The new, vicious fight

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

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?

Why are you so insistent on twisting what I say? I've said clearly -

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.

Ultimately, who's opinion do you think actually matters in decisions regarding their own welfare? I can have a say of course as part of the democratic process, but when I'm talking to a woman one on one about abortion, it goes back to my original question - who am I to tell a woman what way she should think if she makes her opposition to abortion known to me? Who am I to invalidate her opinion and think my opinion on the issue should carry more weight than hers? That'd be the height of being a prick IMO, which is something I just wouldn't do.

volchitsa wrote: »

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.

I'd only need to do that if I had made the point that I think their opinion should carry more weight than other women's opinions. I never made that point. The only point I made is that nowadays some women's objections to abortion aren't based on religion, they are based on humanitarian philosophy and human rights, from their perspective. I don't agree with them, but I can understand where they're coming from, and so I'm not going to tell them that they're wrong IMO, because I don't see it as my business to dictate to a woman about her reproductive rights.

volchitsa wrote: »

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.

I've already explained to you why they hold the opinions they do -

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.

volchitsa wrote: »

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.

I think you're looking for something that doesn't exist tbh. The reasson I quoted the post to you earlier was because you said this -

volchitsa wrote: »

You're claiming to quote someone else as an authority for views you actually hold yourself.

And I was showing you that your assertion simply isn't true, as I have never made any secret of my views on abortion on here. I only chose to make the point in this thread that there are women who are not religious who are opposed to abortion.

volchitsa wrote: »

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.

If you'd care to read my posts properly without reading into them what you want and ascribing motives that don't exist, you wouldn't need it pointed out to you that I never laid claim to anyone else's opinion, and I didn't put anyone else's opinion forward as my own.

volchitsa wrote: »

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

It's first hand surely if I'm the person stating as fact that there are women who are not religious who object to abortion for reasons other than religion. Whether you believe that or not is your own business, but I'd appreciate it if at least you didn't try and tell me what I think. I'm perfectly capable of telling you myself.

volchitsa wrote: »

What job? I thought you said you were unconvinced by their views? Now you say you agree with them?

I never once said I was unconvinced by their views? I never once said I agreed with them either. If you read what I wrote, I said I may not agree with them, but I can understand where they're coning from.

volchitsa wrote: »

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.

Perhaps if you could read what I actually wrote, then I wouldn't have to keep correcting you. It'd be nice too if you could stop making up stuff I never even said, not sure where you got the idea that I ever said they were someone I once met somewhere?

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!

RDM_83 again

lazygal wrote: »

It's some sort of "gotcha" the pro gestation crowd like to throw around, that the salary of the CEO of Marie Stopes is somehow profiting from abortions.

Hmmm couldn't it be argued that they do though, they receive funding proportional to their size and the amount of operations they preform and the CEO receives a salary based on the size of the organizations budget. In the UK AFAIK most of the contractive stuff will be handled by GP's

lazygal

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Hmmm couldn't it be argued that they do though, they receive funding proportional to their size and the amount of operations they preform and the CEO receives a salary based on the size of the organizations budget. In the UK AFAIK most of the contractive stuff will be handled by GP's

But Marie Stopes provides a range of non killing the unborn services too. It doesn't just talk all pregnant women into having an abortion so the CEO can earn a rake of cash.

Not a NSA agent

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Hmmm couldn't it be argued that they do though, they receive funding proportional to their size and the amount of operations they preform and the CEO receives a salary based on the size of the organizations budget. In the UK AFAIK most of the contractive stuff will be handled by GP's

lazygal wrote: »

But Marie Stopes provides a range of non killing the unborn services too. It doesn't just talk all pregnant women into having an abortion so the CEO can earn a rake of cash.

The logic could be used where anyone is getting paid. Engineers are profiting from car crashes, doctors profiting from cancer. As long as you are getting something from anything you are making a profit from it. (assuming you arent putting on more of the same thing you are getting out of it)

frostyjacks

the_monkey wrote: »

abortionists ??

Pro choice people you mean ? - Up to them ... if they want to go through with it - fine , if they don't and have the pregnancy terminated - again their choice - pro choice !!

abortionist:

1.
a person who performs or induces abortions, especially illegally.

2.
a person who favors or advocates abortion as a right or choice that all women should have.

lazygal

frostyjacks wrote: »

abortionist:

1.
a person who performs or induces abortions, especially illegally.

2.
a person who favors or advocates abortion as a right or choice that all women should have.

Are doctors in maternity hospitals abortionists given that 26 abortions took place last year? Is a gp who prescribes the morning after pill an abortionist? Is a technician who destroys frozen embryos an abortionist?

RDM_83 again

lazygal wrote: »

But Marie Stopes provides a range of non killing the unborn services too. It doesn't just talk all pregnant women into having an abortion so the CEO can earn a rake of cash.

My point is though that I would guess that the bulk of their funding does come from providing abortion services, GP's, GUM clinics, NHS walk in clinics and pharmacies (AFAIK some morning after pills are available directly from pharmacies in the UK) I don't really see why somebody would head to Marie Stopes unless they are already looking for abortion advice.
The UK is a terrible place to look at in terms of crisis pregnancy, teen pregnancy and abortion though its an outlier compared to the rest of europe.
They are doing something wrong as a society about this issue, I don't think that Marie Stopes is trying to guide women into having abortions I also don't think they try and discourage them/offer alternatives either.
This is a good and fairly well balanced article here (the service users responses are interesting)
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/reality-check-with-polly-curtis/2011/sep/06/abortion-health-and-wellbeing

John_Rambo

The pro-life gang bemuse me. I get the impression it's some kind of ego day out with peer admiration for their passion and vocal anger.

Aside from public rage and overly worthy hand wringing do they help mothers in real trouble?

Do they adopt or foster babies that are born in to hopeless situations?

Do the focus their anguish (and wallets) on people that they save from abortion?

Or do they go for back patting fest and a few scoops afterwards?

I think it's fairly easy to shout and mouth, it's easy to take the high moral ground and preach, but do they put their time, energy and money where their mouth is to improve the lives of the lives they think they save?

bodice ripper

I used to play bass for The Abortionists.

lazygal

bodice ripper wrote: »

I used to play bass for The Abortionists.

Did you ever play support for The Gay Agenda? Or The Militant Atheists?

darkpagandeath

It's pretty bad that the pro lifers bring their kids along. It's like indoctrination into a Religion....

bodice ripper

lazygal wrote: »

Did you ever play support for The Gay Agenda? Or The Militant Atheists?

Nah, we didn't care for their views on class struggle in an urban context. ****ing splitters.

frostyjacks

darkpagandeath wrote: »

How would one communicate with cells ?

So if we can't communicate with someone, then they don't have rights?

How would you feel if someone campaigned to take away your constitutional rights?

RDM_83 again

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Its a bad analogy though because something like heart surgery isn't an elective procedure

It is a good analogy in so far as it highlights the actual point I am making. Analogies are not meant to be 1:1 perfect ever - and the difference you highlight in my analogy are differences not relevant to the point I was using the analogy to make.

Without analogies - since the analogy bothers you - my point is that I can be for offering a choice - but I can be just as for supporting initiatives to help people never get into the situation of having to make that choice.

RDM_83 again wrote: »

If you describe yourself as strongly pro-choice you should really support access for any reason.

And I do. If you get the impression I do not then one of us has failed here. Either me in making my point - you in parsing and understanding it - or both.

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.

That would be pretty much it yes, thanks!

the_monkey

darkpagandeath wrote: »

It's pretty bad that the pro lifers bring their kids along. It's like indoctrination into a Religion....

Disgusting isn't it ?

brain washing them and telling them that pro choice people are basically baby murderers ...

Lingua Franca

frostyjacks wrote: »

And abortion isn't imposing your view on someone else? Tell that to the baby that's just been told it's mother didn't want it.

jill_valentine wrote: »

Did you have a particular hypothetical baby you wanted me to speak with or should I just ask whoever told the hypothetical babies that how they got in touch before.

lazygal wrote: »

How is offering women the choice of whether to continue a pregnancy imposing anything on anyone?

frostyjacks wrote: »

Again, tell that to the unborn child.

darkpagandeath wrote: »

How would one communicate with cells ?

frostyjacks wrote: »

So if we can't communicate with someone, then they don't have rights?

These childish responses are beneath even AH's standards of debate. Totally cringeworthy.

"GO TELL THAT TO THE UNBORN" :rolleyes:

frostyjacks

Lingua Franca wrote: »

These childish responses are beneath even AH's standards of debate. Totally cringeworthy.

"GO TELL THAT TO THE UNBORN" :rolleyes:

Well, wasn't that the point of the abortion referendum? That we accepted that the unborn have rights? Or am I misreading our constitution. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

jill_valentine

RDM_83 again wrote: »

for organ donations there is a substantial detrimental impact

Oy gevalt.

This sentence makes it fairly apparent you may not have a fantastic grasp of what a pregnancy entails. It's not like a vending machine issuing change.

Lingua Franca

frostyjacks wrote: »

Well, wasn't that the point of the abortion referendum? That we accepted that the unborn have rights? Or am I misreading our constitution. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

That's not what I'm discussing here.

How do you propose that people communicate with foetuses and get a coherent and rational response? I'd appreciate a straight answer instead of your usual rhetorical question responses, please.

If you can't answer that then please stop using "go tell that to the unborn" as a stock response to posts you don't like.

volchitsa

Lingua Franca wrote: »

That's not what I'm discussing here.

How do you propose that people communicate with foetuses and get a coherent and rational response? I'd appreciate a straight answer instead of your usual rhetorical question responses, please.

If you can't answer that then please stop using "go tell that to the unborn" as a stock response to posts you don't like.

And what about the unconceived? Will no-one think of the unconceived?
What about their interests? Don't they have rights too? :eek:

frostyjacks

Lingua Franca wrote: »

That's not what I'm discussing here.

How do you propose that people communicate with foetuses and get a coherent and rational response? I'd appreciate a straight answer instead of your usual rhetorical question responses, please.

If you can't answer that then please stop using "go tell that to the unborn" as a stock response to posts you don't like.

Just because you can't get a response from someone, doesn't mean you can take away their rights. Sure, you could use your argument to kill everybody that's in a coma.

Lingua Franca

frostyjacks wrote: »

Just because you can't get a response from someone, doesn't mean you can take away their rights.

I can't even get a response from you. You are, in fact, incapable of answering even simple questions. Type first, think later or not at all. Got it.

Sure, you could use your argument to kill everybody that's in a coma.

My argument? My dear, I didn't even put forward an argument on that subject either way.

Please, do continue with... whatever it is you think you're doing.

desertcircus

frostyjacks wrote: »

If the Brits all jumped off a cliff, would you do the same?

If I was in Britain, and the entire population jumped into the sea, I'd probably jump too. There's got to be a bloody good reason for tens of millions of people to hit the water at once.

frostyjacks

Lingua Franca wrote: »

I can't even get a response from you. You are, in fact, incapable of answering even simple questions. Type first, think later or not at all. Got it.



My argument? My dear, I didn't even put forward an argument on that subject either way.

Please, do continue with... whatever it is you think you're doing.

If you're asking how to communicate with the unborn to see if they would mind being killed, that's a rather silly question.

NachoBusiness

jill_valentine wrote: »

They can have all the views they like, between themselves. But to actually want to impose that on somebody else? To actually dictate to somebody what is right to do with their body under circumstances they cannot possibly find themselves? Pretty, pretty, pretty galling.

Newsflash: 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. Where do you stand on the developing baby's body autonomy one wonders?

I'd get a frosty reception preaching to black people about racism for the same reasons.

The above would suggest that human offspring development is a matter only of relevance to women but you do realise that women can not just get pregnant on their own, right? Therefore it is far from something which should really only be of concern to women. What an abhorrent and quite childish thing to suggest.

I would repeal the 8th by the way (and pretty much all therapeutic abortions) and also have no problem with first trimester abortions. I'm an atheist too. Humanitarian grounds is where I am coming from. Just so you don't start shooting ducks that are not lined up. I don't believe that any woman believes in female body autonomy in this context. NONE. No man either for that matter and also don't believe for a second that any woman believes that it should always be a woman's choice and solely her choice. It's BS. Always was and always will be.

Heard a lot of women say it, mind, scream it in fact (and men) and yet I have never heard a single one of them back it up because at the end of the day, when push comes to shove, you'll find that ALL of them will have a limit as to when they feel it should be okay for a woman to procure an abortion.. and once they have that, they are thereby admitting that they DON'T truly believe women should have body autonomy at all and that they also DON'T believe that it should be a case of a woman's body, a woman's choice. Nice mantras but rarely if ever are they genuine beliefs.

I mean, if they truly did, then they would support the actions of this women and her daughter who tried to get an abortion at seven months pregnant and of course this woman who took abortion pills a couple of weeks before her due date to procure an abortion. Their bodies, their choice? Yeah right.

Buzz Meeks

Lingua Franca wrote: »

I can't even get a response from you. You are, in fact, incapable of answering even simple questions. Type first, think later or not at all. Got it.



My argument? My dear, I didn't even put forward an argument on that subject either way.

Please, do continue with... whatever it is you think you're doing.

To be fair you are being deliberately obtuse.

As well you know "go tell it to _____" is a figure of speech.

Daith

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Newsflash: 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. Where do you stand on the developing baby's body autonomy one wonders?

A developing baby in a womb has no autonomy though. It relies on the mother and her body.

Lingua Franca

frostyjacks wrote: »

If you're asking how to communicate with the unborn to see if they would mind being killed, that's a rather silly question.

Then it was especially silly of you to repeatedly suggest it, wasn't it?

Buzz Meeks wrote: »

To be fair you are being deliberately obtuse.

As well you know "go tell it to _____" is a figure of speech.

On the contrary, I have been crystal clear.

Repeating the same silly stock phrase in answer to reasonable questions in a debate is obtuse. It's like trying to debate with a stroppy 8 year old.

DarkyHughes

newmug wrote: »

I was there today.

I was surprised at the viciousness of the counter-rally. Everything was dug up to try and throw at the anti-abortion people, accusations of homophobia, women hating, religious corruption, I even saw a poster along the lines of "Divorce should be a right". It was a complete grasping-at-straws situation. What these people dont seem to realise is that there are gay pro-lifers and atheist pro-lifers too! The issue is abortion, but they tried to make it into a one-size-fits-all liberal v conservative thing.

Something else that surprised me was the type of people in the counter-demonstration. I always assumed that atheists would be wannabee-sophisticated D4 types. What I saw were mostly Gotts and Crusties, for want of a better description. There was one fairly rotund fella there form atheist Ireland, and it was obvious he wasnt the full schilling. I was secretly heartened when I saw the type of people in the counter-demonstration, lets just say they were doing a good job of letting themselves down.

The worst incident I saw was a little he-woman who punched a pensioner. She ran into the crowd, about 3 people in front of me, and pulled a poster off a young boy. She tried to rip it up. The old man who was with the boy stood between them to stop her, and she gave him punch in the face. In fairness, it was fairly light, although it was her max effort. The Guards came running, and suddenly yer one changed from a hard-man lesbian into a damsel in distress, throwing herself to the ground crying trying to implicate the pensioner in some way. The Guards were having none of it though.

I just felt sorry for the boy in the situation. Yer one was a pure scumbag.


HA! I just watched the video, you can see her from 41 to 51 secs, short hair, orange T-shirt! I must have literally just walked by the camera! From the looks of that site, the whole thing is pretty pro-abortion biased.

That sounds so made up.

DarkyHughes

Lenin Skynard wrote: »

I'm firmly on one side of the thing but I'm not bothered to post which side. One thing I will say though is that the people that campaign on both sides are as bad as each other. We seem to be getting further and further away from a mature discussion on the issue.

Why would a person campaign for both sides? What a waste of time.