Prolife Campaign on Protection of Life in Pregnancy Bill Superthread

Hoop66

Zulu wrote: »

Seriously, WFT is this shit? ...Because the child does not require child benefit from that point? But since when does the Irish Social Welfare system define the English language?

The child does not require child benefit, but has a choice? Is that what you're saying.

You have a lot of what appear, at first glance, to be reasonable arguments. But what they boil down to is that your belief in the right of an unborn child trumps all other rights, such as the right to life of the mother, the right to health of the mother.

If you don't want to be able to have an abortion and would not avail of one, that's great. More power to you, I applaud your commitment. But you do not, or should not, have the right to dictate to another person what they do, based on your beliefs.

If you believe that you do have that right, then there is no point in debating with you.

Bannasidhe

Zulu wrote: »

Private funds, from private individuals - not state coffers.

Bull. There are 3 choices. The choice of the mother. The choice of the father. The choice of the child.
Considering 1 out of 3 isn't "pro-choice" at all.

No. They don't.
Citizens in Ireland do not.

...but not to refuse an abortion to save his childs life, right?

No I mean child. It's the dictionary defination of the word. I'm not trying to bend words to suit my interests.
Seriously, WFT is this shit? ...Because the child does not require child benefit from that point? But since when does the Irish Social Welfare system define the English language?

Care to give me an example of where the Irish State will force a man to do something with his body against his will?



If the Irish State defines a fetus as a child then as a child it should be entitled to Child benefit. It is either entitled to the same rights as the already born or it is not. Can't have it both ways.

Zulu

Hoop66 wrote: »

The child does not require child benefit, but has a choice? Is that what you're saying.

Well I was saying the child benefit point is a bull**** point; our social welfare does not determine what is actually a child.

You have a lot of what appear, at first glance, to be reasonable arguments.

How very gracious of you. :rolleyes: You post what appears, at first glance, to be polite and civil....

But what they boil down to is that your belief in the right of an unborn child trumps all other rights, such as the right to life of the mother,

You must have missed my previous post on this very point. Please take a moment to reread the thread before incorrectly making assertions on my behalf.

If you don't want to be able to have an abortion and would not avail of one, that's great. More power to you, I applaud your commitment. But you do not, or should not, have the right to dictate to another person what they do, based on your beliefs.

What a cop out. As a citizen in a democratic society, it's my civil duty to dictate (via my vote) what others in my society can or can't do. Thats the fundamental premise of democracy.

Cabaal wrote: »

So in cases of rape or incest you think abortion is ok?

Where did I say that? Did you read my post? Was it not clear?

Hoop66

Zulu wrote: »

What a cop out. As a citizen in a democratic society, it's my civil duty to dictate (via my vote) what others in my society can or can't do. Thats the fundamental premise of democracy.

Cop out eh? So you'll be lobbying your TD for a full referendum on abortion rights so that you can take part in democracy?

Zulu

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Care to give me an example of where the Irish State will force a man to do something with his body against his will?

Euthanasia isn't permitted in this state. It applies to men and women equally.

If the Irish State defines a fetus as a child...

The english dictionary defines a fetus as a child. You refute this for reasons of sanitising the process of abortion. Why?

then as a child it should be entitled to Child benefit. It is either entitled to the same rights as the already born or it is not. Can't have it both ways.

This is a lovely strawman you are building, but a strawman none that less. If you have issues around child benefit for pregnant women, take it up with your TD. :rolleyes:

lazygal

Zulu wrote: »

our social welfare does not determine what is actually a child.

But the State does, and calls every pregnant woman a mother, regardless of whether she delivers a child alive or dead. So I should be able to claim benefit from the moment of implantation, given that the State (including the courts in an IVF case) have held that's when 'life' begins. I don't know why, if you consider it a child, you don't think child benefit should be paid.

Bannasidhe

Zulu wrote: »

Well I was saying the child benefit point is a bull**** point; our social welfare does not determine what is actually a child.

Well, the Protection of Life Bill determines that life starts at conception and that a fetus is a 'child' - as do you and other pro-lifers - if the government is saying a fetus is a child then as a child it should be entitled to child benefit.

It's not BS at all.

All children in Ireland are entitled to CB, if the government declares a fetus is a child then they have made the rules and so the Dept. of Social Protection are obliged to follow those rules.

Zulu

Hoop66 wrote: »

Cop out eh? So you'll be lobbying your TD for a full referendum on abortion rights so that you can take part in democracy?

I vote in all elections however I'm not a lobbyist.
Your point was that I should not impose my beliefs on others - contrary to the very fundamental principles of a democracy. Care to address that? Why shouldn't I impose my beliefs in a democratic way? Do you not agree with a democracy?

RDM_83 again

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Again - I repeat where did I make any reference to Feminism in this thread?

I didn't - so I fail to see where I have engaged in any kind of 'whataboutery'.

If you think I agree with every thing ever said by every single feminist you are very much mistaken. Also, as there is no 'Feminist' HQ issuing statements on behalf of the Feminist Hive Mind to state that there is one single feminist perspective on anything is to show that you don't understand the first thing about feminism or the debates that occur within it's very broad spectrum.

Now - would you care to discuss the topic of this thread or do you intend to continue to try and drag it off topic so you can to indulge that bee in your bonnet?

In relation to YD, you argue that they do not represent the interests of Children as they should, e.g they only care about Fetus/Unborn Children what about the born children in need.
You are criticising the movement based on their narrow focus and perceived lack of care for other associated issues. Classic whataboutery.

Example

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Where are the YD ad campaigns demanding that not one child should ever go hungry? We have in recent weeks heard school principles express grave concern at the increasing number of children arriving at schools hungry and the impact this has on their education - it's hard to concentrate when your belly is empty.

I do not consider there to be one unified feminist movement, where do I imply that.
What I do imply is that yourself as a poster consider that whataboutery is a dishonest debating tactic and I expressed curiosity as to why the defence can be applied to one social movement and not the other. here's a good example of your views.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

With respect that's rubbish.

One of the most constant criticisms of feminism on this site is that they are not campaigning enough for men. Actually is usually 'not at all' and then someone likes me shows that feminists like Catherine McGuinness are strongly campaigning for gender equality in Family Law and it becomes 'but...they arn't doing enough for us men.'



Seriously, Why should we campaign for men? We can unite with men to advocate for full equality agenda but that requires that men actually do some campaigning too. Honestly, sometimes it seems like some people want women to do everything while at the same time accepting the status quo.

Why can't men campaign on their own behalf?

Should farmer's also campaign on behalf of Fishermen?

Bannasidhe

Zulu wrote: »

Euthanasia isn't permitted in this state. It applies to men and women equally.

The english dictionary defines a fetus as a child. You refute this for reasons of sanitising the process of abortion. Why?

This is a lovely strawman you are building, but a strawman none that less. If you have issues around child benefit for pregnant women, take it up with your TD. :rolleyes:

The State prohibits Euthanasia as it deems helping someone else die is not permissible - it is the involvement of a second party that is illegal. Suicide, however, in not illegal. One is allowed to take ones own life.

Strawman - no. Just not a point you want to concede so you :rolleyes:.

Zulu

lazygal wrote: »

I don't know why, if you consider it a child, you don't think child benefit should be paid.

Who said I didn't?
All I've said is that this is a straw man argument. Introduced to avoid addressing the unborn as a child as per the definition of the word in the dictionary. Which is sad really; delibertly misleading as best, a form of propaganda at worst.

Zulu

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Strawman - no. Just not a point you want to concede so you :rolleyes:.

So give pregnant women child benefit. Where does your straw man go now?

Bannasidhe

RDM_83 again wrote: »

In relation to YD, you argue that they do not represent the interests of Children as they should, e.g they only care about Fetus/Unborn Children what about the born children in need.
You are criticising the movement based on their narrow focus and perceived lack of care for other associated issues. Classic whataboutery.

Example


I do not consider there to be one unified feminist movement, where do I imply that.
What I do imply is that yourself as a poster consider that whataboutery is a dishonest debating tactic and I expressed curiosity as to why the defence can be applied to one social movement and not the other. here's a good example of your views.

Well done you - you can use the search function.

You are still not addressing the topic of this thread however.

B0jangles

Just wondering Zulu - do you regard a fetus as having equal rights to a born child right from the point of fertilization, of implantation or from another developmental point later than that?

DDC1990

Zulu wrote: »

Bull. There are 3 choices. The choice of the mother. The choice of the father. The choice of the child.
Considering 1 out of 3 isn't "pro-choice" at all.

Can you explain to me about the choice of the child.

The "Child" in this case being an unborn fetus.

Choice is defined as "the mental process of judging the merits of multiple options and selecting one or more of them".

How can you claim that there is 3 choices, when a fetus cannot form any coherent thoughts, therefor being unable to make a "choice".

The only choice that is to be made is the choice of the person who is pregnant. Keep the baby, Have the baby and put up for adoption or have an abortion. This choice can be made in conjunction with the Male partner/father if needs be, but at the end of the day, it is the woman's body and the woman's choice.

Hence Pro-Choice.

RDM_83 again

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Well done you - you can use the search function.

You are still not addressing the topic of this thread however.

I was addressing the topic of this thread in that I was pointing out how your criticism of YD is either invalid or hypocritical due to your expressed views on the treatment of other topics, how is that not addressing the topic of the thread or can posts not be challenged

The fact you haven't engaged or refuted my point in relation to this would lead me to conclude your just arguing from a hypocritical stand point because of your personal beliefs, which is a disappointment as I would have thought that rationality rather than belief would be central to you?

PS expecting consistency in relation to the Irish civil service is asking a lot, Social Welfare can judge you as a def facto married couple where as Revenue will not.

Reekwind

Zulu wrote: »

Bull. There are 3 choices. The choice of the mother. The choice of the father. The choice of the child.
Considering 1 out of 3 isn't "pro-choice" at all

Um, yes it is. Discount for a minute the extremely tenuous assertions that the fetus is capable of making such a choice and that a man has the right to determine what happens to a woman's body. This still leaves one choice: that of the woman

Anti-abortion campaigners would deny anyone that choice. In this scenario none of the three actors that you have named would have a say in the matter. Hence 'pro-choice'

Zulu

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You are still not addressing the topic of this thread however.

Thats a little rich coming from you with your child benefit strawman!

B0jangles wrote: »

Just wondering Zulu - do you regard a fetus as having equal rights to a born child right from the point of fertilization, of implantation or from another developmental point later than that?

Good question. Tough question. And honestly one I don't have a good answer for. And it's because I don't have a good answer I fall back to "err on the side of caution".
I have yet to be fully satisfied by any point of development, so my "err to caution" point is implantation of the fertilized egg.

DDC1990 wrote: »

Can you explain to me about the choice of the child... ... fetus cannot form any coherent thoughts, therefor being unable to make a "choice".

So? Neither can a newborn child. And my 6 month old daughter, it you were to put the question "do you want to live or be killed" to her, would be unable to coherently understand or respond.

The only choice that is to be made is the choice of the person who is pregnant.

Wrong. You are simply ignoring the childs choice for simplicity. And the fathers. What if the father doesn't want their child to be killed? As a parent, can he not protect his child?

This choice can be made in conjunction with the Male partner/father if needs be, but at the end of the day, it is the woman's body and the woman's choice.

So in other words lip service? So long as his choice is the same as the mothers, then he can have a choice? :rolleyes: Prochoice my ass.

Hence Pro-Choice.[/QUOTE]

Reekwind

Zulu wrote: »

Good question. Tough question. And honestly one I don't have a good answer for. And it's because I don't have a good answer I fall back to "err on the side of caution".
I have yet to be fully satisfied by any point of development, so my "err to caution" point is implantation of the fertilized egg

So a just fertilised egg is capable of sentient thought (required to make a decision) and has as much choice in the matter as the mother? Really?

Cabaal

Zulu wrote: »

Where did I say that? Did you read my post? Was it not clear?

Just looking for a yes or no answer,

Do you think abortions in cases of rape or incest should be allowed, I just want to be very clearly on where you stand.

robman60

Reekwind wrote: »

So a just fertilised egg is capable of sentient thought (required to make a decision) and has as much choice in the matter as the mother? Really?

I don't think Zulu is claiming the unborn can actually make a decision. It's more a case of no one would choose to be killed in that situation, so it's safe to say the unborn's "choice" would be to live.

As the example with the born infant proves, the inability to make a decision doesn't take from the unborn's humanity, as it is a capability that isn't truly attained until adult life..

Cabaal

robman60 wrote: »

I don't think Zulu is claiming the unborn can actually make a decision. It's more a case of no one would choose to be killed in that situation, so it's safe to say the unborn's "choice" would be to live.

Ok,
So we have a situation where a mother of three gets pregnant, if she doesn't have an abortion she will die but the fetus will live.

Do we just stop caring about her and her three existing children? What about their welfare and lives?

Should a fetus be born at any cost? because thats what YD propose.

Zulu

Reekwind wrote: »

So a just fertilised egg is capable of sentient thought (required to make a decision) and has as much choice in the matter as the mother? Really?

You misunderstand, did you overlook the example I gave of my 6 month old?

Cabaal wrote: »

Just looking for a yes or no answer,

Do you think abortions in cases of rape or incest should be allowed, I just want to be very clearly on where you stand.

No. I was perfectly clear. Why would rape or incest change what I posted? Can you recall what I said?

"I'm against the killing of an unborn child. I accept that this sadly needs to happen on occasion to save the life of the mother."

This answers your question does it not?

robman60

Cabaal wrote: »

Ok,
So we have a situation where a mother of three gets pregnant, if she doesn't have an abortion she will die but the fetus will live.

Do we just stop caring about her and her three existing children? What about their welfare and lives?

Should a fetus be born at any cost? because thats what YD propose.

Absolutely not! I would always prioritise the mother's life over the fetus' life.

I don't follow Youth Defence so I'm not positive, but I'm pretty sure their position is to save both lives if possible, but allow medically necessary interventions which may lead to the unborn's death. I believe you're being sensationalist here.

jaja321

Zulu wrote: »

You misunderstand, did you overlook the example I gave of my 6 month old?

No. I was perfectly clear. Why would rape or incest change what I posted? Can you recall what I said?

"I'm against the killing of an unborn child. I accept that this sadly needs to happen on occasion to save the life of the mother."

This answers your question does it not?

I think he's being clear. If his wife was raped, and became pregnant, he would expect her to carry the child to full term.

St.Spodo

robman60 wrote: »

Absolutely not! I would always prioritise the mother's life over the fetus' life.

I don't follow Youth Defence so I'm not positive, but I'm pretty sure their position is to save both lives if possible, but allow medically necessary interventions which may lead to the unborn's death. I believe you're being sensationalist here.

I would hope decent, conscientious pro-life people would have the decency to never associate themselves with Youth Defence. More to the point, I would like to see such people speak out against Youth Defence.

Zulu

St.Spodo wrote: »

I would hope decent, conscientious pro-life people would have the decency to never associate themselves with Youth Defence. More to the point, I would like to see such people speak out against Youth Defence.

I'll happily speak out against them. I deplore their "shock" tactics.

St.Spodo

Zulu wrote: »

I'll happily speak out against them. I deplore their "shock" tactics.

They do a huge disservice to your side. Many people I know became pro-choice after their billboard campaign last summer.

Zulu

St.Spodo wrote: »

They do a huge disservice to your side. Many people I know became pro-choice after their billboard campaign last summer.

I'm surprised people would change their opinions based on a billboard. Perhaps it just sparked them into having a good think about their position... Perhaps the billboard campaign served some purpose in the end.

What irks me is people refusing to acknowledge that a foetus is a human child (albeit at an earlier stage of development).

robman60

St.Spodo wrote: »

They do a huge disservice to your side. Many people I know became pro-choice after their billboard campaign last summer.

I think that's an accurate assertion. The media don't do the pro-life side many favours either by interviewing bishops on abortion issues either.

I'd love to see a secular approach on the pro-life side, as there's definitely merit to being pro-life with purely scientific evidence, unlike being against gay marriage, for example. I think groups like Secular Pro-Life are gaining greater traction in the US than in years gone by, so perhaps we could see the same thing here.

Bannasidhe

RDM_83 again wrote: »

I was addressing the topic of this thread in that I was pointing out how your criticism of YD is either invalid or hypocritical due to your expressed views on the treatment of other topics, how is that not addressing the topic of the thread or can posts not be challenged

The fact you haven't engaged or refuted my point in relation to this would lead me to conclude your just arguing from a hypocritical stand point because of your personal beliefs, which is a disappointment as I would have thought that rationality rather than belief would be central to you?

PS expecting consistency in relation to the Irish civil service is asking a lot, Social Welfare can judge you as a def facto married couple where as Revenue will not.

Should a feminist organisation make a statement I disagree with I can, will and have stated that - unless you can prove otherwise you are really just using this as an excuse to attack me rather than debate this issue.

So either prove I am being hypocritical or withdraw that remark.

jill_valentine

robman60 wrote: »

Absolutely not! I would always prioritise the mother's life over the fetus' life.

I don't follow Youth Defence so I'm not positive, but I'm pretty sure their position is to save both lives if possible, but allow medically necessary interventions which may lead to the unborn's death.

As far as I can tell, their position is to pretend that there can be no circumstances in which abortion can save a woman's life in the first place.

"It's never necessary", apparently.

Zulu

Bannasidhe wrote: »

...So either prove I am being hypocritical or withdraw that remark.

While you're here, I'm still eager to hear where your child benefit strawman was going...

SV

Pro life campaigners (Anti-Choice) and westboro baptist church seem to act very much the same and campaign in pretty much the same way, anyone else find that strange? No? Just me then.

Bannasidhe

Zulu wrote: »

While you're here, I'm still eager to hear where your child benefit strawman was going...

No strawman.

I simply asked if, as you believe an embryo is a 'child' and of equal status to a born child whether you also believe Child benefit should be paid from the moment of implantation.
As it is a payment designed to aid parents with the costs associated with children - and there are costs associated with being pregnant outside of medical ones - it seems logical that this should happen.
Might be tricky as, as far as I am aware but I am open to correction on this, people are not considered 'parents' until after a live birth.

Of course, this does raise the issue of what happens should the pregnancy not come to full term for whatever reason...would any monies paid have to be returned?

Phill Ewinn

Zulu wrote: »

Then you will realise that the counter argument to this is that killing children isn't the answer either?

Thankfully someone has sense.

robman60

jill_valentine wrote: »

As far as I can tell, their position is to pretend that there can be no circumstances in which abortion can save a woman's life in the first place.

"It's never necessary", apparently.

I thought it was more that they differentiate between abortion (deliberate killing of the unborn) and necessary medical intervention. The necessary medical intervention may lead to miscarriage though. In that sense, abortion isn't ever necessary.

What they do isn't really misleading, in fact it's probably more correct than the assertion I've seen that "abortion saves women's lives".

Phill Ewinn

Bannasidhe wrote: »

No strawman.

I simply asked if, as you believe an embryo is a 'child' and of equal status to a born child.......

Here we go again. If the embryo wasn't alive it wouldn't last long in the womb. Anyone who's had dificulty concieving could tell you all about it probably.

conorhal

robman60 wrote: »

I think that's an accurate assertion. The media don't do the pro-life side many favours either by interviewing bishops on abortion issues either.

I'd love to see a secular approach on the pro-life side, as there's definitely merit to being pro-life with purely scientific evidence, unlike being against gay marriage, for example. I think groups like Secular Pro-Life are gaining greater traction in the US than in years gone by, so perhaps we could see the same thing here.

I'm secular and Pro-Life, but it seems clear to me that a ballanced debate wouldn't suit the governments agenda.
I notice that whenever the media promote a 'ballanced debate' they jsut grab the 'go to wingnut' for interviews
.
During the Lisbon treaty I was tearing my hair out with every reptition of the notion that all the no side were about was loony disinformation like the claim that 'your children will be draughted into an EU army if you vote yes'. Who was claiming that? I saw one old biddy mention it in an on street vox pop and heard it litterally nowhere else except from the yes side condemning it, it was just used as a rod to beat the no side with and avoid any real debate.
Noted athiest campaigner Christoper Hitchens was very vocally pro-life BTW.

The media and the govermnent consider the likes of Youth Defence to be 'useful idiots' and tend to focus stories on their antics in an attempt to avoid real debate.
Wheeling out John Waters is the RTE equivilent of the Sky News stock footage of nuns voting they wheel out every time they cover an Irish election.
We have a real immaturity about debate in this country, and our government prefer to spin rather then debate

Bannasidhe

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Here we go again. If the embryo wasn't alive it wouldn't last long in the womb. Anyone who's had dificulty concieving could tell you all about it probably.

'Alive' does not mean = child.

A person on life support is also 'alive' but not capable of independent living. We do allow life support machines to be turned off when a person is deemed to be 'brain dead' or in other words their brain is not functional. An embryo's brain has not developed so it is also not functional.

If being alive - no matter if that life is only viable when being supported by an outside independent force (woman's body/life support machines)- is the only criteria than surely no life support machine should ever be turned off? Particularly when that decision is made by the next of kin.

Zulu

Bannasidhe wrote: »

An embryo's brain has not developed so it is also not functional.

"Not developed" does not equal "not functional"; we can all play semantics.

Phill Ewinn

Bannasidhe wrote: »

'Alive' does not mean = child.

A person on life support is also 'alive' but not capable of independent living. We do allow life support machines to be turned off when a person is deemed to be 'brain dead' or in other words their brain is not functional. An embryo's brain has not developed so it is also not functional.

If being alive - no matter if that life is only viable when being supported by an outside independent force (woman's body/life support machines)- is the only criteria than surely no life support machine should ever be turned off? Particularly when that decision is made by the next of kin.

Whatever makes you feel better about it. Go ahead and believe that.

I'll stick with reserving the nuclear option for use as the last resort. Anyone from positive opions posting on here???

Bannasidhe

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Whatever makes you feel better about it. Go ahead and believe that.

I'll stick with reserving the nuclear option for use as the last resort. Anyone from positive opions posting on here???

Feel better about what?

Believing a woman has the right to decide for herself what happens to her own body?

I feel just fine about that.

Phill Ewinn

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Feel better about what?

Believing a woman has the right to decide for herself what happens to her own body?

I feel just fine about that.

Since when is an embryo part of your body. According to your ealier post it is distinct from you and according to some posters some kind of parasite. Who are we to believe so?

Zulu

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Believing a woman has the right to decide for herself what happens to her own body?

...and the babies body, best not to forget about that.

Pherekydes

conorhal wrote: »

We have a real immaturity about debate in this country, and our government prefer to spin rather then debate

How ironic:

conorhal wrote: »

I was merely mocking her suggestion that an early delivery by c-section is the same thing as an abortion, which that trolling fool was attempting to claim.

Reekwind

Zulu wrote: »

You misunderstand, did you overlook the example I gave of my 6 month old?

Legally your child is not in a position to make such a decision. Which is where the whole concept of guardianship comes in

robman60 wrote:

I don't think Zulu is claiming the unborn can actually make a decision. It's more a case of no one would choose to be killed in that situation, so it's safe to say the unborn's "choice" would be to live.

"Choice" implies free will or at least the ability to make such a decision. Where that ability is lacking there can be no choice. It's no good saying that 'if it could make the choice then it would choose to live' because that very inability signifies that there is no choice

But that's not particularly central to the topic. Just a note on Zulu's anti-'pro-choice' post

jill_valentine

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Since when is an embryo part of your body. According to your ealier post it is distinct from you and according to some posters some kind of parasite. Who are we to believe so?

The dramatic breadth by which you misinterpreted her comment confirms to me that you're not very well versed in what a pregnancy actually entails.

Bannasidhe

Zulu wrote: »

"Not developed" does not equal "not functional"; we can all play semantics.

A just implanted embryo - which pro-lifers would have us believe is a child -doesn't even have a brain - it has the potential to develop one, but this is by no means guaranteed. Brain development begins around the 7th week but you would have us believe there is no difference between a new born, fully developed baby and a literally brainless 4 week old embryo.

Zulu

Reekwind wrote: »

"Choice" implies free will or at least the ability to make such a decision.

And considering that no choice is offered to the father, but only to the mother, "pro-choice" is a fallacy.