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

'Legitimate Rape'

Options
12357

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    B0jangles
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,951 ✭✭✭B0jangles


    Dangerous Man wrote: »
    Your gender is irrelevant. And your post is moronic because (a) you're reducing an argument that is literally about life and death to a semantic distinction; (b) your post is sexist because you state that men have no say in a decision taken to abort a fetus.

    You can't just dismiss the opinions and feelings of HALF THE PLANET because it suits you.

    But it's a black and white situation : either the pregnancy is aborted or it is not.

    Woman says abort. Man says do not abort (or vice versa)

    Whose opinion/feelings take precedence?


  • Options
    #123
    pennypocket
    Closed Accounts Posts: 312 ✭✭pennypocket


    Dangerous Man wrote: »
    Your gender is irrelevant. And your post is moronic because (a) you're reducing an argument that is literally about life and death to a semantic distinction; (b) your post is sexist because you state that men have no say in a decision taken to abort a fetus.

    You can't just dismiss the opinions and feelings of HALF THE PLANET because it suits you.

    A. All generalised arguments are based on 'semantic distinctions', even yours, because they are necessarily based on abstraction.
    B. 'Sexism' is a red herring in this argument. A woman carries the pregnancy to full-term for 9 months. Her body, her choice.


  • Options
    #124
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    To be fair to Dangerous Man, I'm not sure how literally his "have no say" should be taken. He may not be referring to men having the legal right to prevent abortion, but rather having the basic right to object to an abortion taking place.


  • Options
    #125
    up for anything
    Registered Users Posts: 5,776 ✭✭✭up for anything


    Dangerous Man wrote: »
    You can't just dismiss the opinions and feelings of HALF THE PLANET because it suits you.

    Half the planet did just that for far too many years. What's sauce for the gander is sauce for the goose. :D


  • Options
    #126
    pennypocket
    Closed Accounts Posts: 312 ✭✭pennypocket


    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    To be fair to Dangerous Man, I'm not sure how literally his "have no say" should be taken. He may not be referring to men having the legal right to prevent abortion, but rather having the basic right to object to an abortion taking place.

    And how exactly would that operate in practice? Force a woman against her will to end of term? Not have 'the legal right to prevent abortion' but to 'object'? What does the 'basic right' [note: basic rights are not what you think they are] to 'object' to an abortion [but not legally prevent] practicably mean?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,568 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    later12 wrote: »
    I don't know Biggins. My guess would be that he genuinely didn't bother to do a quick search, or ask the people whom he knew could give him reliable answers based on cold hard facts.

    You could be right but seeing at he is member of the House Committee on Science - something he got to be due to his knowledge in some fields I assume (not just his earned Masters in Divinity - whatever the hell that is), I'm assuming that he's brainy enough when he wants to be, to see things more clearer and is capable to work things out better than maybe a good few!

    I suspect he's wiling to negate some facts and trying others so that this agenda is forefront with his ideology on the subject of abortion.


  • Options
    #128
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    pennypocket wrote: »
    And how exactly would that operate in practice? Force a woman against her will to end of term? Not have 'the legal right to prevent abortion' but to 'object'? What does the 'basic right' [note: basic rights are not what you think they are] to 'object' to an abortion [but not legally prevent] practicably mean?

    I was thinking more along the line of "How dare you abort my child...", etc, etc...

    When it's suggested men should "have no say in the matter", I think it's quite an odd way of phrasing things and it unsurprisingly riles many men.

    And do tell me what I think basic rights are, I'm curious now.


  • Options
    #129
    pennypocket
    Closed Accounts Posts: 312 ✭✭pennypocket


    Biggins wrote: »
    You could be right but seeing at he is member of the House Committee on Science - something he got to be due to his knowledge in some fields I assume (not just his earned Masters in Divinity - whatever the hell that is), I'm assuming that he's brainy enough when he wants to be, to see things more clearer and is capable to work things out better than maybe a good few!

    I suspect he's wiling to negate some facts and trying others so that this agenda is forefront with his ideology on the subject of abortion.

    Wow. Masters in Divinity. In 1984 Todd Akin earned a Master of Divinity degree at Covenant Theological Seminary in St. Louis. Amazing. A masters in theology from the Covenant Theological Seminary.


  • Options
    #130
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,568 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    pennypocket wrote: »
    Wow. Masters in Divinity. In 1984 Todd Akin earned a Master of Divinity degree at Covenant Theological Seminary in St. Louis. Amazing. A masters in theology from the Covenant Theological Seminary.

    Yep - so he's obviously got brains to burn.
    That or they are burned out, only to be replaced by daftness!


  • Options
    #131
    pennypocket
    Closed Accounts Posts: 312 ✭✭pennypocket


    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    I was thinking more along the line of "How dare you abort my child...", etc, etc...

    When it's suggested men should "have no say in the matter", I think it's quite an odd way of phrasing things and it unsurprisingly riles many men.

    And do tell me what I think basic rights are, I'm curious now.

    The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ (Though, really, how on earth would I know what curious you thinks? Male autonomy over female bodies, is not, however a basic right.)

    You are just caught up in knots with assuming what another poster had to say on the matter. Unless you share the same IP address.

    There is no reconciliation with cannot 'legally prevent' and must have the the ability to 'object' to an abortion in practice. 'How dare you abort my child' is in the nature of something that cannot be legislated for. In any case we have not reached the maturity of that argument in this country. Even today, women have had to go the European Courts in order to ensure their constitutional rights regarding their limited abortion rights in this country, where in theory, abortion is legal if it threatens the life of the woman. We are still awaiting the legislation on this limited right.

    Forget about 'the odd way of phrasing'. As it stands we have many routes to circle before those arguments even precipitate in this country.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    pennypocket wrote: »
    The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

    You told me basic rights weren't what I thought they were - I asked you what I thought they were...now you've given me the universal declaration of human rights. I'm confused.
    pennypocket wrote: »
    You are just caught up in knots with assuming what another poster had to say on the matter. Unless you share the same IP address.

    With respect - likewise.
    pennypocket wrote: »
    There is no reconciliation with cannot 'legally prevent' and must have the the ability to 'object' to an abortion in practice. 'How dare you abort my child' is in the nature of something that cannot be legislated for. In any case we have not reached the maturity of that argument in this country. Even today, women have had to go the European Courts in order to ensure their constitutional rights regarding their limited abortion rights in this country, where in theory, abortion is legal if it threatens the life of the woman. We are still awaiting the legislation on this limited right.

    Forget about 'the odd way of phrasing'. As it stands we have many routes to circle before those arguments even precipitate in this country.

    You don't think avoiding alienating half the voting public and most of the elected representation with blanket claims that men should get no say would perhaps accelerate that journey?


  • Options
    #133
    Dangerous Man
    Registered Users Posts: 2,674 ✭✭✭Dangerous Man


    B0jangles wrote: »
    But it's a black and white situation : either the pregnancy is aborted or it is not.

    Woman says abort. Man says do not abort (or vice versa)

    Whose opinion/feelings take precedence?

    My point is that everybody's opinions and feelings are important. In countries where abortions are legal women have the right to go to a clinic and abort a fetus. In those same countries men have the right to express an opinion, to contribute to the subject AND to legislate on the issue. In the case of a couple who become pregnant a man has the right to express his opinion and possible objections to abortion also.

    You can't just shut people up or ignore their opinions and beliefs because of gender.


  • Options
    #134
    pennypocket
    Closed Accounts Posts: 312 ✭✭pennypocket


    It's not really about 'half the voting public'. It's about women having the right to decide what happens to their bodies and their lives. I really feel that this is an issue above party politics.

    Why the confusion over basic rights? The UDHR is a document on basic human rights that has been agreed upon since 1948. Ireland has still yet to ratify sections of it, particularly in relation to rights of the child, so maybe your confusion is justified.

    Again, you do not need to legitimise the arguments of your co-posters.

    In any case, the discussion has been derailed by this side-show. Back to Todd Akin please.


  • Options
    #135
    pennypocket
    Closed Accounts Posts: 312 ✭✭pennypocket


    Dangerous Man wrote: »
    My point is that everybody's opinions and feelings are important. In countries where abortions are legal women have the right to go to a clinic and abort a fetus. In those same countries men have the right to express an opinion, to contribute to the subject AND to legislate on the issue. In the case of a couple who become pregnant a man has the right to express his opinion and possible objections to abortion also.

    You can't just shut people up or ignore their opinions and beliefs because of gender.

    Evidence for the above please?

    Especially love the irony of the argument for gender equality.


  • Options
    #136
    Dangerous Man
    Registered Users Posts: 2,674 ✭✭✭Dangerous Man


    pennypocket wrote: »
    Evidence for the above please?

    Especially love the irony of the argument for gender equality.

    The evidence is already in this thread. You know full well what I originally objected to so stop trying to distract focus in this argument by way of being intellectually disingenuous.

    Secondly, there is nothing ironic about my argument.


  • Options
    #137
    Dangerous Man
    Registered Users Posts: 2,674 ✭✭✭Dangerous Man


    pennypocket wrote: »
    It's not really about 'half the voting public'. It's about women having the right to decide what happens to their bodies and their lives. I really feel that this is an issue above party politics.

    Why the confusion over basic rights? The UDHR is a document on basic human rights that has been agreed upon since 1948. Ireland has still yet to ratify sections of it, particularly in relation to rights of the child, so maybe your confusion is justified.

    Again, you do not need to legitimise the arguments of your co-posters.

    In any case, the discussion has been derailed by this side-show. Back to Todd Akin please.

    I think it's you who is confused by what rights are; rights are bestowed according to a largely political process. You use a deliberate type of language that subtly implies that women somehow have some sort of supreme rights that supersede the political will of a country's people and process. They don't.

    As you put it - 'It's about women having the right to decide what happens to their bodies and their lives.'

    In a lot of cases, whether you like it or not, this argument extends to living bodies within women. That is a fact and cannot be argued otherwise - ultimately you're seeking a right above another living human.

    Secondly, what you write is a deliberate attempt using stylized language to obfuscate the truth. The truth is that pro-abortion / choice activists are solely concerned with the legal right to abortion. It is not about the right to decide what happens with ones body in a general way because that right for the most part already exists and in the cases where it doesn't (excluding abortion) those same activists don't protest / argue on those issues as well as abortion. You couch your argument in general terms to make it appear as though legitimate rights already in existence are being refused.

    They're not.


  • Options
    #138
    Colmustard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,836 ✭✭✭Colmustard


    Dangerous Man wrote: »
    The evidence is already in this thread. You know full well what I originally objected to so stop trying to distract focus in this argument by way of being intellectually disingenuous.

    Secondly, there is nothing ironic about my argument.[/QU
    x


  • Options
    #139
    MadsL
    Registered Users Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    Wonder will Paul Ryan's campaign also implode?
    Todd Akin’s remarks about some rapes being “legitimate,” and the ability of a woman to miraculously self-abort in those instances, have many of his fellow Republicans desperate to distinguish him from others in their party. This isn’t easy.
    Akin, a member of the U.S. House of Representatives who is seeking to unseat Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri, is not an outlier.

    No less than Paul Ryan, the Republican candidate for vice president, shares his views. Ryan, Akin’s colleague in the House, has sponsored legislation with him that also sought to distinguish between types of rape: Instead of “legitimate,” it used the word “forcible.”

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-20/todd-akin-and-paul-ryan-are-more-alike-than-you-think.html


  • Options
    #140
    mackg
    Registered Users Posts: 3,938 ✭✭✭mackg


    pennypocket wrote: »
    It's not really about 'half the voting public'. It's about women having the right to decide what happens to their bodies and their lives. I really feel that this is an issue above party politics.


    In any case, the discussion has been derailed by this side-show. Back to Todd Akin please.

    Here is the thing. While it might be their bodies unquestionably, I think everyone will agree that both parents should (be forced to) accept responsibility for the child once it's born. Therefore it is not just the mothers life that is affected. You wanting to not even allow for fathers to object in any form comes across as rather dismissive of their position.


  • Options
    #141
    blatantrereg
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,743 ✭✭✭blatantrereg


    blatantrereg wrote: »
    Really my main reaction to this is interest in how the female body might block pregnancy from rape. Any info going on that?
    found it: http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/s720x720/549664_10151096172359780_1662869054_n.jpg


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    Colmustard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,836 ✭✭✭Colmustard


    Dangerous Man wrote: »
    Your gender is irrelevant. And your post is moronic because (a) you're reducing an argument that is literally about life and death to a semantic distinction; (b) your post is sexist because you state that men have no say in a decision taken to abort a fetus.

    You can't just dismiss the opinions and feelings of HALF THE PLANET because it suits you.

    So another man opposes abortion, surprise, surprise, a man who will never have to have an abortion,

    So you are ANTI ABORTION, I bet that makes you feel good about yourself. For you that is an empty platitude as you will never be in a position to have to make that "choice" but yet you impose your morals and judgement on half the worlds population.

    Good for you and as for that been sexist, really, a woman's body and life is her own, she has the right to carry a pregnancy or not. Nothing to do with us.


  • Options
    #143
    Colmustard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,836 ✭✭✭Colmustard


    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    To be fair to Dangerous Man, I'm not sure how literally his "have no say" should be taken. He may not be referring to men having the legal right to prevent abortion, but rather having the basic right to object to an abortion taking place.

    He can have an opinion, but he can't oppose an abortion clinic.


  • Options
    #144
    Colmustard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,836 ✭✭✭Colmustard


    mackg wrote: »
    Here is the thing. While it might be their bodies unquestionably, I think everyone will agree that both parents should (be forced to) accept responsibility for the child once it's born. Therefore it is not just the mothers life that is affected. You wanting to not even allow for fathers to object in any form comes across as rather dismissive of their position.

    But it is the mother and woman that must see the full term of the pregnancy. The father can move on. I will honestly give my experience. I travelled in my early 20s and I fkuced around and not always with a condom. It is possible that I made someone pregnant, perhaps those possible pregnancies were aborted or not, I don't know, one thing I do know, either way, I was not around.


  • Options
    #145
    blacklilly
    Registered Users Posts: 2,687 ✭✭✭blacklilly


    We are a democratic society, we have and continue to strive for equality, of course men have equal rights on this matter, welcome to our political system!
    So men should only have a right to an opinion or vote on issues that directly effect them? As abortion ends of lives of both males and females I think it is clear it does have a direct on males.


  • Options
    #146
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    Colmustard wrote: »
    He can have an opinion, but he can't oppose an abortion clinic.

    Says who? Last time I looked we lived in a democracy - if people want to oppose things, they are free to do so. I'm pro-choice and I wouldn't want it any other way.


  • Options
    #147
    Colmustard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,836 ✭✭✭Colmustard


    blacklilly wrote: »
    We are a democratic society, we have and continue to strive for equality, of course men have equal rights on this matter, welcome to our political system!
    So men should only have a right to an opinion or vote on issues that directly effect them? As abortion ends of lives of both males and females I think it is clear it does have a direct on males.

    Abortion terminates a pregnancy and ends a potential viable life, that is all. Birth control also stops a potential human life. When it comes to pregnancy the woman is effected more, it is still a dangerous condition it may surprise you to learn about half a million women die worldwide a year in childbirth. Women can also develop life long health conditions due to pregnancy such as diabetes and other diseases. They are also left with a life changing and not always enhancing package whether they want it or not.

    A man in a lot of cases does not have these problems. So no it is not an equal decision. Men allied with the catholic church in this country pushed and succeeded in getting the constitutional amendment that denies women the right to abortion at a time when women's positions in Ireland was questionable.


  • Options
    #148
    kowloon
    Registered Users Posts: 13,281 ✭✭✭✭kowloon


    later12 wrote: »
    But the really shocking thing is that it is incredibly easy to find the information on google scholar.

    A very immature teenager could do this. Why on Earth is a lawmaker, a man with influence in shaping the legislation that affects an entire nation of women, not taking 5 minutes out of his day, to inform himself of the facts surrounding rape and pregnancy.

    Possibly because he doesn't know how to use a computer, let alone a search engine. 'JSTOR? No, sorry, never heard of them, I don't listen to rap music'.

    These electronic devil boxes are eroding innocent minds and undermining good honest conservative christian values.


  • Options
    #149
    pennypocket
    Closed Accounts Posts: 312 ✭✭pennypocket


    mackg wrote: »
    Here is the thing. While it might be their bodies unquestionably, I think everyone will agree that both parents should (be forced to) accept responsibility for the child once it's born. Therefore it is not just the mothers life that is affected. You wanting to not even allow for fathers to object in any form comes across as rather dismissive of their position.

    I just feel like I am arguing with children on this issue. What the fúck business is it of yours what I do with my body? Where the fúck do you stop; are you against contraception? My 'family planning' decisions are my own, and if I desire an abortion [without having to travel to the UK or the Netherlands, and without proper aftercare] it should be available in this country. Fúck off with your fúcking sanctimonious shíte.

    If a woman doesn't want to have a child, for whatever reason, that's where it ends. That's it. Responsibility for the child, when it is born is a completely different issue, and I'll think you'll find child support well legislated for.

    And, besides the entire point of this discussion, I have noticed that long term boards' users known to each other are more than willing to stand up for the equally shíte opinions of each other rather than challenge the bases of the argument in question. Fúcking sad, and in the end, shuts down all discussion from the start. You know who you are.

    I have been a reader since 2002.


  • Options
    #150
    blacklilly
    Registered Users Posts: 2,687 ✭✭✭blacklilly


    pennypocket wrote: »
    mackg wrote: »
    Here is the thing. While it might be their bodies unquestionably, I think everyone will agree that both parents should (be forced to) accept responsibility for the child once it's born. Therefore it is not just the mothers life that is affected. You wanting to not even allow for fathers to object in any form comes across as rather dismissive of their position.

    I just feel like I am arguing with children on this issue. What the fúck business is it of yours what I do with my body? Where the fúck do you stop; are you against contraception? My 'family planning' decisions' are my own, and if I desire an abortion [without having to travel to the UK or the Netherlands, and without proper aftercare] it should be available in this country. Fúck off with you fúcking sanctimonious shíte.

    And, besides the entire point of this discussion, I have noticed that long term boards' users known to each other are more than willing to stand up for the equally shíte opinions of each other rather than challenge the bases of the argument in question. fúcking sad, and in the end, shuts down all discussion from the start. You know who you are.

    I have been a reader since 2002.

    You seem literate so I don't understand your use of swearing in the above, It does nothing for what you have just written.
    Also at the very core of pro life beliefs is that abortion is the ending of a human life, can you argue otherwise? The whole potential argument is weak as consciousness is something a new born baby doesn't have and one could argue a new born is a potential human.
    Also what you do with your body can be open to public debate, if a person mutilates themselves for instance, do I think its right because its their body? No. Do I think they should be forced not to do it and seek help? Yes.
    We were all once "potential" humans, we were all given the right to life, I do not believe the right of the mother should supersede that of the unborn. In cases where the mothers life is at risk, yes relevant medical procedures should be carried out but this does not include abortion, it involves treating the mother and doing all that is possible to save the unborn.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    Colmustard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,836 ✭✭✭Colmustard


    pennypocket wrote: »
    I just feel like I am arguing with children on this issue. What the fúck business is it of yours what I do with my body? Where the fúck do you stop; are you against contraception? My 'family planning' decisions are my own, and if I desire an abortion [without having to travel to the UK or the Netherlands, and without proper aftercare] it should be available in this country. Fúck off with your fúcking sanctimonious shíte.

    And, besides the entire point of this discussion, I have noticed that long term boards' users known to each other are more than willing to stand up for the equally shíte opinions of each other rather than challenge the bases of the argument in question. Fúcking sad, and in the end, shuts down all discussion from the start. You know who you are.

    I have been a reader since 2002.

    I absolutely agree with the first part of your post. But the second part. This is an emotive issue and everyone has a position, I don't think someone who is pro abortion like myself would ever post an anti abortion post.

    So people are just posting their own opinions.


Advertisement