nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

PopePalpatine

I didn't know whether to post this here or in the Sanctimony of Pro-Lifers thread in t'udder forum - a BBC article on Paraguay's "epidemic" of child pregnancies. Paraguay only allows for abortion if the mother's life is at risk. On average, two girls aged 14 and under become pregnant in Paraguay every day.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

rainbow kirby

Yawn indeed. The one chilling out in my uterus at the moment is doing just fine. 100% my *choice*.

volchitsa

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Yawn, endless euphemisms with you people. What about the small matter of the baby?

Let's say you learn that woman you know is planning a visit to the UK for an abortion : do you think she should be arrested for attempted murder or not?

It's not a euphemism to point out the glaring contradictions in your claim that it's a baby, when by your own logic you show that you dont think it is either.

Well, that or maybe Pro life are lying about not wanting to bring in pregnancy tests for all women of reproductive age wishin to travel - if only they could get such a law passed.

DickSwiveller

rainbow kirby wrote: »

Yawn indeed. The one chilling out in my uterus at the moment is doing just fine. 100% my *choice*.

I feel like murering my brother tomorrow. I'll do it and then I'll claim it was my choice. wht a horribly selfish argument. Oh, and I presume you refer to your baby as a 'fetus' when you are discussing him/her with people.

DickSwiveller

volchitsa wrote: »

Let's say you learn that woman you know is planning a visit to the UK for an abortion : do you think she should be arrested for attempted murder or not?

It's not a euphemism to point out the glaring contradictions in your claim that it's a baby, when by your own logic you show that you dont think it is either.

Well, that or maybe Pro life are lying about not wanting to bring in pregnancy tests for all women of reproductive age wishin to travel - if only they could get such a law passed.

I've absolutely no idea what you're talking about; I'm not sure you do either.

gctest50

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Yawn, endless euphemisms with you people. What about the small matter of the baby?

Still doing nothing only droning on like bad daytime radio ?

Every post like something out of the offspring of George Hook and Joe Duffy

With the added bit of misogynist-lite

DickSwiveller wrote: »

I know I'm going to be accused of sexism here, but I dont care. Women radio presenters are awful. It's true.

..................

eviltwin

DickSwiveller wrote: »

I feel like murering my brother tomorrow. I'll do it and then I'll claim it was my choice. wht a horribly selfish argument. Oh, and I presume you refer to your baby as a 'fetus' when you are discussing him/her with people.

If you kill your brother you will be charged with murder. If you have an abortion no such charge exists.

Do you mean to say you think women who have abortions should be treated the same in the eyes of the law as someone who kills their family?

Of course most pregnant women refer to their 'baby' rather than their 'embryo' or 'foetus' but they are medical terms, naturally a lay person will use the vernacular.

DickSwiveller

gctest50 wrote: »

Still doing nothing only droning on like bad daytime radio ?

Every post like something out of the offspring of George Hook and Joe Duffy

With the added bit of misogynist-lite

Lay off reading the Irish Times for a while. You're full of all the typical banal rubbish.

DickSwiveller

eviltwin wrote: »

If you kill your brother you will be charged with murder. If you have an abortion no such charge exists.

Do you mean to say you think women who have abortions should be treated the same in the eyes of the law as someone who kills their family?

Of course most pregnant women refer to their 'baby' rather than their 'embryo' or 'foetus' but they are medical terms, naturally a lay person will use the vernacular.

Funny, I find the anti-life side usually refer to the baby as a 'fetus'. I understand why they do, though.

aloyisious

S/F member on "The Week In Politics" RTE 1 TV right now no deputies/senators free vote on abortion but they want the 8th deleted from the constitution.

Edit: I heard the S/F member say S/F wants the 8th deleted and heard the programme host mention S/F will not give it's people a free vote on the abortion issue. Seeing as how the S/F rep on the show didn't ask to correct an error and said nothing at all to correct an error on S/F voting policy by the show host [and how S/F wants the referendum necessary to delete the 8th to happen] I assume that the S/F people being denied a free vote are it's elected members in the Dail and Seanad in line with S/F policy of it's members following the stated party line on any issue.

rainbow kirby

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Funny, I find the anti-life side usually refer to the baby as a 'fetus'. I understand why they do, though.

It's the accurate medical term.

eviltwin

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Funny, I find the anti-life side usually refer to the baby as a 'fetus'. I understand why they do, though.

Avoiding the question I asked I see.

aloyisious

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Funny, I find the anti-life side usually refer to the baby as a 'fetus'. I understand why they do, though.

As Wikipedia info is liable to update from public update, there are other sources to check the status of what a fetus is. It is notable that the words baby and fetus are used and seen as interchangable in the 3rd link below.

https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/fetus

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fetus

https://www.babycenter.com/fetal-development-week-by-week

gctest50

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Lay off reading the Irish Times for a while. You're full of all the typical banal rubbish.

I'd need something to fill the time in the evenings though

Should i be a thinly-veiled racist instead ?

DickSwiveller wrote: »

No. Multiculturalism means no culture.

Should we all be thinly-veiled racists now o great leader ?

Please lead us with more posts that appear to be from your imaginary radio-show in your head

robindch

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Yawn [...]

Indeed.

DickSwiveller wrote: »

[...] you people [...]

Before posting in A+A again, please read the forum charter, especially rule 1, about engaging in civil discussion:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054860288

nozzferrahhtoo

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Yawn, endless euphemisms with you people.

Your continued misuse of this word has almost entirely convinced me you do not know what it means.

To test this however it might be worth asking you, how is the ACCURATE use of terminology a "euphemism" exactly?

Calling a spade a spade when it is, in fact, a spade..... and calling a fetus a fetus when it is, in fact, a species is called the accurate use of language.... not euphemism.

DickSwiveller

gctest50 wrote: »

I'd need something to fill the time in the evenings though

Should i be a thinly-veiled racist instead ?

Should we all be thinly-veiled racists now o great leader ?

Please lead us with more posts that appear to be from your imaginary radio-show in your head

Back to your safe space. I don't want to upset you.

seamus

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

As far as I know, referendums under the Irish constitution can only ask yes/no questions.

So technically a referendum could be an a/b/c/d question.

However article 47 requires that in order for amendment to be enacted it must receive a majority of the votes cast. A majority is not "the one with most votes" a majority is "more than 50% of the votes". So the more options you have, the less chance you have of achieving a 50% + 1 majority for any given option. A failure to achieve a majority means "No change" by default.

The wording of article 46 is also sufficiently obtuse that even if one option were to succeed in a multi-choice referendum, someone could challenge the validity of the referendum.

But on the overall question, a multi-choice "a/b/c/d/No" referendum where the most popular choice wins, is not an option for us. Thankfully.

Loafing Oaf

seamus wrote: »

So technically a referendum could be an a/b/c/d question.

However article 47 requires that in order for amendment to be enacted it must receive a majority of the votes cast. A majority is not "the one with most votes" a majority is "more than 50% of the votes". So the more options you have, the less chance you have of achieving a 50% + 1 majority for any given option. A failure to achieve a majority means "No change" by default.

The wording of article 46 is also sufficiently obtuse that even if one option were to succeed in a multi-choice referendum, someone could challenge the validity of the referendum.

But on the overall question, a multi-choice "a/b/c/d/No" referendum where the most popular choice wins, is not an option for us. Thankfully.

Plus with the growing consensus, on the committee at least, that the issue needs to be taken out of the constitution entirely, there wouldn't be any desire to ask such a multiple-choice question...

Hotblack Desiato

DickSwiveller wrote: »

the anti-life side

There is no 'anti-life side'.

There is no 'pro-life' side either, it's bulls**t terminology. The forced birth brigade take no account of the woman's health or quality of life. Some of them even oppose termination of pregnancy in order to save the woman's life. They place zero value on her life. 'Pro-life' indeed :rolleyes:

robindch

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

There is no 'anti-life side'.

Just my usual six-monthly/annual (?) interjection to point out that structurally, both sides have a point of view which can be thought of as asserting that some position upon the line from conception to delivery is the position at which the rights of a full human being instantiate.

Neither side is really pro-life, pro-choice or pro-abortion in the simplistic meanings of the terms, and the nomenclature seems specifically designed to make it hard to notice the essential similarity of each position, while making argument and name-calling easy.

It's a discussion usually best avoided amongst friends

DickSwiveller

robindch wrote: »

Just my usual six-monthly/annual (?) interjection to point out that structurally, both sides have a point of view which can be thought of as asserting that some position upon the line from conception to delivery is the position at which the rights of a full human being instantiate.

Neither side is really pro-life, pro-choice or pro-abortion in the simplistic meanings of the terms, and the nomenclature seems specifically designed to make it hard to notice the essential similarity of each position, while making argument and name-calling easy.

It's a discussion usually best avoided amongst friends

Can you re-write that in English please?

robindch

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Can you re-write that in English please?

This is your final warning to engage in civil discussion.

Next up is cards of varying colors and bans of varying lengths.

.......

This post has been deleted.

DickSwiveller

robindch wrote: »

This is your final warning to engage in civil discussion.

Next up is cards of varying colors and bans of varying lengths.

I was only joking.

nozzferrahhtoo

robindch wrote: »

Neither side is really pro-life, pro-choice or pro-abortion in the simplistic meanings of the terms, and the nomenclature seems specifically designed to make it hard to notice the essential similarity of each position, while making argument and name-calling easy.

Indeed, and I think no one is harmed more by that than pregnant women.

I think in discourse, and in just about all political and moral issues, the single most important thing is common ground. When we lose sight of common ground, as we often do in things like US partisan politics, the utility of discourse is eroded to nearly nothing.

The simple fact is that every single anti-choice campaigner, and every single pro-choice campaigner, I have ever met has one overall goal in common. They both want less abortions to be happening in our world.

And people pedaling names like "pro abortion" and "anti life" are losing sight of that very important reality....... in the name of nothing more important than scoring cheap points in a debate.

Generally I do not care what people label the two sides of this debate. But if the label is one that erodes or ignores the common ground that unites us then I think we should stand against it.

nozzferrahhtoo

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Funny, I find the anti-life side usually refer to the baby as a 'fetus'. I understand why they do, though.

Yea funny that people might label things as what they actually are in a debate huh? Oh the humanity. I am not quite sure you understand what you think you do here.

But what I do understand pretty clearly is why the anti-choice campaigners move to use terminology that is not accurate. They realize, like I do, that there is no useful moral and ethical pre-requisites in play in a 12/16 week old fetus that people are seeking the choice to terminate.

So their use of words like "baby" and "Human life" and so forth are designed to emotively smuggle in concepts that people would otherwise predicate such things on. In the hope we will simply forget that the fetus at 12/16 weeks is the sentience/consciousness equivalent of a rock or a table leg.

Forget all that, because the word "baby" brings to minds a little parcel of joy giggly trying to put it's own toes in it's mouth. And sure what more do you need in the way of debate if you can smuggle that image into people's heads?

The simple fail point for you and your rhetoric however is that you have not offered a single shred or augment, evidence, data or reasoning upon which to predicate moral and ethical concern for a fetus at 12/16 weeks.

You simply have not offered a single reason why we should see the termination of such a thing as morally problematic. So you simply scream "baby" and "anti life" at us to.... what.... make yourself feel better or morally superior or what?

recedite

It looks like Down's Syndrome people will soon be eradicated from many parts of Europe.
Ireland will be one of the few places left where they can still roam freely?

In Britain, 90% of babies with Down’s Syndrome are aborted before birth. In Iceland, every single baby, 100% of all those diagnosed with Down’s Syndrome, are aborted. There hasn’t been a baby with Down’s Syndrome born in Iceland in the past five years.
Denmark is following suit, and is expected to be “Down’s Syndrome-free” by 2030.

http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/the-eighth-amendment-protected-my-son-3217231-Feb2017/
https://www.thelocal.no/20170301/norway-oks-pre-natal-blood-tests-to-detect-down-syndrome

frag420

They are not animals...

recedite wrote: »

It looks like Down's Syndrome people will soon be eradicated from many parts of Europe.
Ireland will be one of the few places left where they can still roam freely?

http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/the-eighth-amendment-protected-my-son-3217231-Feb2017/
https://www.thelocal.no/20170301/norway-oks-pre-natal-blood-tests-to-detect-down-syndrome

lazygal

recedite wrote: »

It looks like Down's Syndrome people will soon be eradicated from many parts of Europe.
Ireland will be one of the few places left where they can still roam freely?

http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/the-eighth-amendment-protected-my-son-3217231-Feb2017/
https://www.thelocal.no/20170301/norway-oks-pre-natal-blood-tests-to-detect-down-syndrome

'Roam freely'? Really? They're not zoo inhabitants.

recedite

frag420 wrote: »

They are not animals...

True, if they were endangered animals they would be protected, but if you hunt them while they are foetuses they have no rights at all.