Pro-choice group put banner advertising abortion pills on Galway Cathedral

PucaMama

volchitsa wrote: »

Well when you came out with that stupid crack about women being surprised about getting pregnant, as a way of avoiding a question about IVF embryos, I think you were pretty well connected up with the hive mind at that point.

You weren't able to defend it of course, so apparently the connection must go down from time to time.

id imagine the prolife crowd wouldnt like me either since i believe in contraception like the pill etc

volchitsa

PucaMama wrote: »

i know plenty about physiology, thank you.

So would you care to list some of the problems caused by artificially induced premature menopause?
And do you think a doctor could ethically remove a young woman's ovaries just to prevent her from getting pregnant as you proposed?

Muir

PucaMama wrote: »

id imagine the prolife crowd wouldnt like me either since i believe in contraception like the pill etc

If you think a woman who doesn't want children should be sterilised to prevent pregnancy, what about anyone who wouldn't want to continue a pregnancy if it occurred because they were raped? Should they all have their ovaries removed incase they are ever raped?

Timmyctc

PucaMama wrote: »

id imagine the prolife crowd wouldnt like me either since i believe in contraception like the pill etc

I just popped in to say you pose one of the worst pro-life/anti abortion arguments i have ever seen. In fact. The argument itself is essentially non existent, you´ve just posted sarcastic remarks and strawmen for like 4 pages. Its hilarious.

TheBeardedLady

Incredible amount of women travelling every year to the UK for abortions. I don't agree with the aggressive tactics of the few on either side of this issue but jaysus, these stats are shocking. Are we actually going to deal with this issue or just pretend it's not happening or what? You can pontificate all you like but that won't change anything; this problem isn't going away anytime soon.

http://www.ifpa.ie/Hot-Topics/Abortion/Statistics

obplayer

PucaMama wrote: »

i see no difference, its right there in my answer i dont support the ending of a pregnancy just because

So something that is not even a foetus, something which is a sperm and an egg which have not even met, has the same rights as a fully born and functional human being? For once could you answer the question? You can even have smilies if you just answer the question. For once.

TheBeardedLady

obplayer wrote: »

So something that is not even a foetus, something which is a sperm and an egg which have not even met, has the same rights as a fully born and functional human being? For once could you answer the question? You can even have smilies if you just answer the question. For once.

With all due respect, I don't believe you're going to change her mind on this. I think it's one of those topics where it's completely and utterly pointless to try and convince another person that they're wrong.

obplayer

TheBeardedLady wrote: »

With all due respect, I don't believe you're going to change her mind on this. I think it's one of those topics where it's completely and utterly pointless to try and convince another person that they're wrong.

Yeah I do realise that but what I am hoping is that anyone who is thinking about this can see that PucaMama and her like are not able to answer simple questions. What does that say about their positions?

TheBeardedLady

Look at the age groups getting abortions. Many of them are under the age of 19. Advising a 17 year-old to get their ovaries removed to avoid pregnancy is totally barmy. Bonkers beyond belief. While people continue to give crackpot, unfeasible solutions, the problem continues and around and around we go.

K4t

Their cause is a noble and correct one so fair play to them. They didn't harm anybody and are acting in the best interest of humanity. Moar plz.

Graces7

PucaMama wrote: »

there are other, permanent, ways to avoid pregnancy without abortion.

They are not pro choice; they are pro death by abortion.

Ghost Buster

hotmail.com wrote: »

Where exactly is there anti-Catholic bias?

Where ever The RCC isn't getting the requisite forelock tugging and deference

FullblownRose

feargale wrote: »

And should they also ban those pictures of half dead prisoners taken when Auschwicz and other camps were liberated?

I was talking about graphic imagery the likes of which I've seen posted on poles along a dual carriageway, and printed on leaflets and thrust into the hands of young girls and people out shopping. All in poor taste and almost abusively manipulative and ruthless in the manner in which they're presented and distributed.

historical photographs from concentration camps have nothing to do with it.

RobYourBuilder

K4t wrote: »

Their cause is a noble and correct one so fair play to them. They didn't harm anybody and are acting in the best interest of humanity. Moar plz.

Díobháil: The Galway Radical Feminist Network. "Smashing the heteronormative, patriarchal, white-supremacist, imperialist, ableist capitalist system."

Can you explain in laymans terms exactly what their cause is?

RobertKK

If abortion is ok, what is wrong with pictures of a life that ended in abortion?

RobertKK

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Where ever The RCC isn't getting the requisite forelock tugging and deference

I would say with the Savita case.

Which reports said had nothing to do with Catholic teaching, but had everything to do with bad practice as it says in the reports.

FullblownRose

RobertKK wrote: »

If abortion is ok, what is wrong with pictures of a life that ended in abortion?

The intent behind the pictures and how, where and to whom they are displayed is the wrong bit.

RobertKK

FullblownRose wrote: »

The intent behind the pictures and how, where and to whom they are displayed is the wrong bit.

So how should a life that ended in abortion be shown?

If a female is old enough to have sex or get pregnant, should they as part of sex education be shown what an aborted life looks like, or should it be all hush/hush, keep them in ignorance?
I mean one should know everything possible before they make a decision on something.

FullblownRose

RobertKK wrote: »

So how should a life that ended in abortion be shown?

If a female is old enough to have sex or get pregnant, should they as part of sex education be shown what an aborted life looks like, or should it be all hush/hush, keep them in ignorance?
I mean one should know everything possible before they make a decision on something.

I was going to address your use of the term 'life'' but you are entitled to take the emotional view of it.

Whoever provides the information on abortion should of course provide the correct and accurate information in context and without emotive and unscientific language.

I dont see why photographs of any reproductive process should be shown. Usually verbal explanation is given wherever deemed necessary according to whatever curriculum is set out for sex ed.,, as far as I know.
Do they show photographs demonstrating sex during sex ed. ?

If you really want to go down that route, how much information on pregnancy should be given visually? Right up to the afterbirth, perhaps?
Should students be informed that pregnancy is more dangerous than abortion, if you think they should be informed of all possible facts before making choices?

RWCNT

RobYourBuilder wrote: »

Smashing the heteronormative, patriarchal, white-supremacist, imperialist, ableist capitalist system.

Sounds like a pretty noble goal to me.

rainbow kirby

RobertKK wrote: »

So how should a life that ended in abortion be shown?

Do you think pictures of other surgical procedures should be shown as part of the consent process? Should people get to be up close and personal with their colon tumour or triple bypass?

RobertKK

FullblownRose wrote: »

I was going to address your use of the term 'life'' but you are entitled to take the emotional view of it.

Whoever provides the information on abortion should of course provide the correct and accurate information in context and without emotive and unscientific language.

I dont see why photographs of any reproductive process should be shown. Usually verbal explanation is given wherever deemed necessary according to whatever curriculum is set out for sex ed.,, as far as I know.
Do they show photographs demonstrating sex during sex ed. ?

It is not unscientific.
So when a woman gets a scan when pregnant, are you saying the unborn was not alive, and therefore not a living life at that moment in time?
You plan on re-writing biology?

But your main premise is, keep it hidden, support something but whatever you do don't show it to anyone...you can talk but don't show.
They should do that with smoking campaigns that some countries use and take those pictures off cigarette packets ...right?

RobertKK

rainbow kirby wrote: »

Do you think pictures of other surgical procedures should be shown as part of the consent process? Should people get to be up close and personal with their colon tumour or triple bypass?

I would have no problem with pictures, what you describe is people not wanting to know reality.
Then one would have to ask the following: why do they not want to know the reality?

In what you describe it is a surgical procedure, an abortion is the termination of life of a developing child or young as in case of an animal in the Uterus.

The definition of pregnant from the Oxford dictionary before I get accused of using emotive language:
adjective

1(Of a woman or female animal) having a child or young developing in the uterus: she was heavily pregnant with her second child she was six months pregnant

FullblownRose

RobertKK wrote: »

It is not unscientific.
So when a woman gets a scan when pregnant, are you saying the unborn was not alive, and therefore not a living life at that moment in time?
You plan on re-writing biology?

But your main premise is, keep it hidden, support something but whatever you do don't show it to anyone...you can talk but don't show.
They should do that with smoking campaigns that some countries use and take those pictures off cigarette packets ...right?

Its the term life that is incorrect. You are using it in a philosophical rather than biological way. Sex education classes aren't based on philosophy.
I have no objection to them explaining what abortion is for. Perhaps thats already done in sex. ed.
I do wonder why you'd wish them to show photographs relating to it but not any other aspect of the subject of fertility and reproduction.

volchitsa

RobertKK wrote: »

If abortion is ok, what is wrong with pictures of a life that ended in abortion?

I would take the same attitude I would to showing young girls graphic images of childbirth, including an episiotomy and the needle they use for an epidural. Would you think that was fine too?

Cos I'd say if you did that for purposes of comparison, the abortion rate in the country would soar.

The Strawman Argument

RobertKK wrote: »

So how should a life that ended in abortion be shown?

If a female is old enough to have sex or get pregnant, should they as part of sex education be shown what an aborted life looks like, or should it be all hush/hush, keep them in ignorance?
I mean one should know everything possible before they make a decision on something.

I've never, EVER seen a pro-life campaign which showed what an early abortion will look like where the photos used weren't proven to be highly misrepresentative. Is there a reason why there's always a need to resort to the most advanced abortions and/or shocking examples possible?

There's a huge dependence on the ignorance of people from the pro-life side, in my experience.

volchitsa

RobertKK wrote: »

I would have no problem with pictures, what you describe is people not wanting to know reality.
Then one would have to ask the following: why do they not want to know the reality?

In what you describe it is a surgical procedure, an abortion is the termination of life of a developing child or young as in case of an animal in the Uterus.

The definition of pregnant from the Oxford dictionary before I get accused of using emotive language:
adjective

1(Of a woman or female animal) having a child or young developing in the uterus: she was heavily pregnant with her second child she was six months pregnant

Not sure what your point is here. You can say someone is planning their second child too - doesn't mean the child exists, or indeed ever will exist, does it?

It's an idea of a child, a projection. And that is what happens during pregnancy too, the prospective parents project themselves into the idea of this fetus that is going to be a baby. But is not yet quite one.

RobYourBuilder

RWCNT wrote: »

Sounds like a pretty noble goal to me.

What does it mean? Can you explain this noble goal?

Fratton Fred

What a waste of time. Most of the women that attend my local church haven't had to worry about unwanted pregnancies for quite a few years now.

volchitsa

RobertKK wrote: »

I would say with the Savita case.

Which reports said had nothing to do with Catholic teaching, but had everything to do with bad practice as it says in the reports.

No, that's not what the reports said at all. The reports said if she'd had an abortion when she asked for one she would almost certainly be alive today. The fact that better care might possibly (but according to Dr Peter Boylan almost certainly not) also have saved her life is a secondary issue.

And we know the "this is a catholic country" explanation was given, exactly as Prqveen Halappanavar said it was. Only because he was able to identify the staff nurse who said it - GUH initially kept her out of the list of witnesses. That has to have been deliberate. Similarly, GUH blocked access to the duty rosters so that he was unable to identify the staff member who was present when Dr Astbury said it, but if she hadn't said it, they could have cleared that up immediately. Which means she did say it. Why would he be telling the truth about the midwife saying it and lying about Astbury? Of course she said it. She just didn't have the courage to admit it.