david75 wrote: » i'm not exploiting anything.. using images of new born babies and down syndrome children in the pro life campaign, THAT is exploitation, cynical, misleading and repugnant as usual from the PLC
david75 wrote: » a foetus is not a child. forcing women to have birth is repugnant. no different than forcing young girls to undergo genital multilation, but hey, extreme religious views are stillconsistently attacking women and their bodies and its the year 2018. time to eradicate any and all kind of morality or belief coming near a womans personal health and personal space. meaning your beliefs have no place whatsoever in a womans womb.
end of the road wrote: as we have established sentients isn't relevant to the debate as we don't base human rights on sentients. so who is and isn't sentient means jot in relation to the abortion debate.
end of the road wrote: » as we have established sentients isn't relevant to the debate as we don't base human rights on sentients. so who is and isn't sentient means jot in relation to the abortion debate.
THE UN HUMAN Rights Committee has found that Ireland’s law prohibiting and criminalising abortion has violated the human rights of a woman. The committee has ordered Ireland to reform its restrictive abortion laws following the decision, which is the second time in a year that legislation has been deemed to violate a woman’s human rights. The finding, which can be read here, was made in relation to the case of Siobhán Whelan, who was denied an abortion in 2010 after the diagnosis of a fatal foetal abnormality. It echoes the same committee’s June 2016 decision in the case of Amanda Mellet, who chose to travel to the UK to have a termination.Source
Delirium wrote: » Ireland has been heavily criticised for violating the human rights of women due to the current situation regarding the availability of abortion:
end of the road wrote: » with the greatist of respect, the UN'S opinion on the matter, regardless of being wrong in my view in terms of abortion on demand, is completely irrelevant given they voted saudi arabia on to the women's human rights commission.http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/saudi-arabia-un-womens-right-commission-un-watch-middle-east-muslim-driving-clothes-a7698536.htmlhttp://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/saudi-arabia-un-womens-rights-commission-appointment-anger-reaction-kingdom-hrf-mona-a7700866.html
J C wrote: » They can ... but where a vote they cast has serious predictable follow-on moral and ethical implications, they bear full moral rsponsibilty for those follow-on moral and ethical issues.
Delirium wrote: » so what organisations/groups do you deem as acceptable for inclusion in relation to whose human rights are being violated?
end of the road wrote: » in this day and age it's hard to know, seeing as the 2 main organisations who i would once have trusted in relation to talking about human rights violations, have shown themselves not to be the good organisations i once thought they were. that asside though, i am not in a position to ever agree that the lack of availability of abortion outside medical circumstances is a human rights violation, in my opinion it's availability would be a human rights violation in terms of the unborn's rights.
Delirium wrote: » what I'm trying to determine is what informs your opinion about what is or isn't a human rights violation. You're essentially saying that you work from what you decide is or isn't a number right. E.g. " i am not in a position to ever agree that the lack of availability of abortion outside medical circumstances is a human rights violation".
WhiteRoses wrote: » Didn’t you post recently agreeing with the UN’s opinion that the traveling community are one of the most discriminated against minorities in Europe? Bit hypocritical, no?
pilly wrote: » So EOTR is now the self elected human rights organisation for the world?
Nick Park wrote: » It's hypocritical to agree with a UN body on one issue but not on another issue? Really? If you agree with one thing that someone else says, then you must agree with everything they say?
Nick Park wrote: » Each one of us are our own self-elected deciders on what we deem to be human rights or not. (Except for a few sheep who choose to accept everything they are told without question). There are organisations that share their opinions, but even they don't agree among themselves (which is why the UN committee's findings about Ireland were not unanimous). For example, UN human rights committees, commissions and councils have, in the past, refused to condemn the actions of Sudan in Darfur as human rights violations. I hold a different view. The various UN human rights bodies also shift and change their mind. For decades they have hummed and hawed about capital punishment, deeming it ok in certain circumstances. I have always disagreed with them on this, Now they are slowly coming round to my way of thinking! Does this mean human rights have changed? No, it simply means UN bodies sometimes get it right and sometimes get it wrong.
pilly wrote: » Hmm, so by your logic each and every one of us is our own human rights decider? That surely solves all problems. I'll have an abortion if I want, you don't have one if you want. Simples, no?
....... wrote: » This post has been deleted.
WhiteRoses wrote: » He specifically stated that the UN’s opinion on the matter was irrelevant. On a different, recent thread about the traveling community he used the opinion of the UN on that matter to back up his point. So clearly the opinion of the UN only has relevance when it suits him.
NuMarvel wrote: » If the reason for not agreeing with them on one area of human rights is that they have no credibility on the matter of human rights, then it would seem to be contradictory to agree with them in another area of human rights. EOTR's stance now is that he is in agreement with decisions made by the UN before Saudi Arabia was voted onto a committee in April 2017. But that's still contradictory, because in the case of Amanda Mellet, the UN found our abortion laws breached her human rights in June 2016; 10 months before the Saudi Arabia vote. I'm sure that his stance will change again light of this, which further reinforces the contradictory nature of his position. And it will ultimately always be contradictory, because his views aren't informed by a human rights perspective, so they will never be in line with human rights, which most people understand to be those set out by the UN, the ECHR, and so on.
ABC101 wrote: » Its strange that you would describe the second link as somebody who is having a dream. So please allow me to explain, the second link is about Stojan Adasevic who is possibly responsible for carrying out 48,000 terminations of human life. He has personally witnessed and actioned cutting up of babies, removed hearts still beating. In the former Yugoslavia abortion was even permitted on a born baby, as long as the baby did not make a sound. So immediately the baby was born, it could be turned upside down and drowned in a bucket of water. All perfectly legal as the cries / screams were not possible to be heard. .
J C wrote: » Adda a whole new 9and utterly horrific) dimension to the 'Silent Scream'. These percious and utterly vulnerable little children have no voice but ours to help defend them. I have great faith in the common decency of the Irish People (young and old) ... and I have no doubt that when faced with signing the death warrant for untold thousands of unborn children, by voting on the 8th, they will not take the blood of these innocent little ones upon themselvs.Why should they damn themselves to facilitate some woman who is 'too posh to push' and stay pregnant ... and will kill her unborn child, just because she wants to?
Cabaal wrote: » Very few pharmacys are often open late or on Sundays, I know at least 3 women who've been refused them based on the pharmacys religious beliefs. So it's a case of somebody being forced into a situation by a religious person against their will.
J C wrote: » Nobody forced them to be utterly irresponsible and engage in sex while drunk or otherwise un-prepared. They are morally responsible Humans ... not wild animals with no self-control Its like somebody crashing while drunk ... and complaining that there wasn't an ambulance there within 5 minutes to pick them up off the road. People need to take responsibility for their actions ... and stop blaming others for their self-imposed misadventures.
WhiteRoses wrote: » This isn’t the first time you’ve made such a statement. Your attitude is absolutely disgusting and you are the type of person I’d hope to never meet in real life. Absolutely horrible post.
WhiteRoses wrote: » And you believe the best thing to do to such irresponsible people is to teach them a life lesson bt forcing parenthood on them, entrusting them with the HUGE responsibly of bringing up another human. Sound logic right there.
