One eyed Jack wrote: » Bit hyperbolic there seamus. I'm not demanding of anyone else any special treatment, nor am I demanding that anyone be exempted from the same laws which apply to all in this country, and if you imagine that the Catholic Church is the root of corruption in this country, I would point out that corruption not only existed in this country long before the existence of the Catholic Church, but that corruption is present and has always been present in humanity ever since we were capable of rational thought. None of what you describe though is corruption, it's democracy.
end of the road wrote: » oh yes they do have a right to life, it's not my opinion but fact. the constitution guarantees their right to life and to guarantee such protection "as much as is practical"
One eyed Jack wrote: » But their welfare has more to do with their immigrant status than anything to do with the 8th amendment?
One eyed Jack wrote: » I'm still not saying screw them, my granddaughter is still subject to the same laws as they are.
Zubeneschamali wrote: » Not sure why you are singling women out here, I feel the same way about men. I disagree with people who will vote to keep the 8th, but I do not think it makes them immoral, I think we disagree on matters which define our moral views. But anyone who thinks like you do, that we should vote to keep the 8th and then send our lucky kids to England for the treatment we just voted to keep illegal here for the less fortunate, yes, they are as immoral as you are.
eviltwin wrote: » Voting to keep the 8th, knowing the impact it has on the less fortunate, when you are in the privileged position of being able to travel and willing to do so if your loved one requires an abortion is a disgusting scummy thing to do.
kylith wrote: » women who don't have that kind of money and support can go fck themselves and have that baby they can't afford and/or don't want.
One eyed Jack wrote: » I would be voting to keep the 8th because I do know the impact that repealing it would have on those less fortunate than we are.
One eyed Jack wrote: » I would be voting to keep the 8th because I do know the impact that repealing it would have on those less fortunate than we are. Obviously we're going to have a different perspective on what each of us means by that, and I don't think anybody who has their children's best interests in mind is doing anything disgusting or scummy. I would hope that she would never feel she had to have an abortion, and that's the goal I would work towards. I would also hope that she would never feel she was in a position to pass judgement on anyone whose values were different from her own.
One eyed Jack wrote: » I would be voting to keep the 8th because I do know the impact that repealing it would have on those less fortunate than we are. .
pilly wrote: » You keep going on about how repealing the 8th is going to effect the less well off with no actual definition of how you see that badly effectly them.
One eyed Jack wrote: » You keep making the point as though I couldn't possibly care about the less fortunate simply because I don't share your perspective
One eyed Jack wrote: » Would you want a woman like this human parasite in your community, profiting off the misery of others?
Zubeneschamali wrote: » No, I am saying that you don't care because you are voting and arguing for us to vote to keep care illegal that you would buy for your own family. Telling these disadvantaged people that you are denying them care for their own good is just adding insult to injury.
One eyed Jack wrote: » and yet it has been demonstrated in other countries where abortion is available that the less fortunate are disproportionately affected by the issue and have higher rates of abortion and higher rates of increased poverty and lower rates of social mobility while the wealthy in that society have lower rates of abortion, and greater increases in wealth and social mobility.
One eyed Jack wrote: » But that's not the way I think? And the reason I use a question mark is because I'm questioning your assumptions you're making that are so black and white, the extremes, 'if it's not one it's the other', because in my experience, people don't generally think like that. They are a whole mixture of conflicting thoughts and emotions and so on. As I've already said, you'll vote whatever way you like on the 8th, as will I, while at the same time working towards the goal for society that no woman would ever feel she was in a position where she had to decide to have an abortion. You keep making the point as though I couldn't possibly care about the less fortunate simply because I don't share your perspective, and yet it has been demonstrated in other countries where abortion is available that the less fortunate are disproportionately affected by the issue and have higher rates of abortion and higher rates of increased poverty and lower rates of social mobility while the wealthy in that society have lower rates of abortion, and greater increases in wealth and social mobility. Would you want a woman like this human parasite in your community, profiting off the misery of others? I wouldn't, tbh, yet she believes she's doing those women a favour and is morally justified in her behaviour.
pilly wrote: » You keep going on about how repealing the 8th is going to effect the less well off with no actual definition of how you see that badly effectly them. I've the height of respect for your arguments normally Jack but you're just talking bs now.
One eyed Jack wrote: » To be absolutely fair to them, vaccinations are as contentious in the developed world as the issue of abortion, and I had to give them the benefit of the doubt that their sentiments were hyperbolic based on the fact that indeed it is as contentious an issue as abortion. What was interesting though was the assumption that it was the lower class religious right were assumed to be shunning vaccinations, and the suggestions put forward were along the lines of denying the parents access to State services such as welfare and education. When it was pointed out that in the US at least, the type of parents refusing to vaccinate their children were affluent liberal left types, I think things got a bit awkward, because they aren't dependent upon the State for support, and therefore wouldn't be in any meaningful way affected by measures that have been introduced in many states in the US to increase vaccination rates. How does this tie in with the issue of abortion? Well what it indicates, to me at least, is that because in Ireland we tend to take our cultural cues from both the US and Europe, Irish society may have pretty much abandoned the last vestiges of an authoritarian religious regime, but we're still the very same society underneath as we were at the time of the poorhouses when young unmarried mothers were problematic for society, and the poorhouses were proposed as the... 'solution', where children in these 'homes' were forcedly vaccinated, and it just appears to me that, I genuinely do wonder - would we do the same again if given half the opportunity? This is why I also object to the lower classes being used as an argument to support legislating for abortion, it just seems to me to be rather exploitative of people who essentially have no power and aren't particularly in a position to say "no thank you", when the nice, understanding lady in the local family planning clinic suggests to her that for her sake it might be best for her to have an abortion in her current circumstances. The reason I emphasise the word 'current' there is because I'm sure all of us are surely aware of people whose circumstances have changed when they were given the right support which enabled a young woman to continue with her education, or to start her own business, or whatever the case may be, and allowed her to raise her child, which, if the support had not been there, she may well have chosen to have an abortion. I wonder just how long would it take before something like this, would possibly actually become a reality in Ireland -Project prevention: Should Irish drug addicts be paid not to have kids? It's actually genuinely frightening when I do think about it tbh, because it stinks of socially acceptable eugenics, and just like the developed world appears to have accepted defeat in the 'war on drugs', how long will it be before society admits defeat in the 'war on poverty' so to speak? Rhetorical question, but I do wonder what kind of a society we're building a future towards when abortion is even promoted as a 'choice' for women to discourage them from giving birth to people with intellectual, cognitive and physical disabilities? I wonder in the future will we go back to attaching shame to those women and children for existing when it has become socially acceptable to deem them 'unfit for society', and what kind of a society would that be? I don't think it's one I would want to live in, if I'm being honest, as it would be incredibly boring for one thing if we were all cookie cutter carbon copies of each other. I just don't know if that's something I think a society should ever aspire to. I think the whole 'survival of the fittest' is a Victorian concept that really we should as a sociey have evolved and moved away from by now. It does appear as though we are determined to repeat the mistakes of previous generations and we can't even see it. I wouldn't call that progress myself tbh. EDIT: I think this article explains it better -Post Darwin: social Darwinism, degeneration, eugenics
One eyed Jack wrote: » I don't think pro-choice is the same as pro-abortion, my point was that Shenshen made the suggestion that if society were to facilitate abortion, then people may be more inclined to want to try and avoid circumstances where women would need to have abortions. I asked how she made that out because I can't see how anyone would feel an obligation to provide support for anyone that they weren't already not providing in the first place. If anything, the arguments for abortion are generally centred around the idea that society should facilitate abortion in circumstances where they feel that those people are not in any position to be able to provide for a child, and facilitating abortion is then put forward as a viable alternative for people in those circumstances, by people who aren't in those circumstances. If their ideas for society are then supported by the State, then that diminishes the obligation on the State to provide for those people in order that they don't feel that it would be better for them if they had an abortion. You might pull me up on that and say "Well can't we do both things at once? Isn't that offering people real choices?", and the simplest answer to that is "Yes, we could, but generally - we don't!", because the motivation to fulfil the first obligation doesn't exist, on account of the existence of the alternative, under which society now has no obligation to those people, and Government is then even less motivated to fulfil it's obligations to those people. Effectively - they can stay poor, they aren't our concern, because they can have abortions if they can't raise a child. I think that's the point that Alveda King (the woman in monnies post) is also driving at, and it's a point that Ben Carson was driving at when he suggested that there were more abortion clinics in black neighbourhoods than white neighbourhoods (a claim that was proven false, but is not entirely untrue - it's not based on skin colour, it's based upon socioeconomic status), but their point is more applicable in the US where their concerns are that the promotion of abortion as a viable choice for people has led to a situation where it can be demonstrated that black people are disproportionately affected by unfavourable socioeconomic circumstances, rates of abortion in black communities are much higher than rates of abortion in white communities. The point is that the higher rates are driven by socioeconomic factors, and not solely by skin colour. It would be the same here in Ireland, where abortion rates would be driven by socioeconomic circumstances, because as I pointed out earlier, we're a majority of white people, and there really aren't that many poor brown people. Obviously if you want an abortion you're going to have one, but my point wasn't whether you personally should or shouldn't have one. My point is solely in relation to the number of times the point has been made here that we should think about the women who can't afford to raise children and because of that, they 'choose' to have an abortion. I don't know about you but that sounds to me at least like the definition of coercion, and a decision made due to lacking the freedom of having the resources to be in a position to make an actual choice that isn't constrained by socioeconomic circumstances, In other words - a decision they make because they actually don't have the freedom and the resources to make choices they would otherwise have made, and are then left with the decision to have an abortion because they have been consistently failed by the State before they were ever even born.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Conspiracy theory stuff there HD, but you're imputing illuminati style motives that simply aren't there. I'll try and make it as simple as I can for you, though something already tells me no explanation will be sufficient as your mind is made up. Consider this a courtesy as I normally would never explain myself to anyone, but seeing as I've never thought of you as an arsehole, I'm at least willing to forego that principle on this occasion. I was previously advocating a position, not what I considered a pro-choice position, to be absolutely clear, it is a position that is and always was, and always will be, based upon affording standards of human dignity and decency to both the woman, and the unborn. I was looking at the issue from an individualistic perspective and imagining that such a goal could be achieved at a societal level. Because my thinking on it then, and still my thinking on it now, is that if a woman wants an abortion, she's going to have one, and there is absolutely nothing, short of literally chaining her to a bed and force feeding her, that anyone can do to stop her, not the law, not term limits, nothing. As an individual, I still believe that no woman should ever be forced to give birth if she does not want to, and we must acknowledge that that is reality, it's that simple. Now, I then looked at the issue from a societal level, and did my research (you'll notice I didn't mention China, as what was done there with the "One child policy" was an extreme which has never been repeated in history, notwithstanding the fact that the wealthy could simply afford to pay a fine if they had another child, it was an incredibly corrupt regime). I've already posted in this thread an article which details how abortion was suggested by well-meaning but misguided eugenics enthusiasts on the principle of 'survival of the fittest', and even the founder of Planned Parenthood in the US has been credited with ulterior motives regarding her enthusiasm for eugenics, but I don't believe her intent was ever racist. It just so happened that black communities at the time were amongst the most socially deprived demographic in society, and so abortion or sterilisation seemed like the most obvious answer to the issue of eliminating something which they believed was holding society back from evolving - the poor, the sick and the needy. Rather than address the underlying social issue, the idea was to eliminate the symptoms rather than ever address the cause. I see the same happening again when arguments are made that poor people cannot afford abortions, as though the assumption is that socioecnomically deprived demographic should actually want abortions. It's easy to exploit people who are less fortunate than ourselves, it's been done by movement after movement throughout human history, and yes, I'll freely admit that there are no better practitioners of it than organised religions, who have their own motivations to exploit people who really aren't in any position to say "no thank you", when offered what they see as the quickest way out of their circumstances, because they don't see how the consequences of their decisions affect wider society as a whole, hence why I included the thread about 'Should Irish drug addicts be offered money to have no more children?', because the woman in the video is a perfect example of someone who is exploiting people in bad situations and receiving private donations in the order of half a million dollars a year to do wealthier people's dirty work. If that doesn't sound familiar, remember your history, and how the religious organisations at the time in Ireland, the UK and the US were able to operate in society as they did. They were providing a quick fix solution for a society that at the time regarded the poor, the sick and the needy as undesirables. It just so happened that the vast majority of which made up that social demographic were unmarried young women and their children. Coincidence? I think not. And that is why I don't believe abortion is a solution to any issue, because it isn't some benevolent 'this will fix all your problems' solution, and even now I see it being proposed as the way to rid society of people with downs syndrome, and people are desperate for it, because people with downs syndrome are a problem for society. Who do you think would be vastly over-represented in 20 years time, 50 years, even 100 years time as the demographic which has the highest rate of abortions? To go back to a point inadvertently made by that wingnut in the video - "Savita was a rich woman" (you only have to look at the colour of Savita's skin to know she was not a lower caste Dalit in her own country, so that came as news to nobody), she was not an impoverished economic migrant, and yet the way her death is constantly used to promote the introduction of abortion in Ireland is at worst disingenuous, and at best - simply misguided, and putting emotions before facts.
One eyed Jack wrote: » These are the arguments I made earlier - Basically I see the introduction of abortion as keeping poor people poor, effectively neutering any chance they have of social mobility by attempting to discourage them from having children, rather than supporting them in being able to have children and give their children the life they would want to give them.
pilly wrote: » Okay, so no facts. Just your opinion. That's okay. You're entitled to it but not entitled to go around stating it like it's a fact proven out by any actual research.
One eyed Jack wrote: » These are the arguments I made earlier -
One eyed Jack wrote: » Basically I see the introduction of abortion as keeping poor people poor, effectively neutering any chance they have of social mobility by attempting to discourage them from having children, rather than supporting them in being able to have children and give their children the life they would want to give them.
eviltwin wrote: » Right, so you've adopted a paternalistic, patronising attitude to the poor....you know better about what is good for them ( while knowing nothing about their personal circumstances or motivation for seeking abortion) so no abortion for them but if it happens to be your loved one then it's a different story.
eviltwin wrote: » How does abortion keep poor people poor?
One eyed Jack wrote: » I've already explained this now a number of times - because it effectively neuters their chances as a group of any opportunities for social mobility by discouraging them from having children. I'm talking as a group, not as individuals, before you come back at me with how you know such and such a person who bucks that trend. I can think of plenty myself already who do and have done. They aren't representative of people living in poverty as a whole social group.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » you haven't explained it before. and now that you have it makes absolutely no sense. how does not having children affect social mobility?
