The new, vicious fight

Dirty Dingus McGee

volchitsa wrote: »

In bold is the crucial bit of that post though.

How far do you think your analogy goes? What if it's actually your own dog that's threatening you? Don't you have a right to kill it then? I think you do. Actually I'm fairly sure you're allowed to put your own dog down for pretty much any reason, as long as you do so humanely.

So yes, you can't kill someone else's dog, but you can kill your own.

You compared abortion to contraception I just pointed out that they are in no way comparable in spite of them achieving the same result.

volchitsa

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

You compared abortion to contraception I just pointed out that they are in no way comparable in spite of them achieving the same result.

With a mistaken analogy.

And no, I didn't compare them, I just pointed out the failure of your "justification" for banning abortion by showing that the same "justification" is as valid for contraception, ie that it's not a valid reason for banning either.

Dirty Dingus McGee

volchitsa wrote: »

With a mistaken analogy.

And no, I didn't compare them, I just pointed out the failure of your "justification" for banning abortion by showing that the same "justification" is as valid for contraception, ie that it's not a valid reason for banning either.

Abortion kills life after it has been created Contraception prevents any form of life from being created in the first place so no harm is done to anyone.

Eugene Norman

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

I'm sorry but either I haven't yet woken up properly or you are repeatedly contradicting yourself. What you appear to be saying is that you are pro choice and want women to have the right to an abortion, but you are actively looking for ways to prevent them having abortions. That makes no sense. I totally disagree with you that most pro choice people are against abortion.

There no contradiction. He wants abortion to be legal but not common. It's an invasive procedure and there can be psychological risks ( note I am not mentioning a fetus here).

It's not unlike being pro legalisation of drugs but not hoping that everybody starts taking drugs.

volchitsa

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

Abortion kills life after it has been created Contraception prevents any form of life from being created in the first place so no harm is done to anyone.

You think eggs and sperm are not alive??

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

As with your earlier claim about not making women serve as vessels, the fact of refusing to acknowledge something doesn't make it any less true.

They are happy to do so, insofar as they are convinced they are right to do so. Unless you mean they genuinely spend large chunks of their lives worried about how Miss Y is doing, and whether there may be others like her tomorrow or next month?

I'm really not sure what you're trying to argue here tbh. I didn't make any claims about women serving as vessels, I simply said that some of my friends who are women are against abortion on humanitarian grounds, nothing to do with religion, as they are non-religious. I don't probe how strongly they hold to their respective objection to abortion as I'm simply not interested in trying to argue a woman's reproductive rights with, y'know, a woman!

Not sure what the relevance is. If one of your neighbours or workmates let it be known that when he lived in SE Asia a decade ago he regularly had sex with 8 year olds, as it was commonplace for westerners to go out there for that reason, how likely is that you'd decide that because we have voted to allow people to travel, including, presumably, in order to have sex with children, therefore you should respect his views on the matter, and that he's an otherwise lovely person?

I'm sorry, really struggling here. We're talking about abortion and I ask who am I to tell a woman what she should think when that is the way she feels? You call that a strawman, and then make some argument asking about pedophilia?

I've tried to break it down into smaller chunks, and I still can't figure out what you're asking or how you're relating pedophilia to abortion? They're two completely different issues. I think it's fair enough for me to say I'm not sure what the relevance is?

gravity9.81

Its a life no matter how early,who gets to determine when its a life and under what criteria,
There is enough needless killings in this world for it to be a choice.

I will never change my mind back to a pro choice,
Yes i was once pro choice

I know its not clear cut, black and white however its still a life and no one has the right to decide

My opinion is not a religious based one but more of my morals and of personal experience

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm really not sure what you're trying to argue here tbh. I didn't make any claims about women serving as vessels, I simply said that some of my friends who are women are against abortion on humanitarian grounds, nothing to do with religion, as they are non-religious. I don't probe how strongly they hold to their respective objection to abortion as I'm simply not interested in trying to argue a woman's reproductive rights with, y'know, a woman!

I'm sorry, really struggling here. We're talking about abortion and I ask who am I to tell a woman what she should think when that is the way she feels? You call that a strawman, and then make some argument asking about pedophilia?

I've tried to break it down into smaller chunks, and I still can't figure out what you're asking or how you're relating pedophilia to abortion? They're two completely different issues. I think it's fair enough for me to say I'm not sure what the relevance is?

Your argument seems to be that women, by dint of being women, have a right to impose their beliefs on other women that you as a man don't have.

My point is that the views you ascribe to these anonymous women who apparently don't feel strongly enough about it to come on here themselves, are no more or less acceptable just because they come from women.

What one particular woman feels about having an abortion or not is one thing. Anyone, man or woman, wishing to enforce their views about abortion on a woman who may not share those beliefs is a different issue altogether. That's what I'm objecting to in your posts. You're claiming to quote someone else as an authority for views you actually hold yourself.

So since those people can't be bothered to argue the point you claim they hold, what's the point in your posting them? They're worth nothing if they can't be defended, and "Oh but a woman said it" really doesn't do the job for me.

Kev W

gravity9.81 wrote: »

Its a life no matter how early,who gets to determine when its a life and under what criteria,

Spot the contradiction?

meeeeh

Oh God I love how humanitarian grounds can be used for anything. I bet those babies in launindres we're given out for adoption on humanitarian grounds too.

I never had an abortion, however I had early term miscarriages. It never felt as baby dying. It was bunch of cells that were not compatible with life. There are women who are not so lucky and they are forced to carry a basically dead child full term on I presume humanitarian grounds. And because the do gooders like some here are worried what effect abortion would have on them. Oh and if court decides that woman was not suicidal or desperate enough and mislead doctors she can be imprisoned for over ten years. But I'm certain it is all on humanitarian grounds.

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

Your argument seems to be that women, by dint of being women, have a right to impose their beliefs on other women that you as a man don't have.

No, my argument isn't that at all. I'm stating as a fact that by virtue of the fact that they are women, their opinion on women's reproductive rights is going to be far more valid than my opinion as a man. They have a right to express their opinion, and I can't really argue with them if they do.

My point is that the views you ascribe to these anonymous women who apparently don't feel strongly enough about it to come on here themselves, are no more or less acceptable just because they come from women.

I'm not speaking for anyone but myself. I wouldn't expect anyone to come on here and 'defend themselves' for anything. In your opinion, their opinions aren't acceptable, but in mine, the fact that they are women and we're talking about women's reproductive rights kinda lends more weight to their opinion than mine, and the fact that they also regard the right to life of the unborn upon humanitarian grounds, means that while I may disagree with them, I'm not going to argue with them. I can understand where they're coming from.

What one particular woman feels about having an abortion or not is one thing. Anyone, man or woman, wishing to enforce their views about abortion on a woman who may not share those beliefs is a different issue altogether. That's what I'm objecting to in your posts. You're claiming to quote someone else as an authority for views you actually hold yourself.

As awkward moments go (I mean, it's not as if I already spelled out in my previous posts on just this thread alone that I don't agree with them) -

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Repeal of the 8th amendment and all references in the constitution to a right to life, and replaced with reference to a person's quality of life.

Inclusion of the Groningen Protocol in conjunction with legislation for euthanasia.

Implementation of the Assisted Decision-making Capacity Bill 2013 that has dragged on and on and has yet to be implemented.

http://www.un.org/disabilities/convention/conventionfull.shtml

http://humanrights.ie/mental-health-law-and-disability-law/assisted-decision-making-capacity-bill-2013-finally-published/

http://www.imt.ie/opinion/2015/02/new-legislation-everyones-best-interests.html

I don't know where you got the idea that I was ever against the repeal of the eighth amendment, but there you go.

So since those people can't be bothered to argue the point you claim they hold, what's the point in your posting them? They're worth nothing if they can't be defended, and "Oh but a woman said it" really doesn't do the job for me.

Perhaps you missed the point of my initial post then, and that was simply to point out that not everyone who is against abortion is against it for religious reasons, but I know of women who are against abortion on humanitarian grounds because they value the right to life of the unborn child. I'm not going to try and argue 'quality of life' from my perspective with a woman and tell her what she should think. Whatever she wants to do is her own business. I was simply making the point that more and more, it's less about religion, and more about human rights and their own individual humanitarian philosophy.

That doesn't do the job for you and that's fair enough, it's enough to do the job for me though.

Hellrazer

Hellrazer wrote: »

What does my head in on these anti abortion rallies is that the face of them seems to be middle aged men and you yourself have said that you do as much as you can so that abortions don't happen. Can I ask why?Surely if you are pro choice then its nothing to do with you as a man.

One of my big things is I work very very hard for the rights of homeless. But I also work very very hard to make sure no one ever becomes homeless.

For me on any issue the best thing to do is support anyone who enters a situation but you also do everything you can do to make sure they never end up in that situation too.

So on the subject of abortion I am ENTIRELY pro choice, but I also very very strongly support any and all initiatives that help the general populace evade unwanted pregnancies.

What part of that you are taking issue with I have to admit ignorance of however.

If a less emotional analogy helps you understand it.... I am PRO people having heart bypass surgery when required.... but I am ANTI heart by pass surgery in the sense I will promote any initiative that will prevent them from ever having to make that choice.

Dyr

The old pro choice rallies are great for attracting the stormfront boys,

Or youth defence as they prefer to be known

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, my argument isn't that at all. I'm stating as a fact that by virtue of the fact that they are women, their opinion on women's reproductive rights is going to be far more valid than my opinion as a man. They have a right to express their opinion, and I can't really argue with them if they do.

You still seem to be arguing largely against points that are being mad only in your own head. Of course they have a right to express their views : as you said earlier, we're in a democracy. So far so obvious. I've never said different.

However if your point is that only women should be allowed a say in the matters well, I guess that's a point that could be made, but in a democracy it's a bit of an odd precedent to set isn't it? Do only people with children get to vote on education-related matters? Or ill people for the health service?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm not speaking for anyone but myself. I wouldn't expect anyone to come on here and 'defend themselves' for anything. In your opinion, their opinions aren't acceptable, but in mine, the fact that they are women and we're talking about women's reproductive rights kinda lends more weight to their opinion than mine, and the fact that they also regard the right to life of the unborn upon humanitarian grounds, means that while I may disagree with them, I'm not going to argue with them. I can understand where they're coming from.

Well, what you're actually doing is telling us that some people you claim to know have more worthwhile opinions than you. Fine. The problem I have is that you're entitled to feel your opinion is worth less than theirs, but you haven't made any attempt to explain why their opinion is so valuable that it applies to other women who disagree with them.

As for your reasons as to why they think what they think, I really wouldn't care to speculate further. If you aren't going to defend the opinion you quote, and nor is anyone else, I think we can safely dismiss it. When someone comes on here and actually defends reasons why a non religious person might be anti choice, and to what extent, then I'll be happy to debate the point.

Otherwise it looks, as I said, as though you're hiding behind someone else to express something you daren't do in your own name.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

As awkward moments go (I mean, it's not as if I already spelled out in my previous posts on just this thread alone that I don't agree with them)

I don't know where you got the idea that I was ever against the repeal of the eighth amendment, but there you go.

That link isn't from this thread, it's from a thread I haven't been following.

Even if it had been, you'll excuse me for being totally unembarassed at whatever mistake you think I've made. I'm underwhelmed at the idea that I should check out previous posts by a poster before telling him how a point he is making comes across to me. Particularly one who within a couple of a pages has already contradicted himself over who exactly is entitled to an opinion on the subject : since your point earlier was that we live in a democracy, so that anti-choice views can democratically be imposed on other women, even at the expense of their health, it ill becomes you now to take refuge behind the fact that some women express that anti-choice view.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Perhaps you missed the point of my initial post then, and that was simply to point out that not everyone who is against abortion is against it for religious reasons, but I know of women who are against abortion on humanitarian grounds because they value the right to life of the unborn child. I'm not going to try and argue 'quality of life' from my perspective with a woman and tell her what she should think. Whatever she wants to do is her own business. I was simply making the point that more and more, it's less about religion, and more about human rights and their own individual humanitarian philosophy.

No, I saw your claim. I find it unconvincing because it's at second or even third hand. As I explained.

QUOTE=One eyed Jack;96127120]That doesn't do the job for you and that's fair enough, it's enough to do the job for me though.[/QUOTE]What job? I thought you said you were unconvinced by their views? Now you say you agree with them?

Perhaps if you could make your mind up about what you're actually saying, we could discuss your views, and not those of someone you say you once met somewhere.

RDM_83 again

Deleted User wrote: »

One of my big things is I work very very hard for the rights of homeless. But I also work very very hard to make sure no one ever becomes homeless.

For me on any issue the best thing to do is support anyone who enters a situation but you also do everything you can do to make sure they never end up in that situation too.

So on the subject of abortion I am ENTIRELY pro choice, but I also very very strongly support any and all initiatives that help the general populace evade unwanted pregnancies.

What part of that you are taking issue with I have to admit ignorance of however.

If a less emotional analogy helps you understand it.... I am PRO people having heart bypass surgery when required.... but I am ANTI heart by pass surgery in the sense I will promote any initiative that will prevent them from ever having to make that choice.

Its a bad analogy though because something like heart surgery isn't an elective procedure, you don't have a "choice" to have an operation, you have a choice to seek treatment of a hospital.

If you describe yourself as strongly pro-choice you should really support access for any reason.
Then you get into the argument about the assignment of "personhood", is 24 weeks the point where your probably getting fetal pain perception, is it earlier where there is a fetal pain response but probably no perception, is pain even a worthwhile measure of "personhood", do you run on fetal survivability (as you have occasional survival before 24 weeks and the level is only going to increase in the future).
How do you weigh the rights of the mother that is at severe risk to life due to mental health issues against the fact that that an early delivery will likely have serious long term health impacts and possible early death to an entity that will have personhood (this is in relation to post 24 weeks procedures).

If your pro-choice can you advocate counseling before carrying out an abortion which may reduce the abortion rate but would still allow choice based abortions.

In my view the people that are consistent on this stuff are actually those on the extremes of either side, a strict Catholic doesn't agree with IVF, the morning after pill or contraception either so they have internal consistency a CCP official considers abortion simply a surgical procedure with no greater weight than anything else so its justifiable to force it in the interests of public health/the greater good (or for a western example the woman that deliberately got pregnant so she could have an abortion and put it up on youtube).

Those in the middle are more humane but much more muddled generally

goose2005

Not a NSA agent wrote: »

After the whole gay people molesting children thing I cant wait to see what the religious nuts come up with for this one. Probably something like if we remove the 8th amendment it will be possible to kill children of any age.

More likely they'll link it to euthanasia of sick children, euthanasia of the disabled, Aktion T4 etc.

darkpagandeath wrote: »

I don't really get the argument, The anti side will never abort a child that's their right not to chose to. Just like you don't have to learn to drive or don't have to marry someone of the same sex. But the option should be there in case a woman decides to avail of this option. I just hate the emotive language used. Especially by an organisation that only cares about Unborn children. Once they are born they don't care, If they die sure you can toss them into a septic tank. Or protect and cover up the abuse.

tbh that's a lazy counter-argument. Surely the idea that a foetus is a full human and deserving of the rights of a full human is at least worthy of considering. And the septic tank thing seems to have been a myth.

Anyway I'm pro-abortion up to about 6 months: before major neural development happens you can't really call the foetus a full human; but dismissing counter-arguments with "sure if you don't like abortions don't get one" is silly.

goose2005

darkpagandeath wrote: »

What's that got to do with Irish women being forced over to the Uk to get an abortion. Again it seems fine as long as it does not happen here, Never really hear the sky wizard people complaining about it. Sure should we go back to putting fallen women in places and selling the kids to America.

It shows a sort of infirmity of purpose on the side of the anti-abortion crowd - if they were genuinely, fully anti-abortion they would follow this through logically and demand strict controls on the movement of pregnant Irishwomen. However, they don't, which suggests that it's OK that abortion happens so long as God sees them registering their disapproval. Kind of like the anti-Iraq War protests which said "Not in my name" - this implies that the protestors had already given up and knew that the war would happen, they just wanted to imagine that they had opposed it.

Eugene Norman

goose2005 wrote: »

It shows a sort of infirmity of purpose on the side of the anti-abortion crowd - if they were genuinely, fully anti-abortion they would follow this through logically and demand strict controls on the movement of pregnant Irishwomen. However, they don't, which suggests that it's OK that abortion happens so long as God sees them registering their disapproval. Kind of like the anti-Iraq War protests which said "Not in my name" - this implies that the protestors had already given up and knew that the war would happen, they just wanted to imagine that they had opposed it.

What else could the Iraq war protestors do?

goose2005

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Some slogans of note were:

'My body, My Choice, Fuck you'.
'Think Outside My Box'

Charming.

I've noticed it a lot lately, people putting profanity on political posters. It's not really witty or clever and is more likely to repel than attract neutrals/undecided

goose2005

Eugene Norman wrote: »

What else could the Iraq war protestors do?

Stop clapping themselves on the back at least. Good article on it here:

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/13345

Buzz Meeks

goose2005 wrote: »

I've noticed it a lot lately, people putting profanity on political posters. It's not really witty or clever and is more likely to repel than attract neutrals/undecided

Well then shove it up your hole you fncking cnut, sh1tbag.

jill_valentine

goose2005 wrote: »

I've noticed it a lot lately, people putting profanity on political posters. It's not really witty or clever and is more likely to repel than attract neutrals/undecided

While I agree, it's hard not to find it personally infuriating to hear 60 year old blokes with less than ideal family situations themselves making pronouncements to young women who actually can get pregnant on how they're supposed to feel about it and what's going to happen the body they actually have to live in, often in the most incredibly insulting terms and almost invariably misinformed or dishonest.

It's not ideal, but I don't blame them one bit. The anti marriage equality ****e I had to walk by to work every morning was far milder and it still made my blood boil that somebody could be such a nasty bastard to living breathing strangers over something that's essentially just an intellectual sparring match to them.

Not a NSA agent

I think people are misunderstanding TaxAHcruel. From my reading what he seems to think is that abortion should be aviable but we should have contraceptives which work 100% of the time, healthcare that would prevent FFAs or risks to the mother so that a person wouldnt need an abortion in those situations. Prevention is better than a cure type of thing.

darkpagandeath

goose2005 wrote: »

More likely they'll link it to euthanasia of sick children, euthanasia of the disabled, Aktion T4 etc.


tbh that's a lazy counter-argument. Surely the idea that a foetus is a full human and deserving of the rights of a full human is at least worthy of considering. And the septic tank thing seems to have been a myth.

Anyway I'm pro-abortion up to about 6 months: before major neural development happens you can't really call the foetus a full human; but dismissing counter-arguments with "sure if you don't like abortions don't get one" is silly.

Sure the laundries were not real, Selling babies to Americans as well.... It's not State enforced Abortion it does not effect anyone apart from people opting to use the service. If people are that worried about life why no actually go to somewhere where people who are alive and born are dying ? Syria anyone ? Iraq ? I have noticed a lot of middle aged men at these things, The same types who think their wife would leave them if they could get a divorce. I think one is very very naive to think that this is not a majority Religious view in siding against this you only have to look at the groups involved.

darkpagandeath

Not a NSA agent wrote: »

I think people are misunderstanding TaxAHcruel. From my reading what he seems to think is that abortion should be aviable but we should have contraceptives which work 100% of the time, healthcare that would prevent FFAs or risks to the mother so that a person wouldnt need an abortion in those situations. Prevention is better than a cure type of thing.

How does one protect 100% someone from Rape ?

volchitsa

darkpagandeath wrote: »

How does one protect 100% someone from Rape ?

Or ensure that 100% of all fetuses are healthy?
Without aborting the unhealthy ones, that is.)

Not a NSA agent

darkpagandeath wrote: »

How does one protect 100% from Rape ?

You cant but in an ideal situation there wouldnt be rape. All you can do is try to prevent it but like 100% effective contraception it wont happen as this isnt an ideal world. Hence why abortion should be available while still trying to prevent situations where a woman would have an abortion. By that I mean more effective contraceptives, not make a woman win a fist fight with a bear or some other crap that just makes it more difficult to get one.

Eugene Norman

volchitsa wrote: »

Or ensure that 100% of all fetuses are healthy?
Without aborting the unhealthy ones, that is.)

He's in favour of legalisation. Can we move on from this sideshow.

Eugene Norman

My guess is the 8th will be removed. Remember people are not voting to legalise, that's up to the dail, but to take out a stupid clause in the constitution which shouldn't be there to begin with.

Remove the 8th

Yes
No

Lingua Franca

https://instagram.com/p/4t6UPgN8sl/

"Abortion is witchcraft"

Someone's been watching Penny Dreadful on Netflix.