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

1…3940424445…50

Comments

  • #1232
    B0jangles
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,951 ✭✭✭B0jangles


    partyatmygaff wrote: »

    As for "never personally affect you"... to keep it brief, let me tell you that that's completely false. In any case, something need not necessarily affect me personally for me to care about it.

    Don't disingenuously misquote me please; I said

    "never personally affect you in the same way that it can affect any woman of child-bearing years."

    Of course men are affected when a pregnancy occurs, wanted or unwanted. However unless basic biology has changed radically in the last 10 minutes, men cannot become pregnant themselves, therefore they have no right to dictate what a pregnant woman does with her own body.

    None at all.


  • #1233
    partyatmygaff
    Registered Users Posts: 10,992 ✭✭✭✭partyatmygaff


    SleepDoc wrote: »
    Psychiatrists differ.
    Two psychiatrists then.
    It is her body. It provides an environment where a clump of cells may develop into a viable human being. There is not, and should not be any obligation on her to do so.
    It already is a viable human (Normally, obviously that isn't the case of foetuses with severe deformities). All living organisms are "clumps of cells". What differentiates between them are the nature of the cells as an entity.
    Come up with a decent analogy and I'll try not to be pithy.
    It's a perfectly suited analogy.

    Allow me to break it down:
    I'm writing a song.
    A developing child.

     I've got the basic structure of the song down, i've got the bassline, the rhythm and most of the melodies but still need to add some harmonies and lyrics to complete it. The basic feel of the song is there but it's still far from finished.
    A gastrulated embryo with basic structures and cells in place but is constantly being worked on and needs further development.

    At that stage, would you consider it a "song in progress" or a "potential song"?
    At the gastrula stage, would you consider a child/song to be "developing" or a "potential child"?

    Simply saying "That's a bad analogy" and fleeing from it isn't a good enough answer.


  • #1234
    ChubbyRunner
    Registered Users Posts: 59 ✭✭ChubbyRunner


    If a woman has an abortion it won't affect you unless its your kid, but if you force her to have that baby against her will it will affect you as your taxes will have to pay for her welfare if she needs it and the therapy she will need to deal with a forced pregnancy.

    I can't understand you people who can be so cold that you would think so little of women that you feel you know better than she does what she thinks and feels is best for her.


  • #1235
    partyatmygaff
    Registered Users Posts: 10,992 ✭✭✭✭partyatmygaff


    B0jangles wrote: »
    Don't disingenuously misquote me please; I said

    "never personally affect you in the same way that it can affect any woman of child-bearing years."
    I know what you said and I still stand by what I said without any change.

    As for what a woman may do with her own body, I don't particularly care. What I do care about are women electing to kill their own child for anything less than the most pressing of reasons.


  • #1236
    SleepDoc
    Registered Users Posts: 306 ✭✭SleepDoc


    partyatmygaff wrote: »
    Two psychiatrists then.

    Why not three? It's an inexact, subjective branch of medicine. The mother should have the freedom to decide whether or not to terminate.
    partyatmygaff wrote: »
    It already is a viable human (Normally, obviously that isn't the case of foetuses with severe deformities). All living organisms are "clumps of cells". What differentiates between them are the nature of the cells as an entity.

    It is a potentially viable human being. It has no chance of survival outside the womb until at least 22 to 24 weeks gestation.
    partyatmygaff wrote: »
    It's a perfectly suited analogy.

    Allow me to break it down:
    I'm writing a song.
    A developing child.

     I've got the basic structure of the song down, i've got the bassline, the rhythm and most of the melodies but still need to add some harmonies and lyrics to complete it. The basic feel of the song is there but it's still far from finished.
    A gastrulated embryo with basic structures and cells in place but is constantly being worked on and needs further development.

    At that stage, would you consider it a "song in progress" or a "potential song"?
    At the gastrula stage, would you consider a child/song to be "developing" or a "potential child"?

    Simply saying "That's a bad analogy" and fleeing from it isn't a good enough answer.

    I don't consider a gastrula to be a child.

    It's still an awful analogy.


  • Advertisement
  • #1237
    partyatmygaff
    Registered Users Posts: 10,992 ✭✭✭✭partyatmygaff


    ChubbyRunner wrote: »
    If a woman has an abortion it won't affect you unless its your kid
    I don't only care about things that affect me personally.
    but if you force her to have that baby against her will it will affect you as your taxes will have to pay for her welfare if she needs it and the therapy she will need to deal with a forced pregnancy.
    Justice > Money. Money is a fickle man-made concept. Life is not.
    I can't understand you people who can be so cold that you would think so little of women that you feel you know better than she does what she thinks and feels is best for her.
    And I can't understand "you people" who think it's acceptable for a parent to elect to kill their child.

    As for "think so little of women", spare me the nonsense.


  • #1238
    B0jangles
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,951 ✭✭✭B0jangles


    partyatmygaff wrote: »
    I know what you said and I still stand by what I said without any change.

    As for what a woman may do with her own body, I don't particularly care. What I do care about are women electing to kill their own child for anything less than the most pressing of reasons.

    So you feel that you are the ultimate arbiter of what women should and should not be able to do with their own bodies?

    That is quite an opinion you have of yourself.


  • #1239
    Seachmall
    Registered Users Posts: 7,041 ✭✭✭Seachmall


    partyatmygaff wrote: »
    Money is a fickle man-made concept. Life is not.

    But "right to life" is.


    Personally, I think this argument is stagnating on biology when morals and applications of rights are the core of it.


  • #1240
    ChubbyRunner
    Registered Users Posts: 59 ✭✭ChubbyRunner


    partyatmygaff wrote: »
    I don't only care about things that affect me personally.

    Justice > Money. Money is a fickle man-made concept. Life is not.

    And I can't understand "you people" who think it's acceptable for a parent to elect to kill their child.

    As for "think so little of women", spare me the nonsense.


    So what do you think should be done about it because I'm guessing lots of women do have abortions just at home or overseas. Do you want to throw them in prison or demonise them? Maybe you should consider that some women who read this have been there or know people who have been there and are not just cruel child killers, probably they did it under great stress and worry.


  • #1241
    partyatmygaff
    Registered Users Posts: 10,992 ✭✭✭✭partyatmygaff


    SleepDoc wrote: »
    Why not three? It's an inexact, subjective branch of medicine. The mother should have the freedom to decide whether or not to terminate.
    Euphemism again, eh?
    I don't consider a gastrula to be a child.
    Well that's great. Few biologists would agree with you but if you want to re-define the word "child" for yourself, be my guest.
    It's still an awful analogy.
    It's only "awful" because you don't want to reply to it.


  • Advertisement
  • #1242
    partyatmygaff
    Registered Users Posts: 10,992 ✭✭✭✭partyatmygaff


    B0jangles wrote: »
    So you feel that you are the ultimate arbiter of what women should and should not be able to do with their own bodies?

    That is quite an opinion you have of yourself.
    Yes, that's exactly what I said. If this were an English comprehension exam, i'd give that effort an A1.
    ChubbyRunner wrote: »
    So what do you think should be done about it because I'm guessing lots of women do have abortions just at home or overseas. Do you want to throw them in prison or demonise them? Maybe you should consider that some women who read this have been there or know people who have been there and are not just cruel child killers, probably they did it under great stress and worry.
    Support them with counseling if necessary. That's essentially it. I never supported demonising or imprisoning anyone. You just incorrectly assumed I would to try and make a point for yourself.


  • #1243
    ChubbyRunner
    Registered Users Posts: 59 ✭✭ChubbyRunner


    partyatmygaff wrote: »
    Yes, that's exactly what I said. If this were an English comprehension exam, i'd give that effort an A1.

    Support them with counseling if necessary. That's essentially it. I never supported demonising or imprisoning anyone. You just incorrectly assumed I would to try and make a point for yourself.

    But that won't stop people doing it though will it?


  • #1244
    ChubbyRunner
    Registered Users Posts: 59 ✭✭ChubbyRunner


    And you are demonising these women, your comments make my blood run cold. I have never had an abortion, touch wood never been in that place where I had to consider it but I would hope I would treat a woman who is making that decision with the love and compassion she needs, not trot out rubbish about killing her children.


  • #1245
    SleepDoc
    Registered Users Posts: 306 ✭✭SleepDoc


    partyatmygaff wrote: »

    Well that's great. Few biologists would agree with you but if you want to re-define the word "child" for yourself, be my guest.

    Most English speakers would define a child as that stage of human life between birth and puberty.
    partyatmygaff wrote: »
    It's only "awful" because you don't want to reply to it.

    No, it's awful because it is a tortured, inaccurate analogy.


  • #1246
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,336 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    partyatmygaff wrote: »
    It most certainly is human life. Just because you think it's deluded doesn't mean that it is. It just means that you're ignoring simple biology.

    Still not "done here" I see. Can not act surprised I am afraid.

    No one is ignoring biology. The issue is with context based definitions.

    Depending on your definition of "Human life" it is ALL human life from the father and mother, to the egg and sperm, to the zygote, to the fetus, to the baby/babies produced.

    The phrase "human life" is labile enough to be defined to fit whatever is convenient to you and that is where the issue is.

    So we need to decide a context in which to mold a relevant definition of "Human Life".

    Here it seems the context is morality and rights. Does the fetus have rights. What definition of "Human Life" is applicable to a discussion of whether a fetus has rights or not?

    And the issue, for me, is that I am aware of no definition of "Human Life" in the context of "Human Rights" which affords us the ability to assign human rights to a fetus up to and including at least 20 weeks of development. 88% of abortions seemingly happen before 12 weeks.

    Simply bandying about other particularly labile words like "Individual" does not get us there either.


  • #1247
    B0jangles
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,951 ✭✭✭B0jangles


    partyatmygaff wrote: »
    Yes, that's exactly what I said. If this were an English comprehension exam, i'd give that effort an A1.

    Support them with counseling if necessary. That's essentially it. I never supported demonising or imprisoning anyone. You just incorrectly assumed I would to try and make a point for yourself.

    You don't think women should be free to decide what happens to their own bodies and that you know better; I think I'm representing your viewpoint fairly accurately. Your weak song analogy only manages to further demonstrate that this is an intellectual exercise for you.

    Hint: writing a song /= carrying a pregnancy for 9 months.
    Writing a song imposed no physical burden, no-one unintentionally starts writing a song, then thinks "Oh shít, I cannot deal with this unstoppable song that keeps writing itself and making profound changes to my body."

    And counselling?

    Seriously???

    You seriously think that a woman who is pregnant and does not feel ready or able to have the child can be counselled into accepting the situation?


  • #1248
    partyatmygaff
    Registered Users Posts: 10,992 ✭✭✭✭partyatmygaff


    ChubbyRunner wrote: »
    But that won't stop people doing it though will it?
    Just because people will still do something doesn't mean we should make it easier.
    ChubbyRunner wrote: »
    I have never had an abortion, touch wood never been in that place where I had to consider it but I would hope I would treat a woman who is making that decision with the love and compassion she needs, not trot out rubbish about killing her children.
    Aborted because it was necessary --> Support, sympathy
    Aborted despite it not being necessary but troubled by it --> Support, sympathy
    Aborted despite it being unnecessary but don't care about it --> No support or sympathy.
    SleepDoc wrote: »
    Most English speakers would define a child as that stage of human life between birth and puberty.
    You're not channeling Seachmall's spirit are you? I remember having this exact same conversation a few pages ago. I'm not getting in to it again.
    No, it's awful because it is a tortured, inaccurate analogy
    I don't suppose you'll grace us with an explanation of why it's tortured and inaccurate, will you? Never mind, just forget about the analogy. You don't intend on responding to it and nothing will change that.


  • #1249
    ChubbyRunner
    Registered Users Posts: 59 ✭✭ChubbyRunner


    partyatmygaff wrote: »
    Just because people will still do something doesn't mean we should make it easier.

    Aborted because it was necessary --> Support, sympathy
    Aborted despite it not being necessary but troubled by it --> Support, sympathy
    Aborted despite it being unnecessary but don't care about it --> No support or sympathy.

    You're not channeling Seachmall's spirit are you? I remember having this exact same conversation a few pages ago. I'm not getting in to it again.

    I don't suppose you'll grace us with an explanation of why it's tortured and inaccurate, will you? Never mind, just forget about the analogy. You don't intend on responding to it and nothing will change that.


    I'm sure women who have abortions and never feel troubled by it give no thoughts to what pond life like you think of them.

    As for the ones who are having a hard time I'm glad to read you would at least not make them feel worse. Maybe you should amend your comments in light of that.


  • #1250
    partyatmygaff
    Registered Users Posts: 10,992 ✭✭✭✭partyatmygaff


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Still not "done here" I see. Can not act surprised I am afraid.
    "Done here" for that particular day as I had an exam the next day.
    Depending on your definition of "Human life" it is ALL human life from the father and mother, to the egg and sperm, to the zygote, to the fetus, to the baby/babies produced.

    The phrase "human life" is labile enough to be defined to fit whatever is convenient to you and that is where the issue is.

    So we need to decide a context in which to mold a relevant definition of "Human Life".
    When I say human life in this thread, I almost always am referring to unique human individual organisms.
    And the issue, for me, is that I am aware of no definition of "Human Life" in the context of "Human Rights" which affords us the ability to assign human rights to a fetus up to and including at least 20 weeks of development. 88% of abortions seemingly happen before 12 weeks.

    Simply bandying about other particularly labile words like "Individual" does not get us there either.
    No, there isn't a definition for "human life" in the context of "human rights". That is precisely why I am introducing the biological definition. Biology is the study of life and this is a question of life. I don't see why it should be ignored for alternative definitions.
    B0jangles wrote: »
    You don't think women should be free to decide what happens to their own bodies and that you know better; I think I'm representing your viewpoint fairly accurately. Your weak song analogy only manages to further demonstrate that this is an intellectual exercise for you.

    Hint: writing a song /= carrying a pregnancy for 9 months.
    Writing a song imposed no physical burden, no-one unintentionally starts writing a song, then thinks "Oh shít, I cannot deal with this unstoppable song that keeps writing itself and making profound changes to my body."

    And counselling?

    Seriously???

    You seriously think that a woman who is pregnant and does not feel ready or able to have the child can be counselled into accepting the situation?
    Again, top class comprehension.

    Can you at least read my posts properly before replying to them?


  • #1251
    partyatmygaff
    Registered Users Posts: 10,992 ✭✭✭✭partyatmygaff


    ChubbyRunner wrote: »
    I'm sure women who have abortions and never feel troubled by it give no thoughts to what pond life like you think of them.
    That's good for them.

    Also, i'd be pleased if you could refrain from calling me scum on this thread (Yes we all know what "pond life" means). It's the kind of thing i'd expect on a Youtube argument.


  • Advertisement
  • #1252
    SleepDoc
    Registered Users Posts: 306 ✭✭SleepDoc


    partyatmygaff wrote: »

    You're not channeling Seachmall's spirit are you? I remember having this exact same conversation a few pages ago. I'm not getting in to it again..

    So you'll accept the vernacular definition of child then.
    partyatmygaff wrote: »
    I don't suppose you'll grace us with an explanation of why it's tortured and inaccurate, will you? Never mind, just forget about the analogy. You don't intend on responding to it and nothing will change that.

    I did respond to it, albeit not as you would like.


  • #1253
    partyatmygaff
    Registered Users Posts: 10,992 ✭✭✭✭partyatmygaff


    SleepDoc wrote: »
    So you'll accept the vernacular definition of child then.
    I'll accept the one(s) me and Seachmall agreed on a few pages back. I'm not accepting an unspecified "vernacular definition".


  • #1254
    ChubbyRunner
    Registered Users Posts: 59 ✭✭ChubbyRunner


    partyatmygaff wrote: »
    That's good for them.

    Also, i'd be pleased if you could refrain from calling me scum on this thread (Yes we all know what "pond life" means). It's the kind of thing i'd expect on a Youtube argument.


    Very sensitive aren't you. My comment wasn't nice but about as nice as using emotive phrases like "child killers" on a thread where post abortion women posted often in states of distress.


  • #1255
    SleepDoc
    Registered Users Posts: 306 ✭✭SleepDoc


    partyatmygaff wrote: »
    I'll accept the one(s) me and Seachmall agreed on a few pages back. I'm not accepting an unspecified "vernacular definition".

    Never mind what a friend on the internet says.

    Accept the dictionary definition.


  • #1256
    partyatmygaff
    Registered Users Posts: 10,992 ✭✭✭✭partyatmygaff


    ChubbyRunner wrote: »
    Very sensitive aren't you. My comment wasn't nice but about as nice as using emotive phrases like "child killers" on a thread where post abortion women posted often in states of distress.
    I'm not sensitive. I just don't like people insulting me.

    As for "emotive phrases", that's a perfectly accurate phrase. It's not "nice" but it's accurate. As for post-abortive women in states of distress, i'm sorry but their current personal condition isn't going to make me tiptoe around the issue and use euphemisms.

    If they need support and help, going to a general discussion on abortion on After Hours isn't a good idea anyway. There are better forums on this site for things like that.


  • #1257
    partyatmygaff
    Registered Users Posts: 10,992 ✭✭✭✭partyatmygaff


    SleepDoc wrote: »
    Never mind what a friend on the internet says.

    Accept the dictionary definition.
    Me and Seachmall already agreed on the "accepted definitions", of which there were two:
    1. Child = Human offspring
    2. Child = Human in certain age group

    I don't want to have this conversation again.


  • #1258
    ChubbyRunner
    Registered Users Posts: 59 ✭✭ChubbyRunner


    partyatmygaff wrote: »
    I'm not sensitive. I just don't like people insulting me.

    As for "emotive phrases", that's a perfectly accurate phrase. It's not "nice" but it's accurate. As for post-abortive women in states of distress, i'm sorry but their current personal condition isn't going to make me tiptoe around the issue and use euphemisms.

    If they need support and help, going to a general discussion on abortion on After Hours isn't a good idea anyway. There are better forums on this site for things like that.

    well we will have to agree to disagree on that one. I just find it kinda funny you would get upset over a slight and still think its okay to use disgusting terms that could be very upsetting. I think the women who posted probably did to debunk the myth that women have abortions cause they hate kids or can't be bothered having children. Things like this do bring out those tired old myths and its good to know that its not an easy choice and can have long term impacts. Must of been hard for them to read this but I'm glad they came on and made their points. You can't really have a debate on abortion without them.

    You can and could have made your points without being cruel but the fact you choose not too kinda says it all really. I think most people reading this have the measure of you.


  • #1259
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,336 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    partyatmygaff wrote: »
    "Done here" for that particular day as I had an exam the next day.

    Yeah right, if you say so. You also at one point declared one post was going to be your "final post" and in another you said you were "bringing it to a close" but nice attempt to twist it to try and make it look like you did not return to a thread you claimed you would not be returning to. Nozz's rule strikes again. But pretend whatever you like.
    partyatmygaff wrote: »
    When I say human life in this thread, I almost always am referring to unique human individual organisms. No, there isn't a definition for "human life" in the context of "human rights". That is precisely why I am introducing the biological definition.

    My point exactly!!!! Within the context the definition is unclear so instead you go to all the definitions OUTSIDE that context and cherry pick the one that most fits the conclusions you have already decided on. It is confirmation bias. You do the same for example when... from all the indispensable unskipable stages in fetal development... you arbitrary picked one and declared it the "most important" based on nothing but the fact it suited your position on the abortion debate.

    The issue is there is nothing in Biology to dictate morality or human rights so a biological definition fails from the outset.

    If we want to decide if the fetus has rights we need a definition of "Human life" that relates to human rights and then we have to see if it applies to the fetus.

    As I said I am aware of no definition of "Human Life" related to "Human Rights" that allows us to assign human rights to a fetus.


  • #1260
    Seachmall
    Registered Users Posts: 7,041 ✭✭✭Seachmall


    SleepDoc wrote: »
    Never mind what a friend on the internet says.

    :D

    We argued for pages about it, you do not want to go down that route.

    It is lonely, it is cold, and it really isn't relevant to the discussion on the whole.

    Semantics just aren't worth the effort.


  • Advertisement
  • #1261
    SleepDoc
    Registered Users Posts: 306 ✭✭SleepDoc


    partyatmygaff wrote: »
    Me and Seachmall already agreed on the "accepted definitions", of which there were two:
    1. Child = Human offspring
    2. Child = Human in certain age group

    I don't want to have this conversation again.

    It's not Dungeons and Dragons.

    Write a dictionary if you want to come up with an "accepted definition".


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement