anyone else fed up hearing about abortion already

Graces7 wrote: »

Small points; have not read the whole thread but

Savita died through medical negligence. Even at that late stage had they done their job and treated her she would have lived. Of course the hospital tried to cover that up.

If you seek to avoid pregnancy when you know you do not "want" a baby, then do not have sex.

It really is so simple.

Pregnancy is the natural and often unavoidable result of your own actions. An adult takes full responsibility for their actions;you set a human life in motion and to not have the right and should not have the need to kill it.

Because whatever quibbles you make re when a baby becomes a baby, there is a life there else you would not need to destroy it.

Oh and you need some research on the long term mental health of women who have killed their unborn babies. Going against a basic natural force and in a state when the body and hormones are geared to the protection f the new life within you is a brutality,

And that 30 unborn babies were killed last year because they were Down's Syndrome?

Shameful ,

\I am away now!!! Have a lovely day and I mean that.

You also destroy a tumour. It is a bunch of living cells but it isn't a human.

As for people taking responsibility, well I will believe that if we stop treating smokers and obese people (I don't advocate not treating either of these groups but by and large it is their fault they get sick more frequently than others).

I fail to see why natural is always the best way. The natural way is to have this conversation face to face or not at all. The Internet is not natural. Neither are a lot of the medicines we concoct or chemo.

Sex is great for mental health and bonding with your partner and fun. Are we going to go down the route of couples living like "brother and sister" until they want to have a baby? We have had that discussion before.

the_pen_turner wrote: »

im sick of hearing about it and it hasnt even started yet. its a total waste of time . the subject is so strong that people have their opinions on it and are very unlikely to change them. why cant we just have one week of facts and then a referendum.

I am not sick of hearing about it really. I think it is one of the more important moral discussions of our time and I think we need to be having more of it. It goes right down to the very definitions of what it means to be human, what it means to have human rights, and what it means to have freedom and autonomy in relation to others.

Note how the thread has gone on to subjects like the right to die in terminally ill suffering patients for example. Abortion is a micro-part of a larger discussion on the very concept of human rights, and what they should be. I can think of few subjects I would, or should, be LESS fed up of hearing about.

What one can be fed up with is the memes WITHIN the abortion discourse however. The completely derailing canards that many people will throw out that have been many times rebutted but are still clung to by people who do not HAVE anything else.

But even with that I am not as pessimistic about discourse as you appear to be. I think people DO change their minds. Maybe not in real time DURING conversations like this thread, but en masse over all when this discussion is repeated in private and public forums over and over.... I do believe there is a net change of opinion over time. And my feeling is it is changing in what I argue is the right direction. Slowly yes. But I feel it is happening.

If I can be said to worship anything in this world, then it is open and honest discourse. It really is the only tool of utility our species has in these contexts. Even though some (though he has not joined the thread yet it seems) some work very hard to destroy it.

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

But if it doesn't pass, can the Repeal crowd then just STFU?

I hope not. I hope the people opposed to the result we actually get, whatever that result may be, never simply shut up. I do not think that is how democracy and discourse works. I think debate, education, discourse and consideration of all policies should be ongoing and not ever settled by one vote that sets an eternal truth for all of time.

Even when a vote goes ENTIRELY the way I wanted it to, like say the gay marriage referendum we recently had, I do not find myself hoping the opposition will simply shut up and go away. I find myself hoping they will realize what tosh their arguments were, go back and refine them or re-invent them, and come back with something better and newer which..... who knows...... might even convince me.

Never do I hope discussion on a subject will go away and be settled by a single vote at a single time. That would be awful.

jameorahiely wrote: »

Why would a picture of a clump of cells upset the pro abortionists? Does the truth upset them?

Probably for the same reason I would be "upset" if you went around sticking up photographs of open heart surgery, or autopsies. Graphic pictures of our internal biology are upsetting to many people and there is no call for it. It is merely a move to bypass the intellect and appeal to the emotion.

What bothered me when I was first forming my opinion about abortion and I did not know which way to go, was that the graphic photographs was ALL the opposition had. I made a point of clearing a saturday after noon with the intention of going to the "information tables" of the opposition who were so openly displaying those photographs at Central Bank in Dublin.

I walked up to them and openly told them I was an undecided and wanted to hear their arguments. The people there basically said "Look at the photos". I said yes that they were clearly unpleasant looking photos but I had time, and I was openly seeking their anti abortion arguments. Their response was again essentially "The photos maaannnn..... look at the phooootoooossss" in a kind of mindless brain washed drawl.

A single actual argument for what their position actually was.... I was simply unable to obtain. Thankfully on-line I managed to find various people vastly more coherent and capable than them and I eventually managed to hear and consider SOME arguments for the anti-abortion position. But I was left with the impression the people flying photos were all heart and no brains on the subject.

infogiver wrote: »

if you want abortion to be legal then you are pro abortion. I cant understand why you object to this expression, can you explain your objection?

I hope I can help you with that query. Probably it is because it gives the impression people WANT other people to be having abortions. This is the opposite of the truth.

An analogy I use here often is that to heart by pass surgery. I WANT people to have access to one if they need one. But I WANT to live in a society where no one ever needs one. I am 100% for access to bypass surgery but 100% for a society where no one has them.

So I am not pro bypass surgery. I am pro access to it when needed. But I am entirely anti bypass surgery in that I would do everything I can to prevent anyone ever needing to have one.

Similarly with abortion, most pro-choice advocates are also anti-abortion in that they do not want anyone to ever need or want them. We support things like better and cheaper access to contraception, better and EARLIER sex education in our schools, better and more comprehensive support for troubled parents or financially suffering single parents.

Basically initiatives that lead someone to not actually ever needing to choose abortion is something I would likely be for.

"100% access, 0% use" is a short hand for the ideal to strive towards. We maybe will never reach that ideal, but that ideal defines the goals none the less.

And ALL of that is what the term "pro-abortionist" is SPECIFICALLY coined to distort, hide, and deny. Just like the term "pro-life" is suggestive that anyone opposing their position is somehow "anti" life. Labels rarely give you the nuances and specifics of peoples actual positions. And a huge warning light for you should always be when the label is applied from outside the group, rather than from those within, as James is wont to do.

And these moves are usually made by people who solely have propaganda, and no arguments, on their side. Something which jameorahiely could not be more perfect as an example of. Take post #41 for example. That literally is all he has to offer on the subject. Propaganda linguistics in lieu of coherent discourse.

infogiver wrote: »

surely if your pro-abortion you would be explaining to your kids that the bloody mess in the pictures is just a clump of cells, like a scab they picked of their knee, and not a baby (even though it looks like a baby..yeah tricky)

Actually that is essentially a conversation I have heard had. Not in the context of abortion, but in the context of explaining a miscarriage to a child who was upset that a child they expected was no longer going to come.

The child was concerned that their sibling had died, suffered, or worse. And it was explained to the child that the stage at which the miscarriage occurred was a stage when there was no reason to suggest that there was "anyone home" in terms of a person in the first place, let alone at a level to suffer or die.

And the child was very much consoled by this and I would not be surprised if it was formative in whatever their future opinion on abortion turns out to be.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Ah, the old 'a fetus is not a baby' argument yet again

Yeah amazing isn't it that people in a discussion might want to ensure terms in that discussion are used correctly. Go figure.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Nothing the pro-choice crowd hate more than a fetus being spoken of as such. They'd much rather use dehumanizing terms such as 'bunch of cells' and 'blobs of biological matter'.

No what they rather is not to dehumanize, but to prevent the pre-humanization of something that does not deserve it. They are not ensuring the accurate use of terms in order to DEhumanize it, but to prevent you overly humanizing it before it's time.

We are not removing what is not there, we are preventing you from subtle mis-use of language to allow pretending something is there that is not.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Helps them avoid having to deal will the reality of just what an abortion is, that's why.

Problem is I know EXACTLY what abortion is, and not just because developmental biology is erring right into my areas of knowledge. And there is nothing there I need to "deal" with, let alone "avoid" dealing with. So your narrative could not in any way be more false.

What we do want to avoid dealing with, is things that are not actually there, but that people mis-use words and labels in order to pretend IS there. We call a fetus a fetus for the same reason we call a spade a spade..... because that is what it actually is.

So rather than moan when we use correct terms.... correctly.... perhaps you can regale us with the reasons we should be mis-using them the way you require?

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well as I said what I HOPE for is that when one side (even my side) wins an election that the losing side go back and cut away the arguments that were tosh failure nonsense, and then improve or add to the rest.

It is possible the anti marriage equality faction attempted this, and after the pruning realized there was nothing there left. Especially given most of their arguments were irrelevant to what was actually being voted on (go back to the threads on the subject and see all the discussions about adoption for example, the anti side moaning about it, and the pro-side pointing out that adoption had little or nothing to do with the subject).

Perhaps some day they will find an actual good argument and come back with it. If they find one, I genuinely hope they do come back. Because my interest is not in "winning" arguments but in being convinced of what is right. And if there is a good argument against gay marriage, or against abortion.... I genuinely want to hear it so I can stop being so wrong on the subjects.... if in fact I am.

Where they are ACTUALLY gone however I can only guess at. What probably happens is they sit back waiting for some awful event to let them say "I told you so" but then the event never happens and so they never return.

I post also on a forum like this one called "City Data". There actually is quite a lot of religious Americans on that debating heavily against divorce in all it's forms. Not coherently or well, but they are there. It is in many ways a much offer forum than this one though. It makes After Hours look sane and normal quite often.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Much more difficult to campaign to remove rights from people than it is to prevent them from getting those rights in the first place.

Especially for something like say divorce or SSM, where a lot of the No campaigning was scaremongering predictions about the damaging impact the changes would have on society.

Unless at least some of those predictions are actually proven correct, or unless they come up with a new set of arguments, what is there left?

jameorahiely wrote: »

What has a colonospy got to do with abortion?


Here's a woman who died after a legal abortion, but I suppose the pro-abortionists are ok with that


http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/medics-deny-causing-death-of-woman-from-ireland-after-abortion-1.2446075


Aisha Chithira (32) died after having a termination at a Marie Stopes clinic in Ealing, west London, on January 21, 2012.


Not to mention unscrupulous abortion clinics


https://www.thesun.co.uk/living/2446839/marie-stopes-clinics-tried-to-give-vulnerable-woman-an-abortion-without-consent-and-left-dead-foetuses-in-bin-cqc-report-finds/

Marie Stopes clinics ‘tried to give vulnerable woman an abortion without consent and left dead foetuses in BIN,’ CQC report finds
CQC inspectors said patients are still at risk of "avoidable harm" at the Marie Stopes

You said that women die because of abortions. I agreed but said that the number is minuscule. To point out a comparison I said that people die from colonoscopys too. And more people die from them. So by your logic should we ban people from getting a colonoscopy. People die from aspirin too. Should we ban aspirin?

Osmosis Jones wrote: »

Maybe it gets airtime because people like you bring it up completely unprovoked in a different discussion.

Get up the yard, my point is perfectly valid and in keeping with the thread

lawred2 wrote: »

Odd that you put 'pro-life' in air-quotes but not so for baby murdering propaganda...

Why is that odd? Did you somehow imagine that I have no views of my own on the subject? That I am required, like RTE, to pretend some "pro-life" nutbag is a "prominent bioethicist" just because that's what they call themselves?

Nope.

jameorahiely wrote: »

More people die of a colonoscopy than they do from lack of abortion, to use your logic.

What's the death count from lack of abortion on demand?

It's not my logic. Look up the figures yourself. More people die from colonoscopies than from abortions. And it's not just more, it's more per capita. When one number is bigger than another than it's not logic it's basic maths.

donkeykong5 wrote: »

Now that publicity loving panti bliss has jumped on the bandwagon. (As abortion is something that really would affect his daily life ). I am wondering who will be next with their views. Thinking una mullally and lynn ruane and defo david norris. !

it is shocking that people not directly affected should have an opinion. Perhaps we should only allow women to vote on any future referendum?

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I'm not sick of hearing about it per se, the more talk on the subject the better I believe.

I am however sick of seeing the argument being simplified into Pro-Life or Pro Abortion. Whatever happened to being Pro-Choice?

You should check out the pro life facebook pages. Pro choicers are caller pro aborts or pro death.

You should check out some of the stuff they post up, it's hilarious.

https://scontent-ams3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t31.0-8/14435040_1227627500642889_6889282653694949553_o.jpg?oh=526caa33eee8c0042cfb59f67acd5c98&oe=58DCD64D

https://scontent-ams3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t31.0-8/13412188_1123936307678676_8086049587955955910_o.jpg?oh=fbecd6ed364d6e4c64898aeec8b23bfb&oe=592350D5

https://scontent-ams3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t31.0-8/12244629_977613118977663_3607808558361064711_o.jpg?oh=6841de2e690d75fd818288f4300e54a0&oe=58DD8931

From **** Youth Defence and Others Still Say

Edit to add: I grew up surrounded by pro life people and most are nowhere near as batsh1t crazy as these guys.
Edit two: just realised the link doesn't work because the word sh1t is blanked out in the URL
https://www.facebook.com/shi tYDStillSay/

Use that but delete the blank space.

^ Even in isolation I have no idea what that sentence means. Taken as, what I can only guess was it's intention, specifically a reply to my post leaves me even more lost however. Perhaps someone else can translate for me?

To those of you that are Pro-Life...what post birth groups are you a member of and support that may help disabled children, homeless children, hungry children, abused children etc etc etc!?

Do any of you support either financially or other any of the following children groups...

The Children's Rights Alliance
Barnardos
LauraLynn
Barretstown
Focus Ireland
MakeaWish
TempleStreet
CARI

I ask as it seems that the vast majority of the anti abortion/Pro Life crowd here and that I have met in the real world are in fact Pro Birth and after birth they don't give a crap??

I asked a Pro Life lady I met in Galway last summer this very asme question. She could not answer. I asked how much she donates of her time to children already alive that are suffering and she refused to answer, a sheepish look in her eye as she knew she was on the backfoot. I asked if she had her last tenner would she spend it on feeding/housing a homeless child or on her anti abortion agenda and she refused to answer.

So are you Pro Life folks as committed to life once the child is born? Do you visit children hospitals to help out, maybe read stories to the sick kids, donate some money to help with services or is it someone else problem once birth occurs?

I googled colonoscopies and abortions and they are indeed very different. I also compared abortions to roller skates and we found an even wider variance. We've more testing to do but they do appear quite different.