Abortion Discussion, Part the Fourth

Cabaal

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.

Not to mention both Kidchameleon and EOTR support HSE staff breaking the law and GDPR by illegally releasing of private patient data once it can be used to benefit pro-life groups agenda's.

Kidchameleon posted, EOTR thanked the post.

Shameful stuff

Kidchameleon

Cabaal wrote: »

Not to mention both Kidchameleon and EOTR support HSE staff breaking the law and GDPR by illegally releasing of private patient data once it can be used to benefit pro-life groups agenda's.

Kidchameleon posted, EOTR thanked the post.

Shameful stuff

How have I supported that? I dont beleive I even posted about that situation. Could you back up your claim with evidence please? What post are you refering to?

.......

Kidchameleon wrote: »

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...

Untrue. Are you really now trying to present a pro choice position as "forcing someone to have a rapists baby"? Really? I mean, is this the level you are arguing at?

Kidchameleon wrote: »

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?

You do not represent a pro choice position - by any measure. I would go so far as to say that you do not really understand a pro choice position.

Holding an extreme position is an attempt to smear a legitimate pro choice position and calling it pro choice+ is an attempt to smear a pro choice position using similar language to describe it. I am not aware of any country in the world that allows abortion up to birth nor any group who are promoting such a thing. If you believe you are holding a legitimate position then please link to some information on this position.

Kidchameleon wrote: »

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).

The bolded is your "attempt" at a gotcha moment.

However it doesnt hold true. Pro choice has always been about a balance of rights and there are good reasons as to why a cut off point is a good compromise.

Nothing about being pro choice is religiously based so I am afraid you are sorely mistaken there.

Kidchameleon wrote: »

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

I dont see anyone attempting to smear you as a zealot but your posts betray your true position.

If anything I would like to see your reasoning for holding your position and more importantly, why you would see killing a near to term fetus as favourable over simply allowing it to be born and adopted. Particularly your reasoning about why an late term abortion would be preferable in the context of the damage done both mentally and physically to the woman.

nozzferrahhtoo

....... wrote: »

I am not aware of any country in the world that allows abortion up to birth

I guess the closest example to that would be Canada. In theory if not actually in practice.

But what I find interesting is that it does not actually matter if a country has abortion entirely illegal, legal up to 12 weeks like Ireland, legal up to 24 weeks like UK, or legal with no theoretical limits like Canada...... invariably women STILL get abortions and they STILL get them over 92% of the time in the first 12 weeks.

....... wrote: »

why you would see killing a near to term fetus as favourable over simply allowing it to be born and adopted.

His "reasoning" (being generous there) on this when I asked him was nothing more than the woman suffering by knowing that rapists child is out there in the world somewhere. So being allowed to kill it would alleviate that suffering. And in fact he thinks that killing it AFTER it is born, even months after it is born, to alleviate that suffering is therefore warranted if she sought such an act.

I put "reasoning" in scare quotes there mainly because he does not appear to apply that standard to..... well anything else at all. Such as if I were to physically torture a woman for weeks and then she was rescued and I prosecuted...... what if her knowledge I still exist in the world caused her pain? Should she therefore be able to demand my death?`

Or forget the child caused by the rape in his position. What about the rapist? Why is it she is allowed demand the death of the baby, even after birth, to alleviate the suffering of knowing that baby exists..... but she can not demand the death of the rapist for EXACTLY The same reasons?

And he has the gall to write "The fact that you would deny someone an abortion after some arbitrary time is sickening to me." when A) There is nothing arbitrary about the time limits I suggested and His position as I describe it above is ENTIRELY arbitrary in that he applies it to one scenario only and withholds it from the rest.

Cabaal

Kidchameleon wrote: »

How have I supported that? I dont beleive I even posted about that situation. Could you back up your claim with evidence please? What post are you refering to?

Apologies,
Slight mix up, the post in question was Charles Ingles.

Sorry about that.

Thats what I get for multitasking while posting!

.......

Is Kidchameleon the same person as Charles Ingles?

Bannasidhe

Cabaal wrote: »

I made reference to a previous situation where HSE staff broke GDPR by releasing details about a specific patient due to have a procedure which is legal and there was nothing wrong with under law or under HSE policys or guidelines.

You stated this was good and you claimed it was whistleblowing to inform the public
:rolleyes:

You are not fooling anyone here



Dig up!

Can you clarify the connection between this and Kidchameleon this please?

Kidchameleon

Cabaal wrote: »

Apologies,
Slight mix up, the post in question was Charles Ingles.

Sorry about that.

Thats what I get for multitasking while posting!

I appriceate your honesty. It is interesting to note that your post got quite a few likes even though it was completely wrong. It is an indication that people are not paying attention to the discussion & also there appears to be a bit of a mob mentality here

Kidchameleon

....... wrote: »

Untrue. Are you really now trying to present a pro choice position as "forcing someone to have a rapists baby"? Really? I mean, is this the level you are arguing at?



You do not represent a pro choice position - by any measure. I would go so far as to say that you do not really understand a pro choice position.

Holding an extreme position is an attempt to smear a legitimate pro choice position and calling it pro choice+ is an attempt to smear a pro choice position using similar language to describe it. I am not aware of any country in the world that allows abortion up to birth nor any group who are promoting such a thing. If you believe you are holding a legitimate position then please link to some information on this position.



The bolded is your "attempt" at a gotcha moment.

However it doesnt hold true. Pro choice has always been about a balance of rights and there are good reasons as to why a cut off point is a good compromise.

Nothing about being pro choice is religiously based so I am afraid you are sorely mistaken there.



I dont see anyone attempting to smear you as a zealot but your posts betray your true position.

If anything I would like to see your reasoning for holding your position and more importantly, why you would see killing a near to term fetus as favourable over simply allowing it to be born and adopted. Particularly your reasoning about why an late term abortion would be preferable in the context of the damage done both mentally and physically to the woman.

Well I gave my reasoning already. I beleive tue victim has a right to choose who her genes procreate with. She has the right to her genetic legacy.

I did not say a child could be "killed" months after birth. I clearly stated that I was not sure as of yet what the time limit would be, if any.

Also I note your use of loaded terms. I never said a child should be killed. I said "euthenized". If pro choice posters have the benefit of protection against loaded terms like "killing" and "murder" in this forum, please give me the same courtesy.

As regards labels. Well I have already told you I dont care what label you give me. I suggested pro choice+. If you dont like that label, please pick one that suits and we will use that one going forward.

.......

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Well I gave my reasoning already. I beleive tue victim has a right to choose who her genes procreate with. She has the right to her genetic legacy.

So do you also think that people should be allowed to murder their siblings or their siblings children? As they carry some shared genetic legacy?

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I did not say a child could be "killed" months after birth. I clearly stated that I was not sure as of yet what the time limit would be, if any.

So you do think that it is ok to kill a child under some circumstances?

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Also I note your use of loaded terms. I never said a child should be killed. I said "euthenized". If pro choice posters have the benefit of protection against loaded terms like "killing" and "murder" in this forum, please give me the same courtesy.

There is nothing loaded in the term murder when it is applied to the murder of a born existing human. Thats what we call killing people.

The "protection" you speak of is because pro life posters used it in relation to fetuses - which was not the correct meaning of the term. You could never be prosecuted for "12 week fetus murder".

Kidchameleon wrote: »

As regards labels. Well I have already told you I dont care what label you give me. I suggested pro choice+. If you dont like that label, please pick one that suits and we will use that one going forward.

So are you saying that your position is not something that aligns with any other group or organisation? That there is no label?

That you are just a sort of lone thinker thinking extreme thoughts of unlimited abortion?

Id be inclined to label that position as simply an extremist, your morality towards abortion doesnt seem rooted in any pro choice position at all. So I would see no need to associate the pro choice label with it.

Pro Infanticider?
Pro Genetic Control?
Abortion Extremist?

I really dont know - I presumed (incorrectly it seems) that this position you claim to hold must have been informed by some reading you did or some group whose principles you embraced. And that they would have a name for themselves.

Hotblack Desiato

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I appriceate your honesty. It is interesting to note that your post got quite a few likes even though it was completely wrong. It is an indication that people are not paying attention to the discussion & also there appears to be a bit of a mob mentality here

You thanked that post yourself, so does that make you a part of a mob mentality?

Bannasidhe

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I appriceate your honesty. It is interesting to note that your post got quite a few likes even though it was completely wrong. It is an indication that people are not paying attention to the discussion & also there appears to be a bit of a mob mentality here

Mod: One post has two likes - one of which was mine thanking the correction and apology, you thanked the other yourself, so tone down the hyperbole about mob mentalities please.

robindch

Mod:

volchitsa wrote: »

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.

I have deleted prose in which you have implied directly that another poster is dishonest. This is against the forum charter.

Any further similar claims may see you carded or banned.

Charles Ingles

Cabaal wrote: »

Apologies,
Slight mix up, the post in question was Charles Ingles.

Sorry about that.

Thats what I get for multitasking while posting!

Wasn't me either

Charles Ingles

....... wrote: »

Is Kidchameleon the same person as Charles Ingles?

No I'm just Charles I've no other accounts

robindch

Charles Ingles wrote: »

No I'm just Charles I've no other accounts

Just to clarify - maintaining multiple accounts, or ceasing to use one account while re-registering and posting with a different one, is against boards policy and has resulted in a few posters being banned down through the years.

nozzferrahhtoo

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Well I gave my reasoning already. I beleive tue victim has a right to choose who her genes procreate with. She has the right to her genetic legacy.

Genetic legacy is massively overstated. We seem to think that our entire genetic code is somehow unique and it is special to us in some way. In fact the variable portion of it, the bit that is ACTUALLY different between you and the next person, is minuscule. The majority of it, and it is a huge majority, is the same in you as anyone else. All the variance we perceive in our species around us actually comes from a tiny almost non-portion of our genetic code.

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I did not say a child could be "killed" months after birth. I clearly stated that I was not sure as of yet what the time limit would be, if any.

Which just shows how little thought you appear to have put into this. Because the lack of specifics there is as horrific as your reasoning. The "if any" suggests that potentially you believe she can change her mind when the kid is 4 or even 40 and we as a society should pander to that and have them killed. That your reasoning on this issue is so weak that it not only does not suggest a time limit, but does not even inform you if there should even be one, should be telling to you. That it isn't.... is certainly telling to me.

Further nothing in your reasoning here actually explains why this should be limited to rape. Because if your reasoning is based on your above claim that people have a right to choose their "genetic legacy" then nothing in that reasoning explains why this is mediated by rape. Why can a person not have this alleged right in ANY act of procreation. Why, for example, should a mother not decide a year after birth of a planned baby, nothing to do with rape, that she wants to exercise her right to genetic legacy and undo her creation? That this right exists, or only comes online, in the context of rape is an example of that "arbitrary" nature you so wrongly accused others of yesterday. Your position is ENTIRELY arbitrary in this regard it seems.

And also when it comes to rape and your reasoning on termination of a child after birth..... what about situations where the man was the one forced into a sexual encounter. The woman goes through the entire pregnancy, gives birth, and by your reasoning the man should be able to demand she have that child killed.

To use your own words back at you: Sickening.

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Also I note your use of loaded terms. I never said a child should be killed. I said "euthenized". If pro choice posters have the benefit of protection against loaded terms like "killing" and "murder" in this forum, please give me the same courtesy.

It is not a protected term however, so why should we give you the courtesy at all of that list when it is not on that list???

However I am afraid your use of the word Euthanized is about as accurate as your spelling of it. Which is to say.... not very. For all it's faults even Wikipedia manages to get the discussion of the term pretty well.

It discusses the "elements" that are required for something to qualify for the definition. You would do well to read it. And in general the term is NOT used to refer to killing one being to relieves the suffering of ANOTHER one different to the one being killed. In fact it notes quite the opposite as being true when it says "n particular, these include situations where a person kills another, painlessly, but for no reason beyond that of personal gain".

Kidchameleon wrote: »

If you dont like that label, please pick one that suits and we will use that one going forward.

Infanticide works for me "a person who kills an infant, especially their own child." "Infanticide the intentional killing of infants."

The term seems to fit and unlike the issue we had with the now "protected terms" a couple of weeks ago.... is actually 100% accurate and is not just being chosen for effect or despite it having attributes that do not actually fit the thing being described. It, unlike the "M" word, does not have legality as a strict pre-requisite hence why it, unlike the "M" word, is actually a correct use of the term.

So no label required really. You are merely someone who is promoting infanticide within entirely arbitrary contexts of your own subjective choosing that you can not back up with any argument or reasoning.

Kidchameleon

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Mod: One post has two likes - one of which was mine thanking the correction and apology, you thanked the other yourself, so tone down the hyperbole about mob mentalities please.

That wasnt the post I was refering to. It was the one where the orignal mistake was made, which was thanked more than the one you are refering to here. Grand well I retract the mob mentality accusation but I still hold firm that people are not paying attention, as evidenced...

Bannasidhe

Kidchameleon wrote: »

That wasnt the post I was refering to. It was the one where the orignal mistake was made, which was thanked more than the one you are refering to here. Grand well I retract the mob mentality accusation but I still hold firm that people are not paying attention, as evidenced...

Mod: I'm going to let that questioning of mod instructions on thread slide but I am putting you on warning that do it again and moderation will escalate. Final warning.

Kidchameleon

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

You thanked that post yourself, so does that make you a part of a mob mentality?

Well I have retracted the mob mentality accusation. Thanking a post does not necessarily mean you agree with it. I have thanked many posts here that directly attack my position. I appriceate that people hold different views as myself and I try to encourage debate. I have been accused of being in cahoots with two posters here named EOTR and Charles Ingis (spelling?) Because they have thanked some of my posts, completely rediculous. I do not share those posters views in general

smacl

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Also I note your use of loaded terms. I never said a child should be killed. I said "euthenized". If pro choice posters have the benefit of protection against loaded terms like "killing" and "murder" in this forum, please give me the same courtesy.

Firstly, given your claims to being pro-choice, you're already referring to courtesies extended to yourself.

Secondly, as per my previous post, you appear not to understand the meaning of the word euthanasia, from Merriam Webster

Merriam-Webster wrote:

Definition of euthanasia
: the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals (such as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy

What you're referring to if legal would be an execution, or if illegal would be a murder. Neither of these correspond in any sense to an abortion or a late termination where the baby is kept alive. As such, your rather bizarre talk about killing babies at the request of the mother, for whatever reason, does not deserve courtesy as it would be considered by most as barbaric. My opinion, is that as a line of debate, it is also deliberately divisive and somewhat ridiculous.

Kidchameleon

smacl wrote: »

What you're referring to if legal would be an execution, or if illegal would be a murder. Neither of these correspond in any sense to an abortion or a late termination where the baby is kept alive. As such, your rather bizarre talk about killing babies at the request of the mother, for whatever reason, does not deserve courtesy as it would be considered by most as barbaric. My opinion, is that as a line of debate, it is also deliberately divisive and somewhat ridiculous.

I agree with you that it would be an execution and if it were illigal it would be murder. Those are words that I am not afraid of. If we were to legislate to allow women full control over their genetic legacy, its definition as murder would change. The same way as abortion was redefined by law a few months ago.

Kidchameleon

smacl wrote: »

Secondly, as per my previous post, you appear not to understand the meaning of the word euthanasia, from Merriam Webster...

I am proposing a redefinition of the word. It happens all the time with many other words. Webster is constantly updated as you know, with new words and redefinitions to existing ones. Language is not static.

Bannasidhe

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I agree with you that it would be an execution and if it were illigal it would be murder. Those are words that I am not afraid of. If we were to legislate to allow women full control over their genetic legacy, its definition as murder would change. The same way as abortion was redefined by law a few months ago.

The only person trying to introduce this red herring about "genetic legacy" is you.
It has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not women have bodily autonomy which is what pro-choice is actually about.
The pro-choice position is clear - whether or not a woman wishes to share her body with another human being is her choice and her's alone.

Her body. It's that simple. Not need to redefine anything.

smacl

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I am proposing a redefinition of the word. It happens all the time with many other words. Webster is constantly updated as you know, with new words and redefinitions to existing ones. Language is not static.

Propose away and let us know when any major reference work has changed its collective well understood definition of this word with your personal re-definition crafted to support your own dubious argument. Until then, I'd suggest that if you're trying to communicate effectively with others in a forum you use words given their current meaning.

.......

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I agree with you that it would be an execution and if it were illigal it would be murder. Those are words that I am not afraid of. If we were to legislate to allow women full control over their genetic legacy, its definition as murder would change. The same way as abortion was redefined by law a few months ago.

None of this has anything to do with being pro choice.

If you want to get into people being in control of their "genetic legacy" (which is not an idea I have ever come across, either academically or socially) then presumably youd be cool with grandparents murdering their children and grandchildren because they dont want to go into a nursing home?

Or sperm donors seeking out their biological children and slaying them in the street?

What about people killing their parents - I mean - they share genes!

This is literally one of the most ludicrous cul de sacs Ive ever seen this thread go down and considering we have seen posters who have suggested enforced hysterectomies for women who have abortions thats quite an achievement!!

osarusan

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not women have bodily autonomy which is what pro-choice is actually about.
The pro-choice position is clear - whether or not a woman wishes to share her body with another human being is her choice and her's alone.

Her body. It's that simple. Not need to redefine anything.

I don't know that I entirely agree with that.

'Her body, her choice' only extends so far, and even for most pro-choice advocates, it rarely extends to the full 40 weeks of pregnancy. For many, it only extends as far as either viability of the foetus, or else until the point that we should begin to care about it, or begin to consider its rights, which has been covered in discussions about sentience and so on.

I think the 'Her body her choice' argument is somewhat incomplete, or at least, will be in the future. At the moment in Ireland, removing a foetus from a woman's body will result in its death (and would have the same result well beyond the 12-week limit).

However, if the day comes when medical advances mean that a foetus can be removed from the woman's body at 12 weeks, or 10, or 4, but kept alive and gestating (in some form of artificial womb as mentioned earlier) then it no longer becomes just an issue of control over her own body (her own bodily autonomy* has been respected with the removal of the foetus), it becomes an issue of whether the woman has, or should have, control over what happens to the foetus afterwards, now that it is no longer in her body.

Should she have the right to decide whether it dies or not? Should the potential father have equal decision-making rights, now that it is no longer in the woman's body?

In Ireland in the future, the 'choice' that somebody is 'pro' will not just be about a woman's bodily autonomy, but more fundamentally, about having the choice to be a parent or not. This is already the case in countries where abortion is legal for the entire term of pregnancy.

I can see that some pro-choice advocates already use terminology such as 'reproductive rights' as well as/instead of 'bodily autonomy' and my guess that they are envisaging that future discussion also.




*Perhaps for you, the term 'bodily autonomy' encompasses the wide issue of reproductive rights also. Your post reads to me like you have a narrower view than that, but I might be wrong.

Bannasidhe

osarusan wrote: »

I don't know that I entirely agree with that.

'Her body, her choice' only extends so far, and even for most pro-choice advocates, it rarely extends to the full 40 weeks of pregnancy. For many, it only extends as far as either viability of the foetus, or else until the point that we should begin to care about it, or begin to consider its rights, which has been covered in discussions about sentience and so on.

I think the 'Her body her choice' argument is somewhat incomplete, or at least, will be in the future. At the moment in Ireland, removing a foetus from a woman's body will result in its death (and would have the same result well beyond the 12-week limit).

However, if the day comes when medical advances mean that a foetus can be removed from the woman's body at 12 weeks, or 10, or 4, but kept alive and gestating (in some form of artificial womb as mentioned earlier) then it no longer becomes just an issue of control over her own body (her own bodily autonomy* has been respected with the removal of the foetus), it becomes an issue of whether the woman has, or should have, control over what happens to the foetus afterwards, now that it is no longer in her body.

Should she have the right to decide whether it dies or not? Should the potential father have equal decision-making rights, now that it is no longer in the woman's body?

In Ireland in the future, the 'choice' that somebody is 'pro' will not just be about a woman's bodily autonomy, but more fundamentally, about having the choice to be a parent or not. This is already the case in countries where abortion is legal for the entire term of pregnancy.

I can see that some pro-choice advocates have already use terminology such as 'reproductive rights' as well as/instead of 'bodily autonomy' and my guess that they are envisaging that future discussion also.




*Perhaps for you, the term 'bodily autonomy' encompasses the wide issue of reproductive rights also. Your post reads to me like you have a narrower view than that, but I might be wrong.

Granted.

But the point I was making (in a hurry as I am up the walls with other stuff) is that absolutely no one, with the exception of Kidchameleon, is saying pro-choice means a woman protecting her genetic legacy.

nozzferrahhtoo

Yea the desperation to redefine what prochoice means is not common but humorous when it occurs. Many 1000s of people identify with the term "pro choice" and will happily tell you what that means to them. But no some individuals, most of which are not even prochoice themselves, are more keen to tell THEM what it means.

Only today I had a user repeat a claim he made last year and then ran away from, that you can not be "pro choice" if you have any restriction on what the woman does. Which of course nearly every "pro choice" person does. So if I say "I am pro choice because I believe a woman should be able to choose abortion up to and including the 20th week of pregnancy for any reason she wants" he would reply "No you want to control her after 20 weeks, so you are not pro choice at all!".

I wonder how said user has reacted in the past when someone on boards.ie was told they are not actually Catholic because they failed to meet some ACTUAL criteria of being one. Yet somehow it is ok to tell people they are not "pro choice" because they do not meet criteria HE ALONE has made up for the term.

Kidchameleon

smacl wrote: »

Propose away and let us know when any major reference work has changed its collective well understood definition of this word with your personal

re-definition crafted to support your own dubious argument. Until then, I'd suggest that if you're trying to communicate effectively with others in a forum you use words given their current meaning.

How ironic it is to be lectured on the definitions of words in a thread where posters are banned from using the 'K' word to describe an abortion despite the fact an abortion, even at the early stages, is literally the 'K' word. Standing on a tapeworm is the 'K' word also btw.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Granted.

But the point I was making (in a hurry as I am up the walls with other stuff) is that absolutely no one, with the exception of Kidchameleon, is saying pro-choice means a woman protecting her genetic legacy.

I literally never said being "pro choice" means a "woman protecting her genetic legacy". I did say a woman should have the right to protect her genetic legacy but I did not use the term pro choice to that effect.