anyone else fed up hearing about abortion already

frag420 · 13-01-2017 02:15PM

jameorahiely wrote: »

Are you denying they exist?

Sluts?

jameorahiely · 13-01-2017 02:32PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

and you massively miss the point again. tell us, what point do you think she was making?

She loves abortion because abortions = freedom

She's not the only one, you can get on message tshirts

i_love_abortion_tshirt.jpg?width=750&height=750&Filters=%5b%7b%22name%22%3a%22crop%22%2c%22value%22%3a%7b%22x%22%3a125.0%2c%22y%22%3a0.0%2c%22w%22%3a500%2c%22h%22%3a680.0%7d%2c%22sequence%22%3a1%7d%2c%7b%22name%22%3a%22background%22%2c%22value%22%3a%22F2F2F2%22%2c%22sequence%22%3a2%7d%5d

i_love_abortion_tshirt.jpg?width=750&height=750&Filters=%5b%7b%22name%22%3a%22crop%22%2c%22value%22%3a%7b%22x%22%3a125.0%2c%22y%22%3a0.0%2c%22w%22%3a500%2c%22h%22%3a680.0%7d%2c%22sequence%22%3a1%7d%2c%7b%22name%22%3a%22background%22%2c%22value%22%3a%22F2F2F2%22%2c%22sequence%22%3a2%7d%5d

jameorahiely · 13-01-2017 02:43PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

they do exist. so what?

Why does this poster make it out like it's some made up term by pro life people to slut-shame?
Can't they handle the truth?

It's a useful term to mention when you're an anti-choicer with a love of slut-shaming.

gctest50 · 13-01-2017 02:50PM

jameorahiely wrote: »

.........

She's not the only one, you can get on message tshirts

You can get almost anything on a tshirt

ohnonotgmail · 13-01-2017 02:53PM

jameorahiely wrote: »

Why does this poster make it out like it's some made up term by pro life people to slut-shame?
Can't they handle the truth?

because the "pro-life" people it as a pejorative term precisely for that reason. Why does the time of day matter in an abortion?

ohnonotgmail · 13-01-2017 02:54PM

jameorahiely wrote: »

She loves abortion because abortions = freedom

She's not the only one, you can get on message tshirts

subtlety is lost on you.

nozzferrahhtoo · 13-01-2017 02:57PM

jameorahiely wrote: »

They love late term abortions

Except that is not what is said in what you quoted, as usual. Not only that but you contived, as gctest50 showed, to ignore much of what they DID say too. Ignoring the majority, the misrepresenting the remainder.... you really are stacking up the points here aren't you.

jameorahiely wrote: »

I see you have removed the + from behind the 90% and "before 12 weeks" suddenly becomes "around the 12 week mark", that's not what you've been repeatedly saying

I have been saying essentially the same thing, in many different ways. The variance you are imagining is simply not there. The Gutmacher is where I got my statistics in the past and they have indeed shown over 90% uptake in the 0-12 weeks area.

If you go to OTHER countries of course you are going to see some variances in either direction. But amazingly there is very little at all. Most of the countries I have looked at, west of Ireland and east of Ireland, are coming out with a baseline around the 90% mark.

This is a VAST majority. And if the best you can do to dodge that is pedantically suggest I should say 87-93% instead of 90% or 90%+ then you really got nutting have you? The simple fact remains that an overwhelming majority of abortions are done before or during the 12th week, and a significant majority of abortions after that point are done not by choice but by medical necessity.

jameorahiely wrote: »

Are you pro late term abortions yourself?

I am pro their availability for people who actually need them myself. When someone has serious medical or other complications that require them for one of many possible examples.

I would not be in favor of late term abortions-on-demand myself, purely for choice. I think there is no real requirement or reason to maintain such a thing in our society past 16 weeks. As we have seen the overwhelming majority occur before 12 weeks, but 16 weeks would be a pretty safe buffer zone.

But as many people keep telling you, and you are VERY keen to ignore it when we say it, we are not "pro" abortions in and of themselves AT ALL. In the same way as we are not "pro" heart bypass.

We want people who want and need them to have access to them at the appropriate times..... but we ALSO want to strive towards the ideal of no one ever having them. By supporting initiatives that prevent unwanted pregnancies, and support initiatives that support people who are pregnant who want to continue with the pregnancy.

Your desperation to ignore it does not change the fact that people who are pro-choice also appear to be ANTI abortion in that sense. They neither love them nor want them to happen. They just want that choice to be there if and when it is needed.

I know that does not fit your narrative of hate towards them, which requires you ignore this fact..... but it bears repeating all the same so your dishonesty in this regard can be in no doubt to anyone still actually reading the thread.

jameorahiely wrote: »

If it's certain death both are facing, why do we need to kill them?

Well quite often when both are facing death, killing one can save the other. Which I assume is what the person meant and, I also assume, you knew but are contriving to pretend you did not. As is your wont.

jameorahiely wrote: »

Why do you recoil at the pro abortion title?

"Recoil" is contrived to be hyperbole there. No one is "recoiling". They are just acting in the same way as they would if instead of calling a spade a spade.... you called it a melon.... by pointing out you are using labels inaccurately.

The real questions are why do you recoil from accurate and honest usages of terms, recoil from rebutting the arguments made against your misuse of the terms, and recoil from identifying people with the labels they themselves identify themselves by?

jameorahiely wrote: »

You are here advocating for abortion.

We are advocating for that CHOICE when it is required. Nothing more. If you require it I would advocate for your access to heart by-pass for example. That does not mean I advocate heart by-pass. I would prefer we do everything we can to avoid you ever requiring one.

Our position on abortion tends to be exactly the same as that. Your mis-use of terms contrives, quite intentionally and willfully on your part, to spin it into sounding like we think the more abortions happen the better, that we love when they happen, that we go around trying to get more people to have them. You KNOW that is what your mis-use of terms implies and you KNOW we all know it too. You just do not care. Honesty is rarely the goal of propaganda and spin. Least of all from you.

nozzferrahhtoo · 13-01-2017 02:58PM

thee glitz wrote: »

It does not show concern AT ALL. The answer provided does not address the question in any way.

We already all have acknowledged that the answer does not fit the question. There is no need to repeat ourselves. And not one but TWO of us pro-choicers here have already mailed them our dissatisfaction to this effect.

But it DOES show a concern. It is casting in a positive light the idea that abortion-on-demand results in people having abortions earlier. Which for anyone concerned with late-term abortions is a good thing.

But the crux of my point/rebuttal of you is that their failure to answer the question that was actually asked does NOT support YOUR claim that "most" do not care about term limits. A claim you have yet to back up in even the smallest way at all.

....... · 13-01-2017 03:08PM

This post has been deleted.

PopePalpatine · 13-01-2017 03:09PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

subtlety is lost on you.

Pro-lifers don't do subtlety. It doesn't matter how few women go for "lunchtime abortions", hell it doesn't even matter that it's just a medical trial where an abortion is performed with local anaesthetic, allowing the patient to return to work the next day, that "lunchtime abortions" headline is all they need to froth at the mouth.

ohnonotgmail · 13-01-2017 03:11PM

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Pro-lifers don't do subtlety. It doesn't matter how few women go for "lunchtime abortions", hell it doesn't even matter that it's just a medical trial where an abortion is performed with local anaesthetic, allowing the patient to return to work the next day, that "lunchtime abortions" headline is all they need to froth at the mouth.

they dont seem to do rational discussion either.

jameorahiely · 13-01-2017 03:17PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Except that is not what is said in what you quoted, as usual. Not only that but you contived, as gctest50 showed, to ignore much of what they DID say too. Ignoring the majority, the misrepresenting the remainder.... you really are stacking up the points here aren't you.

I have been saying essentially the same thing, in many different ways. The variance you are imagining is simply not there. The Gutmacher is where I got my statistics in the past and they have indeed shown over 90% uptake in the 0-12 weeks area.

If you go to OTHER countries of course you are going to see some variances in either direction. But amazingly there is very little at all. Most of the countries I have looked at, west of Ireland and east of Ireland, are coming out with a baseline around the 90% mark.

This is a VAST majority. And if the best you can do to dodge that is pedantically suggest I should say 87-93% instead of 90% or 90%+ then you really got nutting have you? The simple fact remains that an overwhelming majority of abortions are done before or during the 12th week, and a significant majority of abortions after that point are done not by choice but by medical necessity.

I am pro their availability for people who actually need them myself. When someone has serious medical or other complications that require them for one of many possible examples.

I would not be in favor of late term abortions-on-demand myself, purely for choice. I think there is no real requirement or reason to maintain such a thing in our society past 16 weeks. As we have seen the overwhelming majority occur before 12 weeks, but 16 weeks would be a pretty safe buffer zone.

But as many people keep telling you, and you are VERY keen to ignore it when we say it, we are not "pro" abortions in and of themselves AT ALL. In the same way as we are not "pro" heart bypass.

We want people who want and need them to have access to them at the appropriate times..... but we ALSO want to strive towards the ideal of no one ever having them. By supporting initiatives that prevent unwanted pregnancies, and support initiatives that support people who are pregnant who want to continue with the pregnancy.

Your desperation to ignore it does not change the fact that people who are pro-choice also appear to be ANTI abortion in that sense. They neither love them nor want them to happen. They just want that choice to be there if and when it is needed.

I know that does not fit your narrative of hate towards them, which requires you ignore this fact..... but it bears repeating all the same so your dishonesty in this regard can be in no doubt to anyone still actually reading the thread.

Well quite often when both are facing death, killing one can save the other. Which I assume is what the person meant and, I also assume, you knew but are contriving to pretend you did not. As is your wont.

"Recoil" is contrived to be hyperbole there. No one is "recoiling". They are just acting in the same way as they would if instead of calling a spade a spade.... you called it a melon.... by pointing out you are using labels inaccurately.

The real questions are why do you recoil from accurate and honest usages of terms, recoil from rebutting the arguments made against your misuse of the terms, and recoil from identifying people with the labels they themselves identify themselves by?

We are advocating for that CHOICE when it is required. Nothing more. If you require it I would advocate for your access to heart by-pass for example. That does not mean I advocate heart by-pass. I would prefer we do everything we can to avoid you ever requiring one.

Our position on abortion tends to be exactly the same as that. Your mis-use of terms contrives, quite intentionally and willfully on your part, to spin it into sounding like we think the more abortions happen the better, that we love when they happen, that we go around trying to get more people to have them. You KNOW that is what your mis-use of terms implies and you KNOW we all know it too. You just do not care. Honesty is rarely the goal of propaganda and spin. Least of all from you.

The Gutmacher is a pro abortion institute and I've already poimted out that 2011 was a anomily year with abortions.

You speak of "we" as if you represent the pro abortionists and speak for them all. Some women love abortions (see linked blog) why are you denying people who love abortions exist, when evidence shows otherwise.

Who is anti heart bypasses? I, for one, am pro heart bypassess (and brain surgery) I think it's wonderful what they are able to do. Can you say the same thing about abortions? (obviously not)

"When someone has serious medical or other complications that require them for one of many possible examples."

^^abortion is already available in these situtations. Why are you IGNORING this FACT?

....... · 13-01-2017 03:19PM

This post has been deleted.

jameorahiely · 13-01-2017 03:26PM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Why don't you ask the poster who used the phrase first?

....... · 13-01-2017 03:26PM

This post has been deleted.

gctest50 · 13-01-2017 03:28PM

jameorahiely wrote: »

..........

"When someone has serious medical or other complications that require them for one of many possible examples."

^^abortion is already available in these situtations. Why are you IGNORING this FACT?

Because as usual, it's just the convenient bit

We need no criminal law restricting abortion

so this kind of thing doesn;t happen again :

http://bit.ly/2jBn8mw

Dr Peter Boylan said that if Ms Halappanavar had been given a termination on the Monday or Tuesday, one or two days after she was admitted last October 21st, she would “on the balance of probabilities”, still be alive.

"It is highly likely she would not have died" if she had been given a termination earlier, he added.

However, terminating her pregnancy was not a practical proposition for the doctors treating her at this time because of the legal situation in Ireland, he said.

nozzferrahhtoo · 13-01-2017 03:30PM

jameorahiely wrote: »

The Gutmacher is a pro abortion institute

Irrelevant. Showing someone has a bias is irrelevant. You have to show that their bias actually influenced the results. You have not done this, especially given the results bear out in other journals, in other countries, and at other times. Were it an anomalous result over all, you might have cause to be concerned. But it is not.

jameorahiely wrote: »

You speak of "we" as if you represent the pro abortionists and speak for them all.

I certainly do not speak for a group you have invented, and labeled with a label you have invented. I do however have a LOT of experience around the subject of abortion and a lot of experience with people who are pro-choice and I am speaking for the majority opinions I have seen and heard expressed.

And no, I am not denying anyone exists. I am denying that you have shown any reason to think that the quantity of those people are anything but a statistical non-entity. It is easy to find extreme and abhorrent views on ANY subject and point and go "Oh look, they exist". Establishing the relevance of that is much harder, as your failure to even ATTEMPT to do so quite strongly shows.

jameorahiely wrote: »

Who is anti heart bypasses?

I never said anyone was, nor did I say anything that requires anyone to be. Read it again and understand it rather than knee-jerk at it this time.

All I am saying is that advocating that an option be available to you is not the same as advocating that you take it. And abortion, like bypass, is something many people would advocate you CAN have, but would also advocate for every initiative that would mean you never HAVE to.

When you talk to pro-choice campaigners, as I have done at great length, you generally find that they are ALSO in support of MANY initiatives that will reduce the quantity of people that have abortions.

Better, wider, and cheaper access to contraception.
Better and earlier sex education in our schools.
Better financial support for parents, especially single parents, in financial distress that makes them feel like abortion is their only option.

And so on and so on.

jameorahiely wrote: »

abortion is already available in these situtations. Why are you IGNORING this FACT?

I am not. I was responding to something said and It would have used the same response regardless of whether they were already available, or not. When Y is irrelevant to a statement X, then statement X is not ignoring Y.... Y simply has nothing to do with it.

jameorahiely · 13-01-2017 03:40PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Irrelevant. Showing someone has a bias is irrelevant. You have to show that their bias actually influenced the results. You have not done this, especially given the results bear out in other journals, in other countries, and at other times. Were it an anomalous result over all, you might have cause to be concerned. But it is not.

I certainly do not speak for a group you have invented, and labeled with a label you have invented. I do however have a LOT of experience around the subject of abortion and a lot of experience with people who are pro-choice and I am speaking for the majority opinions I have seen and heard expressed.

And no, I am not denying anyone exists. I am denying that you have shown any reason to think that the quantity of those people are anything but a statistical non-entity. It is easy to find extreme and abhorrent views on ANY subject and point and go "Oh look, they exist". Establishing the relevance of that is much harder, as your failure to even ATTEMPT to do so quite strongly shows.

I never said anyone was, nor did I say anything that requires anyone to be. Read it again and understand it rather than knee-jerk at it this time.

All I am saying is that advocating that an option be available to you is not the same as advocating that you take it. And abortion, like bypass, is something many people would advocate you CAN have, but would also advocate for every initiative that would mean you never HAVE to.

When you talk to pro-choice campaigners, as I have done at great length, you generally find that they are ALSO in support of MANY initiatives that will reduce the quantity of people that have abortions.

Better, wider, and cheaper access to contraception.
Better and earlier sex education in our schools.
Better financial support for parents, especially single parents, in financial distress that makes them feel like abortion is their only option.

And so on and so on.

I am not. I was responding to something said and It would have used the same response regardless of whether they were already available, or not. When Y is irrelevant to a statement X, then statement X is not ignoring Y.... Y simply has nothing to do with it.

Who is this "we" you speak of?

We say it, We are not "pro" abortions in and of themselves AT ALL. In the same way as We are not "pro" heart bypass.

We want people who want and need them to have access to them at the appropriate times..... but We ALSO want to strive towards the ideal of no one ever having them. By supporting initiatives that prevent unwanted pregnancies, and support initiatives that support people who are pregnant who want to continue with the pregnancy.

Why do you strive to lower the abortion rates? What's wrong with abortion? If there is nothing wrong with it, what does it matter what the rates are?

Grayson · 13-01-2017 03:53PM

This thread is a trainwreck and it's down to one person.
jameorahiely, you are using the dumbest rhetoric I've ever seen in a thread. You'll focus on one word and think that by doing do you'll win the argument. You'll ignore the point of a post and just focus on some tiny detail. I think in your head you have an imaginary scoreboard and that you think your winning. Thing is that you've added nothing substantive to the debate. You have made no argument in favour of your position.

....... · 13-01-2017 03:54PM

This post has been deleted.

13-01-2017 03:57PM

jameorahiely wrote: »

Who is this "we" you speak of?

We say it, We are not "pro" abortions in and of themselves AT ALL. In the same way as We are not "pro" heart bypass.

We want people who want and need them to have access to them at the appropriate times..... but We ALSO want to strive towards the ideal of no one ever having them. By supporting initiatives that prevent unwanted pregnancies, and support initiatives that support people who are pregnant who want to continue with the pregnancy.

Why do you strive to lower the abortion rates? What's wrong with abortion? If there is nothing wrong with it, what does it matter what the rates are?

There is nothing wrong with it. But it's still a medical intervention, and it is always more desirable to prevent someone needing a medical procedure. For the women who don't want children it would be obviously better if they were assisted with better sex ed and contraception access so they can avoid becoming pregnant and needing an often painful and uncomfortable procedure. And for the women who would like to have a child but don't feel capable of supporting one in their current social/financial situation it would be desirable that supports exist to give them the option to continue their pregnancy if they wish.

But at the end of the day abortions will always be needed and therefore should be legal and accessible.

gctest50 · 13-01-2017 03:58PM

jameorahiely wrote: »

....

Why do you strive to lower the abortion rates? What's wrong with abortion? If there is nothing wrong with it, what does it matter what the rates are?

.

Why do you strive to lower the cancer treatments? What's wrong with cancer treatment? If there is nothing wrong with it, what does it matter what the rates are?

Zubeneschamali · 13-01-2017 04:00PM

Grayson wrote: »

You have made no argument in favour of your position.

In fact, like the SSM amendment, the trolling, bad faith arguments and illogical nonsense from the pro-life side makes that side looks worse.

volchitsa · 13-01-2017 04:02PM

jameorahiely wrote: »

Doctors in London are also capable of ignoring patients symptoms...

All completely irrelevant again. Is there any chance you could reply to the actual question about what you said, rather than trawl the net for examples of medical negligence?

Here's what the actual question was :

volchitsa wrote: »

jameorahiely wrote: »

I agree, every medical proceedure, including Savitas has risks.

That's assuming the procedure carried out is the correct one according to current medical evidence, and that it is carried out correctly.

Anything else is negligence or worse.

What medical procedure was carried out on Savita? And was it the right one, by which I mean the same treatment she'd have had in any good maternity hospital around the world?

If you meant that medical negligence occurs elsewhere, fine, I agree, but that isn't what I'm asking you. You made a point about the medical procedure that Savita Halappanavar underwent and you gave us detailed medical information about what went wrong.

So asking you to name the treatment she got, and to compare it to what is standard in the rest of the developed world shouldn't be beyond your capacities.

Unless of course you can't because you know full well that she needed an abortion, and didn't get one when she asked for it because of a religious law that people were fooled into putting in the constitution back when most people actually believed that the Catholic Church had something to teach us about good and bad.

jameorahiely · 13-01-2017 04:08PM

Grayson wrote: »

This thread is a trainwreck and it's down to one person.
jameorahiely, you are using the dumbest rhetoric I've ever seen in a thread. You'll focus on one word and think that by doing do you'll win the argument. You'll ignore the point of a post and just focus on some tiny detail. I think in your head you have an imaginary scoreboard and that you think your winning. Thing is that you've added nothing substantive to the debate. You have made no argument in favour of your position.

Focus on one word?

Like this

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Or like this?

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It's very odd you decided not to pick these posters up on focusing on one word, yet you pretend I did it. Have you some sort of imaginary senario playing out in your head. I'm sure you think your post contributes substantially to the discussion, but it doesn't.

....... · 13-01-2017 04:08PM

This post has been deleted.

keano_afc · 13-01-2017 04:16PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

In fact, like the SSM amendment, the trolling, bad faith arguments and illogical nonsense from the pro-life side makes that side looks worse.

Anyone would think you were trying to absolve the pro-choice side of the exact same faults.

Zubeneschamali · 13-01-2017 04:28PM

keano_afc wrote: »

Anyone would think you were trying to absolve the pro-choice side of the exact same faults.

Why would anyone think that when it does not follow from anything I said?

jameorahiely · 13-01-2017 04:42PM

Why do you strive to lower the cancer treatments? What's wrong with cancer treatment? If there is nothing wrong with it, what does it matter what the rates are?

What a bizarre comparison gctest, I think you know this is bizarre, that's why you put it in quotes. Do I really need to spell out why cancer is not the same as being pregnant?

jameorahiely · 13-01-2017 04:47PM

volchitsa wrote: »

All completely irrelevant again. Is there any chance you could reply to the actual question about what you said, rather than trawl the net for examples of medical negligence?

Here's what the actual question was :

If you meant that medical negligence occurs elsewhere, fine, I agree, but that isn't what I'm asking you. You made a point about the medical procedure that Savita Halappanavar underwent and you gave us detailed medical information about what went wrong.

So asking you to name the treatment she got, and to compare it to what is standard in the rest of the developed world shouldn't be beyond your capacities.

Unless of course you can't because you know full well that she needed an abortion, and didn't get one when she asked for it because of a religious law that people were fooled into putting in the constitution back when most people actually believed that the Catholic Church had something to teach us about good and bad.

Firstly she got bloods taken which the results weren't checked until a day later. One of the recommendations made was The jury also endorsed recommendations that blood samples should always be followed up to guard against errors". Safe to say the standard in the rest of the world woukd be to check the blood test

anyone else fed up hearing about abortion already

Comments