Da Boss wrote: » A lot of people here seem to be of the opinion that abortion is a “right”. It’s not! Nobody has the right to end the life of another
end of the road wrote: » you can do what you like, as long as you don't kill the unborn unless your life is in danger or the baby can't be carried to term. it's ultimately as simple as that. there are plenty of things within the 8th that are problematic hence we are having the referendum. the referendum isn't simply about abortion on demand, but abortion on demand is something that is going to make a number of voters to decide to vote no to repeal. no it's not part of her body, it's simply surviving within her body. she is in full control of her body, she just cannot kill the unborn inside her bar extreme circumstances.
splinter65 wrote: » No no no you don’t. A baby is from birth only. Are you telling me that it’s only “my body my choice” for 12 weeks?!? Please please stop , that’s just ridiculous. If people want abortions because no one has the right to tell a woman what she can do with her own body then why does it suddenly stop being her right at 12 weeks?!? That is simply outrageous! Patriarchy at its very worst! I am interested in campaigning for abortion on demand with no time limits. You simply cannot tell an adult woman that she has no control over what she does with her body at any time, for any longer. If a man was told something similar there would be war. Anyone interested in joining me should PM me and we will see if we can get a movement started.
....... wrote: » This post has been deleted.
end of the road wrote: » no it's not part of her body, it's simply surviving within her body. she is in full control of her body, she just cannot kill the unborn inside her bar extreme circumstances.
mrkiscool2 wrote: » Nope, it isn't. It doesn't fulfill the condition of being able to carry out homeostasis, which is one of the essential things that quantifies whether something is life or not. Whether you want to believe in science or not, a fetus cannot perform homeostasis itself until week 17 and therefore cannot be considered life until then.
volchitsa wrote: » She's obviously not in full control of her body if she has to allow another human being (by your argument) full use of her organs. Nobody else has to do that, not even to keep someone alive. You can keep repeating that she doesn't have a right to refuse, but that is nothing more than your own opinion. Oh and the Catholic Church's, which of course is just a funny coincidence.
Consonata wrote: » I don't understand how you can fit this into your frame of the world, and not be for criminalizing Irish people going abroad for an Abortion. Could you please elaborate on this properly.
end of the road wrote: » sure. the unborn is a separate entity. it has rights including the right to life. the state has a duty to protect that life as much as it can, however there are limits as to what it can do. it can't stop people from traveling abroad, and it would need evidence of an abortion to bring a successful prosecution, the likely hood of gathering sufficient evidence to allow such prosecution being small.
splinter65 wrote: » You’ve won me over. Tell me what to do with my organs, would ya? As soon as the dates announced I’m going door to door campaigning for Repeal on the platform “my body my choice” And when I say “my body my choice” I mean it 100% not this mealy mouthed “12 weeks” nonsense. Women need control over their bodies from the cradle to the grave, and not just for 12 weeks of the pregnancy, 40+! No, I’m going to demand that people vote to repeal and any subsequent amendments until we have abortion on demand till term. I know that’s hardly possible outside China. Or Russia. Or N Korea. Or some other places. But we led the world in SSM, why not women’s rights! I’ll tell anyone who argues that they are sexist misogynistic woman hating fascists, brainwashed by the RCC (even the Muslims. And the Jews.). This softly softly approach just isn’t working. We need to show them we mean business
Consonata wrote: » Abortion clinics would have records of who gets an abortion. It would be the easiest thing in the world to check the database of people who obtain an abortion and match it to the defendant. What other difficulties would there be?
Consonata wrote: » You really do have arguing in bad faith to a fine art. :rolleyes:
volchitsa wrote: » Strawmanning another argument because you can't defend your own is dishonest. Democracy doesn't mean a right to dump an unpopular politician at any time, there are rules and limits. Same with a right to abortion. If the woman has effectively had that right for, say, 12 weeks, and chose not to avail of it, then she's in the same position as constituents of an unpopular politician : it's not undemocratic to say they just have to wait.
splinter65 wrote: » What if I don’t even know I’m pregnant till, say 16 weeks?
splinter65 wrote: » I.Am.Deadly. Serious. I have a pussy hat, a Repeal the 8th jumper, and I will not stop till I’ve knocked on every door.
splinter65 wrote: » You do realize that patient confidentiality applies to abortion clinics?
volchitsa wrote: » Like that Iona girl who was photographed at the last pro choice March wearing some deliberately provocative allegedly pro choice slogan. Lying for Jesus, right?
splinter65 wrote: » All I know is I will be going door to door representing the women of Ireland who have been bullied and brutalised by the men in the dresses and the pointy hats too long. “My Body, My Choice”. Short and snappy. Sure it’s been said on boards so many times that men shouldn’t even be allowed to vote. And I’ve even read that any woman over child bearing years shouldn’t be allowed to vote either. Apparently it’s not relevant to democracy when it’s not affecting everyone. Here’s where I heard it! That’ll come in useful when some irrelevant male tries to tell me I’m wrong.
Consonata wrote: » I mean, I query whether arguing in bad faith is allowed in this forum. This poster clearly isn't taking the discussion seriously and is only here to strawman the pro-choice side.
Martina1991 wrote: » Are you of the opinion that the state should tell a women what to do with her body. Nobody has the right to tell someone else what to do in their life.
eviltwin wrote: » Travel is one thing but importing tablets is another and while it might not be feasible to challenge those going to the UK, it's entirely possible to charge women with attempted murder if they order illegal pills. But I don't think anyone wants that's do they? There doesn't seem to be any demand for it anyway. That's why it's hard to take the pro life position seriously.
volchitsa wrote: » Strawmanning the other side's argument because you can't defend your own is dishonest. Democracy doesn't mean a right to dump an unpopular politician at any time, there are rules and limits. Same with a right to abortion. If the woman has effectively had that right for, say, 12 weeks, and chose not to avail of it, then she's in the same position as constituents of an unpopular politician : it's not undemocratic to say it's too late now. And it's not anti choice to expect a woman to avail of that choice within a limited time.
WhiteRoses wrote: » You have no right to dictate what I do with my womb. My body, my life, my choice. It may not be legal here (yet) but it wouldn’t stop me doing what I want with MY body if I deemed it to be necessary.
end of the road wrote: » i have said already myself that while we have laws in relation to drugs, anyone importing illegal abortion pills should be treated the same as any other illegal drug importer...
....... wrote: » I see the EOTR bot is back with the endless contradictory NIMBY posts and non engagement in any reasonable discussion. Such a lot of buzzing noise.
volchitsa wrote: » Strawmanning the other side's argument because you can't defend your own is dishonest.
....... wrote: » Your whole post is more endless repitition and contradiction. Yammer yammer yammer goes the bot.
Zerbini Blewitt wrote: » This is prompted from something on the politics forum thread (but isn’t appropriate to there) I was just thinking today about one formerly powerful section of the community who might find it hard nowadays to make their voice heard in this national debate. This would be the segment of people who think that women should be shamed and/or outcast and/or punished for engaging in recreational sex – i.e. the punishment being: to endure a pregnancy against her will. A fine upstanding stance, no? This cohort of ‘simple’, plain ‘decent’ people is not very audible at the moment. Why is that? For full disclosure - some of my close family members would be in this group, so I’m just thinking out loud! Anyway regrettably, these people seem to either half-heartedly argue some other tangential point or stay silent in this debate!! Could they be muted & cursed by the existence of a better educated electorate or maybe the age of enlightenment being hundreds of years ago! I just don’t know the reason for the silence when they were a deafening cacophony in decades past? If this is you, I for one want to hear your voice in this debate. Please Sir/Madam come thee out from the shadows, present yourself and tell us proudly - why punishing women for sex is still the right way to go about things.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Lads ye're in no position to complain about non-engagement in any reasonable discussion, strawmanning, dishonesty because you're unable to defend your own argument, endless repetition, arguing in bad faith, etc, etc, when you've all been engaged in exactly the same thing throughout this thread. I fully expect any snappy retort will accuse me of same, which is just what I'd expect from anyone who has no interest in civil discussion and just wants to browbeat anyone who disagrees with them into submission.
uptherebels wrote: » Ya i've noted before on here, how you don't like people disagreeing with you.
As for being accused, well if the shoe fits:rolleyes:
