Abortion Discussion, Part the Fourth

Bannasidhe

Mod: after careful consideration your friendly mod has come to the conclusion that attempts to introduce infanticide into the discussion is little more than an attempt to muddy the waters, inflame the situation, present an extreme so-called 'pro-choice' position and generally drag the entire thread down yet another rabbit hole of semantics, bickering, evasion, and general chaos - much as the use of the term "murder" did previously.

Drop the discussion of infanticide please.

smacl

splinter65 wrote: »

Just out of interest, in what way do you find Shapiro “extremist”? He’s just pro life.

The picture of a dead baby and the spiel on Kermit Gosnell primarily. He is taking an extreme example of the illegal activity of one person and implying it is somehow representative of abortion, which it clearly is not. Basing your position on appeal to emotional outrage using pictures and cases that are not just atypical but entirely exceptional is extremist. He's not alone in the use of this tactic, but it is so old now I don't think anyone believes it is honest at this point in time.

smacl

splinter65 wrote: »

It’s the silence from the other posters that’s disturbing.

I certainly don't find the stance adopted by that poster to be credible and have already posted to that effect.

smacl

splinter65 wrote: »

It’s as if people are afraid to speak in case they’re labeled “anti choice” . It’s akin to being called a racist transphobic homophobe really....

Mod: Fair point. In the interests of civil debate, can we please refer to the groups on either side of this debate by their own preferred labels. i.e. pro-life and pro-choice, no more use of anti-choice or pro-abortion. Thanks.

nozzferrahhtoo

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Well only one poster is able to admit it, who knows what others are thinking?

I do like to think most posters who bother to post are honest about their positions. Especially given posting here is A) Optional and Anonymous. So it makes rare sense that anyone would bother posting on a topic they actually do not want to talk openly about.

That said though I have been bitten by that assumption when it has been proven false.

For example we had a poster who posted here for a long time, on the earlier instances of this thread in fact, claiming not just to be pro-choice but right up to the point of birth. That the infant had no rights at all until it travelled down the birth canal when suddenly magically it attained all it's rights.

His argument supporting that position? Well nothing much really.... just his claim that Mary Robinson agreed with him. That was literally all I got supporting the position when I asked.

Suddenly though when the referendum was actually announced said user pretty much over night became one of the "abortions are not warranted ever" posters on the other extreme of the spectrum. Which merely leads me to question my own assumptions about how open people are being here.

But in general I think that there is a reason when only one person supports a particular proposition and no one else does. And in general I do not think that reason is "because everyone else cant admit it".

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Anyone who does not support late term abortions is not pro choice by the strictest definition of the word.

Not really. The definitions, including the one you cited, merely suggest we are offering them a choice.

Nothing in that definition requires it be an entirely unrestricted choice, with no limits at all. That is not, any to my knowledge of the entire history of our language has never been, what giving someone a choice has ever meant.

Giving someone a choice with restrictions is STILL giving them a choice. The idea that you only really give someone a choice if it is actually a freedom to do anything they want, any time they want, is simply not supported by the etymology there.

Kidchameleon

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

But in general I think that there is a reason when only one person supports a particular proposition and no one else does. And in general I do not think that reason is "because everyone else cant admit it".

I get what you are saying. Look I am not some baby slaying fetishist. What I propose is actions in very extreme circumstances (of which, as a man, I will never fully understand admittedly). It comes down to the woman's choice for me.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Giving someone a choice with restrictions is STILL giving them a choice. The idea that you only really give someone a choice if it is actually a freedom to do anything they want, any time they want, is simply not supported by the etymology there.

Its kind of pointless to discuss labels. If you are against abortion after 12 weeks, you may in the future find yourself on the same side of the fence the pro lifers are on now. I can see a time in the future when there will be a push to extend the window of when abortions are allowed.


As it stands, women have a choice - with stipulations. They are still not free to do whatever they want with their own bodies. For example, a woman does not have a free choice to abort at 13 weeks (when the fetus is as non viable as it was at 12 weeks)

Calina

splinter65 wrote: »

It’s the silence from the other posters that’s disturbing. It’s as if people are afraid to speak in case they’re labeled “anti choice” . It’s akin to being called a racist transphobic homophobe really....

Other posters have objected strongly. Stop pretending we did not.

volchitsa

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I get what you are saying. Look I am not some baby slaying fetishist. What I propose is actions in very extreme circumstances (of which, as a man, I will never fully understand admittedly). It comes down to the woman's choice for me.

Its kind of pointless to discuss labels. If you are against abortion after 12 weeks, you may in the future find yourself on the same side of the fence the pro lifers are on now. I can see a time in the future when there will be a push to extend the window of when abortions are allowed.

As it stands, women have a choice - with stipulations. They are still not free to do whatever they want with their own bodies. For example, a woman does not have a free choice to abort at 13 weeks (when the fetus is as non viable as it was at 12 weeks)

So, this is the kind of argument that makes it seem that you have so little understanding of the basic prochoice views that you cannot genuinely be prochoice yourself.

People who support abortion up to 12 weeks do not actively oppose it at 13 "because it's killing babies" - they have merely concluded that 12 weeks seems a reasonable compromise to set a limit given our current understanding of fetal development.

If that changes, either way, there is nothing stopping those people from adapting their stance accordingly. They would still be prochoice. Why would you imagine that they would refuse to modify the 12 week limit if there was good reason to do so? It's just a legal age limit, like the age of consent or the voting age, because the law needs clear time limits to function.


(ETA: And just to avoid anyone "misreading" this, no I'm not saying that therefore we should extend from 12 weeks: there are very good reasons to ensure that women having abortions have them as early as possible. Since well over 90% of all terminations take place before 12/13 weeks even in the UK where there is no legal pressure to do so by that date, it seems that this is a suitable compromise. If that changes, then prochoicers can adapt their preferred dates accordingly.)

Kidchameleon

volchitsa wrote: »

..

So your saying that the "pro choice" label may change its meaning over time? That's fine. So I am currently not "pro choice", lets say I am "pro choice+".


Pro life: no abortions
Pro choice: abortions within 12 weeks

Pro choice+: no time limit for abortion



Its all just labels. Call me whatever you want.

aloyisious

On the basis below, the meaning of the label on the can is left to the discretion of the reader.

This has probably been argued out before [cant recall] but to me, some-one saying that he/she agrees that abortion is OK in even a limited set of circumstances and time-limited in law means that that person is Pro-Choice. Whilst the person may nominally be against abortion in general [in his/her mind], giving the thumbs up to women having abortions under the above circumstances and limit thereby means the person can be said to be Pro-Choice.

IMO, the set-up or "right" to defining and labelling who is Pro-Choice or Pro-life is not limited solely to the person after he/she has made the choice to agree with abortion. You can be Pro-Choice up to the time allowed in law or by whatever limit you see as acceptable but it may mean that by you agreeing to/with that limit, you may be seen as - and said to be - Pro-life after that limit is passed IN EXISTENCE by the foetus. One might not like to be labelled Pro-this or that but by personally defining one's choice of limit, one might automatically [corollary-adjectively] fall into another camp without intent and be said to be Pro-this as against Pro-that. This may be argued against by people who may say they and they alone can define what they are and where they stand but words used can INFER further unspoken words.

aloyisious

The educating of a president. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...s-rape-incest/ Donald Trump says he is in favour of abortion laws with exceptions for rape and incest.

followed by his tweet below in the journal.ie

Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump


As most people know, and for those who would like to know, I am strongly Pro-Life, with the three exceptions - Rape, Incest and protecting the Life of the mother - the same position taken by Ronald Reagan. We have come very far in the last two years with 105 wonderful new.....

67.1K
4:37 AM - May 19, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy

25.3K people are talking about this

It seems that he had a different position in 2016 where he thought jail was the place for women who had abortions. One might ask/hope if he's sending a message to the USSC and his appointees there now with his tweet.

Bannasidhe

Mod: Gentle reminder. Let that tangent go where it deserves.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Mod: after careful consideration your friendly mod has come to the conclusion that attempts to introduce infanticide into the discussion is little more than an attempt to muddy the waters, inflame the situation, present an extreme so-called 'pro-choice' position and generally drag the entire thread down yet another rabbit hole of semantics, bickering, evasion, and general chaos - much as the use of the term "murder" did previously.

Drop the discussion of infanticide please.

Calina wrote: »

Other posters have objected strongly. Stop pretending we did not.

nozzferrahhtoo

Kidchameleon wrote: »

It comes down to the woman's choice for me.

A phrase I always liked is "My right to choose what to do with my fists ends at your face".

In other words I too want to maximise the choice of women, as do you. But choice HAS to be curtailed the moment it impacts on the freedoms, well beings, and rights of another sentient agent.

There is nowhere else where we have 100% choice, like with my fists, so why do we need it with abortion? Our choices are ALWAYS curtailed the moment another person with rights is involved.

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Its kind of pointless to discuss labels. If you are against abortion after 12 weeks, you may in the future find yourself on the same side of the fence the pro lifers are on now. I can see a time in the future when there will be a push to extend the window of when abortions are allowed.

And I am happy for it to be extended until such time as it gets extended to the point where we have any reason to suspect the fetus is a sentient agent. Then I will without any reservation or embarrassment join a different battle line.

Plumbthedepths

nozzferrahhtoo wrote:

A phrase I always liked is "My right to choose what to do with my fists ends at your face".

Do you really believe the poster you responded to is Pro choice?

nozzferrahhtoo

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Do you really believe the poster you responded to is Pro choice?

To be honest I am not convinced but I tend to treat people as they present themselves to be. Not because I care what THEY are, but on a public forum I am responding not to them but everyone they represent, or even just pretend to represent.

As I said before I replied for MONTHS to a user on this very thread who now it appears may possibly allegedly only have been pretending to be quite extremely pro-choice.... supporting termination up to birth in fact because seemingly Mary Robinson told him so..... but who reversed his position magically around the time the referendum was announced.

I now reply to that poster as he NOW presents himself to be. And if he suddenly started presenting as a pro-choicer again.... I would respond to him as one of those again too So I think I should afford Kidchameleon the same courtesy.

Kidchameleon

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Do you really believe the poster you responded to is Pro choice?

Im not pro choice, im pro choice+

Cabaal

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Im not pro choice, im pro choice+

Not enough of these -> :rolleyes: , in the world

volchitsa

Kidchameleon wrote: »

So your saying that the "pro choice" label may change its meaning over time?

No. The detail of the limits and parameters to the choice may vary : rules in Germany are not the same as in the US or Spain, but their supporters in those countries are all prochoice.

Just like democracies vary widely in significant aspects like how often they hold elections, who may vote, and how the vote is counted - but they are all democracies because there is a clear opposite which is completely different again, ie, all the various forms of non-democracy.

Kidchameleon wrote: »

That's fine. So I am currently not "pro choice", lets say I am "pro choice+".

Pro life: no abortions
Pro choice: abortions within 12 weeks

Pro choice+: no time limit for abortion

No, I explained why this does not correspond to reality.

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Its all just labels. Call me whatever you want.

Words matter, so no. Your alleged support for no time limits on abortion is not based on the characteristics of the fetus so much as in your supposed support for infanticide (I can hardly believe I'm typing that, but since we all know you're only spoofing anyway, it hardly matters really.)

.......

Kidchameleon wrote: »

So your saying that the "pro choice" label may change its meaning over time? That's fine. So I am currently not "pro choice", lets say I am "pro choice+".


Pro life: no abortions
Pro choice: abortions within 12 weeks

Pro choice+: no time limit for abortion



Its all just labels. Call me whatever you want.

Its not a credible position tbh. Its not based on any "ordinary" version of morality, or even for the greater good.

And I have already stated this days ago in the thread, but it seems like you are deliberately maintaining an extreme position in order to discredit the actual pro choice position (of which I know absolutely no one or any definition that agrees with "abortion" right up to birth, certainly some people might agree on the termination of pregnancy right up to birth, but not the death of an unborn fetus that is a few hours/days from being born as it is unnecessary).

So, no, I dont think you are holding a credible position and if that is your understanding of the pro choice position then you are sadly mistaken.

Cabaal

....... wrote: »

Its not a credible position tbh. Its not based on any "ordinary" version of morality, or even for the greater good.

And I have already stated this days ago in the thread, but it seems like you are deliberately maintaining an extreme position in order to discredit the actual pro choice position (of which I know absolutely no one or any definition that agrees with "abortion" right up to birth, certainly some people might agree on the termination of pregnancy right up to birth, but not the death of an unborn fetus that is a few hours/days from being born as it is unnecessary).

So, no, I dont think you are holding a credible position and if that is your understanding of the pro choice position then you are sadly mistaken.

Throughout the ref last year we saw numerous posters take such an extreme, unrealistic position both here and in After Hours. They eventually all slipped up in one way or another and showed their true colours.

It's a pretty pathetic attempt to try undermine pro-choice people. It lacks any imagination what so ever.

I view pretty much all posts made by Kidchameleon as disingenuous. Not worth the effort even reading or replying to.

Hotblack Desiato

splinter65 wrote: »

When we defeated Hitler we proved that.

Not going to discuss the "I" word any further, but as other posters have pointed out you cannot infer anything from what other posters are NOT saying. Silence is not consent. Not responding to a particular poster is not endorsement.

I regard forcing a rape victim to remain pregnant as psychotic.

Also Catholic Holy Ireland didn't lift a finger to defeat Hitler. As we are seeing from the laundries, mother and baby homes, rampant physical and sexual abuse by clerics, etc. etc. its ideas of morality were nothing whatsoever to write home about.

aloyisious

Those from abroad opposing abortion here before the referendum last May are still at it. An institute naming itself Lumen Fidei is holding an anti-abortion event in the Savoy Hotel, Limerick on the 25th May. The Facebook Ad for the institute's event includes a promo video with the usual moving image and beating heart sound clip along with various claims about Irish Children lives safety no longer being guaranteed in Irish Hospitals from May 25th last so it's no coincidence that it chose May 25th for its Limerick event.

The video includes the worded section of the Health (Regulation of Termination of Pregnancy) Act 2018, Early Pregnancy 12. (1) A termination of pregnancy may be carried out in accordance with this section by a medical practitioner where, having examined the pregnant woman, he or she is of the reasonable opinion formed in good faith that the pregnancy concerned has not exceeded 12 weeks of pregnancy. The people who produced the video including that quote follow it up with the words "A Death Sentence Simply For Being Too Young!" and a bald statement "innocent children are now being [8 letter forbidden word] in Irish hospitals".

The video is findable on YouTube via search using the institutes key words above. I won't further promote it or the lies in it.

robindch

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Also Catholic Holy Ireland didn't lift a finger to defeat Hitler.

Off-topic - but worth noting that Ireland officially didn't fight Hitler, though plenty of Irish men and women fought with the Allies against him, while a far smaller number supported him.

That said, the history of the Bavarian catholic priest and politician, Ludwig Kaas, is instructive regarding the current catholic distaste for Hitler, as it wasn't always thus.

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

Cabaal

robindch wrote: »

Off-topic - but worth noting that Ireland officially didn't fight Hitler, though plenty of Irish men and women fought with the Allies against him, while a far smaller number supported him.

Further off-topic
Lord Haw-Haw gets a good few mentions for his role in Germany in this extremely insightful book.
Also interesting to read somebody's account in relation to how the British time and time again allowed Hitler to do what he wanted
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Berlin-Diary-Journal-Correspondent-1934-1941/dp/4871878813/

Highly recommend it,

Cabaal

Cabaal wrote: »

Further off-topic
Lord Haw-Haw gets a good few mentions for his role in Germany in this extremely insightful book.
Also interesting to read somebody's account in relation to how the British time and time again allowed Hitler to do what he wanted
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Berlin-Diary-Journal-Correspondent-1934-1941/dp/4871878813/

Highly recommend it,

If you haven't read it, the unholy trinity, on the rat lines at the end of the war is interesting.

https://www.amazon.com/Unholy-Trinity-Vatican-Nazis-Swiss/dp/031218199X

Cabaal

Looks like the USA wants to copy Ireland pre-2018 and force women into unsafe unregulated abortions

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/22/revealed-21000-us-women-order-abortion-pills-in-six-months

Revealed: 21,000 US women order abortion pills online in past six months

Three-quarters of mail order requests came from states with strict anti-abortion laws

Bannasidhe

Little bit of Satire that could nearly be true

In a move as unexpected as it is disturbingly necessary, Canada’s flagship carrier today announced that it would begin operating humanitarian flights between man-state Alabama, and Toronto’s Pearson International Airport.

The flights will be free for any woman who presents herself at an Air Canada ticketing counter, says she is going to Canada to visit her “sister,” and then raises her eyebrows, lowers her chin, and looks meaningfully at the agent.

“As part of our ongoing initiative to use the modern miracle of flight to avoid returning to the middle ages, Air Canada is proud to announce a new, twice-daily, direct flight from Birmingham, Alabama, to Toronto, Ontario,” a spokesperson for the Canadian airline announced today...

...The announcement was greeted with outrage amongst hardline anti-abortion campaigners, and other people with extremely selective forms of compassion that focus exclusively on the rights of people seeds, but not those of the actual living trees.

“If the Canadians – with their generally inclusive nation, and leader who uses intelligible words to express complete thoughts – think they can just fly in here on their airplanes and offer our women easy access to not living lives of quiet desperation, well they have got another thing coming. And that thing is Alabama,” said a man born in Montgomery in 1956, but whose thinking remains steeped in Canaan, circa 1600 BCE.

“Figuratively speaking, obviously. As I have no idea where Canada actually is.”

https://outabouter.com/2019/05/19/air-canada-announces-new-direct-route-from-alabama-to-toronto-area-womens-clinics/

volchitsa

....... wrote: »

Its not a credible position tbh. Its not based on any "ordinary" version of morality, or even for the greater good.

And I have already stated this days ago in the thread, but it seems like you are deliberately maintaining an extreme position in order to discredit the actual pro choice position (of which I know absolutely no one or any definition that agrees with "abortion" right up to birth, certainly some people might agree on the termination of pregnancy right up to birth, but not the death of an unborn fetus that is a few hours/days from being born as it is unnecessary).

So, no, I dont think you are holding a credible position and if that is your understanding of the pro choice position then you are sadly mistaken.

UNCIVIL PROSE DELETED.

Thing is, the referendum is over so it doesn't really matter any more. They can clap each other on the back for their 'cleverness' all they want.

Hotblack Desiato

The need to revert to bottom-of-the-barrel arguments is telling in itself.

66% of the electorate voted for repeal, most of the rest will come to accept it

The few that won't, well tough.

Just noise (literally and in the statistical sense)

Kidchameleon

volchitsa wrote: »

If there was any doubt about the (lack of) sincerity of Kidchameleon's position, the fact that ardent prolifer EOTR is liking all his posts claiming to support abortion up to term and beyond should clear that up.

It's obviously faking an extreme prochoice position, for obvious reasons.

Thing is, the referendum is over so it doesn't really matter any more. They can clap each other on the back for their 'cleverness' all they want.

With all due respect...

I cant help it who likes my posts. How many of EOTR's have I liked? The fact that you would deny someone an abortion after some arbitrary time is sickening to me. Imagine a member of your family was raped and found themselves forced to have a rapists child because of people like yourself...

Have a look over all of the abortion discussion threads, you will see that my position has never changed. I have always either been pro choice or pro choice+. You claim I am building up to some "gotcha" moment. Can I ask, how long will you wait until the moment comes? If it does not will you accept that you are wrong and have the integrity to admit it?

I think it is uncomfortable for you that I would allow late term abortions not because of the loss of life but because your position means you actually would dictate to some degree what a woman can and cannot do with her body where as I would not. You are closer to the religious instiutions mindset which you despise than you are willing to admit (even though it is plainly obvious).

Your attempts to smear me as a zelot are merely projection imho