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
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Abortion Discussion

1…276277279281282…334

Comments

  • #8342
    qo2cj1dsne8y4k
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,646 ✭✭✭✭qo2cj1dsne8y4k


    I read Fritos post as a mans genetic material (sperm, finger, penis, whatever) in a woman's body should be a woman's choice. If she wants him to remove himself then she has that right. I didn't see anything rapey there tbh.

    What I did see in the other post was someone saying a man can do what he likes with his penis so it's fine for him to rape someone else.


  • #8343
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    LexieOnRale wrote: »
    What I did see in the other post was someone saying a man can do what he likes with his penis so it's fine for him to rape someone else.
    Did you? Where? On this thread?
    Absolam wrote: »
    How so? I can't imagine you think a mans right over his penis means a womans right not to be raped shouldn't trump it, so I suspect you're cherry picking when someone else's right should trump the right somebody has over their own body to suit yourself....
    That's him approving of rape?!?! Bizarre, surreal, interpretation.


  • #8344
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    LexieOnRale wrote: »
    If something is causing me to be sick, and causing my body to change in a way I don't want, causing me pain and prohibiting me from leading my life as normal I would have every right to remove the cause of it, as its my body and it's affecting me. That has nothing got to do with society, it's simply none of their business.
    But if that something is a foetus, then you don't have a right to remove it, according to society. Whether you think it's society's business or not doesn't make a difference to the fact that society makes it it's business.
    LexieOnRale wrote: »
    Your comparison between rape and abortion is outrageous. A man has control over his penis. If there is something growing on it he can have it removed.
    I wasn't actually comparing rape to abortion (though, if you'd like some fuel for your outrage I would contend that killing someone is a greater crime than raping someone); I was asking you if your contention that a woman can do whatever she wishes with her body in your view can be extended to allowing men to do whatever they want with their bodies; it seems you think it can't, which is rather sexist. A woman has as much control over her body as a man has over his, and as much responsibility not to use it to hurt others.
    LexieOnRale wrote: »
    He has also a responsibility not to put his penis into another persons body.
    And a woman has a responsibility not to kill a foetus in her body.
    Honestly, saying men have to be responsible for what they do with their bodies isn't a great argument for women not having to be responsible for what they do with theirs..... both sexes are required to be as responsible as society demands.
    LexieOnRale wrote: »
    What I did see in the other post was someone saying a man can do what he likes with his penis so it's fine for him to rape someone else.
    I really don't think you did........


  • #8345
    Frito
    Registered Users Posts: 769 ✭✭✭Frito


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Your comparison between rape and abortion had a point? Go on then... people are outraged by it. Or not I suppose now they know you brought it up.

    I'm going to stop you there and point out the difference between what people post and which conclusions you draw from it for the second time.

    Commenting on a woman's right to determine what stays inside her is not the same as comparing abortion to rape. If you draw this conclusion it is your comparison, not mine.

    Commenting on a woman's right to choose abortion is not the same as her asserting ownership of the foetus.

    You've commented earlier that there is a clique that aggressively defends it's collective thoughts. It's fair to say there are people here who share broadly similar views but there are also prominent dissenters. If you are misreading people's posts, it's not an attack from the hive mind when this is brought to your attention.


  • #8346
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    Huntergonzo wrote: »
    Finally just something I find interesting, why do people who are against abortion call themselves 'pro-life', surely if I'm pro-choice you're anti-choice. Ps I'm also pro-life, I think most people are, we'd all going around killing ourselves if we were 'anti-life'.

    They're not even pro-life. The anti-aborts are universally of the type which will support policies which make it harder for poor people to get good jobs, get educated, get proper access to their rights and be treated, in general, like human beings. That's one reason why they are anti-abort, because big families are a good way of keeping the poor down.


  • Advertisement
  • #8347
    obplayer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,190 ✭✭✭obplayer


    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    They're not even pro-life. The anti-aborts are universally of the type which will support policies which make it harder for poor people to get good jobs, get educated, get proper access to their rights and be treated, in general, like human beings. That's one reason why they are anti-abort, because big families are a good way of keeping the poor down.

    Perhaps they are actually so insecure in their beliefs that the more people they can brainwash, which is best done young, the more secure they will feel that they were right all along. Safety in numbers and all that.


  • #8348
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    obplayer wrote: »
    Perhaps they are actually so insecure in their beliefs that the more people they can brainwash, which is best done young, the more secure they will feel that they were right all along. Safety in numbers and all that.
    Phew, thankfully I'm pro-choice so none of these insults apply to me!
    Best to be nebulously non-specific when bandying about those pejorative generalisations though isn't it?


  • #8349
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Frito wrote: »
    I'm going to stop you there
    No actually, you won't, thanks all the same.
    Frito wrote: »
    and point out the difference between what people post and which conclusions you draw from it for the second time.
    Ah yes, I guess you'll tell me "early" is now interchangeable with "pre-term" and when you talk about a man putting his unwanted genetic material into a woman that has nothing whatsoever to do with rape. Those sort of conclusions?
    Frito wrote: »
    You've commented earlier that there is a clique that aggressively defends it's collective thoughts. It's fair to say there are people here who share broadly similar views but there are also prominent dissenters. If you are misreading people's posts, it's not an attack from the hive mind when this is brought to your attention.
    I'll keep that in mind in case is it ever demonstrated that I have misread somebody's post.


  • #8350
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Frito wrote: »
    You've commented earlier that there is a clique that aggressively defends it's collective thoughts. It's fair to say there are people here who share broadly similar views but there are also prominent dissenters. If you are misreading people's posts, it's not an attack from the hive mind when this is brought to your attention.
    And yet not a word about this frankly hilariously woeful attempt at manufacturing "outrage":
    LexieOnRale wrote: »
    What I did see in the other post was someone saying a man can do what he likes with his penis so it's fine for him to rape someone else.
    Which was in response to:
    Absolam wrote: »
    How so? I can't imagine you think a mans right over his penis means a womans right not to be raped shouldn't trump it, so I suspect you're cherry picking when someone else's right should trump the right somebody has over their own body to suit yourself....
    Strange how when this is described as a statement in support of rape you have no issue even though it is 100% obviously not... almost as if there is some sort of clique here and you only attack people you've decided are pro-life (even when it turns out... shock horror... they are pro-choice all along).


  • #8351
    qo2cj1dsne8y4k
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,646 ✭✭✭✭qo2cj1dsne8y4k


    Listen, I'm pro choice. I would never ever abort a pregnancy personally. For my own personal reasons and beliefs but as a woman, I feel that that is NOT my choice to make for another woman. I can only control my body and what is in it.

    I support any person who finds herself with an unwanted pregnancy and if any of my friends came to me and told me they were going to have an abortion, I would support them too - no questions asked.

    I'm not attacking your posts but your putting words that were never said into posters mouths, you did it with me saying I supported babies being killed one minute before they were due to be born. It's not about killing babies, it's about removing a foetus and if it's not able to survive by itself, that's just how it is.

    Have you ever been pregnant Dan?


  • Advertisement
  • #8352
    Frito
    Registered Users Posts: 769 ✭✭✭Frito


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    when you talk about a man putting his unwanted genetic material into a woman that has nothing whatsoever to do with rape. Those sort of conclusions?I'll keep that in mind in case is it ever demonstrated that I have misread somebody's post.

    Again, read carefully what I wrote and you'll see where you've been going wrong.
    Or don't, and jump to conclusions. Either way, they're your conclusions.


  • #8353
    Frito
    Registered Users Posts: 769 ✭✭✭Frito


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    And yet not a word about this frankly hilariously woeful attempt at manufacturing "outrage":
    Which was in response to:Strange how when this is described as a statement in support of rape you have no issue even though it is 100% obviously not... almost as if there is some sort of clique here and you only attack people you've decided are pro-life (even when it turns out... shock horror... they are pro-choice all along).

    Lexie's not misreading my posts to then quote them in arguments with others as examples of jokes or comparisons I'm supposed to have made, when actually she just jumped to a conclusion.
    Y'know, like you did.


  • #8354
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    LexieOnRale wrote: »
    I'm not attacking your posts but your putting words that were never said into posters mouths, you did it with me saying I supported babies being killed one minute before they were due to be born. It's not about killing babies, it's about removing a foetus and if it's not able to survive by itself, that's just how it is.
    So you personally would prefer an any stage on request termination of pregnancy, with survival of the foetus if possible?
    LexieOnRale wrote: »
    I support any person who finds herself with an unwanted pregnancy and if any of my friends came to me and told me they were going to have an abortion, I would support them too - no questions asked.
    No questions asked? Even if ther circumstance doesn't match your personal preference?
    LexieOnRale wrote: »
    Have you ever been pregnant Dan?
    That's about as useful as asking me if I'm a Catholic TBH. You're only damaging your own argument by declaring with questions like this that you are unwilling or unable to discuss the points on their own merits.


  • #8355
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Frito wrote: »
    Lexie's not misreading my posts to then quote them in arguments with others as examples of jokes or comparisons I'm supposed to have made, when actually she just jumped to a conclusion.
    Y'know, like you did.
    So she jumped to a completely incorrect conclusion... but didn't "quote them in arguments" (which makes you wonder why she posted them? For entertainment purposes?) so that gets immunity from your "misreading" attack squad?
    Utterly incomprehensible non-reasoning.


  • #8356
    Frito
    Registered Users Posts: 769 ✭✭✭Frito


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    So she jumped to a completely incorrect conclusion... but didn't "quote them in arguments" (which makes you wonder why she posted them? For entertainment purposes?) so that gets immunity from your "misreading" attack squad?
    Utterly incomprehensible non-reasoning.

    It's quite simple.
    I haven't commented on Lexie's and Absolam's discussion on abortion and rape comparison because neither have been misreading my posts and then quoting them to prove a conclusion that they jumped to.
    You did, hence I pointed it out to you. If they do it, I'll point it out to them also.


    Although maybe it is more logical that I am obviously selectively arguing in order to defend the colony from revolutionary ideas.
    Yeah, you got me. Go you.


  • #8357
    qo2cj1dsne8y4k
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,646 ✭✭✭✭qo2cj1dsne8y4k


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    So you personally would prefer an any stage on request termination of pregnancy, with survival of the foetus if possible?No questions asked? Even if ther circumstance doesn't match your personal preference?That's about as useful as asking me if I'm a Catholic TBH. You're only damaging your own argument by declaring with questions like this that you are unwilling or unable to discuss the points on their own merits.


    Yes I would support abortion at any stage of pregnancy, and yes if the child is viable outside of the woman's body I would support that. That said, I can't imagine too many women wanting "on demand" abortions in late pregnancy.

    And yes - I would support my friend no questions asked even if her circumstances were different to what I personally believe. It's her body, her choice and it's not an easy decision and of course I would support whatever she chose to do as I would hope she would do for me.

    And asking you if you've been pregnant isn't a ridiculous question nor does it discredit anything else I've said.


  • #8358
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    LexieOnRale wrote: »
    And yes - I would support my friend no questions asked even if her circumstances were different to what I personally believe. It's her body, her choice and it's not an easy decision and of course I would support whatever she chose to do as I would hope she would do for me.
    But you've just roared to the rooftops about not supporting an abortion immediately before birth! Now you are saying the exact opposite?!?! Apparently you would support it.
    Which is it?
    LexieOnRale wrote: »
    And asking you if you've been pregnant isn't a ridiculous question nor does it discredit anything else I've said.
    Of course it does. You can't say why you'd need to know the answer to this (much as with the "are you a Catholic" question) to enhance your logical argument. If you've got something to go on that is really based on supporting evidence and reasoning, you don't need to know anything about me other than my own arguments and evidence. It's a straight up admission you've got nothing TBH.


  • #8359
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    The anti-aborts are universally of the type which will support policies which make it harder for poor people to get good jobs, get educated, get proper access to their rights and be treated, in general, like human beings.
    Would it be correct to think that 'anti-abort' is a term you've coined for yourself for a group of people you've defined for yourself, thereby avoiding any need for evidence that this nebulous collective actually are universally of the type which will support policies which make it harder for poor people to get good jobs, get educated, get proper access to their rights and be treated, in general, like human beings, because there is in fact no independent evidence of their existence?
    Just wondering....
    obplayer wrote: »
    Perhaps they are actually so insecure in their beliefs that the more people they can brainwash, which is best done young, the more secure they will feel that they were right all along. Safety in numbers and all that.
    They certainly could be... they could be pretty much anything you want really, since there's no evidence of their existence being presented.
    It's so much easier to deride people who don't exist and can't answer back, isn't it? But realising it's all in your imagination probably takes a lot of the fun out if it.


  • #8360
    alaimacerc
    Registered Users Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    Absolam wrote: »
    Would it be correct to think that 'anti-abort' is a term you've coined for yourself for a group of people you've defined for yourself, thereby avoiding any need for evidence that this nebulous collective actually are universally of the type which will support policies which make it harder for poor people to get good jobs, get educated, get proper access to their rights and be treated, in general, like human beings, because there is in fact no independent evidence of their existence?
    Just wondering....
    I'm guessing you might be getting hung up on the "universally" here. That seems to me to be an overclaim, as clearly there are some people who're Faithful Catholics(TM) on abortion, and all sorts of shades of progressive on broader social issues.

    How'd you feel about the proposition that the two are strongly positively correlated? In the form of "Movement Conservatives", as the jargon would have it.


  • #8361
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,052 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    alaimacerc wrote: »
    How'd you feel about the proposition that the two are strongly positively correlated? In the form of "Movement Conservatives", as the jargon would have it.
    Before you can agree or disagree with the proposition, don't you have to establish exactly what Brian means by the term "anti-abort"? Is an anti-abort anyone who favours or accepts restrictions on abortion greater than those that Brian himself would favour or accept? For example, if Brian favours a limit of 26 weeks for abortion on demand and I favour a limit of 24 weeks, does that make me an "anti-abort"? Or do I have to favour more sweeping restrictions and, if so, how much more sweeping to they have to be?

    Or, does my status as an "anti-abort" depend not so much on what precise restrictions I think are appropriate as on the degree of passion or activism with which I promote my views?

    Or is an "anti-abort" anyone who favours any restrictions at all on the right of a woman to terminate her pregnancy at any time, and for any reason or no reason? Are we, in fact, nearly all "anti-aborts"?

    If we don't have some understanding of who the "anti-aborts" are, obviously it's meaningless to say that their anti-abort status correlates with their views on other questions of social policy (or that it doesn't). Since you propose that there is a correlation, you must have some implicit idea of who is embraced in the term.

    Do share!


  • Advertisement
  • #8362
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 6,997 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Before you can agree or disagree with the proposition, don't you have to establish exactly what Brian means by the term "anti-abort"? Is an anti-abort anyone who favours or accepts restrictions on abortion greater than those that Brian himself would favour or accept? For example, if Brian favours a limit of 26 weeks for abortion on demand and I favour a limit of 24 weeks, does that make me an "anti-abort"? Or do I have to favour more sweeping restrictions and, if so, how much more sweeping to they have to be?

    Or, does my status as an "anti-abort" depend not so much on what precise restrictions I think are appropriate as on the degree of passion or activism with which I promote my views?

    Or is an "anti-abort" anyone who favours any restrictions at all on the right of a woman to terminate her pregnancy at any time, and for any reason or no reason? Are we, in fact, nearly all "anti-aborts"

    I think that's fairly evident. There's an asymmetry in the two sides to this debate that tends to get overlooked in Ireland : no-one is "pro-abortion" in the sense that they are pleased every time there's a new one to add to the list. No-one.

    All there is are varying degrees of restriction that those who describe themselves as "pro-choice" would place on the pregnant woman in terms of her right to choose.

    And indeed quite a few "pro-life" people would also allow some leeway, for example I've heard Dr Peter Boylan describe himself as strongly pro-life while advocating abortion for severe medical reasons.

    So I think, despite the efforts of some extremists to portray Boylan's views as pro-abortion, I would consider that it's possible to be pro-life and yet to accept that some women will need one in some circumstances. That's the distinction I would make between "pro-life" and "anti-abort" : the former has been hijacked by Iona and co., but it doesn't have to mean what they want it to.

    I'd use a term like "anti-abort" for those who would restrict access to abortion so much that it becomes effectively impossible for women to access. No matter how those people describe their views themselves.

    So I would use it not so much about someone for simply wanting restrictions placed on access to abortion, but rather for people who may actually describe themselves on here as "pro-choice" but whose views, when one does manage to pin them down on them, mean they would opt for laws such as "free access for all women up to 4 weeks" or whatever - which mean they either live in a bubble as regards the health service here or it is all a pretence to avoid admitting they are against allowing women access to abortion at all.


  • #8363
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,052 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Well, if somebody favours access to abortion in cases of rape, incest, foetal abormality, risk to maternal life or substantial risk to maternal health, would you consider that person "anti-abort"? Because that list of grounds would still leave most pregnant women unable to access abortion.

    I guess it comes down to this: if you don't accept the proposition that a woman should have access to abortion simply because she doesn't want to carry the pregnancy, regardless for her reasons for not wanting this, are you "anti-abort"?


  • #8364
    MrPudding
    Registered Users Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    Is it just me or is Dan Solo channeling brownbomber?

    MrP


  • #8365
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    MrPudding wrote: »
    Is it just me or is Dan Solo channeling brownbomber?

    MrP
    Why, could you not address his points either?


  • #8366
    MrPudding
    Registered Users Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Why, could you not address his points either?
    Meh, he was an asshole.

    MrP


  • #8367
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    volchitsa wrote: »
    I'd use a term like "anti-abort" for those who would restrict access to abortion so much that it becomes effectively impossible for women to access. No matter how those people describe their views themselves.
    That doesn't really help us define "pro-life" or "pro-choice" though. Your "definition" is as shifting and vague as the ones you are railing against. You really need to give a stage of foetal development or a week of gestation and whether you think it should be available on request with no medical reason.


  • #8368
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    alaimacerc wrote: »
    How'd you feel about the proposition that the two are strongly positively correlated? In the form of "Movement Conservatives", as the jargon would have it.
    Another essentially meaningless post. I am apparently both "pro-life" and "pro-choice" as I would advocate abortions at certain stages on request but not at others. All you're saying is "people I don't like for X I also don't like for Y" and not defining X.
    Besides, correlations prove jack, c.f. pirates and global warming.


  • #8369
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Mod:
    MrPudding wrote: »
    Meh, he was an asshole.
    It's conventional here on A+A not to speak ill of any poster, even, and perhaps especially, those splendid, bright souls dispatched by well-deserved permaban.

    Thanking youze :)


  • #8370
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 6,997 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    That doesn't really help us define "pro-life" or "pro-choice" though. Your "definition" is as shifting and vague as the ones you are railing against. You really need to give a stage of foetal development or a week of gestation and whether you think it should be available on request with no medical reason.

    Nice attempt at moving the goalposts, but my opinion on abortion (not that it's a secret) has absolutely nothing to do with the question you originally asked - or pretended to ask!


  • Advertisement
  • #8371
    MrPudding
    Registered Users Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    robindch wrote: »
    Mod:It's conventional here on A+A not to speak ill of any poster, even, and perhaps especially, those splendid, bright souls dispatched by well-deserved permaban.

    Thanking youze :)

    My most humble apologies. Sometimes I suffer from an inability to stop typing what I am thinking. I won't promise it won't happen again, because I am pretty sure it would be a lie, and that would be a sin. I will however try really, really hard not to do it again, at least for sometime until you have maybe forgotten this occurrence. Best I can do right now. :)

    MrP


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement