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

Would Ireland follow Europe's Lead in Aborting the Huge Majority of Down Syndrome Pos

1…2526283031…43

Comments

  • #812
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,524 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    Triceratops Ballet wrote: »
    Can you point to where anyone is advocating broadening abortion laws on the basis of eradicating people with disabilities?


    No, because that's not what I said, so I shouldn't have to defend it. I said that people were arguing for abortion by using the fear of people being born with disabilities, trying to play on peoples fears, which is the same emotional blackmail they accuse others of engaging in, only from the opposite perspective.

    People are advocating the broadening of abortion laws, full stop.


    If that's all they were doing, hey, play ball, I have no problem with that, I advocate for broadening our abortion laws myself. What I don't do however, is use fear and emotional blackmail to make my points, and I don't agree with other people who use it either to advocate for abortion. It's using other people to make their arguments, because they have none that stand up on their own without being infused with a heavy dose of emotional blackmail and propaganda. People are scoffing at the idea that "women are treated as second class citizens", it doesn't work any more, so they're having to change tack, so now we have the NWCI and their "Every Woman" campaign...

    Every woman? They clearly haven't thought that through.

    People with disabilities have come into the discussion as the op asked if people in Ireland were likely to terminate pregnancies where DS was diagnosed in utero.

    If you think you're having a discussion where people are proposing to abort all pregnancies where there is a diagnoses of DS, you're not. That's not what is happening here.


    That's exactly what's happening here, an attempt, and that's all it is, an attempt to normalise circumstances where upon discovering that they would give birth to a person with disabilities, women in that situation should be pressured into having an abortion. The multitude of other emotionally charged scenarios hasn't worked, so this is the new tack. It's despicable IMO, and it fuels ignorance and the stigma against people with disabilities, in an attempt to minimise the stigma against abortion.


  • #813
    Triceratops Ballet
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,894 ✭✭✭Triceratops Ballet


    One eyed Jack wrote:
    No, because that's not what I said, so I shouldn't have to defend it. I said that people were arguing for abortion by using the fear of people being born with disabilities, trying to play on peoples fears, which is the same emotional blackmail they accuse others of engaging in, only from the opposite perspective.

    If that's what you're taking from it then you're reading it wrong, people with disabilities are only being discussed here because that's the theme of the thread. Nobody here has advocated for abortion based on the fear that the child might be disabled. The basis on which everyone here and on every other thread has advocated for abortion, is choice. The right of parents to self determination.
    You're creating boogymen that don't exist, because it's easier to make pro choice people out to be monsters. Your moral stance on abortion, is just that your moral stance, it's not THE moral stance.
    One eyed Jack wrote:
    That's exactly what's happening here, an attempt, and that's all it is, an attempt to normalise circumstances where upon discovering that they would give birth to a person with disabilities, women in that situation should be pressured into having an abortion. The multitude of other emotionally charged scenarios hasn't worked, so this is the new tack. It's despicable IMO, and it fuels ignorance and the stigma against people with disabilities, in an attempt to minimise the stigma against abortion.

    Again with the hyperbole, who is talking about pressuring women into abortion? Who? Where has that been said?
    People are arguing that those who receive a diagnosis should have a choice (and if you read the thread about the 8th and it's impact on maternity care in Ireland, you'll see that many women aren't even given the opportunity to receive that diagnosis) There is no reason that people shouldn't be aware of the challenges of raising a child with special needs. It can be difficult, it can be wonderful. Nobody here has said that it is absolutely either of those things. All anyone is talking about is the right to choose.


  • #814
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,363 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    giphy.gif

    Well even by your usual standards that was a complete non-reply to all my points.
    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    I have addressed one rubbish comparison and you just post another?

    You did not really "address" it so much as screech shrilly at it without actually explaining what is wrong with it.

    As I said in the post you ignored however, there is NOTHING wrong with having a personal issue with something you think should be entirely legal. That you do not like that point does not make "rubbish" of examples of it.

    There are plenty of things I think are ok morally and ethically but I would not want to be around people who engage in them. That does not mean the latter is an example of the hypocrisy of the former.

    Rather it is a good example of a person who is able to keep their own personal emotions OUT of their own intellectual conclusions.


  • #815
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    You used your story of how difficult it was for your parents to explain just what has informed your pro choice views, how come that's fine, but yet when someone else's experiences leads them to have a so called "pro life" view, then all of sudden it's emotional blackmail?

    No, I don't think your view or your experience is what makes it emotional blackmail. I think that video you put up from Sophia (amongst other similarly themed posts) with advice to anyone considering having an abortion was emotional blackmail.
    Excuse me? I think what?

    It's quite clear to me now that you did not read my reply to you on the other thread and nor did you read my first post on this one (reposted below) as if you had, you'd know that I too have 'walked the walk' and it's far from 'sunshine and roses' as to how I see the life of looking after someone with special needs.

    I did read that post, but that post completely contradicts the fact that you are posting here about how children with DS bring such joy and are so happy and lovable, which comes across as extremely naive.
    Posting excerpts from blogs and instagram of children with DS. At the very least its emotional blackmail.
    And I'm not for a minute trying to imply that my experience is more valid than yours.
    I just don't understand why you would deprive someone of the choice in this kind of situation when you clearly know the challenges that will be faced.


  • #816
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    Well, that's not accurate at all really, because there are plenty of people who suggest that upon discovering that the child would be born with downs syndrome, it would be better to abort, I dunno, something about wiping out downs syndrome within a generation or something like that. It's not a particularly common perspective I grant you, because the people who espouse it can generally be dismissed as ignorant fcukwits.

    Sorry, maybe its been said elsewhere on Boards but I don't see the Pro Choice side advocating wiping out DS within 1 generation as their motive for being pro abortion at all?
    Do you imagine that women aren't aware that they have choices? You must do if you say they have no choice, but that's really not true either. They may lack the resources to have the choices they would like, but that's clearly not the same thing.
    So the option is there, but only for those with means to travel and who can afford it? So the choice is there, but not really, if they have no money. Not if they don't have a passport. Not if they have no one to mind their other children. Not if they're underage. Not if they are trying to be discreet to avoid an abusive partner.
    But the choice is still there? Right. This system is working wonderfully. No need for it here when we can just leave the country to get the medical care we need. Except for when we can't.

    Given that we lack the means to determine how the unborn feels about the idea, I would suggest that they have no choice in the matter, so the person who is at least in the best position to make the choice on behalf of herself and on behalf of the unborn, is of course the woman who is pregnant. I don't suggest the man who impregnates her is in any position to determine anything if I'm being honest, he's bound to be the least affected by any outcome of the woman's decision.

    Do we ask the unborn whether they would like to be prenatally scanned?
    Do we ask newborn babies how they feel about getting vaccines? Do we ask them if they want to take a bath, or if they would rather be bottle fed or breastfed?
    Of course we don't. Babies don't have opinions. Its up to the adults in charge to make decisions and its the same in this situation?

    I don't disagree with your logic, as it pertains to the individual. Your position is completely illogical however in the broader context of Irish society, and I'm guessing you're likely old enough to vote, as am I, so both of us have an equal say in how we wish Irish society to be run. I'm sure I don't need to insult your intelligence by explaining how our society is governed.

    Not even going to address this, its so patronising :rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • #817
    eviltwin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    That's exactly what's happening here, an attempt, and that's all it is, an attempt to normalise circumstances where upon discovering that they would give birth to a person with disabilities, women in that situation should be pressured into having an abortion. The multitude of other emotionally charged scenarios hasn't worked, so this is the new tack. It's despicable IMO, and it fuels ignorance and the stigma against people with disabilities, in an attempt to minimise the stigma against abortion.

    No one WANTS pregnant women to be forced to have abortions for children with disabilities, there is no group that I know of who believes it's better for society if disabled people aren't born. Who would pressure them :confused:

    Being pro choice is not anti disabilities. It's taking the middle ground by allowing people to choose what is best for them. Why is that so difficult for people to understand:confused:


  • #818
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,363 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    Just because YOU find the thought of having a kid with DS scary, doesn't mean that Down Syndrome is scary.

    And similarly just because YOU do not find it so, does not mean it is not. You are basically engaging in linguistic pedantry and little more here. Yes, things that are scary are not scary to EVERYONE. We get that. Also snake bites that are venomous are not venomous to EVERYONE either. But we still call the snake bite venomous. Why? Because we are not all opportunistic linguistic pedants manufacturing a non-point out of nothing.

    But fine, if you want us to pander to linguistic pedantry then the point being made around here is not, as people like Jack pretends above, that abortion of such cases is the better or best choice (at least then you would be on stronger ground clinging to the word "Eugenics" where others have back pedaled from it).

    Rather the point is that having such a child is, for many, a daunting and scary prospect and there are no arguments, least of all from you and your photos and videos, why such parents should not get that information as early as possible AND be allowed act on it as they wish. Including abortion.
    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    I have been around people with DS my whole life, and continue to be. They are some of the most lovable people I have ever met

    Which is all wonderful stuff that I 100% agree with and praise you for. But it's lack of relevance appears to be escaping you. That YOU have been around such people and that they are, in fact, wonderful people...... is not relevant to whether OTHER people should A) be informed that they are creating such a child and B) be allowed to stop creating such a child.

    Just because something is wonderful and enriching for you, that does not mean it should be foisted or forced on any one else. Which is why your little videos fail so badly to hit the mark..... or any mark really.
    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    Sugar coated eugenics is all this is.

    So you are another person who simply does not know what that word means then. Eugenics, especially the cases of it which have colored our emotional response to the word and the concept, have tended to be enforced society wide programs based on a single goal, and usually on bad science.

    What is being proposed on THIS thread is giving INDIVIDUALS a combination of information, and choices. The word Eugenics simply does not fit.
    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    Who's next on the list in your progressive world when testing permits it? Autistic kids? I don't doubt it.

    Nor do I, and I see no problem with it either.

    In fact this is even a good example of what I was trying (again) to explain to you in the previous post above about the difference between personal emotional responses to X and thinking X should be considered morally and ethically ok.

    For example, if parents were given a full genetic break down of their child LONG before any abortion cut offs..... they might consider abortion because the child is female, or blonde, or some other attribute they personally do not like.

    Now while I might not agree with such a decision or it's arbitrary basis, and might judge people for making it.............. I still entirely respect their right TO have that information and TO make that decision. And there is none of the hypocrisy in play there that you have been pretending earlier in the thread.
    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    Ah well, lets kill them so. Brilliant answer.

    If you say so. However since it is NOT at ALL the answer people here have been giving you, it is your answer and no one elses. Which just makes it funny, while you get so worked up about an answer no one here is actually espousing, that you accuse THEM of being "narcissistic"

    Get hip to this simple fact: You have not yet provided ONE argument against A) allowing parents to inform themselves of the genetic make up of their fetus and B) choosing within given time limits on the basis of that information to abort said fetus.

    Until you do either of those things, your posting pictures of happy living children is just.... shrill really.


  • #819
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,363 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    end of the road wrote: »
    you don't know. you have just decided because it fits your agend of pro-murder of the unborn

    Repeating the same error does not make the error suddenly better. I have, unlike you, not just ASSERTED my position but explained at length the basis of it. I am happy to do so again if you wish.

    But you ignoring and not rebutting the arguments, and simply declaring my position to be wrong.... does not move the conversation forward.
    end of the road wrote: »
    yes there is . the people who believe that the taking of the life of the unborn bar extreme circumstances have to prove that is justified and right. It does have to be right. it isn't right, it's wrong. so that's it.

    So you are just asserting it is wrong without a single argument as to how or why it should be considered to be wrong. How is that helpful? You are not discussing this topic, you are soapboxing it.

    Perhaps you could begin by explaining on what basis you think a fetus should have rights. What do you think rights are, on on what basis do you think they are assigned. Why does one entity have it and another not? Where do they come from? What do they mean.

    There is a whole wealth of philosophy and conversation to be had there that simply shrilly screeching "wrong" at the subject is not going to scratch the surface of.
    end of the road wrote: »
    it's very relevant, and it has effectively been questioned by the pro-abortion on demand brigade. the only people claiming that such was ever stated, and who make such comparison are the abortion on demand supporters. the fact it is wrong means it's wrong.

    Thanks for making both of my points for me. I said you keep just asserting your position AND I said you will not address the story of relevance. Your response? You merely ASSERT it to be relevant and then run away. Score on both of my calls there. 2 for 2.

    But the problem is you are pretending that people have been "questioning the reality" that half the DNA is the fathers. I have, however, not seen a SINGLE person do that. Could you point me to one? Or are you..... shock horror....... simply making stuff up now?

    But seriously if the only argument you have "that it is wrong" is to declare "it is wrong" then you have effectively talked yourself out of ever been taken seriously in the conversation. The rest of us can discuss WHAT is wrong and WHY is it wrong and WHETHER it is wrong for other reasons than you merely wanting it to be so.


  • #820
    gctest50
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,597 ✭✭✭gctest50


    Outlaw Pete wrote: »

    As said on other threads, I have been around people with DS my whole life, and continue to be. They are some of the most lovable people I have ever met and they bring

    ......

    not always unfortuneatly

    ( & since you like posting the pictures ):





  • #821
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,363 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    A Little Pony wrote: »
    Why is it if anyone disagrees with you that what they say must be emotional blackmail or some lunacy of pure emotion

    I agree it would be a horrific approach to take to EVERYONE who disagrees with you on a topic for sure.

    But that does not change the fact that there are some anti choice speakers, both on boards.ie and off it, who rely SOLELY on arguments from emotion to further their agenda there.

    And THOSE people should very much be called out for what they are, and what they are doing.

    As you say the topic is already divisive. There is no point making it more so by pathetic appeals to emotion. Especially ones that do not accurately represent the intellectual reality of what is being discussed and debated.

    But when someone rolls in suggesting someone is out to "treat/speak of disabled people like diseased animals".............. or posting videos of happy pre-teens off to Disney land.......... or posting photos of soon to be dead pre-mature cesarean births............. then that really is ALL they are doing.


  • Advertisement
  • #822
    January
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,862 ✭✭✭✭January


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    They already have that choice though, and because people with disabilities are a normalised part of our society, there's no reason to suggest that other people wouldn't share your experiences, but that they would have experiences and perspectives of their own. All of the things you point out as negatives are from another perspective areas where society needs to improve the ways it cares for people with disabilities.

    This is why if you're going down the route of using the fear of disability as a reason to broaden our abortion laws, you're going to struggle, and you're going to meet a lot of resistance, not least because of the fact that people can relate a lot closer to people with disabilities than women who would want an abortion.

    Women in Ireland who can afford to travel or have the right to travel have that choice. Women who cannot afford to travel or women who don't have a passport/are refugee's or asylum seekers/can't get a passport do not have that choice. So you're wrong there, the choice is there for some and not others.

    I'm not going down the route of using fear of disability, this thread is all about DS so that's why we're discussing it in this context. Women should be given the choice, not some women, all women.


  • #823
    kylith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,739 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    end of the road wrote: »


    the fact it is wrong means it's wrong.

    Says who? You? Why do you get to arbiter of what's right and what's wrong?


  • #824
    A Little Pony
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,875 ✭✭✭A Little Pony


    WhiteRoses wrote: »
    A Little Pony wrote: »
    Why is it if anyone disagrees with you that what they say must be emotional blackmail or some lunacy of pure emotion, they just disagree with you on a very divisive topic.

    I don't care if he disagrees with me. I also don't care if he has a difference of opinion.

    I do care that he's implying that I treat/speak of disabled people like diseased animals. Because it isn't true and it isn't fair.

    The emotional blackmail I was referring to was the several pictures and stories of DS children he has posted.
    The tone of the thread has shown that with someone bringing up cows and wildlife in general. So I think it's perfectly valid view from Outlaw pete.


  • #825
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,363 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    A Little Pony wrote: »
    The tone of the thread has shown that with someone bringing up cows and wildlife in general. So I think it's perfectly valid view from Outlaw pete.

    I do not think they have been brought up "in general" at all. You are seeing what you want to see. They are on occasion brought up to highlight one SPECIFIC point however.

    And that point is that we appear not only to ground morality and ethics in sentience, but that this shows itself in our moral treatment of other flora and fauna in our world.

    People scream at us that "ending a life" is something we should not be doing. But we do it ALL THE TIME as a species. Throughout the flora and fauna kingdoms.

    So the point is....... if one particular "life" is to be protected when so much other "life" is not........ what EXACTLY is the point we mediate that distinction on.

    And, as I keep saying, the Pro Choice person seems to be one that A) has identified what that mediation point is and B) has realized a fetus up to 16 weeks lacks it entirely.

    So no, the usual MO of distortion from Outlaw pete is not as valid as you appear to want to pretend. I do not see it as valid at all.


  • #826
    A Little Pony
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,875 ✭✭✭A Little Pony


    People scream at us that "ending a life" is something we should not be doing. But we do it ALL THE TIME as a species. Throughout the flora and fauna kingdoms.

    That does not equate to most of us who dislike abortion agree with the murder of babies.


  • #827
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    A Little Pony wrote: »
    The tone of the thread has shown that with someone bringing up cows and wildlife in general. So I think it's perfectly valid view from Outlaw pete.

    Please quote where I likened human life to bringing up cows and wildlife in general? Because we aren't talking about the thread at large here, Pete has said I speak of/treat people with disabilities like diseased animals, which is both below the belt and untrue.
    So to validate your point, please quote where I said it. "Someone" saying it isn't good enough, seeing as I'm the one that has been targeted.


  • #828
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,494 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    WhiteRoses wrote: »
    So the option is there, but only for those with means to travel and who can afford it? So the choice is there, but not really, if they have no money. Not if they don't have a passport. Not if they have no one to mind their other children. Not if they're underage. Not if they are trying to be discreet to avoid an abusive partner.
    But the choice is still there? Right. This system is working wonderfully. No need for it here when we can just leave the country to get the medical care we need. Except for when we can't.

    you can have medical abortion in ireland. you can't have abortion on demand. having abortion on demand in ireland won't make any difference to the issues you mention, unless the tax payer is expected to pay for it, which would be unreasonable given the treatments that currently need but don't get full funding, not forgetting the fact treatments will have to have less funding if abortion on demand is paid for by the tax payer as the money has to come from somewhere.
    WhiteRoses wrote: »
    Do we ask the unborn whether they would like to be prenatally scanned?
    Do we ask newborn babies how they feel about getting vaccines? Do we ask them if they want to take a bath, or if they would rather be bottle fed or breastfed?
    Of course we don't. Babies don't have opinions. Its up to the adults in charge to make decisions and its the same in this situation?

    all of those aren't relevant to the ultimate one, the taking of their lives. the state has a duty as much as is practical to protect the life of the unborn and that is how it should be, as the protection of life is one of the vitals of the republic.

    January wrote: »
    Women who cannot afford to travel or women who don't have a passport/are refugee's or asylum seekers/can't get a passport do not have that choice. So you're wrong there, the choice is there for some and not others.

    if they don't have the correct documentation, they cannot expect to be able to travel. that applies to all of us. it's not my job as a tax payer to pay for abortion on demand when there are illnesses needing funding struggling to get it.
    January wrote: »
    I'm not going down the route of using fear of disability, this thread is all about DS so that's why we're discussing it in this context. Women should be given the choice, not some women, all women.

    but they do all have it. they can get the correct documentation if they meet the criteria, they can borrow money, there are options.

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • #829
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,494 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    Triceratops Ballet wrote: »
    If that's what you're taking from it then you're reading it wrong, people with disabilities are only being discussed here because that's the theme of the thread. Nobody here has advocated for abortion based on the fear that the child might be disabled. The basis on which everyone here and on every other thread has advocated for abortion, is choice. The right of parents to self determination.
    You're creating boogymen that don't exist, because it's easier to make pro choice people out to be monsters. Your moral stance on abortion, is just that your moral stance, it's not THE moral stance.



    Again with the hyperbole, who is talking about pressuring women into abortion? Who? Where has that been said?
    People are arguing that those who receive a diagnosis should have a choice (and if you read the thread about the 8th and it's impact on maternity care in Ireland, you'll see that many women aren't even given the opportunity to receive that diagnosis) There is no reason that people shouldn't be aware of the challenges of raising a child with special needs. It can be difficult, it can be wonderful. Nobody here has said that it is absolutely either of those things. All anyone is talking about is the right to choose.


    but you already have the choice. you can get an abortion on demand in the uk. you just cannot take the life of the unborn in ireland bar extreme circumstances.

    a few of the pro-choice abortionists on this thread have done nothing but create boogymen that don't exist, because it's easier to make anti-abortion on demand people out to be monsters. the moral stance on abortion by those of us who are against abortion on demand is thee moral stance as we are just upholding the wishes of the founders of the republic.
    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Repeating the same error does not make the error suddenly better. I have, unlike you, not just ASSERTED my position but explained at length the basis of it. I am happy to do so again if you wish.

    But you ignoring and not rebutting the arguments, and simply declaring my position to be wrong.... does not move the conversation forward.



    So you are just asserting it is wrong without a single argument as to how or why it should be considered to be wrong. How is that helpful? You are not discussing this topic, you are soapboxing it.

    Perhaps you could begin by explaining on what basis you think a fetus should have rights. What do you think rights are, on on what basis do you think they are assigned. Why does one entity have it and another not? Where do they come from? What do they mean.

    There is a whole wealth of philosophy and conversation to be had there that simply shrilly screeching "wrong" at the subject is not going to scratch the surface of.



    Thanks for making both of my points for me. I said you keep just asserting your position AND I said you will not address the story of relevance. Your response? You merely ASSERT it to be relevant and then run away. Score on both of my calls there. 2 for 2.

    But the problem is you are pretending that people have been "questioning the reality" that half the DNA is the fathers. I have, however, not seen a SINGLE person do that. Could you point me to one? Or are you..... shock horror....... simply making stuff up now?

    But seriously if the only argument you have "that it is wrong" is to declare "it is wrong" then you have effectively talked yourself out of ever been taken seriously in the conversation. The rest of us can discuss WHAT is wrong and WHY is it wrong and WHETHER it is wrong for other reasons than you merely wanting it to be so.

    i'm not repeating an error, giving a statement of fact which will be repeated where required. the taking of a life bar extreme circumstances is wrong, that extends to the unborn via the fact that in this country we recognise as much as is practical, the right to life of the unborn, and we seek as much as is practical, to protect it. that is done because this country recognises the right to life.
    i have already told you a plenty why allowing abortion on demand is wrong, but as you agree with it then it would be impossible for you to accept any argument for it to be wrong. therefore you are arguing nothing here.
    kylith wrote: »
    Says who? You? Why do you get to arbiter of what's right and what's wrong?

    because that is what the republic has decided. the republic believes in the right to life of the unborn, and the protection of it as much as is practical. i believe that law is right and as a republican i have a duty to support the protection of life.

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • #830
    captbarnacles
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,972 ✭✭✭captbarnacles


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    N

    That's exactly what's happening here, an attempt, and that's all it is, an attempt to normalise circumstances where upon discovering that they would give birth to a person with disabilities, women in that situation should be pressured into having an abortion. The multitude of other emotionally charged scenarios hasn't worked, so this is the new tack. It's despicable IMO, and it fuels ignorance and the stigma against people with disabilities, in an attempt to minimise the stigma against abortion.

    How did you get to here?? I've read the entire thread and not one single poster has suggested any pressure should be put.


  • #831
    captbarnacles
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,972 ✭✭✭captbarnacles


    end of the road wrote: »
    but you already have the choice. you can get an abortion on demand in the uk. you just cannot take the life of the unborn in ireland bar extreme circumstances.

    a few of the pro-choice abortionists on this thread have done nothing but create boogymen that don't exist, because it's easier to make anti-abortion on demand people out to be monsters. the moral stance on abortion by those of us who are against abortion on demand is thee moral stance as we are just upholding the wishes of the founders of the republic.



    i'm not repeating an error, giving a statement of fact which will be repeated where required. the taking of a life bar extreme circumstances is wrong, that extends to the unborn via the fact that in this country we recognise as much as is practical, the right to life of the unborn, and we seek as much as is practical, to protect it. that is done because this country recognises the right to life.
    i have already told you a plenty why allowing abortion on demand is wrong, but as you agree with it then it would be impossible for you to accept any argument for it to be wrong. therefore you are arguing nothing here.



    because that is what the republic has decided. the republic believes in the right to life of the unborn, and the protection of it as much as is practical. i believe that law is right and as a republican i have a duty to support the protection of life.

    if the 8th goes you will be a staunch defender of that decision?


  • Advertisement
  • #832
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,363 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    A Little Pony wrote: »
    That does not equate to most of us who dislike abortion agree with the murder of babies.

    It is not MEANT to "equate". It is MEANT to highlight the fact that there is a difference there, and that identifying that difference is important in discussing why abortion is ok or not ok.

    And as I keep saying, pro choice people tend to be those that have done that introspection, identified what the differences must be, and found that they do not morally or ethically preclude abortion as a concept at all.

    Meanwhile all YOU are doing it, seems, is willfully contriving to misuse the word "murder" in order to avoid and deep or meaningful discussion of the subject. Which is, at least, representative of ALL my discussions with anti choice campaigners.
    end of the road wrote: »
    i'm not repeating an error, giving a statement of fact

    Alas the only evidence for your "facts" that you have offered is to declare they are facts, and little more.
    end of the road wrote: »
    the taking of a life bar extreme circumstances is wrong

    Yet we as humans "take life" all the time. Huge swaths of our flora industries do. Huge swaths of our fauna industry does. Our species is daily in the business of ending life all over this planet, pretty much all the time.

    So why SPECIFICALLY is abortion of a fetus from 0-16 weeks a problem? Other than you keep saying it is by fiat, and running out the door again.
    end of the road wrote: »
    i have already told you a plenty why allowing abortion on demand is wrong

    Nope. You really have not. You have declared it to be wrong, over and over again, and mentioned briefly the current legal situation. But a moral or ethical argument about aborting a fetus, by choice, in the 0-16 weeks window you most certainly have not offered me. At all.
    end of the road wrote: »
    it would be impossible for you to accept any argument for it to be wrong. therefore you are arguing nothing here.

    Not impossible at all. I know EXACTLY what it requires to make me think aborting a fetus at or before 16 weeks are wrong. It would only take a single good argument as to why such a fetus should be of moral or ethical concern to us.

    Screeching "We should not be ending life" at me however, is not such an argument because, as I keep pointing out, that is something we do ALL the time.


  • #833
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,494 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    captbarnacles wrote: »
    if the 8th goes you will be a staunch defender of that decision?


    no . i hope things will be made very difficult. abortion on demand must not be allowed in ireland, or at least it's implementation made very difficult.

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • #834
    Outlaw Pete
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,423 ✭✭✭✭Outlaw Pete


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Yet we as humans "take life" all the time. Huge swaths of our flora industries do. Huge swaths of our fauna industry does. Our species is daily in the business of ending life all over this planet, pretty much all the time.

    You know he is talking about the life of human being.

    Every thread on abortion you do this.


  • #835
    Triceratops Ballet
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,894 ✭✭✭Triceratops Ballet


    end of the road wrote:
    but you already have the choice. you can get an abortion on demand in the uk. you just cannot take the life of the unborn in ireland bar extreme circumstances.

    Yes I have that choice because I'm an EU citizen of means. But were I a 16 year old I would not, so what should I do just be forced to have a baby, because consequences?
    I believe that the country I live in should not place equal value on my life and the "life" of an unborn foetus I may be carrying. I'm a living human, who contributes to this state and I want my choices respected, and acknowledged in my home country. I don't appreciate, the level of care or choice available to me being compromised, by the morals of others.
    end of the road wrote:
    a few of the pro-choice abortionists on this thread have done nothing but create boogymen that don't exist, because it's easier to make anti-abortion on demand people out to be monsters. the moral stance on abortion by those of us who are against abortion on demand is thee moral stance as we are just upholding the wishes of the founders of the republic.

    What boogeyman have "the pro choice abortionists" created?

    No it is A moral stance not THE moral srance, you're confusing moral and legal here.The 8th amendment was not put in place by the founders of the state. It was decided upon 34 years ago, and can be changed by the will of the people.
    Are you saying then that if abortion becomes widely available here that you'll support that, as a republican who believes in the laws of our land?


  • #836
    Triceratops Ballet
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,894 ✭✭✭Triceratops Ballet


    end of the road wrote:
    no . i hope things will be made very difficult. abortion on demand must not be allowed in ireland, or at least it's implementation made very difficult.


    Why?


  • #837
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • #838
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • #839
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,363 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Ah good to know you are not ignoring ALL my posts, just the ones directed specifically at you.
    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    You know he is talking about the life of human being. Every thread on abortion you do this.

    Yes of course I do. And YOU know that too. Every thread on abortion YOU do this. Take HALF my point and then act like I am the one out of both of us missing something.

    Yes, he is talking about human beings. What I am trying to tease out of anti-choice speakers on every thread is that if we are ok with killing all that life....... but not ok with this specific life......... then there is a difference there.

    Where the anti choice speeches fall away is when you try to get them to adumbrate EXACTLY what that difference actually is.

    Because, invariably, when you get them to admit to what it is they actually value and why......... or what we as humans should value and why......... then they either do not know...... or the things on the list they offer are PRECISELY the things the fetus lacks and they suddenly realize they have no argument.


  • #840
    Outlaw Pete
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,423 ✭✭✭✭Outlaw Pete


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    What I am trying to tease out....

    You don't have to, that's the point. We already know your ridiculous sentience argument, off by fcuking heart. For almost ten years you've spouting that crap on Boards, and elsewhere. With holes so big people having been driving buses through them. The Corinthian, for his sins, used to wipe the floor with you in Humanities, and I've indulged you over the years too. It's pointless though, as you refuse to see the flaws in your laughable logic but with each and every thread you yet again start trying to set traps with regards to humans killing life regularly, just so you can snare them into having to sit through reams and reams of sentience theory bullshit and radio wave analogy nonsense.

    Yes, I repeat some of my arguments too, but I will generally quote myself from another thread if it's even a few paragraphs long. Just go and find your theory on abortion with regards to sentience that you have posted on another thread, you have lots of choice, and then quote the damn thing whenever you feel you want to make that argument again. You'd be saving yourself a lot of time if nothing else and then abortion threads won't have to get bogged down with your essay esque replies. They make these threads a fcuking chore to read let alone post in.


  • Advertisement
  • #841
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,363 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    you refuse to see the flaws in your laughable logic
    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    We already know your ridiculous sentience argument

    And yet aside from merely CALLING it "ridiculous" you have never offered a SINGLE argument as to why it is. Do you actually believe calling something ridiculous magically makes it take on that attribute if you say it often enough? Click your red slippers together while you do it?

    How can I "see" what no one has shown? What is wrong with my logic exactly other than it annoys you so much to be unable to rebut it?

    My logic is not hard to explain or understand. It is simply that morality and ethics is not just formed solely BY sentient creatures (us) but is targetted at our actions towards (and hence the well being of) other sentient creatures.

    Therefore if an entity has no faculty of consciousness or sentience at all........ I see no basis for having moral and ethical concern for it.

    The fetus 0-16 weeks shows absolutely NO SIGN AT ALL of having such a faculty, therefore I see no issue with us doing whatever the hell we want with it.

    By all means lay out exactly what the flaw is with that logic rather than go on an entirely off topic derailing personal rant about me as a person, and how I might go about saving time or whatever you were saying just now.
    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    The Corinthian, for his sins, used to wipe the floor with you in Humanities

    Hah you mean the guy who trying to declare my entire point was a caveat to.... my entire point? You are funny.

    He could not rebut a single thing I said on that thread so instead starting getting personally insulting, ignoring my points, pretending I never made them at all, and then covering that up by falsely accusing ME of being the one ignoring points. If anyone wants the link to the thread in question, I am more than happy to let them go see the truth of this themselves. I have a very high threshold of dishonesty where I will give up on my own committment to discourse and simply stop having anything to do with talking with them. I can think of only 2 people EVER who have crossed it.

    In fact as I recall two other users rolled in and tried to save him but did no better.

    However since that thread has been locked (just checked) if you want to bring up any of the points you think were not addressed on it here, that are relevant to the present discussion, you will find me not unable to defend my positions now either.


Advertisement