The new, vicious fight

jill_valentine

lazygal wrote: »

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.

I'm not sure why it's the "plastic bag" detail that really gets me, but for some reason it is.

Edit -

Maybe because my first image was of a Heatons bag.

lazygal

jill_valentine wrote: »

I'm not sure why it's the "plastic bag" detail that really gets me, but for some reason it is.

Edit -

Maybe because my first image was of a Heatons bag.

Sorry, I should have said having my precious babies by c section was the most wonderful thing ever and butterflies and fairies lifted them out and there were no invasive procedures at all during pregnancy and birth and it was all so amazing that I can't see why giving birth in the safest little country in the world isn't a reason for all girls and women to remain pregnant regardless of any other considerations.

zeffabelli

lazygal wrote: »

Sorry, I should have said having my precious babies by c section was the most wonderful thing ever and butterflies and fairies lifted them out and there were no invasive procedures at all during pregnancy and birth and it was all so amazing that I can't see why giving birth in the safest little country in the world isn't a reason for all girls and women to remain pregnant regardless of any other considerations.

Ah yeah...I was bathed in Chanel No 5, wrapped up in daisy chains and dusted off in gold...

It felt GREAT!!

kylith

jill_valentine wrote: »

I'm not sure why it's the "plastic bag" detail that really gets me, but for some reason it is.

Edit -

Maybe because my first image was of a Heatons bag.

My first image was a sandwich baggie

lazygal

kylith wrote: »

My first image was a sandwich baggie

I wish. It's a lot bigger and uglier than that size.

crockholm

Meh..The nurses insisted that I held the Placenta after the birth and they did this whole "Tree of Life" thing with it by holding it at the top and letting gravity deal with the goo.(in fairness,it did look like a tree) they also expected me to cut the umbilical cord.What the fukk was I actually paying them for?

NachoBusiness

Daith wrote: »

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

Saying 99.99999% was not meant to be a "stat" :P

As I said before, NOBODY would think it is okay for Sarah Catt to do what she did. They would either want her imprisoned, or want her sectioned where she can get some help. Either way, nobody approves of such action. Sure, you might get the odd lunatic hold up in basement somewhere who thinks it should be perfectly legal for women to be able to take abortion pills a couple of weeks before they are due to give birth, but by and large, excluding the insane, everyone wants such actions to be illegal.

Now, if you still feel that I am speaking for people which I shouldn't be, well then my question to you is a simple one: where are these people that think women should be able to abort babies a couple of weeks before they're due to give birth? and why aren't they confronting me here themselves?

lazygal

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Now, if you still feel that I am speaking for people which I shouldn't be, well then my question to you is a simple one: where are these people that think women should be able to abort babies a couple of weeks before they're due to give birth? and why aren't they confronting me here themselves?

Babies are aborted all the time before birth. My first prengnacy was terminated a week before I was due to give birth, because there would have been a risk to me had I gone into labour. I think women should be able to abort a pregnancy a couple of weeks before they are due, but that doesn't mean the heartbeat of the baby is stopped and its delivered dead. Miss Y's pregnancy was terminated and she delivered a live baby. Should she have been forced to continue a pregnancy that was a risk to her life until full term?

LorMal

Unfortunately there are people who want to insist on Abortion on demand. Unfortunately, there are also people who insist on no Abortion under any circumstances. Abortion is a complex and difficult and issue which requires compassion, respect for others and level headed debate.
Instead this complex and sensitive issue gets constantly mired in radical feminism or religious dogma or left/right wing politics. The level of debate in Ireland tends to be over emotional, simplistic, intolerant of others and generally shouty.
Time to grow up as a country and draft a balanced, inclusive, moral and intelligent piece of legislation that balances the right of the unborn to life wherever possible and the right of women to their own health not being deliberately put at risk.
There are no absolutes in this issue - its difficult and painful for everyone.

NachoBusiness

lazygal wrote: »

Babies are aborted all the time before birth. My first prengnacy was terminated a week before I was due to give birth, because there would have been a risk to me had I gone into labour. I think women should be able to abort a pregnancy a couple of weeks before they are due, but that doesn't mean the heartbeat of the baby is stopped and its delivered dead. Miss Y's pregnancy was terminated and she delivered a live baby. Should she have been forced to continue a pregnancy that was a risk to her life until full term?

--

NachoBusiness wrote: »

I'd welcome (yet another) referendum on abortion. Would happily vote to repeal the 8th and further, as no issues at all with therapeutic abortions. Nor even with first trimester abortions.

NachoBusiness wrote: »

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.

NachoBusiness

osarusan wrote: »

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

Of course it's a conditional statement. The context sets the conditions.

It's like making a law against kicking puppies and then some people come along and say that what you're really trying to do is prevent people from doing what they want with their feet. It's ludicrous.

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:

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.

You are not listening / comprehending what I am saying to you.

I am not saying that when a woman has an abortion she is not also doing something to her body. Of course she is, hence my contention that nobody could possibly truly believe in female body autonomy. Penny dropping yet? The fact that a woman is doing something to her body when she has an abortion is precisely why I brought Sarah Catt into the argument, as to certain parties all she did was do something "with her body" and yet even the body autonomy crowd condemned her.

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.

Nobody is pretending that. A woman is only limited in actions that would result in death of her developing baby. Hence why the statement you say is a contradiction, is not one.. unless that is you take away the obvious conditions, which is really just you grasping at straws.

Look, the law in UK would have had the right to stop Sarah Catt from taking those abortion pills had they received a tip off saying she was about to take them. Now, would that mean that Sarah would be prevented from doing something with her body? Yes of course but that would be incidental, which is why the statement you suggesting is a contradiction, is far from being one, as if Sarah wasn't pregnant, nobody would care if she took those damn pills every night of the week, because nobody is trying to stop women from doing what they want to with their own bodies. That's just an empty, sanctimonious, belligerent, selfish, war cry.

One eyed Jack

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Saying 99.99999% was not meant to be a "stat" :P

As I said before, NOBODY would think it is okay for Sarah Catt to do what she did. They would either want her imprisoned, or want her sectioned where she can get some help. Either way, nobody approves of such action. Sure, you might get the odd lunatic hold up in basement somewhere who thinks it should be perfectly legal for women to be able to take abortion pills a couple of weeks before they are due to give birth, but by and large, excluding the insane, everyone wants such actions to be illegal.

Now, if you still feel that I am speaking for people which I shouldn't be, well then my question to you is a simple one: where are these people that think women should be able to abort babies a couple of weeks before they're due to give birth? and why aren't they confronting me here themselves?

I would agree that what Sarah Catt did was an horrendous act, but for me personally, it was the way she went about it, the method she used, that showed no respect nor dignity to the unborn. But the Catt case was plagued with all sorts of issues -


Sarah Catt, abortion and the legal rights of pregnant women


and she has since had her sentence reduced on appeal -


Appeal court cuts jail term for woman who aborted baby at 40 weeks


The only reason tbh I'm not prepared to challenge you on it is because I think you've taken enough flak in this thread already and I can see where you're coming from even though I don't necessarily agree with your position. My position has always been simply if a woman does not want to give birth, then she should not be forced to. At all times however, both the woman and the unborn should be treated with the utmost respect, compassion and dignity.


LorMal's post outlays why I really no longer invest too much energy having discussions about women's reproductive rights online -

LorMal wrote: »

Unfortunately there are people who want to insist on Abortion on demand. Unfortunately, there are also people who insist on no Abortion under any circumstances. Abortion is a complex and difficult and issue which requires compassion, respect for others and level headed debate.
Instead this complex and sensitive issue gets constantly mired in radical feminism or religious dogma or left/right wing politics. The level of debate in Ireland tends to be over emotional, simplistic, intolerant of others and generally shouty.
Time to grow up as a country and draft a balanced, inclusive, moral and intelligent piece of legislation that balances the right of the unborn to life wherever possible and the right of women to their own health not being deliberately put at risk.
There are no absolutes in this issue - its difficult and painful for everyone.

Grayson

Just popping this here.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/08/irish-abortion-survey-majority-people-support-decriminalisation

osarusan

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Of course it's a conditional statement. The context sets the conditions.

I see. So when you said this:

NachoBusiness wrote: »

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

You actually meant this:

Newsflash: nobody is trying stop women doing anything with their bodies, except if they are pregnant, then people are trying to stop them doing some things.

Have I got that right?


And when Daith said this:

Daith wrote: »

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

And you said this:

NachoBusiness wrote: »

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

what you actually meant was:

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Yes I am, if what she does with the her body affects the body that is developing within her.

You keep mentioning Sarah Catt as if it has something to do with my point. But it doesn't. If there are people who argue body autonomy on this thread and your think your example of Sarah Catt shows their argument to be inconsistent, then take it up with them. But it has nothing to do with my point, which is that the distinction you have been trying to make is nonsense.

Nobody is pretending that [limiting abortion after the first trimester does not necessitate limiting what a woman can do with her own body after the first trimester. ]

You pretended that, in posts i have quoted in this very post. They are right above this text. in fact I'll quote one again:

NachoBusiness wrote: »

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

you pretended it. Here's another of your posts:

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".

There it is again - you saying that them having an abortion isn't them doing something to their body.

Now you are pretending that you never said it.

You are not listening / comprehending what I am saying to you.

What you have been saying is demonstrably inconsistent. Maybe there's the problem.

NachoBusiness

osarusan wrote: »

I see. So when you said this: You actually meant this:

And when Daith said this: And you said this: what you actually meant was:

They are same thing, osarusan. Stop pretending they contradict each other, it's boring. You keep ignoring the overall point that nobody has a goal of trying to stop women doing something with their own body. The action that you refer to (abortion) is NOT just them doing something to their own body, it is them doing something which impacts two bodies: theirs and the developing fetus and so when they are STOPPED, they are stopped NOT because they are doing something to their body, but ultimately because of the harm they are about to do to the developing fetus.

If this act which women are prevented from doing, was something they would want do where they not pregnant, then you might have a point, but all these things that the pro choice crowd refer to when they say women should have a right to do what they want with their own bodies, are always methods of abortion and so it's a quite disingenuous to make the argument to begin with, but that's another thread.

There it is again - you saying that them having an abortion isn't them doing something to their body.

Now you are pretending that you never said it.

Here you go again with this pretending BS, as if there is some kind of 'gotcha' moment. There isn't. One minute you say that the Sarah Catt situation doesn't retort your point and then you make a comment which makes the Sarah Catt abortion the perfect retort, like just here.

How can you say I have pretended not to say something, when the very fact that I have said it (with regards to Sarah Catt) means I couldn't possibly pretend I that haven't said it. What you have done is remove context from some of my sentences, then suggested that with that context removed, they now mean something which they never did and when I point that out to you, you say I am pretending I never said it. Even though I have directly replied to your use of these quotes and explained precisely what I meant when I said each one.

What you have been saying is demonstrably inconsistent. Maybe there's the problem.

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.

frostyjacks

Grayson wrote: »

Just popping this here.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/08/irish-abortion-survey-majority-people-support-decriminalisation

I'm inclined to take anything Amnesty says with a pinch of salt, and I can imagine the howls of derision if the Catholic Church came out with a survey. I'm not sure why they feel the need to get involved with our business, I imagine there are lots of actual injustices going on in the world for them to campaign against. If they're a rights-based organisation, they don't seem to place much value on the rights of the unborn.

volchitsa

frostyjacks wrote: »

I'm inclined to take anything Amnesty says with a pinch of salt, and I can imagine the howls of derision if the Catholic Church came out with a survey.

The poll was by Red C. Amnesty didn't choose the questions or anything you know.

As for the idea that the Catholic Church should do a survey to find out whether people agree with it or not - that is surely something that would indeed be greeted with derision, as much by practicing Catholics as by anyone else. In fact it's hilarious.

As for complaining about why AI "need" to get involved in "our" business, that's exactly the reaction from countries guilty of human rights abuses.

frostyjacks

volchitsa wrote: »

The poll was by Red C. Amnesty didn't choose the questions or anything you know.

As for the idea that the Catholic Church should do a survey to find out whether people agree with it or not - that is surely something that would indeed be greeted with derision, as much by practicing Catholics as by anyone else. In fact it's hilarious.

As for complaining about why AI "need" to get involved in "our" business, that's exactly the reaction from countries guilty of human rights abuses.

The 8th amendment isn't an abuse of human rights. It's an affirmation of them. Amnesty would be better spending their time and money on genuine cases.

zeffabelli

Nacho business,

There is a compelling argument philosophically, not legally, that Sarah Catt should not have been prosecuted. She broke the law, that much is clear.

My guess is she would have gotten less for infanticide and was probably judged as much for her history as for the deed she was put on trial for.

Both the pro choice and pro life sides sustain hipocracies to protect themselves from the ICK factors that influence how we moralise.

Kev W

frostyjacks wrote: »

I'm not sure why they feel the need to get involved with our business,

You really are irony-proof, aren't you?

Kev W

frostyjacks wrote: »

The 8th amendment isn't an abuse of human rights. It's an affirmation of them. Amnesty would be better spending their time and money on genuine cases.

The vast majority would disagree.

volchitsa

frostyjacks wrote: »

The 8th amendment isn't an abuse of human rights. It's an affirmation of them. Amnesty would be better spending their time and money on genuine cases.

Here, you need one of these:

in my opinion

(And I'd be interested in hearing you explain that "affirmation" of human rights to Savita Halappanavar's family, or to Deirdre Conroy, or any other women who've had occasion to taste Ireland's fairly unique take on "human rights" whenever women are concerned. And a bitter taste it was.

lazygal

frostyjacks wrote: »

The 8th amendment isn't an abuse of human rights. It's an affirmation of them. Amnesty would be better spending their time and money on genuine cases.

What human rights does it affirm?

One eyed Jack

Kev W wrote: »

The vast majority would disagree.

Would they? According to that article linked to by Grayson, only 46% of the Irish population agree with decriminalising abortion. That's a far cry from the vast majority some posters here are trying to portray based upon nothing more than their own intuition.

I can't speak for how anyone else feels about them, but amnesty disappeared up their own arse holes a long time ago and haven't been interested in human rights in a long time, just politics, and much as I disagree with the purpose of the 8th amendment, jack does have a point in saying that it's about protecting human rights.

LorMal

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Would they? According to that article linked to by Grayson, only 46% of the Irish population agree with decriminalising abortion. That's a far cry from the vast majority some posters here are trying to portray based upon nothing more than their own intuition.

I can't speak for how anyone else feels about them, but amnesty disappeared up their own arse holes a long time ago and haven't been interested in human rights in a long time, just politics, and much as I disagree with the purpose of the 8th amendment, jack does have a point in saying that it's about protecting human rights.

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.

Kev W

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Would they? According to that article linked to by Grayson, only 46% of the Irish population agree with decriminalising abortion. That's a far cry from the vast majority some posters here are trying to portray based upon nothing more than their own intuition.

65% actually. The 45% were the ones who were in favour of allowing women to access abortion as they choose. Not the same thing.

Kev W

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.

Another blast of irony there.

Zen65

newmug wrote: »

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.

Why do you assume the pro-choice people are atheists??

Not every atheist is pro-choice, not every Christian is pro-life.

NachoBusiness

zeffabelli wrote: »

There is a compelling argument philosophically, not legally, that Sarah Catt should not have been prosecuted.

And that philosophical argument would be?

My guess is she would have gotten less for infanticide and was probably judged as much for her history as for the deed she was put on trial for.

She got off very light. Her sentence was reduced to three and half years on appeal.

If she was in the states though, she most likely would have got a hell of a lot more .

In general, any sentence which I have seen given for infantcide in the UK that was less than three and half years, mental health issues were an overriding factor. Sarah was given a clean bill of health in that regard.

Both the pro choice and pro life sides sustain hipocracies to protect themselves from the ICK factors that influence how we moralise.

I agree.

Daith

Kev W wrote: »

65% actually. The 45% were the ones who were in favour of allowing women to access abortion as they choose. Not the same thing.

Cos the only thing anti-choice people see is "abortion on demand" and not the actual issues?