The new, vicious fight

frostyjacks

Merces wrote: »

Oh it will be an ugly affair, no doubt about it. The SSM referendum will be a friendly game of cricket in comparison. It will also be far,far closer.

A game of cricket? The SSM debate will be like two fluffy little kittens fighting over a ball of wool compared to what's coming down the tracks. It'll be plumb, mad-dog mean.

the_monkey

Catholic Church view on things

ABORTION NO!!!!!

PEDOPHILIA YES!!!

Dyr

frostyjacks wrote: »

A game of cricket? The SSM debate will be like two fluffy little kittens fighting over a ball of wool compared to what's coming down the tracks. It'll be plumb, mad-dog mean.

And there's nothing more vicious than a cornered pro lifer, the old holy rolling halos will slip fast enough on them buckos if they think they might lose the big one

Hopefully an abortion referendum passes, please god, and they try block clinics or suchlike, cue legislation being brought in to allow the guards to bate them off the street like wall eyed loons that they are.

DarkyHughes

I remember Mother Teresa used to bang on about how bad contraception & abortion was all the time. I bet a loud of the Pro-lifer's are still influenced by her vist(s).

NachoBusiness

osarusan wrote: »

None of that relates to what I said, and I did not imply what you said I did.

Sure you did.

My point is that the 'You are not being denied the right to do what your body, just the body developing inside you' argument doesn't hold weight.

Of course it holds weight, plenty of it.

Protecting the body developing inside a woman necessitates denying the woman certain rights over her own body. That is obvious.

It is not a statement on the morality of abortion, just a statement on your argument.

If you define the body of the developing baby as being "the woman's body" then yes, BUT it's not her body, is it, that's the point.

Using your (and many many other people's) definition of what a "woman's body" should mean, then what Sarah Catt did was perfectly fine, as it's "her body", right? Yet how come NOBODY in this world (that is sane at least) would feel that what she did should be legal? At the very least people will say she needed help. Even all those who believe abortion is a body autonomy issue and 'it's a woman's body, her choice'.. all of them, still have issues with what she did and would like society to have laws in place that would prevent women like her doing what Sarah did. Explain that. Explain to me how come they all believe in body autonomy yet don't support Sarah Catt's actions.

humanji

the_monkey wrote: »

Catholic Church view on things

ABORTION NO!!!!!

PEDOPHILIA YES!!!

MOD: Give that crap a rest. And that goes for everyone else as well. If you can't post without blanketly insulting a group of people, then simply don't post.

osarusan

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Sure you did.
.

No I didn't. If you are so sure i did say it, please point out the post.

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Using your (and many many other people's) definition of what a "woman's body" should mean, then what Sarah Catt did was perfectly fine, as it's "her body", right? Yet how come NOBODY in this world (that is sane at least) would feel that what she did should be legal? At the very least people will say she needed help. Even all those who believe abortion is a body autonomy issue and 'it's a woman's body, her choice'.. all of them, still have issues with what she did and would like society to have laws in place that would prevent women like her doing what Sarah did. Explain that. Explain to me how come they all believe in body autonomy yet don't support Sarah Catt's actions.

I never defined, anywhere, what 'a woman's body' should mean. I do not know where you are getting this stuff. You seem to be reading what you want to read.


The Sarah Catt case is actually a very good example of your your argument falls down - here is what you said in response to Daith:

Daith wrote: »

You are denying what a woman can do with her body.

NachoBusiness wrote: »

No, I'm not, just with what she does with the body that is developing within her.

You say that you are not denying what a woman can do with her body, but it is clear that you actually are.

In the case of Sarah Catt, she ingested abortifacient pills. You believe she should have been punished, therefore it is obvious that you think she should not have the right to ingest abortifacient pills. Therefore, you do want to deny a woman the right to do certain things to her body.

If, as you claim, you are not denying women the right to do anything with their bodies, you would support her rights to do what she did.

A more accurate statement of your position would be that you do not deny pregnant women the right to do certain things to their bodies as long as those things do not negatively impact on the body developing inside of them.

That's a fairly standard position, and I understand it, but it is not the same as saying that you are not denying the woman the right to do certain things to her body.

Lingua Franca

frostyjacks wrote: »

The point I'm making, which seems to have sailed over your head, is that abortion is imposing your will on someone else, and that it's not not just the mother involved.

Oh, the irony! :pac:

I did get your point but you still haven't noticed that I didn't address it at all.

I was simply talking about how, as you yourself admitted, silly your "go tell it to the unborn" posts were. That is my point and oh look at that, it is still sailing right over your head. Now, be completely predictable and post something about the foetus not having a choice but having constitutional rights instead of addressing how you debate like a 10 year old, yet again.

In the meantime, I invite you to go back over both yours and mine posts in this thread to compare which of us is missing the point.

NachoBusiness

osarusan wrote: »

I never defined, anywhere, what 'a woman's body' should mean. I do not know where you are getting this stuff. You seem to be reading what you want to read.

You were inferring it, constantly.

In the case of Sarah Catt, she ingested abortifacient pills. You believe she should have been punished, therefore it is obvious that you think she should not have the right to ingest abortifacient pills. Therefore, you do want to deny a woman the right to do certain things to her body.

I have said all along that there is NO WOMAN and NO MAN that believes in body autonomy or that a woman should always be able to do with her body what she wishes, so why are you suggesting that I am denying believing in something which I contend everyone believes. That makes no sense.

If, as you claim, you are not denying women the right to do anything with their bodies, you would support her rights to do what she did.

A more accurate statement of your position would be that you do not deny pregnant women the right to do certain things to their bodies as long as those things do not negatively impact on the body developing inside of them.

That's a fairly standard position, and I understand it, but it is not the same as saying that you are not denying the woman the right to do certain things to her body.

That is EXACTLY what I have been saying throughout the thread. Precisely in fact. Talk about losing a debate and trying to pretend you've won it It was check mate though and so I don't blame you for trying to squirm your way out. Nice that you eventually conceded the point though, even if you did do it in such unsporting fashion.

osarusan

NachoBusiness wrote: »

You were inferring it

I think you do not know what that words means.

NachoBusiness wrote: »

If she took those pills after the baby was born, I wouldn't object

But because she took them when she was pregnant, you do object and think it is wrong, so

NachoBusiness wrote: »

I have no interest in what she does with her body,

this is incorrect - you obviously have an interest in what she puts into her own body while pregnant - you want to deny her the right to put certain things into her own body. There, despite what you claimed, you do want to deny her rights over her own body.

NachoBusiness wrote: »

That is EXACTLY what I have been saying throughout the thread.

No it isn't. Once again, you just see what you want to see.

Yet again, you said that you do not want to deny women rights over their own body. That is what you said in response to Daith. I've posted the quotes twice. It was not a conditional statement.

Now you say that you do not want to deny women rights over their own bodies except when certain actions would impact on their pregnancy. That is not the same thing.

As i have said all along, the argument that 'Ive no problem with women doing whatever they want with their own bodies, just not with the ones developing inside them' doesn't weight as an argument because defending the latter means constricting the former.

NachoBusiness

osarusan wrote: »

you obviously have an interest in what she puts into her own body while pregnant - you want to deny her the right to put certain things into her own body. There, despite what you claimed, you do want to deny her rights over her own body.

AGAIN, I have said all along that there is NO WOMAN or MAN that believes any woman should have full body autonomy when they are pregnant, yet this appears to be what you seem so foolishly trying to get me to admit to but sure why would I bother saying that all along if it wasn't something that I also did not believe in myself?? Wouldn't make any sense at all. The whole basis of my bringing Sarah Catt into the discussion is to show how EVERYONE wants society have laws in place to prevent women having late stage abortions, despite their protestations.

Yet again, you said that you do not want to deny women rights over their own body. That is what you said in response to Daith. I've posted the quotes twice. It was not a conditional statement.

Of course it is conditional. Why would I care about a woman taking abortion pills if she wasn't pregnant?? That would be absurd.

Now you say that you do not want to deny women rights over their own bodies except when certain actions would impact on their pregnancy. That is not the same thing.

"Now you say.."? No, I have been saying this all along. Of course I am talking about actions which impact pregnancies! We're not talking about women with toothaches here. Pregnancy is the context. Quit removing it.

As i have said all along, the argument that 'Ive no problem with women doing whatever they want with their own bodies, just not with the ones developing inside them' doesn't weight as an argument because defending the latter means constricting the former.

No it doesn't. Well, it does if you remove context but why would anyone do that

You see: if the woman only engages in actions that don't have a bearing on the developing fetus, then they would only be doing things with their body and I would have no issue with that. Once however though, they do something which endangers the life of the baby developing within them, they are now doing something which impacts the life of the developing baby and so you can't define whatever that action is which the women is partaking in, as: "doing something to her body".

In any case (while obviously not agreeing with it) for the purposes of the larger discussion, I accept that some people see the fetus as being part of a women's body but as I have said many times, their contention that they believe women should have full body autonomy with regards to abortion is made even more ludicrous by maintaining this paper thin belief, because if they truly did, then they would support a woman's choice to have an abortion at any stage of their pregnancy (it being their body and all) but they never do and so I'm not sure what all they pretense is for. Pointless posturing I suppose.

Chain Smoker

DarkyHughes wrote: »

I remember Mother Teresa used to bang on about how bad contraception & abortion was all the time. I bet a loud of the Pro-lifer's are still influenced by her vist(s).

Not necessarily just her visits, the simple fact that basically all that any Irish person who hasn't actively sought out information about abortion will have received it from either videos shown to or visitors in their school who had a very clear agenda has to have had an impact on the Irish population. That's an incredibly unfair advantage to give to one side of any heavily divisive issue.

Considering how often things regarding abortion pills appear in the media, it surprises me how often I come across people who didn't even know there were non-surgical forms of abortion. They weren't covered at all in the few lessons on abortion I had in school, I can only assume mentioning it would take away from the scare tactics of associating the term exclusively with videos of late term abortions from the 60s and mislabeling tools from christ knows how long ago.


(Does anyone know if it's still addressed as part of religion class in schools like this? I finished in 2007 and, politics aside, even back then the idea of showing something so graphic without getting parental consent beforehand seems like it should've been a sackable offense so I assume it's not brought up in schools at all now?)

LorMal

K4t wrote: »

They'll be killed in a referendum - butchered like their sacred foetuses. Those are the photos I'd like to see.

Jesus Christ, is this was passes as a valid argument on here? Disgusting comment.

Daith

NachoBusiness wrote: »

In any case (while obviously not agreeing with it) for the purposes of the larger discussion, I accept that some people see the fetus as being part of a women's body but as I have said many times, their contention that they believe women should have full body autonomy with regards to abortion is made even more ludicrous by maintaining this paper thin belief, because if they truly did, then they would support a woman's choice to have an abortion at any stage of their pregnancy (it being their body and all) but they never do and so I'm not sure what all they pretense is for. Pointless posturing I suppose.

Not at all and this is the biggest issue with your points. You're jumping into an "absolute" thing.

"So you think a woman should have absolute control of her body and therefore you have to agree with this, this and this"

People may support abortion in the first few weeks but not after or in the case of rape or fatal fetal or and it goes on. Rather than look at the these circumstances your jump to "abortion on demand, abortion on demand" destroys your points.

It's the same in the marriage referendum when No side picked up "Why shouldn't two brothers who love each other marry cause equality" rather than the actual argument which was "Why can't gay couples be treated equally as straight couples"

It didn't work out well for the No side because people can understand differences and different situations and not rush to absolutes and slippery slopes. The actual argument in this will not be abortion on demand or a "woman's absolute control of her body" but abortion in limited circumstances.

NachoBusiness

Daith wrote: »

Not at all and this is the biggest issue with your points. You're jumping into an "absolute" thing.

"So you think a woman should have absolute control of her body and therefore you have to agree with this, this and this"

Look, if someone says with regards to the abortion debate they believe: 'female body autonomy, her body, her choice' without adding a condition (which they never do) then THEY are the ones starting out from an 'absolute'. You can't then turn that back on someone when they ultimately show that that person doesn't believe what they are saying.

The actual argument in this will not be abortion on demand but abortion in limited circumstances.

Of course and I have said I will vote yes and would support all therapeutic abortions and am even in favour of legalizing first trimester abortions in Ireland..

...but if someone makes a 'body autonomy' or a 'it's a woman's body, her choice' argument to support a yes vote for say, second trimester abortions, non-therapeutic abortions, then of course I am going to point out the flaws in their logic, as it's farcical to refer to second trimester fetuses as being *part of a woman's body* yet not also believe that the fetus in Sarah Catt's womb (as she was taking those pills) wasn't also *part of a woman's body*. You see, anybody that claims 'it's a woman's body and so it should be her choice' and believes abortion is really a 'female body autonomy' issue SHOULD have no problem with what Sarah did, as it was "HER" body, right? But 99.99999% of people do have a problem with what she did and want laws in place to make what she did illegal and there lies the contradiction.

PopePalpatine

Bambi wrote: »

And there's nothing more vicious than a cornered pro lifer, the old holy rolling halos will slip fast enough on them buckos if they think they might lose the big one

Hopefully an abortion referendum passes, please god, and they try block clinics or suchlike, cue legislation being brought in to allow the guards to bate them off the street like wall eyed loons that they are.

Or maybe they'll try to recruit some ex-dissident pipe bomb maker to emulate their American friends.

rainbow kirby

All I'll say is that I feel a lot safer living in the UK during my potential childbearing years. The 8th amendment isn't just about abortion, it has knock-on effects on miscarriage management, treatment of cancer and other illnesses during pregnancy, issues during childbirth etc. It needs to go before even more women die, are maimed or suffer severe and lasting health consequences as a result of it.

Once it's removed though Ireland needs an abortion law that's truly fit for purpose. It should be a decision between a woman and her medical team at the end of the day.

frostyjacks

Chain Smoker wrote: »

(Does anyone know if it's still addressed as part of religion class in schools like this? I finished in 2007 and, politics aside, even back then the idea of showing something so graphic without getting parental consent beforehand seems like it should've been a sackable offense so I assume it's not brought up in schools at all now?)

The images used are graphic and shocking, but that's what abortion involves. There's little point trying to dress it up as some sort of routine medical procedure. It's the same logic used for teaching road safety; people better understand the consequences of their actions if they see what actually happens.

osarusan

NachoBusiness wrote: »

AGAIN, I have said all along that there is NO WOMAN or MAN that believes any woman should have full body autonomy when they are pregnant,

No you haven't - here is what you said earlier:

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Newsflash: nobody is trying stop women doing anything with their bodies.

And you reiterated it in reply to Daith. As you can see, it is not a conditional statement. It is an absolute statement.


Rather than make it a conditional statement, you are trying to make a silly distinction - that silly distinction you are trying to make is this - that a woman getting an abortion is doing something to the body of the baby, but not actually her own body:

Once however though, they do something which endangers the life of the baby developing within them, they are now doing something which impacts the life of the developing baby and so you can't define whatever that action is which the women is partaking in, as: "doing something to her body".

The idea that taking actions that will result in the removal of something from inside her body cannot be described as 'doing something to her body' is ridiculous. The two are not mutually exclusive.

From reading your position on abortion, I think mine is not so dissimilar, but let's not pretend that limiting abortion after the first trimester does not necessitate limiting what a woman can do with her own body after the first trimester.

To offer an analogy, your argument is as illogical as saying 'I'm not stopping you from doing anything with your own face, no problem with that - it's your face and you can do whatever you like with it, and that's fine with me.... as long as your beard stays there.'

Daith

NachoBusiness wrote: »

But 99.99999% of people do have a problem with what she did and want laws in place to make what she did illegal and there lies the contradiction.

You absolutely need to stop making up stats and speaking for other people btw.

kylith

frostyjacks wrote: »

The images used are graphic and shocking, but that's what abortion involves. There's little point trying to dress it up as some sort of routine medical procedure. It's the same logic used for teaching road safety; people better understand the consequences of their actions if they see what actually happens.

So, would you be in favour of showing a group of 15 year olds footage of surgery, or of road traffic accidents, without parental permission.

Please bear in mind that these videos are being shown by people who actually believe them to be video of murder. Do you think they'd show film of executions in schools?

Mr. CooL ICE

frostyjacks wrote: »

The images used are graphic and shocking, but that's what abortion involves. There's little point trying to dress it up as some sort of routine medical procedure. It's the same logic used for teaching road safety; people better understand the consequences of their actions if they see what actually happens.

Well, not all abortions. Not by a long shot.

Chain Smoker

frostyjacks wrote: »

The images used are graphic and shocking, but that's what abortion involves. There's little point trying to dress it up as some sort of routine medical procedure. It's the same logic used for teaching road safety; people better understand the consequences of their actions if they see what actually happens.

Seem to be skipping over my primary point that the images were of practices which you'd never see in any first world country in the past few decades and/or were horrendously mislabelled (e.g. those Youth Defense posters of these remarkably developed foetuses for the points in development which they claim they're at).

If you feel like your argument has to rely on a constant stream of misinformation, that's hardly a very good sign.

PopePalpatine

Wow, I feel like I won the RE lottery in secondary school. My class never watched some propaganda from the likes of Jugendschutz and nuns ringing bells repeating the word "shame!"

jill_valentine

I had a sebaceous cyst removed once. I'm not in a hurry to look at images of that either, but I don't regret it.

Anti abortion campaigns, btw, have not been unknown to use images of cat foetuses in their material, so lets not pretend this is all about delivering cold hard reality.

eviltwin

frostyjacks wrote: »

The images used are graphic and shocking, but that's what abortion involves. There's little point trying to dress it up as some sort of routine medical procedure. It's the same logic used for teaching road safety; people better understand the consequences of their actions if they see what actually happens.

Do you need to see the contents of a woman's sanitary towels to know whats involved in a period?

Kev W

jill_valentine wrote: »

I had a sebaceous cyst removed once. I'm not in a hurry to look at images of that either, but I don't regret it.

Anti abortion campaigns, btw, have not been unknown to use images of cat foetuses in their material, so lets not pretend this is all about delivering cold hard reality.

It's the internet age, cat memes get you clicks.

:pac:

lazygal

Pretty sure I don't need to see any footage of my c sections. Or the third degree tears some friends of mine have had during childbirth. Catching a glimpse of the placenta in all its glory being toted around in a plastic bag was quite enough.

lazygal

frostyjacks wrote: »

The images used are graphic and shocking, but that's what abortion involves. There's little point trying to dress it up as some sort of routine medical procedure. It's the same logic used for teaching road safety; people better understand the consequences of their actions if they see what actually happens.

26 abortions took place last year in Ireland. Does that make it a routine medical procedure? What about the pregnancies aborted at under 12 weeks, which are like a heavy period, do we need to see those too.

zeffabelli

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Look, if someone says with regards to the abortion debate they believe: 'female body autonomy, her body, her choice' without adding a condition (which they never do) then THEY are the ones starting out from an 'absolute'. You can't then turn that back on someone when they ultimately show that that person doesn't believe what they are saying.



Of course and I have said I will vote yes and would support all therapeutic abortions and am even in favour of legalizing first trimester abortions in Ireland..

...but if someone makes a 'body autonomy' or a 'it's a woman's body, her choice' argument to support a yes vote for say, second trimester abortions, non-therapeutic abortions, then of course I am going to point out the flaws in their logic, as it's farcical to refer to second trimester fetuses as being *part of a woman's body* yet not also believe that the fetus in Sarah Catt's womb (as she was taking those pills) wasn't also *part of a woman's body*. You see, anybody that claims 'it's a woman's body and so it should be her choice' and believes abortion is really a 'female body autonomy' issue SHOULD have no problem with what Sarah did, as it was "HER" body, right? But 99.99999% of people do have a problem with what she did and want laws in place to make what she did illegal and there lies the contradiction.

This is a problem from all angles of this debate- the assumption that all rights are absolute.

No right is absolute.

I see your point though, yes it is a hipocracy....