Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

frag420 wrote: »

So why are you for abortions for FFA? Predictions are never guaranteed in your words, they are never 100%, there is a chance that the fetus could live if born?

Why decide one prediction is more accurate than another?

we don't kill human beings on the basis of what they may do in the future once they are born. in the past couple of weeks or so i have actually become unsure as to whether i continue to support FFA abortions but i will have to think further on it. what' is definitely certain is that i will never support abortion for lifestyle, convenience and contraceptive reasons.

end of the road wrote: »

we don't kill human beings on the basis of what they may do in the future once they are born. in the past couple of weeks or so i have actually become unsure as to whether i continue to support FFA abortions but i will have to think further on it. what' is definitely certain is that i will never support abortion for lifestyle, convenience and contraceptive reasons.

i'd hope that if you believe what you already know about FFA leading you to believe abortion is the only proper course to follow in cases of FFA, and trust the known medical scientific facts available on FFA to be honest and truly reported in the Lancet and/or similar knowledgable medical publications [that the birthed baby would have no chance of surviving outside the womb] you would continue to give abortions based on that knowledge the OK, and not make a judgement merely because others from the Pro-choice side of the debate get up your nose. Of course such abortions MUST be chosen by the women and NOT imposed on them by anyone else.

Whilst I don't agree with your POV on abortion, I reckon you know your thoughts on allowing women FFA abortions up to now are identical to feeling of humanity otherwise I can't see you agreeing to them specifically.

aloyisious wrote: »

i'd hope that if you believe what you already know about FFA leading you to believe abortion is the only proper course to follow in cases of FFA, and trust the known medical scientific facts available on FFA to be honest and truly reported in the Lancet and/or similar knowledgable medical publications [that the birthed baby would have no chance of surviving outside the womb] you would continue to give abortions based on that knowledge the OK, and not make a judgement merely because others from the Pro-choice side of the debate get up your nose. Of course such abortions MUST be chosen by the women and NOT imposed on them by anyone else.

Whilst I don't agree with your POV on abortion, I reckon you know your thoughts on allowing women FFA abortions up to now are identical to feeling of humanity otherwise I can't see you agreeing to them specifically.

i can assure you that i don't change my views on the basis of some pro-choice individuals trying (and failing) to get up my nose, considering they have failed to change any of my views. i have my own reasons for having doubts about FFA abortions and hence i'm thinking them through before i would decide whether i should change from my viewpoint. only i can do that myself and in my own time.

end of the road wrote: »

i can assure you that i don't change my views on the basis of some pro-choice individuals trying (and failing) to get up my nose, considering they have failed to change any of my views. .

Easy to do when you can ignore difficult questions and pretend points don't exist.

King Mob wrote: »

Easy to do when you can ignore difficult questions and pretend points don't exist.

well seeing as i haven't done that, it's not one bit easy. no good argument has been put forward for me to vote for abortion on demand. if there were no plans to legislate for abortion on demand but for medical necessity only, then i would be voting for repeal.

end of the road wrote: »

well seeing as i haven't done that

That's not true.
I specifically asked you direct questions and you quickly pretended they didn't exist when you found you couldn't answer them.

If that's not the case please point out where you directly stated your case for the idea that life starts at implantation.

uptherebels

end of the road wrote: »

i can assure you that i don't change my views on the basis of some pro-choice individuals trying (and failing) to get up my nose, considering they have failed to change any of my views. i have my own reasons for having doubts about FFA abortions and hence i'm thinking them through before i would decide whether i should change from my viewpoint. only i can do that myself and in my own time.

Its funny you saying that people have failed to change your views when you have made it clear that you are unwilling to acknowledge any arguement against your view regardless of logic or evidence.
Remember your here so boards doesn't become a pro choice echo chamber

uptherebels wrote: »

Its funny you saying that people have failed to change your views when you have made it clear that you are unwilling to acknowledge any arguement against your view regardless of logic or evidence.

i have acknowledged the views by those in support of abortion on demand, but when put to the ultimate test, i have found those views don't stand up to scruteny and are debunkable by logic and the realities of society in general. hence all those years ago i changed my mind and became pro-life, because the pro-life argument does stand up to scruteny when put to the test.

end of the road wrote: »

i have acknowledged the views by those in support of abortion on demand, but when put to the ultimate test, i have found those views don't stand up to scruteny and are debunkable by logic and the realities of society in general. hence all those years ago i changed my mind and became pro-life, because the pro-life argument does stand up to scruteny when put to the test.

So why are you ignoring my question?

end of the road wrote: »

i have acknowledged the views by those in support of abortion on demand, but when put to the ultimate test, i have found those views don't stand up to scruteny and are debunkable by logic and the realities of society in general. hence all those years ago i changed my mind and became pro-life, because the pro-life argument does stand up to scruteny when put to the test.

You might think that your usage of words doesn't affect how others see you, but your usage does. Then again, it's possible that you choose words for a specific cause and affect purpose. It seem's to me that as you use the word "demand" with intent all the time to describe what any woman seeking the legalisation of abortion outside the perimeter of abortions of necessity is doing; eg.. demanding an abortion, you do so to make an unsupportable claim, in the way the Anti-abortion campign does.

As I've pointed out regularly in response to your use of the word "demand", all abortions have to be requested and "demand" would not be countenanced by the present law or future law. I reckon you are aware that our law system doen't work that way and would not countenance a "demand" made of it.

I suggest that if you want to win the debate, you persuade all the women who are on the Pro-choice side of the debate, women who want women to have the right in law to be able to choose or reject having a legal abortion, that you have a better way of sorting out their societal realities than abortion.

aloyisious wrote: »

You might think that your usage of words doesn't affect how others see you, but your usage does. Then again, it's possible that you choose words for a specific cause and affect purpose. It seem's to me that as you use the word "demand" with intent all the time to describe what any woman seeking the legalisation of abortion outside the perimeter of abortions of necessity is doing; eg.. demanding an abortion, you do so to make an unsupportable claim, in the way the Anti-abortion campign does.

As I've pointed out regularly in response to your use of the word "demand", all abortions have to be requested and "demand" would not be countenanced by the present law or future law. I reckon you are aware that our law system doen't work that way and would not countenance a "demand" made of it.

I suggest that if you want to win the debate, you persuade all the women who are on the Pro-choice side of the debate, women who want women to have the right in law to be able to choose or reject having a legal abortion, that you have a better way of sorting out their societal realities than abortion.

i see it as abortion on demand. changing demand to request won't change how i see it or my feelings. i will still see it as abortion on demand because that is what i believe it ultimately is .
i have been doing my bit to show there is a better way then abortion via calling for and supporting all necessary supports for anyone who needs them to be implemented, i have defended the existence of the wellfare state and have defended those in genuine need against those who criticise them on here, which there are a good few who do. it may not be enough but it's all i can do, there aren't enough hours in the day.

end of the road wrote: »

it may not be enough but it's all i can do, there aren't enough hours in the day.

Here's one thing you could do:
Answer questions honest or admit you cannot.

Why do you believe that life magically begins at implantation?

end of the road wrote: »

i see it as abortion on demand. changing demand to request won't change how i see it or my feelings. i will still see it as abortion on demand because that is what i believe it ultimately is .
i have been doing my bit to show there is a better way then abortion via calling for and supporting all necessary supports for anyone who needs them to be implemented, i have defended the existence of the wellfare state and have defended those in genuine need against those who criticise them on here, which there are a good few who do. it may not be enough but it's all i can do, there aren't enough hours in the day.

Umm, the welfare state. Is this your way of introducing a canard I saw yesterday on F/B?

Your use of another anti-abortion campaign canard, that of "DEMAND", is intentful. You well know that a request and a demand are two different things. The use of the word "DEMAND" is used by the anti-abortion campaign to create a false storyline about the women requesting to have the right to have the option of a legal abortion here.

I have to wonder now about your use of the words "lifestyle and convenience" in respect of women requesting abortions. Are they indicative of a belief, a modern version of the term "fallen women" or similar words and all that their use served, a silent reminder of our recent national past of nuns & laundries to cleanse the sin away?

uptherebels

end of the road wrote: »

i have acknowledged the views by those in support of abortion on demand, but when put to the ultimate test, i have found those views don't stand up to scruteny and are debunkable by logic and the realities of society in general. hence all those years ago i changed my mind and became pro-life, because the pro-life argument does stand up to scruteny when put to the test.

Realities of society? You mean like giving constitutional protection to women to have abortions aslong as they pass the border?

You use words like logic and scrutiny, while clearly not understanding their meanings, I mean is that why you don't provide evidence of you claims when asked? If it can't be scrutinized it can't be debunked

.

What is the ultimate test? Is that the one where you ignore all facts and pick the one you want!

You put pro life and logic together, which is laughable. If they had a logical argument they wouldn't need all the lies and deceit that they rely on for their campaign.

end of the road wrote: »

yes i'm well aware they happen.

Ok, we are getting somewhere now.
So, since you agree that even with our restrictive constitution that Irish abortions still happen by the 1000s, do you really believe that our restrictive constitution is actually our best way to stop abortions? Can you think of no better legislation or constitutional reform to stop Irish abortions?

end of the road wrote: »

well seeing as i haven't done that, it's not one bit easy. no good argument has been put forward for me to vote for abortion on demand. if there were no plans to legislate for abortion on demand but for medical necessity only, then i would be voting for repeal.

Were did you answer my question:
Do you think that all miscarriages should be investigated like any other sudden death?

end of the road wrote: »

however, as much as they are wrong and will never be right to kill their unborn child, there is consolation in the fact that they have to travel abroad at their expence and not at the tax payer's expence and they have to sort themselves out. that in turn likely does deter some from procuring abortions, which is also a consolation.
it doesn't justify abortion on demand being availible in ireland, it's just not required and something else will probably have to have a funding cut to pay for it assuming it's free or subsidized/discounted.
most of all, ireland is all the better of a country for not allowing the killing of the unborn just because. it's more modern and progressive then the rest of the world in a way because of it.

You see, the bolded parts make me loose any possible respect for your views that I could have. It seems that, for all your talk about life beginning at conception and abortion killing an innocent baby, you position really boils down to a snobbish NIMBYism.

You don't really care about abortions happening, you just don't want them to happen here. You pretend to have same moral duty to prevent abortions as you would to stop someone killing their own toddler, but then also pretend that some semantic mental gymnastics absolve you of the duty if it happenes abroad at their own cost. Would you really do nothing to stop someone going abroad to kill their toddler, if you knew that was going to happen? Wouldn't you feel a moral duty to stop them? If a foetus is the same as a born baby, why don't you feel the same for Irish abortions abroad?

It is very dissappointing that, in my view, the vast majority of anti-choice crowd boil down to the same position.

aloyisious wrote: »

Umm, the welfare state. Is this your way of introducing a canard I saw yesterday on F/B?

Your use of another anti-abortion campaign canard, that of "DEMAND", is intentful. You well know that a request and a demand are two different things. The use of the word "DEMAND" is used by the anti-abortion campaign to create a false storyline about the women requesting to have the right to have the option of a legal abortion here.

I have to wonder now about your use of the words "lifestyle and convenience" in respect of women requesting abortions. Are they indicative of a belief, a modern version of the term "fallen women" or similar words and all that their use served, a silent reminder of our recent national past of nuns & laundries to cleanse the sin away?

no, it absolutely isn't. religion has nothing to do with it for me as i'm not religious and nor was i brought up religious. there is no such thing as "fallen women"
my opposition to abortion on demand is simply that it is the killing of another human being for convenience, life style and birth control reasons. essentially it's like capital punishment all be it worse in my view because the victim of it is the most innocent of humanity. me being against abortion on demand does not mean i want to bring back the laundries. it does not mean that i want to "sex shame" . it does not mean i see these women as fallen or "sluts" or "whores" or any other such guff that has been thrown at me and other pro-life posters over this site. i simply do not want the legalised killing of other human beings availible in my country unless absolutely necessary, as in abortions for medical reasons.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Ok, we are getting somewhere now.
So, since you agree that even with our restrictive constitution that Irish abortions still happen by the 1000s, do you really believe that our restrictive constitution is actually our best way to stop abortions? Can you think of no better legislation or constitutional reform to stop Irish abortions?

the current system makes procurement of an abortion difficult, which for me will do. you will never stop everyone from commiting an act, but you can make it difficult.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You see, the bolded parts make me loose any possible respect for your views that I could have. It seems that, for all your talk about life beginning at conception and abortion killing an innocent baby, you position really boils down to a snobbish NIMBYism.

You don't really care about abortions happening, you just don't want them to happen here. You pretend to have same moral duty to prevent abortions as you would to stop someone killing their own toddler, but then also pretend that some semantic mental gymnastics absolve you of the duty if it happenes abroad at their own cost. Would you really do nothing to stop someone going abroad to kill their toddler, if you knew that was going to happen? Wouldn't you feel a moral duty to stop them? If a foetus is the same as a born baby, why don't you feel the same for Irish abortions abroad?

It is very dissappointing that, in my view, the vast majority of anti-choice crowd boil down to the same position.

i care about abortions happening, but i have to be realistic and work within the current systems. bringing a todler abroad to kill it is a criminal offence. traveling to procure an abortion isn't. there is no such thing as anti-choice, given that the killing of the unborn outside medical necessity is an extension of the prohibition of killing human beings in general, which is not something there is a choice on.

end of the road wrote: »

nthere is no such thing as anti-choice, given that the killing of the unborn outside medical necessity is an extension of the prohibition of killing human beings in general, which is not something there is a choice on.

Bit dishonest for you to keep bringing this up when you are unable to show why you think life begins at implantation.

Why are you ignoring the question?

end of the road wrote: »

i simply do not want the legalised killing of other human beings availible in my country unless absolutely necessary, as in abortions for medical reasons.

the current system makes procurement of an abortion difficult, which for me will do. you will never stop everyone from commiting an act, but you can make it difficult.

i care about abortions happening, but i have to be realistic and work within the current systems. bringing a todler abroad to kill it is a criminal offence. traveling to procure an abortion isn't. there is no such thing as anti-choice, given that the killing of the unborn outside medical necessity is an extension of the prohibition of killing human beings in general, which is not something there is a choice on.

Does the above mean you have resolved any qualms you wrote you were having about abortions of necessity and have decided NOT to oppose them?

aloyisious wrote: »

Does the above mean you have resolved any qualms you wrote you were having about abortions of necessity and have decided NOT to oppose them?

it is likely i won't ultimately change my viewpoint on FFA abortions, no

end of the road wrote: »

it is likely i won't ultimately change my viewpoint on FFA abortions, no

Reading your reply above to my question again, I've found it necessary to remove my my "tick" of approval. I'd be happy with an unequivacable "NO, I will stand by my original stated decision that abortions of necessity must be allowed regardless of my beliefs on other abortions".

The thought that abortions of necessity [life-saving operations for the woman when the unborn is to die from a FFA after being birthed] would be used in the debate to muddy the waters by way of equivocable replies to a direct question is disingenuous and unsettling.

aloyisious wrote: »

Reading your reply above to my question again, I've found it necessary to remove my my "tick" of approval. I'd be happy with an unequivacable "NO, I will stand by my original stated decision that abortions of necessity must be allowed regardless of my beliefs on other abortions".

The thought that abortions of necessity [life-saving operations for the woman when the unborn is to die from a FFA after being birthed] would be used in the debate to muddy the waters by way of equivocable replies to a direct question is disingenuous and unsettling.

i would disagree, considering i had no other doubts on any other life saving or medical abortions, but on FFA abortions for a time. therefore there would be no point in me stating anything in relation to something i hadn't had doubts on, or hadn't considered changing my mind on anyway.

end of the road wrote: »

i would disagree, considering i had no other doubts on any other life saving or medical abortions, but on FFA abortions for a time. therefore there would be no point in me stating anything in relation to something i hadn't had doubts on, or hadn't considered changing my mind on anyway.

Eh??????? I'm not sure it would be safe for me, within the rules and standards
required by Boards.ie, to reply to your above piece so I'll just mention a staple item of Swedish food, the waffle.

end of the road wrote: »

the current system makes procurement of an abortion difficult, which for me will do. you will never stop everyone from commiting an act, but you can make it difficult.

It makes it financially difficult, which means its not nearly equally difficult for everyone. It's not difficult at all if you have a lot of money. Can you really think of no better way to try to stop all abortions?

end of the road wrote: »

i care about abortions happening, but i have to be realistic and work within the current systems. bringing a todler abroad to kill it is a criminal offence. traveling to procure an abortion isn't. there is no such thing as anti-choice, given that the killing of the unborn outside medical necessity is an extension of the prohibition of killing human beings in general, which is not something there is a choice on.

My point is why aren't you calling for a change in the system? If you equate abortions with killing a toddler, and believe that travelling to kill a toddler is and should be a crime, then you should be calling for travelling to get abortions to be classed as the same crime. Saying that you don't because it isn't a crime is moot and massively hypocritical.

david75

I’ll just leave this here.

<SNIP>

Mark Hamill wrote: »

My point is why aren't you calling for a change in the system? If you equate abortions with killing a toddler, and believe that travelling to kill a toddler is and should be a crime, then you should be calling for travelling to get abortions to be classed as the same crime. Saying that you don't because it isn't a crime is moot and massively hypocritical.

It's cause he knows there's a difference and that difference is incompatible with his earlier claim that life begins at implantation, which he cannot defend.

He'll quickly start ignoring your point now.

Turtwig

david75 wrote: »

I’ll just leave this here. He has debunked everything apparently.

Mod:

Cross thread discussion or referencing is generally not acceptable. There are exceptions of course but generally it involves the expressed consent of the person who's post you are cross posting.