozzferrahhtoo · 30-04-2012 11:04am

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Please stop badgering.

Is this not a discussion forum? We were having a discussion. I clarified my position and you did not bother to read it but just replied with a "Sorry What?". Then, given the presence of a question mark in your reply I felt this invited a reply. Yet when I reply I am being accused of badgering.

Discourse is not your forte is it? If someone posts to me, I reply. That's how discussion forums work. If you do not want a reply then do not write to me. Simple as.

Dyr · 30-04-2012 11:19am

Paddy Cow wrote: »

Would everyone just accept it or would we have a repeat of what has happened in pretty much every other country where they legalised abortion which is to pickett the abortion clinics, send death threats to the dotcors and nurses and scapegoat the women going for abortions?

As hard as it is for Irish women who have to go abroad for abortions, how hard would it be to turn up to an Irish clinic with the local news outside waiting to broadcast your buisness to the nation?

Are there many (any)pickets on abortion clinics in the UK or europe? I would think not.

The argument that we shouldnt have abortion because there's a lot of rabid scumbags out there in the wacky world of catholic fundamentalism doesn't really stand up. That's why we give the gardai batons.

eviltwin · 30-04-2012 11:34am

Bambi wrote: »

Are there many (any)pickets on abortion clinics in the UK or europe? I would think not.

The argument that we shouldnt have abortion because there's a lot of rabid scumbags out there in the wacky world of catholic fundamentalism doesn't really stand up. That's why we give the gardai batons.

"Abortion" clinics in the UK are not just there for terminations, they often are like mini hospitals so you have no way of knowing what a woman is going in for just as like here you can't tell if a woman going into a family planning clinic is there for advice on abortion or a smear or to get information on the pill.

But you're right, you don't see people outside waving rosary beads or anything like that.

Abortion

Comments