The new, vicious fight

One eyed Jack · 05-07-2015 2:39pm

volchitsa wrote: »

Your argument seems to be that women, by dint of being women, have a right to impose their beliefs on other women that you as a man don't have.

No, my argument isn't that at all. I'm stating as a fact that by virtue of the fact that they are women, their opinion on women's reproductive rights is going to be far more valid than my opinion as a man. They have a right to express their opinion, and I can't really argue with them if they do.

My point is that the views you ascribe to these anonymous women who apparently don't feel strongly enough about it to come on here themselves, are no more or less acceptable just because they come from women.

I'm not speaking for anyone but myself. I wouldn't expect anyone to come on here and 'defend themselves' for anything. In your opinion, their opinions aren't acceptable, but in mine, the fact that they are women and we're talking about women's reproductive rights kinda lends more weight to their opinion than mine, and the fact that they also regard the right to life of the unborn upon humanitarian grounds, means that while I may disagree with them, I'm not going to argue with them. I can understand where they're coming from.

What one particular woman feels about having an abortion or not is one thing. Anyone, man or woman, wishing to enforce their views about abortion on a woman who may not share those beliefs is a different issue altogether. That's what I'm objecting to in your posts. You're claiming to quote someone else as an authority for views you actually hold yourself.

As awkward moments go (I mean, it's not as if I already spelled out in my previous posts on just this thread alone that I don't agree with them) -

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Repeal of the 8th amendment and all references in the constitution to a right to life, and replaced with reference to a person's quality of life.

Inclusion of the Groningen Protocol in conjunction with legislation for euthanasia.

Implementation of the Assisted Decision-making Capacity Bill 2013 that has dragged on and on and has yet to be implemented.

http://www.un.org/disabilities/convention/conventionfull.shtml

http://humanrights.ie/mental-health-law-and-disability-law/assisted-decision-making-capacity-bill-2013-finally-published/

http://www.imt.ie/opinion/2015/02/new-legislation-everyones-best-interests.html

I don't know where you got the idea that I was ever against the repeal of the eighth amendment, but there you go.

So since those people can't be bothered to argue the point you claim they hold, what's the point in your posting them? They're worth nothing if they can't be defended, and "Oh but a woman said it" really doesn't do the job for me.

Perhaps you missed the point of my initial post then, and that was simply to point out that not everyone who is against abortion is against it for religious reasons, but I know of women who are against abortion on humanitarian grounds because they value the right to life of the unborn child. I'm not going to try and argue 'quality of life' from my perspective with a woman and tell her what she should think. Whatever she wants to do is her own business. I was simply making the point that more and more, it's less about religion, and more about human rights and their own individual humanitarian philosophy.

That doesn't do the job for you and that's fair enough, it's enough to do the job for me though.

05-07-2015 5:11pm

Hellrazer wrote: »

What does my head in on these anti abortion rallies is that the face of them seems to be middle aged men and you yourself have said that you do as much as you can so that abortions don't happen. Can I ask why?Surely if you are pro choice then its nothing to do with you as a man.

One of my big things is I work very very hard for the rights of homeless. But I also work very very hard to make sure no one ever becomes homeless.

For me on any issue the best thing to do is support anyone who enters a situation but you also do everything you can do to make sure they never end up in that situation too.

So on the subject of abortion I am ENTIRELY pro choice, but I also very very strongly support any and all initiatives that help the general populace evade unwanted pregnancies.

What part of that you are taking issue with I have to admit ignorance of however.

If a less emotional analogy helps you understand it.... I am PRO people having heart bypass surgery when required.... but I am ANTI heart by pass surgery in the sense I will promote any initiative that will prevent them from ever having to make that choice.

Dyr · 05-07-2015 5:15pm

The old pro choice rallies are great for attracting the stormfront boys,

Or youth defence as they prefer to be known

volchitsa · 05-07-2015 5:37pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, my argument isn't that at all. I'm stating as a fact that by virtue of the fact that they are women, their opinion on women's reproductive rights is going to be far more valid than my opinion as a man. They have a right to express their opinion, and I can't really argue with them if they do.

You still seem to be arguing largely against points that are being mad only in your own head. Of course they have a right to express their views : as you said earlier, we're in a democracy. So far so obvious. I've never said different.

However if your point is that only women should be allowed a say in the matters well, I guess that's a point that could be made, but in a democracy it's a bit of an odd precedent to set isn't it? Do only people with children get to vote on education-related matters? Or ill people for the health service?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm not speaking for anyone but myself. I wouldn't expect anyone to come on here and 'defend themselves' for anything. In your opinion, their opinions aren't acceptable, but in mine, the fact that they are women and we're talking about women's reproductive rights kinda lends more weight to their opinion than mine, and the fact that they also regard the right to life of the unborn upon humanitarian grounds, means that while I may disagree with them, I'm not going to argue with them. I can understand where they're coming from.

Well, what you're actually doing is telling us that some people you claim to know have more worthwhile opinions than you. Fine. The problem I have is that you're entitled to feel your opinion is worth less than theirs, but you haven't made any attempt to explain why their opinion is so valuable that it applies to other women who disagree with them.

As for your reasons as to why they think what they think, I really wouldn't care to speculate further. If you aren't going to defend the opinion you quote, and nor is anyone else, I think we can safely dismiss it. When someone comes on here and actually defends reasons why a non religious person might be anti choice, and to what extent, then I'll be happy to debate the point.

Otherwise it looks, as I said, as though you're hiding behind someone else to express something you daren't do in your own name.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

As awkward moments go (I mean, it's not as if I already spelled out in my previous posts on just this thread alone that I don't agree with them)

I don't know where you got the idea that I was ever against the repeal of the eighth amendment, but there you go.

That link isn't from this thread, it's from a thread I haven't been following.

Even if it had been, you'll excuse me for being totally unembarassed at whatever mistake you think I've made. I'm underwhelmed at the idea that I should check out previous posts by a poster before telling him how a point he is making comes across to me. Particularly one who within a couple of a pages has already contradicted himself over who exactly is entitled to an opinion on the subject : since your point earlier was that we live in a democracy, so that anti-choice views can democratically be imposed on other women, even at the expense of their health, it ill becomes you now to take refuge behind the fact that some women express that anti-choice view.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Perhaps you missed the point of my initial post then, and that was simply to point out that not everyone who is against abortion is against it for religious reasons, but I know of women who are against abortion on humanitarian grounds because they value the right to life of the unborn child. I'm not going to try and argue 'quality of life' from my perspective with a woman and tell her what she should think. Whatever she wants to do is her own business. I was simply making the point that more and more, it's less about religion, and more about human rights and their own individual humanitarian philosophy.

No, I saw your claim. I find it unconvincing because it's at second or even third hand. As I explained.

QUOTE=One eyed Jack;96127120]That doesn't do the job for you and that's fair enough, it's enough to do the job for me though.[/QUOTE]What job? I thought you said you were unconvinced by their views? Now you say you agree with them?

Perhaps if you could make your mind up about what you're actually saying, we could discuss your views, and not those of someone you say you once met somewhere.

RDM_83 again · 05-07-2015 5:40pm

Deleted User wrote: »

One of my big things is I work very very hard for the rights of homeless. But I also work very very hard to make sure no one ever becomes homeless.

For me on any issue the best thing to do is support anyone who enters a situation but you also do everything you can do to make sure they never end up in that situation too.

So on the subject of abortion I am ENTIRELY pro choice, but I also very very strongly support any and all initiatives that help the general populace evade unwanted pregnancies.

What part of that you are taking issue with I have to admit ignorance of however.

If a less emotional analogy helps you understand it.... I am PRO people having heart bypass surgery when required.... but I am ANTI heart by pass surgery in the sense I will promote any initiative that will prevent them from ever having to make that choice.

Its a bad analogy though because something like heart surgery isn't an elective procedure, you don't have a "choice" to have an operation, you have a choice to seek treatment of a hospital.

If you describe yourself as strongly pro-choice you should really support access for any reason.
Then you get into the argument about the assignment of "personhood", is 24 weeks the point where your probably getting fetal pain perception, is it earlier where there is a fetal pain response but probably no perception, is pain even a worthwhile measure of "personhood", do you run on fetal survivability (as you have occasional survival before 24 weeks and the level is only going to increase in the future).
How do you weigh the rights of the mother that is at severe risk to life due to mental health issues against the fact that that an early delivery will likely have serious long term health impacts and possible early death to an entity that will have personhood (this is in relation to post 24 weeks procedures).

If your pro-choice can you advocate counseling before carrying out an abortion which may reduce the abortion rate but would still allow choice based abortions.

In my view the people that are consistent on this stuff are actually those on the extremes of either side, a strict Catholic doesn't agree with IVF, the morning after pill or contraception either so they have internal consistency a CCP official considers abortion simply a surgical procedure with no greater weight than anything else so its justifiable to force it in the interests of public health/the greater good (or for a western example the woman that deliberately got pregnant so she could have an abortion and put it up on youtube).

Those in the middle are more humane but much more muddled generally

goose2005 · 05-07-2015 6:17pm

Not a NSA agent wrote: »

After the whole gay people molesting children thing I cant wait to see what the religious nuts come up with for this one. Probably something like if we remove the 8th amendment it will be possible to kill children of any age.

More likely they'll link it to euthanasia of sick children, euthanasia of the disabled, Aktion T4 etc.

darkpagandeath wrote: »

I don't really get the argument, The anti side will never abort a child that's their right not to chose to. Just like you don't have to learn to drive or don't have to marry someone of the same sex. But the option should be there in case a woman decides to avail of this option. I just hate the emotive language used. Especially by an organisation that only cares about Unborn children. Once they are born they don't care, If they die sure you can toss them into a septic tank. Or protect and cover up the abuse.

tbh that's a lazy counter-argument. Surely the idea that a foetus is a full human and deserving of the rights of a full human is at least worthy of considering. And the septic tank thing seems to have been a myth.

Anyway I'm pro-abortion up to about 6 months: before major neural development happens you can't really call the foetus a full human; but dismissing counter-arguments with "sure if you don't like abortions don't get one" is silly.

goose2005 · 05-07-2015 6:20pm

darkpagandeath wrote: »

What's that got to do with Irish women being forced over to the Uk to get an abortion. Again it seems fine as long as it does not happen here, Never really hear the sky wizard people complaining about it. Sure should we go back to putting fallen women in places and selling the kids to America.

It shows a sort of infirmity of purpose on the side of the anti-abortion crowd - if they were genuinely, fully anti-abortion they would follow this through logically and demand strict controls on the movement of pregnant Irishwomen. However, they don't, which suggests that it's OK that abortion happens so long as God sees them registering their disapproval. Kind of like the anti-Iraq War protests which said "Not in my name" - this implies that the protestors had already given up and knew that the war would happen, they just wanted to imagine that they had opposed it.

Eugene Norman · 05-07-2015 6:23pm

goose2005 wrote: »

It shows a sort of infirmity of purpose on the side of the anti-abortion crowd - if they were genuinely, fully anti-abortion they would follow this through logically and demand strict controls on the movement of pregnant Irishwomen. However, they don't, which suggests that it's OK that abortion happens so long as God sees them registering their disapproval. Kind of like the anti-Iraq War protests which said "Not in my name" - this implies that the protestors had already given up and knew that the war would happen, they just wanted to imagine that they had opposed it.

What else could the Iraq war protestors do?

goose2005 · 05-07-2015 6:25pm

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Some slogans of note were:

'My body, My Choice, Fuck you'.
'Think Outside My Box'

Charming.

I've noticed it a lot lately, people putting profanity on political posters. It's not really witty or clever and is more likely to repel than attract neutrals/undecided

goose2005 · 05-07-2015 6:27pm

Eugene Norman wrote: »

What else could the Iraq war protestors do?

Stop clapping themselves on the back at least. Good article on it here:

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/13345

Buzz Meeks · 05-07-2015 6:29pm

goose2005 wrote: »

I've noticed it a lot lately, people putting profanity on political posters. It's not really witty or clever and is more likely to repel than attract neutrals/undecided

Well then shove it up your hole you fncking cnut, sh1tbag.

jill_valentine · 05-07-2015 6:33pm

goose2005 wrote: »

I've noticed it a lot lately, people putting profanity on political posters. It's not really witty or clever and is more likely to repel than attract neutrals/undecided

While I agree, it's hard not to find it personally infuriating to hear 60 year old blokes with less than ideal family situations themselves making pronouncements to young women who actually can get pregnant on how they're supposed to feel about it and what's going to happen the body they actually have to live in, often in the most incredibly insulting terms and almost invariably misinformed or dishonest.

It's not ideal, but I don't blame them one bit. The anti marriage equality ****e I had to walk by to work every morning was far milder and it still made my blood boil that somebody could be such a nasty bastard to living breathing strangers over something that's essentially just an intellectual sparring match to them.

Not a NSA agent · 05-07-2015 6:43pm

I think people are misunderstanding TaxAHcruel. From my reading what he seems to think is that abortion should be aviable but we should have contraceptives which work 100% of the time, healthcare that would prevent FFAs or risks to the mother so that a person wouldnt need an abortion in those situations. Prevention is better than a cure type of thing.

darkpagandeath · 05-07-2015 7:06pm

goose2005 wrote: »

More likely they'll link it to euthanasia of sick children, euthanasia of the disabled, Aktion T4 etc.

tbh that's a lazy counter-argument. Surely the idea that a foetus is a full human and deserving of the rights of a full human is at least worthy of considering. And the septic tank thing seems to have been a myth.

Anyway I'm pro-abortion up to about 6 months: before major neural development happens you can't really call the foetus a full human; but dismissing counter-arguments with "sure if you don't like abortions don't get one" is silly.

Sure the laundries were not real, Selling babies to Americans as well.... It's not State enforced Abortion it does not effect anyone apart from people opting to use the service. If people are that worried about life why no actually go to somewhere where people who are alive and born are dying ? Syria anyone ? Iraq ? I have noticed a lot of middle aged men at these things, The same types who think their wife would leave them if they could get a divorce. I think one is very very naive to think that this is not a majority Religious view in siding against this you only have to look at the groups involved.

darkpagandeath · 05-07-2015 7:07pm

Not a NSA agent wrote: »

I think people are misunderstanding TaxAHcruel. From my reading what he seems to think is that abortion should be aviable but we should have contraceptives which work 100% of the time, healthcare that would prevent FFAs or risks to the mother so that a person wouldnt need an abortion in those situations. Prevention is better than a cure type of thing.

How does one protect 100% someone from Rape ?

volchitsa · 05-07-2015 7:12pm

darkpagandeath wrote: »

How does one protect 100% someone from Rape ?

Or ensure that 100% of all fetuses are healthy?
Without aborting the unhealthy ones, that is.)

Not a NSA agent · 05-07-2015 7:13pm

darkpagandeath wrote: »

How does one protect 100% from Rape ?

You cant but in an ideal situation there wouldnt be rape. All you can do is try to prevent it but like 100% effective contraception it wont happen as this isnt an ideal world. Hence why abortion should be available while still trying to prevent situations where a woman would have an abortion. By that I mean more effective contraceptives, not make a woman win a fist fight with a bear or some other crap that just makes it more difficult to get one.

Eugene Norman · 05-07-2015 7:22pm

volchitsa wrote: »

Or ensure that 100% of all fetuses are healthy?
Without aborting the unhealthy ones, that is.)

He's in favour of legalisation. Can we move on from this sideshow.

Eugene Norman · 05-07-2015 7:24pm

My guess is the 8th will be removed. Remember people are not voting to legalise, that's up to the dail, but to take out a stupid clause in the constitution which shouldn't be there to begin with.

Remove the 8th

Yes
No

Lingua Franca · 05-07-2015 7:47pm

https://instagram.com/p/4t6UPgN8sl/

"Abortion is witchcraft"

Someone's been watching Penny Dreadful on Netflix.

jill_valentine · 05-07-2015 8:22pm

volchitsa wrote: »

Or ensure that 100% of all fetuses are healthy?
Without aborting the unhealthy ones, that is.)

You can't, but they weren't suggesting any different.The poster's argument amounts to safe, legal and rare, which is eminently sensible.

Abortion is a last resort, it's the airbag system - the mechanism should definitely be there, but ideally you'd rather make sure the driver didn't have to avail of it. That's why the inevitable waffle about contraception and what she *should* have done is always so irritating, because we're talking about the phase well beyond that.

To borrow the weird dog fence analogy, its all very well and good discussing what type of fence should have been built, but the dog's already in the yard by the time this conversation starts and it's going mental, so now what?

RDM_83 again · 05-07-2015 8:27pm

jill_valentine wrote: »

While I agree, it's hard not to find it personally infuriating to hear 60 year old blokes with less than ideal family situations themselves making pronouncements to young women who actually can get pregnant on how they're supposed to feel about it and what's going to happen the body they actually have to live in, often in the most incredibly insulting terms and almost invariably misinformed or dishonest.

It's not ideal, but I don't blame them one bit. The anti marriage equality ****e I had to walk by to work every morning was far milder and it still made my blood boil that somebody could be such a nasty bastard to living breathing strangers over something that's essentially just an intellectual sparring match to them.

Ah the old it won't happen to them so they shouldn't have a view, interestingly its always men that are referenced in relation to this too its never those damn infertile or older women (since a 60 year old man could potentially get someone pregnant logically they have a greater interest in it)

darkpagandeath · 05-07-2015 8:32pm

Lingua Franca wrote: »

https://instagram.com/p/4t6UPgN8sl/

"Abortion is witchcraft"

Someone's been watching Penny Dreadful on Netflix.

Must be embarrassing having them lot around. They do know people can't do magic ?

Merces · 05-07-2015 9:00pm

Lingua Franca wrote: »

https://instagram.com/p/4t6UPgN8sl/

"Abortion is witchcraft"

Someone's been watching Penny Dreadful on Netflix.

Embarrassing...

jill_valentine · 05-07-2015 9:08pm

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Ah the old it won't happen to them so they shouldn't have a view, interestingly its always men that are referenced in relation to this too its never those damn infertile or older women (since a 60 year old man could potentially get someone pregnant logically they have a greater interest in it)

Indicate to me where I said "They shouldn't have a view".

They can have all the views they like, between themselves. But to actually want to impose that on somebody else? To actually dictate to somebody what is right to do with their body under circumstances they cannot possibly find themselves? Pretty, pretty, pretty galling. I'd get a frosty reception preaching to black people about racism for the same reasons.

Aul wans have had the capacity to get pregnant at some point, and have had to make immediate decisions accordingly. Nevertheless, I've no problem pouring scorn on 60 year old women who got to make the choices which worked for them and wish to deny others the same right.

frostyjacks · 05-07-2015 9:14pm

jill_valentine wrote: »

Indicate to me where I said "They shouldn't have a view".

They can have all the views they like, between themselves. But to actually want to impose that on somebody else? To actually dictate to somebody what is right to do with their body under circumstances they cannot possibly find themselves? Pretty, pretty, pretty galling. I'd get a frosty reception preaching to black people about racism for the same reasons.

Aul wans have had the capacity to get pregnant at some point, and have had to make immediate decisions accordingly. Nevertheless, I've no problem pouring scorn on 60 year old women who got to make the choices which worked for them and wish to deny others the same right.

And abortion isn't imposing your view on someone else? Tell that to the baby that's just been told it's mother didn't want it.

jill_valentine · 05-07-2015 9:26pm

frostyjacks wrote: »

And abortion isn't imposing your view on someone else? Tell that to the baby that's just been told it's mother didn't want it.

Did you have a particular hypothetical baby you wanted me to speak with or should I just ask whoever told the hypothetical babies that how they got in touch before.

RDM_83 again · 05-07-2015 9:47pm

jill_valentine wrote: »

Indicate to me where I said "They shouldn't have a view".

They can have all the views they like, between themselves. But to actually want to impose that on somebody else? To actually dictate to somebody what is right to do with their body under circumstances they cannot possibly find themselves? .

Aul wans have had the capacity to get pregnant at some point, and have had to make immediate decisions accordingly. Nevertheless, I've no problem pouring scorn on 60 year old women who got to make the choices which worked for them and wish to deny others the same right.

The attempt to reduce the argument down to bodily integrity doesn't hold up though, it it did we would have completely elective termination of pregnancy (abortion terminology is illdefined) at any point we don't (and very very few if any countries do). However your prolife or choice, abortion isn't like getting a tattoo or removing a tumor it involves a whole variety of ethical implications.

jill_valentine wrote: »

I'd get a frosty reception preaching to black people about racism for the same reasons

So we should all restrict our views and our democratic rights to issues that directly effect us (and as I pointed out abortion does have a potential impact for the people you highlight), thats a very popular opinion on tumblr and The Guardian but thankfully not as common outside it.

Edit: There is good arguments for being pro-choice but if you reduce everything down to "its my body I'l do what I want with it" you have to deal with the fact that people will point out that its not that simple

lazygal · 05-07-2015 9:48pm

frostyjacks wrote: »

And abortion isn't imposing your view on someone else? Tell that to the baby that's just been told it's mother didn't want it.

Women don't just have abortions because they don't want a baby. Women who've had planned pregnancies, even ivf, have abortions.

frostyjacks · 05-07-2015 9:51pm

jill_valentine wrote: »

Did you have a particular hypothetical baby you wanted me to speak with or should I just ask whoever told the hypothetical babies that how they got in touch before.

I'm just curious as to why you have an issue with some people having an opinion, and at the same time are looking to impose your own opinion on everyone else.

lazygal · 05-07-2015 9:52pm

frostyjacks wrote: »

I'm just curious as to why you have an issue with some people having an opinion, and at the same time are looking to impose your own opinion on everyone else.

How is offering women the choice of whether to continue a pregnancy imposing anything on anyone?

RDM_83 again · 05-07-2015 9:55pm

lazygal wrote: »

How is offering women the choice of whether to continue a pregnancy imposing anything on anyone?

I'l get slated for saying this but since it takes two to tango isn't it always imposing on at least one other person?
(now obviously to a lesser degree but its still an imposition)

frostyjacks · 05-07-2015 9:56pm

lazygal wrote: »

How is offering women the choice of whether to continue a pregnancy imposing anything on anyone?

Again, tell that to the unborn child.

lazygal · 05-07-2015 9:57pm

RDM_83 again wrote: »

I'l get slated for saying this but since it takes two to tango isn't it always imposing on at least one other person?
(now obviously to a lesser degree but its still an imposition)

I can't impose on anyone to vindicate my right to life. I'm under no obligation to donate blood or.organs should my born children require them. Why must I continue to gestate a foetus to vindicate its right to life?

lazygal · 05-07-2015 9:58pm

frostyjacks wrote: »

Again, tell that to the unborn child.

Which unborn child? Why once my children were born was I under no obligation to use my body to vindicate their right to life? Do embryos which are frozen have a right to life too?

Irelandcool · 05-07-2015 10:05pm

I find it kinda funny that when it comes to gay marriage the majority of of people were in favor and not when it comes to abortion there is a split. Some of the people who were in the gay pride parades are likely now in different sides.

Anyways I think it be to risky to legislate right now as it clear the majority of people in this country disagree with.

the_monkey · 05-07-2015 10:08pm

Pretty scummy thing to do though - bring a child to a pro life rally, and have him hold a poster.

I bet those pro life people really help actual babies that are born in poverty or with physical difficulties ?

Or more likely they don't give a **** about a baby once its outside the womb.

RDM_83 again · 05-07-2015 10:10pm

lazygal wrote: »

I can't impose on anyone to vindicate my right to life. I'm under no obligation to donate blood or.organs should my born children require them. Why must I continue to gestate a foetus to vindicate its right to life?

I do agree thats true but that leads back to this problem

RDM_83 again wrote: »

The attempt to reduce the argument down to bodily integrity doesn't hold up though, it it did we would have completely elective termination of pregnancy (abortion terminology is illdefined) at any point we don't (and very very few if any countries do).

the_monkey · 05-07-2015 10:11pm

Also using people with down syndrome at the protest - yeah classy, use a someone who can't really understand the situation to impose your little agenda.

frostyjacks · 05-07-2015 10:15pm

the_monkey wrote: »

Also using people with down syndrome at the protest - yeah classy, use a someone who can't really understand the situation to impose your little agenda.

Yeah, we all know what the abortionists like to do to babies once they're diagnosed with Downs syndrome.

osarusan · 05-07-2015 10:18pm

frostyjacks wrote: »

Yeah, we all know what the abortionists like to do to babies once they're diagnosed with Downs syndrome.

Are you going to keep going on with this?

lazygal · 05-07-2015 10:18pm

RDM_83 again wrote: »

I do agree thats true but that leads back to this problem

What's the difference between requiring women to gestate foetuses regardless of their wishes or the health implications for women and mandatory blood and organ donations to vindicate the rights to life of the born?

lazygal · 05-07-2015 10:19pm

frostyjacks wrote: »

Yeah, we all know what the abortionists like to do to babies once they're diagnosed with Downs syndrome.

Like Marie Stopes clinics? I hear that the CEO earns £500k a year.

the_monkey · 05-07-2015 10:20pm

frostyjacks wrote: »

Yeah, we all know what the abortionists like to do to babies once they're diagnosed with Downs syndrome.

abortionists ??

Pro choice people you mean ? - Up to them ... if they want to go through with it - fine , if they don't and have the pregnancy terminated - again their choice - pro choice !!

RDM_83 again · 05-07-2015 10:25pm

lazygal wrote: »

Like Marie Stopes clinics? I hear that the CEO earns £500k a year.

I'm confused, the CEO of Marie Stopes does earn a vast amount of money (was in the news a bit few years back about high earnings in charities in the UK).
Checked its 290,000

lazygal · 05-07-2015 10:27pm

RDM_83 again wrote: »

I'm confused, the CEO of Marie Stopes does earn a vast amount of money (was in the news a bit few years back about high earnings in charities in the UK).
Checked its 290,000

It's some sort of "gotcha" the pro gestation crowd like to throw around, that the salary of the CEO of Marie Stopes is somehow profiting from abortions.

darkpagandeath · 05-07-2015 10:28pm

frostyjacks wrote: »

Again, tell that to the unborn child.

How would one communicate with cells ?

the_monkey · 05-07-2015 10:30pm

Pro lifers, you do realise that abortion is not the same as murdering a baby yeah ??

RDM_83 again · 05-07-2015 10:30pm

lazygal wrote: »

What's the difference between requiring women to gestate foetuses regardless of their wishes or the health implications for women and mandatory blood and organ donations to vindicate the rights to life of the born?

I'd be for mandatory blood donations (for men and women but I'm a horrible facist!), I guess the difference is in terms of practicality, for blood donations they can be sourced, for organ donations there is a substantial detrimental impact, I agree when we talk about abortion thats motivated by risk to health the comparison is valid though

lazygal · 05-07-2015 10:33pm

RDM_83 again wrote: »

I'd be for mandatory blood donations (for men and women but I'm a horrible facist!), I guess the difference is in terms of practicality, for blood donations they can be sourced, for organ donations there is a substantial detrimental impact, I agree when we talk about abortion thats motivated by risk to health the comparison is valid though

Pregnancy and birth can impose significant practical difficulties on women. I had to have both mine by c section and other side effects of pregnancy such as dental problems I had to pay to deal with myself. Even a straightforward pregnancy and birth imposes significant restrictions on girls and women.

The new, vicious fight

Comments