Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Breaking... US Supreme Court overturns Roe v Wade

Options
1495052545564

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 23,754 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack



    “Safe, legal and rare” is the very definition of propaganda -

    information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view.


    I can see why, from your point of view, criticism of the behaviour of people in positions of responsibility who promote such propaganda for political purposes, as being irresponsible, also amounts to anti-abortion propaganda, in your view.

    By that standard, Planned Parenthood are engaging in anti-abortion propaganda because they publish the information on their website, and as for the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists in the UK, well, they’re just outright anti-abortion altogether-

    Each year, there are 73.3 million abortions globally of which an estimated 45% are unsafe. This leads to the hospitalisation of 7 million women each year.

    https://www.rcog.org.uk/news/educating-the-next-generation-of-abortion-providers-how-to-get-it-right/#_ftn1


    They’re not, obviously, and I don’t think you’d consider them to be anti-abortion either.


    Attempts to educate about abortion would be grand. Feel free to budget and drive it as part of an overall sex education program.


    I am anti-abortion though, and on that basis I don’t think it’s unreasonable to assume you wouldn’t want me educating anyone about abortion, spreading propaganda ‘n’ all 😬



  • Registered Users Posts: 82,799 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Swalwell broke the witness' logic


    They seem to not understand that a rape/medical exempt abortion is still an abortion. It doesn't cease being an abortion simply because it is exempt. You are still greenlighting an abortion.

    Is this the only brain loophole through which some conservatives even tolerate a rape/medically exempt abortion? They think it isn't 'killing a baby' etc. because it was a rape/medical threat?


    “Do you think a 10-year-old should choose to carry a baby?” Swalwell asked.

    “I believe it would probably impact her life and so therefore, it would fall under any exception and would not be an abortion,” Foster replied.

    “Wait,” said Swalwell, who then paused as if to gather his thoughts on the answer. “It would not be an abortion if a 10-year-old – with her parents – made the decision not to have a baby that was the result of rape?”

    She answered, “If a 10-year-old became pregnant as a result of rape and it was threatening her life, then that’s not an abortion. So, it would not fall under any abortion restriction in our nation.”

    Swalwell turned to another witness, Sarah Warbelow of the pro-choice Human Rights Campaign.

    “Ms. Warbelow, are you familiar with disinformation?” he asked.

    “Yes, I am,” she responded.

    “Did you just hear some disinformation?” he queried.

    “Yes, I heard some very significant disinformation,” she stated. “An abortion is a procedure. It’s a medical procedure that individuals undergo for a wide range of circumstances including, because they have been sexually assaulted, raped in the case of the 10-year-old. It doesn’t matter whether or not there’s a statutory exemption. It is still a medical procedure that is understood to be an abortion. Beyond that, I think it’s also important to note that there is no exception for the life or the health of the mother in the Ohio law. That’s why that 10-year-old had to cross state lines in order to receive an abortion.”



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,273 ✭✭✭xxxxxxl


    Go ask any medical practitioner of a 100% safe procedure or medication. I will wait. If giving birth was so unsafe we would not have exploding populations in places like India and Africa. Also I'm not against abortion.



  • Registered Users Posts: 82,799 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    This just helps highlight how silly the argument is. Even Tylenol is not 100% safe.



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,273 ✭✭✭xxxxxxl


    Ofc there are levels of risk in everything. You assess them everyday.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 82,799 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Yep.

    I think the point being made here was the current assessment is that women's health outcomes and mortality rates fair out safer for abortions than pregnancies.



  • Registered Users Posts: 23,754 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack



    Whats the point of the comparison though, apart from… I dunno, stating the obvious?



  • Registered Users Posts: 34,822 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Yes I know about that. That isn't what you said he said, though.

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Registered Users Posts: 34,822 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    It's pointing out the disingenuity of your claim that abortion is not safe.

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Registered Users Posts: 23,754 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack



    I didn’t say Dawkins said anything. Here’s exactly what I said -

    It doesn’t follow that being concerned about the risks of pregnancy means the only reasonable conclusion is an abortion, unless you ask Richard Dawkins. I wouldn’t though, because he’s an idiot.

    If I’m being honest, I’m still not sure it wasn’t a deliberate presentation of a moral conundrum by a bad actor, knowing Richard wouldn’t be able to resist.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 82,799 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Maybe you haven't met as many misinformed persons as I have but depending on the obvious it's not obvious, and you'll find eg. a pregnancy crisis center will typically not be forthcoming about "the obvious" in this regard, they would gladly lead you to believe pregnancy is much safer than abortion. So, respectfully, I think the facts should be acknowledged in every conversation about this, because the broad assumptions to the contrary are pervasive in the pro-life community.



  • Registered Users Posts: 23,754 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack



    How is it being disingenuous to point out that when someone claims abortion is safe, to question their claim? Because that’s what I was doing, because the claim lacks specificity. Hell of a difference between an abortion in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, and what’s commonly referred to as a “late term” abortion.

    Obviously the first one, which is the vast majority of abortions, is safer. I’d still wonder why anyone would make the point when it’s clearly so obvious. Giving birth is also regarded as safe, and I’d question the lack of specificity were anyone to make that claim too, but it’s an entirely different set of circumstances, which is why I didn’t mention it. I don’t think of them as being comparable.



  • Registered Users Posts: 23,754 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack



    Maybe you haven't met as many misinformed persons as I have…

    Given you live in the US Overheal, that’s an absolute certainty! I shouldn’t laugh because I don’t imagine it’s easy, but just the thoughts of it! I do get what you mean though, and I’m equally as critical of that sort of manipulation and exploitation for personal, political or financial gain.

    I don’t mind acknowledging facts, but when people present facts by way of trying to manipulate people for their own benefit, I’m of the opinion that anyone has the right to question their behaviour, which I would consider manipulative, exploitative and predatory in the sense that they’re trying to prey on what they imagine are people’s worst fears.



  • Registered Users Posts: 31,684 ✭✭✭✭~Rebel~


    I kinda half wonder if some (and perhaps many) people actually don't understand the word, mixing the root abort up with abhor. Like, they see an abortion as akin to abhoration, thinking that it's a description of some vile act being named as such, where the specific act is intrinsically linked to the moral qualities of it - and thus, that a morally justified version by default can't be an abortion (abhoration).



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,988 ✭✭✭Christy42


    Man your post is a wild ride of propaganda. This is just outright information. Safe, legal and rare is in reference to legal abortions by properly trained staff.


    Literally the next line refers to reducing the number of unsafe abortions by legalising it and providing a skilled workforce to carry them out. No one is claiming that things like coat hangers lead to safe abortions, that is literally what people want to avoid by legalising abortion.


    Safe, legal and rare is encouraging people to see a professional if they need to, not use a back alley. This is pretty dishonest, you are using stats for all abortions and applying it to a slogan meant for procedures done with modern medicine.



  • Registered Users Posts: 23,754 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack



    The point couldn’t be simpler Christy - it’s a convenient and vague political slogan which hints at support for abortion rights. I could say I too want abortion to be safe, legal and rare… but we undoubtedly have very different ideas as to what we mean by that and how to go about achieving it. If I didn’t make you aware of that, I’d be knowingly misleading you into thinking we’re on the same page.

    You can make a complaint afterwards when the outcome isn’t what you had in mind.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,988 ✭✭✭Christy42


    Please. Elaborate where you were going discussing the % of unsafe abortions and number of abortions in the previous post.


    Why would I consider the facts they posted were anti abortion as you suggested when they refer to the issues of abortions carried out largely in cases where women do not have access to legal abortions by medical professionals? The facts you posted seem to be pretty pro abortion, with the exception that you left off that issues were due to abortions carried outside of proper facilities.



  • Registered Users Posts: 23,754 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack



    Where I was going is that these are all relative terms:

    Safe - Depends upon anyone’s interpretation

    Legal - Depends upon anyone’s interpretation

    Rare - Depends upon anyone’s interpretation


    If I’m someone with ne’er an ounce of integrity, it’s the easiest way to gain your support and avoid any interrogation. If you ever change your mind after realising you’d been duped, you’ll be portrayed as a disgruntled ex-supporter.

    I’m not sure what you’re referring to in accusing me of leaving out the facts that abortions were carried outside of proper facilities, because I remember referring to this case -

    https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/may/01/london-abortion-clinic-criticised-in-inquest-into-womans-death

    I don’t imagine that because one woman died in those circumstances, it’s going to change anyone’s opinion on abortion, because they’re not actually concerned with women dying, they’re only using that obvious fact to argue that people need to support abortion to prevent women from dying. It’s a plausible argument, predicated upon the idea that we can’t change the factors which influence those outcomes.

    I think we’re probably agreed earlier on in the thread though, that federal and state funding will not be made available to put structures in place to reduce the likelihood of poor outcomes, but it begins long before a woman ever finds herself in a situation where she wants an abortion with the intent that the foetus does not survive, regardless of how safe, legal or rare it is for anyone else.



  • Registered Users Posts: 34,822 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    🙄

    Let's say you are in a situation where there are only two possible outcomes, A and B.

    A isn't 100% safe (what is?) so you rock up and say "A is not safe" - which implies that B is safer than A.

    But the facts show that option B is actually somewhat less safe than option A.

    So the effect of your statement is entirely misleading.

    Quelle surprise.

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Registered Users Posts: 34,822 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Again you are being entirely misleading and disingenuous.

    "It doesn’t follow that being concerned about the risks of pregnancy means the only reasonable conclusion is an abortion, unless you ask Richard Dawkins." very strongly implies that he said such a thing. Which he did not. He was asked a very specific question about a specific occurrence and gave an answer applicable to those circumstances. He never said abortion in those circumstances or any other was "the only reasonable conclusion". He said that in his view, in those circumstances, it was moral.

    You also called one of the most respected scientists in the world "an idiot", talk about arrogant!

    So we have misinformation, misrepresentation, disingenuity, and unbridled arrogance - sounds like the usual online pro-lifer alright.

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 23,754 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack



    If I’m seeking an abortion, it stands to reason I’m not interested in hearing anything about how safe or unsafe in anyone else’s opinion it would be to give birth. That simply doesn’t enter the conversation as far as I’d be concerned. I’m only interested in hearing my options and the risks involved in abortion, and to that end your thought experiment is meaningless as it doesn’t map very well to reality where a number of options are possible, all with varying outcomes depending upon the circumstances involved.



  • Registered Users Posts: 23,754 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack



    You also called one of the most respected scientists in the world "an idiot", talk about arrogant!

    Even if he were THE most respected scientist in the world, that still doesn’t preclude the assessment that he’s ALSO, an idiot. A person can have a brilliant mind and still walk themselves into “fireballs of hatred” on Twitter. Just because I think he’s an idiot, doesn’t mean I’m going to join anyone in mocking him, because I just feel it’s not right to make fun of idiots. You obviously feel differently about that 😂



  • Registered Users Posts: 34,822 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    And you move the goalposts yet again. None of that is at all relevant to either your ridiculous claim that abortion is not safe, or my replies to you.

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Registered Users Posts: 34,822 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Since when was calling someone an idiot not mocking them? Sheesh. Ask a mod if they think it's ok to call other posters idiots, because you claim it's not mocking them, and see how you get on.

    Sometimes I wonder what sort of alternate reality pro-lifers live in.

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Registered Users Posts: 23,754 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack



    I didn’t move the goalposts. They were grand where they were when the discussion was about abortion. Your wanting to talk about the risks of continuing a pregnancy and giving birth, is an entirely different conversation. In your thought experiment, you present only two options, whereas in reality, there aren’t only two options.



    You’re setting a fairly low bar if referring to anyone as an idiot constitutes mockery -

    making fun of someone or something in a cruel way

    If that’s the level you’re operating on, I’d sooner just not be arsed even attempting to engage in any kind of meaningful discussion. It’s why I bowed out of the multiculturalism thread for example when it went to shìt, ruined by idiots who have overtaken what was at least an honest discussion up until recently.



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,184 ✭✭✭riclad


    There's no law in the EU paying you 10k to catch anyone who helps someone get an abortion . An Australian tourist was asked did she have an abortion she was travelling to the USA to house sit for a friend, abortion is legal in Australia, why are the customs asking foreign citizens about abortion? It seems now every woman who go, s to the USA is under suspicion . She was sent back to oz. Its illegal to work in America if you have a tourist visa . Maybe women should protest by not going to America as a tourist soend your money in a country that respects women's rights



  • Registered Users Posts: 23,754 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack



    Maybe women should protest by not going to America as a tourist soend your money in a country that respects women's rights


    That seems highly impractical, perhaps a better suggestion would be for the wealthy women of America who claim to care about women’s rights, to part with some of their considerable wealth to support women and girls growing up in grinding poverty in their own country, instead of trying to absolve themselves of any responsibility by coming out with this nonsense -

    At her press conference Thursday, Pelosi said the health decisions women make "don’t belong to politicians in Washington, D.C. or in state capitols or in the Supreme Court of the United States. They belong to a woman, her family, her God, her doctor, her loved ones," she said.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna38369


    To coin a phrase I have no doubt Ms. Pelosi will be familiar with - 50 years too late, and billions of dollars in federal funding too short.



  • Registered Users Posts: 34,822 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    I decided a long time ago I'll never visit the USA. I'm not a criminal and will not consent to being fingerprinted like a criminal.

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Registered Users Posts: 34,822 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    I’d sooner just not be arsed even attempting to engage in any kind of meaningful discussion.

    Irony meter just exploded! 🤣

    Can you do the honest thing and just admit that your silly claim that abortion is not safe was a complete and utter falsehood?

    I won't be holding my breath!

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 34,822 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    It's nonsense but only because of the use of the word "god". US politics is nuts!

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



Advertisement