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

The new, vicious fight

Options
1…78101213…16

Comments

  • Options
    #272
    Grayson
    Registered Users Posts: 16,185 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    LorMal wrote: »
    I do agree with you on that point Jack. Amnesty used to be an outstanding voice for liberty and justice. It's strange to see them focus on subjective issues such as Gay Marriage and Abortion. It is divisive where they should be inclusive.

    Because strapping down a chinese suicidal rape victim, force feeding her and using her as a human incubator obviously had nothing to do with human rights.


  • Options
    #273
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,204 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    Grayson wrote: »
    Because strapping down a chinese suicidal rape victim, force feeding her and using her as a human incubator obviously had nothing to do with human rights.

    I gather the logic is that it's alright when Irish people do it, because we are good and pure, so our actions are equally good and pure. No matter how evil they would be if anyone else committed them.

    (BTW - Chinese? Is that a reference to their lamentable record on human rights, or is it about Miss Y?)


  • Options
    #274
    osarusan
    Registered Users Posts: 16,588 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    NachoBusiness wrote: »

    The problem is you just do not accept my position. You want to pretend I meant something with sentences which it's obvious I didn't. If I meant what you're claiming I did (which is that women are never prevented from certain actions) then everything I said about Sarah Catt would make zero sense, as I have openly said that she should have been prevented from having her abortion and from taking those pills. Oh dear, I've mentioned Sarah again.
    The problem is that you misstated your position or have changed your position, but won't accept that you did so.


    There is a fundamental difference between your earlier (baffling) argument that abortion can't be defined as a woman doing something to her own body:
    you can't define whatever that action is which the women is partaking in, as: "doing something to her body".
    and what you are now saying (and, what I think you have always believed), which is that abortion can't be defined only or just as a woman doing something to her own body. You didn't always say it wasn't only or just, you simply said it wasn't.

    But, rather than accept that you got it wrong the first time round, you now argue that you never said, or that I have taken it out of context, to the extent that the conversation has gone round in circles.

    You mention context - let's look at the context. This entire thread has been about access to abortion, that is clear. As you said, we are not talking about toothache, we are talking about pregnancy.

    So in this context, when Daith said:
    Daith wrote: »
    You are denying what a woman can do with her body.
    It was obvious he was talking about pregnant women. And when you said you were not denying them, you were obviously talking about pregnant women also.

    and when you said
    NachoBusiness wrote: »
    Newsflash: nobody is trying stop women doing anything with their bodies.
    it is clear from the context that you are/were talking about pregnant women.


    but you won't admit you misstated yourself the first time round. you keep arguing you've been consistent, so we end up with this:

    I see. So when you said this:
    NachoBusiness wrote: »
    Newsflash: nobody is trying stop [pregnant] women doing anything with their bodies.
    You actually meant this:
    Newsflash: nobody is trying stop [pregnant] women doing anything with their bodies, except if they are pregnant, then people are trying to stop them doing some things.
    Your response is:
    NachoBusiness wrote: »
    They are same thing, osarusan. Stop pretending they contradict each other


  • Options
    #275
    LorMal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,372 ✭✭✭LorMal


    Grayson wrote: »
    Because strapping down a chinese suicidal rape victim, force feeding her and using her as a human incubator obviously had nothing to do with human rights.

    What are you talking about??? I expressed no opinion on that case whatsoever - I am not even aware of it.
    Don't attempt to paraphrase me - especially if you have no idea of my opinions thanks


  • Options
    #276
    LorMal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,372 ✭✭✭LorMal


    Kev W wrote: »
    Another blast of irony there.

    What 'blast of irony' is that?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #277
    frostyjacks
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,951 ✭✭✭frostyjacks


    LorMal wrote: »
    What 'blast of irony' is that?

    They must have the same dictionary as Alanis Morrisette.


  • Options
    #278
    NachoBusiness
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,389 ✭✭✭NachoBusiness


    osarusan wrote: »
    The problem is that you misstated your position or have changed your position, but won't accept that you did so.

    If I misstated my position, then why would I still be willing make the same statements? You are making no sense. I have repeated and repeated my explanation as why I feel there is no contradiction in my statements.
    There is a fundamental difference between your earlier (baffling) argument that abortion can't be defined as a woman doing something to her own body:

    and what you are now saying (and, what I think you have always believed), which is that abortion can't be defined only or just as a woman doing something to her own body. You didn't always say it wasn't only or just, you simply said it wasn't.

    But, rather than accept that you got it wrong the first time round, you now argue that you never said, or that I have taken it out of context, to the extent that the conversation has gone round in circles.

    See, what you are doing here is yet again putting an incorrect meaning to what I said earlier (and which I still say by the way) to imply a contradiction to what I said later when explaining my statements, but there is none. In fact, I am more than happy to repeat those statements and stand over them, when in context of course.
    You mention context - let's look at the context. This entire thread has been about access to abortion, that is clear. As you said, we are not talking about toothache, we are talking about pregnancy.

    So in this context, when Daith said:

    It was obvious he was talking about pregnant women. And when you said you were not denying them, you were obviously talking about pregnant women also.

    but you won't admit you misstated yourself the first time round. you keep arguing you've been consistent, so we end up with this:

    Like I said: boring.

    This is the last time I will explain to you why what I am saying is not a contradiction to me (to others I accept it is, of course). You either accept my point of view, or you don't, your choice.

    Here is my first comment in this regard on the thread:
    NachoBusiness wrote: »
    Nobody is trying stop women doing anything with their bodies. Women choosing to destroy the body of a baby which is developing in their wombs is what those opposed to abortion are objecting to.

    In other words, when women are legally prevented from having abortions, the objective of this law is not to stop women doing something with their body. That is not the purpose of the law. The purpose of the law is stop them doing something to the body of the developing baby.

    Now, you attaching meaning to that statement that I must mean also mean that women would not be doing something to their body also when they have abortions and that statement infers nothing of the sort. That's a meaning that you are attaching to the statement and one which you need to in order to keep up this nonsense that I have misstated myself and so am now contradicting myself. I did not and am not.

    I FULLY accept that women are doing something to their own bodies when they either take abortion pills or undergo a surgical one. Hence why I have have brought the Sarah Catt situation into the debate and said that because of it, nobody could truly believe in female body autonomy as she was "just" doing something to her body, as far as the pro choice side are concerned at least.

    Look, it was illegal for Sarah Catt to take those pills. Why? Because she was pregnant. Would it be illegal for Sarah to take those pills if she wasn't pregnant? No, of course not as the law is not trying to stop women doing what they want with their own bodies... it's trying to prevent them doing what they want with the body of the developing fetus. That's the fundamental point which you are unwilling to accept. You are trying to suggest that incidental factors (that women will be ultimately prevented from doing something with their bodies) as being the primal objective and it's not, it's far from it and like I have said many times now: it's a rather disingenuous and selfish one for the pro choice crowd to ever have made / make and I honestly feel that the abortion debate will never move on to a sensible middle ground until they stop this 'body autonomy' / 'it's a woman's body, her choice' nonsense. Not to suggest that the pro life crowd don't need to grow up also, they undoubtedly do.


  • Options
    #279
    osarusan
    Registered Users Posts: 16,588 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    NachoBusiness wrote: »
    Long long post
    Ok, let's try to put an end to this.

    Regarding a woman getting an abortion, did you or did you not try to make a distinction in that the woman is doing something to the body developing inside her but not to her own body?

    Did you make that argument?


  • Options
    #280
    NachoBusiness
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,389 ✭✭✭NachoBusiness


    osarusan wrote: »
    Regarding a woman getting an abortion, did you or did you not try to make a distinction in that the woman is doing something to the body developing inside her but not to her own body?p

    I have answered this, in great detail, above and in many other posts.
    Did you make that argument?

    If I did, you'd be quoting it ;)


  • Options
    #281
    osarusan
    Registered Users Posts: 16,588 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    NachoBusiness wrote: »
    If I did, you'd be quoting it ;)

    Can I take that as a No? That you did not make that argument or distinction?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #282
    Kev W
    Registered Users Posts: 2,536 ✭✭✭Kev W


    LorMal wrote: »
    What 'blast of irony' is that?

    Accusing Amnesty of being "divisive" while lamenting their involvement in keeping gay people from being kept legally separate from straight people.

    Isn't it ironic?

    Don't you think?


  • Options
    #283
    NachoBusiness
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,389 ✭✭✭NachoBusiness


    osarusan wrote: »
    Can I take that as a No? That you did not make that argument or distinction?

    Yes, that's a No.. but I still don't think abortion can be defined or even referred to as "a woman doing something to her body" though, as that would be an incomplete definition / description, given that she would also be doing something to another body (that of the developing fetus) but that is far cry from someone saying a woman is doing nothing to her body when she undergoes an abortion.


  • Options
    #284
    Grayson
    Registered Users Posts: 16,185 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    LorMal wrote: »
    What are you talking about??? I expressed no opinion on that case whatsoever - I am not even aware of it.
    Don't attempt to paraphrase me - especially if you have no idea of my opinions thanks

    You said
    I do agree with you on that point Jack. Amnesty used to be an outstanding voice for liberty and justice. It's strange to see them focus on subjective issues such as Gay Marriage and Abortion. It is divisive where they should be inclusive.

    Strapping down a suicidal chinese woman is a human rights issue. That's what amnesty deal with, human rights abuses. It's in their mandate. It's not like it's the ISPCA voicing their opinion on it.

    I never mentioned you opinion of it, just mentioned it to show that it's the kind of abuse that Amnesty deals with. And you really should read about it. We strapped down a suicidal chinese rape victim and force fed her until she was able to give birth via caesarian.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_Y


  • Options
    #285
    frostyjacks
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,951 ✭✭✭frostyjacks


    Grayson wrote: »
    You said



    Strapping down a suicidal chinese woman is a human rights issue. That's what amnesty deal with, human rights abuses. It's in their mandate. It's not like it's the ISPCA voicing their opinion on it.

    I never mentioned you opinion of it, just mentioned it to show that it's the kind of abuse that Amnesty deals with. And you really should read about it. We strapped down a suicidal chinese rape victim and force fed her until she was able to give birth via caesarian.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_Y

    Where were her rights abused?


  • Options
    #286
    Kev W
    Registered Users Posts: 2,536 ✭✭✭Kev W


    frostyjacks wrote: »
    Where were her rights abused?

    You can't possibly be serious.


  • Options
    #287
    frostyjacks
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,951 ✭✭✭frostyjacks


    Kev W wrote: »
    You can't possibly be serious.

    I am. What rights were being denied to her?


  • Options
    #288
    Kev W
    Registered Users Posts: 2,536 ✭✭✭Kev W


    frostyjacks wrote: »
    I am. What rights were being denied to her?

    SHE WAS STRAPPED DOWN AND FORCE FED AND USED AS A HUMAN INCUBATOR YOU FUCKING MORON


  • Options
    #289
    galljga1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,938 ✭✭✭galljga1


    Kev W wrote: »
    SHE WAS STRAPPED DOWN AND FORCE FED AND USED AS A HUMAN INCUBATOR YOU FUCKING MORON

    I agree with you.
    See you in a while.


  • Options
    #290
    LorMal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,372 ✭✭✭LorMal


    Kev W wrote: »
    Accusing Amnesty of being "divisive" while lamenting their involvement in keeping gay people from being kept legally separate from straight people.

    Isn't it ironic?

    Don't you think?

    Alanis, no I don't. I did not disagree with their stance (I voted yes) , I disagree with their taking an active role in issues such as this when they are being put to a referendum. I think it undermines their moral authority. In my humble opinion, they should remain independent of issues of personal morality (eg abortion, gay marriage) and focus instead on prisoners of conscience. When they enter a debate like abortion, by taking one side, they can alienate supporters of the other side. Therefore I see this as divisive. We should all be able to support Amnesty International - amnesty is a universal human principal.


  • Options
    #291
    LorMal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,372 ✭✭✭LorMal


    Kev W wrote: »
    SHE WAS STRAPPED DOWN AND FORCE FED AND USED AS A HUMAN INCUBATOR YOU FUCKING MORON

    You need to grow up.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #292
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,204 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    frostyjacks wrote: »
    I am. What rights were being denied to her?

    You're a bit worrying. You do realize that it's against the law to physically restrain someone who is is of sound mind and is not suspected of a crime?
    It's called unlawful imprisonment. Of course there are countries which don't bother with such niceties - but then they can expect Amnesty to name and shame them - as in this case.


  • Options
    #293
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,946 ✭✭✭Daith


    LorMal wrote: »
    In my humble opinion, they should remain independent of issues of personal morality (eg abortion, gay marriage) and focus instead on prisoners of conscience.

    That's a ridiculous statement. One person's "prisoners of conscience" is another persons "personal morality"
    LorMal wrote: »
    When they enter a debate like abortion, by taking one side, they can alienate supporters of the other side.

    So they should only look at issues that everyone agrees on? That'll be some toothless Human Rights Org for sure.


  • Options
    #294
    rainbow kirby
    Moderators, Regional Abroad Moderators Posts: 26,928 Mod ✭✭✭✭rainbow kirby


    frostyjacks wrote: »
    I am. What rights were being denied to her?
    frostyjacks wrote: »
    Where were her rights abused?
    LorMal wrote: »
    You need to grow up.

    Anti-choicers being pants-on-head ridiculous again, news at 11


  • Options
    #295
    LorMal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,372 ✭✭✭LorMal


    Daith wrote: »
    That's a ridiculous statement. One person's "prisoners of conscience" is another persons "personal morality"

    No it's not. I can have moral issues with abortion (which I do in many circumstances), while abhoring the human rights abuses in Syria for example. It's not all or nothing.


  • Options
    #296
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,204 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    LorMal wrote: »
    When they enter a debate like abortion, by taking one side, they can alienate supporters of the other side. Therefore I see this as divisive. We should all be able to support Amnesty International - amnesty is a universal human principal.

    Except presumably when those "supporters of the other side" are the very ones guilty of not respecting human rights, ie who find themselves under criticism from Amnesty - you don't think they agree with Amnesty in their particular case, do you? I'm sure they all have a very good reason for special pleading.

    That is exactly the situation Ireland is in. A mirror might be required instead of a computer screen for you.


  • Options
    #297
    LorMal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,372 ✭✭✭LorMal


    rainbow kirby wrote: »
    Anti-choicers being pants-on-head ridiculous again, news at 11

    Purile name calling - typical of this debate. How do you know I am 'anti- choice'? You don't - you are just being prejudiced.


  • Options
    #298
    Kev W
    Registered Users Posts: 2,536 ✭✭✭Kev W


    LorMal wrote: »
    No it's not. I can have moral issues with abortion (which I do in many circumstances), while abhoring the human rights abuses in Syria for example. It's not all or nothing.

    Ah, so they should only take on the issues that YOU PERSONALLY feel 100% certain about.

    Reasonable.


  • Options
    #299
    frostyjacks
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,951 ✭✭✭frostyjacks


    volchitsa wrote: »
    You're a bit worrying. You do realize that it's against the law to physically restrain someone who is is of sound mind and is not suspected of a crime?
    It's called unlawful imprisonment. Of course there are countries which don't bother with such niceties - but then they can expect Amnesty to name and shame them - as in this case.

    Wasn't she on a hunger strike? That doesn't sound like someone of sound mind to me. The authorities had a duty to protect her baby. What rights were denied/abused?


  • Options
    #300
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,946 ✭✭✭Daith


    LorMal wrote: »
    No it's not. I can have moral issues with abortion (which I do in many circumstances), while abhoring the human rights abuses in Syria for example. It's not all or nothing.

    You're saying Amnesty should not look at abortion because some people don't like it. It's a rubbish statement.

    The authorizes is Syria mightn't think it's a human rights issue and probably think the abortion issues in Ireland is more severe.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #301
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,204 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    LorMal wrote: »
    Purile name calling - typical of this debate. How do you know I am 'anti- choice'? You don't - you are just being prejudiced.

    You seem to have a problem accepting that Miss Y was subjected to an outrageous abuse of her human rights because of our law. Forcibly sedating and performing major surgery on someone whose "informed consent" is unclear to say the least is an abuse in any democracy I know of.

    A couple of possible conclusions may be drawn from that. That you are "anti-choice" is probably the least offensive of them.


Advertisement