SafeSurfer wrote: » There is that claim again. That women "are being criminalised", because of the 8th amendment. Who, when, where? More women are criminalised for abortion related offences in England than in the Republic of Ireland.
....... wrote: » I cant say ive seen a placard saying "Stay out of my pussy" - have you seen an example of this? I agree its a silly slogan, and might offend some, but where are you seeing them? Even googling the exact phrase doesnt bring up any images of a placard saying that.
....... wrote: » This post has been deleted.
Is there? I genuinely dont think there is. Now maybe Im just off my rocker but given the numbers of women who have travelled for abortions since the early 80s (4000 * 35 = 140,000 and that a conservative estimate), most people in Ireland actually know someone who has travelled for an abortion, and certainly any women of who has been of childbearing age at any time in the past 35 years is aware of the situation.
Even when I spent a summer in the USA working in 1995 people over there knew the situation in Ireland wrt to not being able to have an abortion - so I dont think there are many people who dont know whats going on.
I cant say ive seen a placard saying "Stay out of my pussy" - have you seen an example of this? I agree its a silly slogan, and might offend some, but where are you seeing them? Even googling the exact phrase doesnt bring up any images of a placard saying that.
seamus wrote: » I agree. But it wasn't framed like that at all when it was originally released. That's what I mean.
There were similar warning made before marriage equality - but the truth was out in the results when a clear majority voted in favour of equal marriage rights for all. Personally I found Panti Bliss a bit tedious in the campaign but that would hardly make me deny people their rights.
Similarly for repealing the 8th. Women are being denied basic medical care and being put at risk by seeking medical procedures in another country or being criminalised by seeking solutions from home. Now, if a silly facebook video means that someone will vote to continue that situation - they were never someone who would have voted to repeal anyway.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » So? I do not care what they MIGHT become in the future. I am discussing what they are NOW. We do not, for example, lock people up for crimes we think they MIGHT commit. Your rights in that regard are GENERALLY based on the present and your past, not your probable future.The simple fact is the rock, and the fetus, are not those things NOW. So why should they be given rights NOW? Which still leaves my point unaddressed. A person being euthanized has, at some point in the past, been allocated rights. Including a right to life. The question is WHEN and WHY did that occur. I have explored that question myself, at great length, through biology and philosophy and morality and ethics. And I see NO reason to think the event happens on or before week 16 of fetal gestation. If you are aware of an argument I missed, then you have the potential to change my entire outlook on abortion at the click of your fingers. Which I would do without hesitation, embarrassment, or reluctance.
Deleted User wrote: » It wasn't the video itself, it was the way it was framed.
seamus wrote: » When that video was initially shared there was no hint that it was anything but your usual funny video. It's not emblazoned at the start with logos or hashtags about repeal, and it's only after a couple of minutes that the message becomes clear. It was later on that people started adding hashtags and crap to it, which I agree with you, are going to turn "the middle" away from watching it. That video is actually a perfect example of the kind of thing that will win the middle over, so it's an unfortunate choice on your part. Though I agree with you in being critical of people "spoiling" the video by revealing its nature and therefore reducing its effect.
SafeSurfer wrote: » Rocks and meat will not become adults like you and I if not aborted.
SafeSurfer wrote: » Apologies. I should have said all things being equal, in the majority of cases individuals whose lives are ended by euthanasia have more choice in their end of life experience than those whose lives are ended by abortion.
Deleted User wrote: » I assumed it wasn't. It's really not the point though. I know how I'm voting, but it's not people like me who are going to swing this vote.
B0jangles wrote: » Did you watch the video? (It's not all about swollen feet and weird cravings...)
Deleted User wrote: » Whatever about the pro-choice side, it's the middle that needs to be won over. And the "shrillness" will cost votes if it continues. FFS I saw someone post a video with the title "The 8 most annoying things about being pregnant" with #RepealThe8th after it. Who is that going to win over?
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » I get the distinct impression that the only sort of pro-choice campaign the people who make statements like the above ^^^ will find acceptable, is practically no campaign at all. And then they expect us to believe that they're really pro-choice voters? Are you going to threaten to vote No if the pro-choice 'asshats' are too 'shrill'? Heard a lot of very similar guff in 2015 and it didn't hold any water then either.
SafeSurfer wrote: » Is it so different? They are both the most vulnerable of humans, dependent on others to keep them alive. The only difference I can see is one has a life ahead of them if they are not killed and the other doesn't.
volchitsa wrote: » Except all things are not equal : the person being considered for euthanasia is, at most, requiring the use of an expensive machine to keep him/her alive. They're not living inside another person, and preventingat person from living their own lives without hindrance. Which is why abortion is entirely different from "involuntary" euthanasia, and much easier to justify in terms of human rights.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Saying someone missed the point without saying what point was missed is somewhat unhelpful. If I missed the point I am unlikely to be able to correct the oversight without some assistance. However you made the point that with euthanasia " the one life that is being ended gets to choose." and I pointed out this is not an entirely true statement. So, as I said, what point you imagine I missed is entirely unclear to me and, I somewhat suspect, to you to.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » I hope they look for it based on a set of arguments that would not require us to give rights to rocks too then. Because as I see it the concept of rights is linked inextricably with consciousness and sentience which a fetus at 16 weeks simply does not have in any form, in any way. So whatever arguments these fetuses managed to put forward arguing they should have rights, I can only hope that the same arguments are not equally applicable to rocks which have, I trust you will notice, the same level of faculty for consciousness as they do. Sure but at that point it becomes incumbent upon the speaker to define exactly what entities should be allocated that right and on what basis. Clearly it is not a right we assign to ALL life, as our medical, meat, paper and agriculture industries will attest. So clearly there is some attribute, or set of attributes, an individual entity must have attained in order to qualify for said right. My own pro choice stance, with time limitations, is based on recognizing what those attributes are, and realizing the entity being aborted (almost always a fetus between 0 and 16 weeks gestation) has not at any point attained them. Unlike many people who declare their position on abortion (for or against) is unchangeable I know mine very much CAN be changed. And I know how. All that is required is a single argument as to why a fetus at, say, 12 weeks should be considered to be eligible for said rights. After 20+ years of asking, no such argument has been forthcoming. I remain, however, agog.
SafeSurfer wrote: » You miss my point entirely or do you believe we should be able to choose to kill anything that cannot choose whether it lives or dies?
Ash.J.Williams wrote: » I'm prochoice but can't see this passing. I fear too many asshats on the repeal side will damage their cause. Obviously there are asshats on both sides but it's the repeal ones that will do the damage.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Ah perhaps you are not up on the Euthanasia debate but in fact what you describe above is not always the case. Very often the debate discusses situations where medical personnel or medical proxies are left with the decision. Often, but not always, the patient has left some kind of instructions. But like with many things in law the instructions do no cover every scenario or eventuality. And then it could fall to medical professionals, or the patients medical proxy, to interpret those instructions. But a fetus at 12 or 16 weeks is not a decision making entity. Not because it is to young or lacks the ability. It lacks the entire faculty that underpins being an entity that can or would make decisions. Therefore you are kind of making the point for me with your sentence above. Abortion of a 12 week fetus should not BE contentious, because the only entity that is a decision making entity in the equation IS the mother. The Fetus is not.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w2.vanillicon.com/v2/282101dc2976956f9dfc87f7a2ef2413.svg)
