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

Pete29

Thanks for the invite, Hitman. Been busy with non-internet stuff.

Outlaw Pete

aloyisious wrote: »

This seem's to say it's up to men to save babies from abortion on the 25th of May and may be sexist, in a reversal form of mysogynistic, into the bargain - babies aren't safe in the arms of women. It's from the same group who used the "soldier" image.

Well, considering that every single human being that had their life ended prematurely in the womb also had a father, and many of those fathers did not always agree with the woman in their life deciding to still their baby's heartbeat, I think the ad is therefore kinda apt, given that a No vote, if successful, would ultimately result in the saving of many babies lives.

Currently the abortion rate of Irish women is not near being on a par with that of women in other European countries (even when illegal abortions are taken into account) but that will absolutely change within a few years of abortion on demand being made legal here. So, yes, in that regard, a No Vote is a heroic attempt at saving babies lives.

Of course the response to this would be that a developing human being at 12 weeks is not a baby, which is like saying a small growing carrot in the ground shouldn't be called a baby carrot until it's removed from the ground. A preposterous argument based on location and little else. Nobody has an issue with a 21 week old premature fetus in an incubator being referred to as a baby and so why when in the womb? It's ridiculous and all just an obvious desire to dehumanize the fetus, because of course, if we dehumanize them enough, then mistreating them and bullying them can't be seen as inhumane, but it is, it very much is.

I'll still vote No, but alas I think it will sadly being in vain and the Yes side will be victorious. We at at a stage now in society where modern day feminist values are adopted not because they have logic, coherency or even meaningful societal value, but because it's not politically correct to express views to the contrary. The societal ostracization is a very real consequence of going against the current far left grain.

At work recently one twenty something woman told me that she was voting no and quickly followed it with a request not to tell anyone. We see repeal t-shirts, even a repeal shop. The vote is a fashionable one and given with most abortions we are talking about a human being's short life being brought to a premature close, I find it rather distasteful. I guess the prochoice really do see the moving, reacting, thumb sucking baby in the womb as just a mere clump of cells. Funny how a generation usually obsessed with science are so willing to abandon it when it suits them. And referring to a 12 week fetus is absolutely doing just that.

Lovely day out and so will love and you leave you with some words from Ben Carson, former Director of Pediatric Neurosurgery at John Hopkins:

We have allowed the proponents of a woman's choice movement to convince us that killing valuable human babies is not a big deal and certainly is better than infringing upon the convenience of a woman. We have established the setting where many women think the baby inside of them would negatively impact their lifestyle. These women believe their babies need to be eliminated rather than guarded and cherished.

We've distorted things to the point where people believe that anyone who opposes mothers killing their babies is waging a war on women. How can we be so foolish to believe such a thing? One must be able to recognize the depravity to which we have sunken as a society when valuing a baby's life is frowned upon.

The brain of a little baby develops at a rate of hundreds of millions of neurons every single day by the time it is 6 to 8 weeks old. The baby is rapidly becoming a very complex organism. It is much more sophisticated than many of the creatures that we go to great lengths to preserve in our environment.

Through the wonders of ultrasonography and endoscopy, we have been able to recognize the human features at an early stage that characterize these priceless beings and belie the myth that they are nothing more than meaningless clumps of cells. In my view, this is propaganda that has been perpetuated by organizations like Planned Parenthood and others who desire to promote the abominable practice of abortion on demand.

My entire professional career as a pediatric neurosurgeon was dedicated to saving the lives of children and promoting their long-term welfare, as I took the Hippocratic Oath to "First, do no harm." Protecting innocent life is a duty consistent with that solemn oath. Destroying or butchering them is particularly offensive to someone like myself who has operated on babies while they were still in utero. All human life is precious and should be preserved and protected with the utmost respect and care.

Outlaw Pete

Prochoicers are defacing posters also, so let's not pretend it's something which only one side have to contend with.

Loafing Oaf

Pherekydes wrote: »

You're either pro-choice or anti-choice.

end of the road wrote: »

pro-choice and anti-choice are misnomers

I've said this before but I think the only way to deal with this sort of dispute is to use whatever label each group embraces for themselves. Otherwise you'd be bogged down in semantic discussions forever. Maybe put scare quotes around the label to show you don't accept its implications.

Hotblack Desiato

Some piccies from yesterday, Dublin 2.

The No campaign is totally not about religion, atall atall.

Won't somebody think of the spider babies!

Somebody's been a bit naughty

end of the road

Pherekydes wrote: »

Sorry, but I'm completely baffled by this.

Are you saying that to be anti-choice in the question of abortion is to be against choice in everything (or just abortion)?

against everything.

Pherekydes wrote: »

By the way, women can, in your words, legally end the life of an unborn human being. They have a right to travel to a foreign jurisdiction to do that.

it's not legal in ireland except in extreme circumstances however. i can't control the laws of another country.

Pherekydes wrote: »

If you're not opposed to the right to travel then you support women's right to end the life of an unborn human being.

i don't no . the right to travel extends to us all ultimately. the constitutional amendment on the right to travel was to prevent the 8th from stoping any pregnant woman from traveling for any reason.

Pherekydes wrote: »

Also, the term 'for any reason' that you used implies that you would happily allow women to die or suffer serious injury in the case of ectopic pregnancy. Is this the case?

it's not the case. it's reality however that if the 8th is repealed we will legislate for abortion for any reason up to 12 weeks and i personally don't agree that should happen.

Pherekydes wrote: »

Add: an human embryo is not a human being.

a human fetus is a human being however. in it's early stages it's not a person yet but will become so unless something happens to prevent it.

aloyisious

Just listened to Eamon Dunphy on The Stand talking to John Waters on the issue. The interview plan seemed to be to have JW for the No side debate with Una Mullally. JW blows up while talking to ED, calls ED a ****ing bollix, tell's him to **** off and leaves the studio. https://soundcloud.com/thestandwitheamondunphy/ep-167a-8th-amendment-referendum-john-waters-no

Eamon went on to interview Una Mullally for the Yes side of the planned debate...

https://soundcloud.com/thestandwitheamondunphy

Pherekydes

end of the road wrote: »

pro-choice and anti-choice are misnomers given that to be anti-choice you would have to be against choice full stop. pro-life aren't against choice full stop. we just believe it shouldn't extend to one being legally able to end the life of an unborn human being for any reason.

Sorry, but I'm completely baffled by this.

Are you saying that to be anti-choice in the question of abortion is to be against choice in everything (or just abortion)?

By the way, women can, in your words, legally end the life of an unborn human being. They have a right to travel to a foreign jurisdiction to do that. If you're not opposed to the right to travel then you support women's right to end the life of an unborn human being.

Also, the term 'for any reason' that you used implies that you would happily allow women to die or suffer serious injury in the case of ectopic pregnancy. Is this the case?

Add: an human embryo is not a human being.

pleas advice

Pherekydes wrote: »

Hint: everyone's pro-life!

the same way everyone is pro choice,

end of the road

Pherekydes wrote: »

...or that many men are pro-life and will be voting Yes.

Hint: everyone's pro-life!

You're either pro-choice or anti-choice.

pro-choice and anti-choice are misnomers given that to be anti-choice you would have to be against choice full stop. pro-life aren't against choice full stop. we just believe it shouldn't extend to one being legally able to end the life of an unborn human being for any reason.

Pherekydes

end of the road wrote: »

obviously nobody told them, or they are to stupid to realise, that many women will be pro-life and will be voting no

...or that many men are pro-life and will be voting Yes.

Hint: everyone's pro-life!

You're either pro-choice or anti-choice.

end of the road

aloyisious wrote: »

This seem's to say it's up to men to save babies from abortion on the 25th of May and may be sexist, in a reverse of mysogynistic, into the bargain - babies aren't safe in the arms of women. It's from the same group who used the "soldier" image. Ba

obviously nobody told them, or they are to stupid to realise, that many women will be pro-life and will be voting no

PopePalpatine

I have to wonder if they've just given up, and are just going for the "Men save lives" tagline to provide outrage porn for right-wing clickbait factories when someone takes exception.

aloyisious

This seem's to say it's up to men to save babies from abortion on the 25th of May and may be sexist, in a reversal form of mysogynistic, into the bargain - babies aren't safe in the arms of women. It's from the same group who used the "soldier" image.

aloyisious

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Better sex education and better and more widely available contraception explains the falling abortion rates.

What did they say?

The two injections into the feotus to kill it and the use of tongs to remove it from the womb, the doctor leaving it on a top nearby, plus the "I have checked my facts by use of the net" bit.

It was on the "Sean O'Rourke show". I'll have to go and have another listen to her as I think she described how the feotus was removed from the womb with forceps. I was a bit annoyed that Sean allowed her away with it as it was supposed to be a two-person debate between her and an O/P from the YES side, not a promotional event for the NO side, which it ended up as in essence.

I'm listening to Karie Ascough now on the SO'RS podcast of yesterday and she mentioned the UK [BPAS] and healthy mothers and healthy babies as a 97% of the UK abortion rate. Now I know where the healthy mothers aborting healthy babies quote used here originated. 95% of the Irish women who travel to the UK are doing that, according to Katie.

SusieBlue

Mark Hamill wrote: »

What solutions have you discussed?

His solutions were for the woman to "work more hours" and to "contact a charity".

Mark Hamill

end of the road wrote: »

we haven't pretended those cases don't exist. we have discussed them. we have proposed solutions. solutions which would actually lead to a massive majority for repeal. the yes side just proposed abortion on demand.

What solutions have you discussed?

end of the road wrote: »

they were not voted legal. abortion is illegal in ireland except in certain circumstances. the referendum if passed will allow for abortion on demand in ireland, which is currently illegal. the costs i would suggest are over-inflated anyway. the uk is very cheap to get to these days.

We've been through this already. Women in Ireland want an abortion for any reason? Just pay the, according to you, very cheap fees to go to UK and demand one. They can't be stopped, and they won't be punished after, as the Travel amendment specifically made it not a crime.
To repeat myself:
All this upcoming referendum will do, if passed, is reduce the costs and make abortions safer for Irish women.

Hotblack Desiato

aloyisious wrote: »

Looking at several programmes on RTE last night It seem's that after abortion was legalized in some European countries the rate of abortion climbed for several years but then dropped and has stayed that way. It seem's the women and girls seeking abortion have found another way to terminate their pregnancies other than direct hospital or clinic abortions,

Better sex education and better and more widely available contraception explains the falling abortion rates.

and certainly not in the manner described by a NO campaign shock-jockey two days ago on RTE.

What did they say?

aloyisious

One thing that popped up in overseas abortion stats where it came to irish women and girls was that the Netherlands is also a place of choice for the women and girls, though not as high a figure as to the UK. Looking at several programmes on RTE last night It seem's that after abortion was legalized in some European countries the rate of abortion climbed for several years but then dropped and has stayed that way. It seem's the women and girls seeking abortion have found another way to terminate their pregnancies other than direct hospital or clinic abortions, and certainly not in the manner described by a NO campaign shock-jockey two days ago on RTE.

If one was to subtract the figure of irish women and girls travelling to the UK for abortions from it's reported figure [which would be the obvious follow-on effect of legaized abortion here] I've wondered what the actual abortion figure would be there, and ditto for Holland. I've thought that legalizing abortion here could put a different slant to the NO campaign poster ad about not wanting abortions here like in the UK, ref the UK stats quoted by the NO campaign, given how the UK figure includes irish women and girls. The same must apply to the figures of irish women and girls travelling to Holland for abortions.

Much also has been made of the reported UK Downs Syndrome abortion figures by the NO campaign in relation to what they say will happen here if abortion is legalized here. Not a mention of the obvious correlation between those UK stats and Irish women and girls going there for abortions. Is it the fear of chickens coming home to roost that is a hidden side of the NO campaign?

end of the road

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Maybe if the No-side stopped pretending those cases don't exist and actually discussed the issues surrounding them we could move on to something else.

we haven't pretended those cases don't exist. we have discussed them. we have proposed solutions. solutions which would actually lead to a massive majority for repeal. the yes side just proposed abortion on demand.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

They were already voted legal when the Travel amendment was passed, women just have to be able to pay the costs to travel and willing to take the health-related chances involved. All this upcoming referendum will do, if passed, is remove (at least most of) the costs and make it safer for women.

they were not voted legal. abortion is illegal in ireland except in certain circumstances. the referendum if passed will allow for abortion on demand in ireland, which is currently illegal. the costs i would suggest are over-inflated anyway. the uk is very cheap to get to these days.

recedite

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The Supreme Court ruled in March that the unborn are not children.

"For the purposes of Article 42A" (or general children's rights) But it wasn't a case about word definitions.

aloyisious

pleas advice wrote: »

I can see the point being made, but I presume and I hope it won't be the case.

IF approved? Unless its clear that the girl / woman is being coerced into having an abortion, I don't see how there would be an 'if' at all

IF the woman claims to have mental stress problems due to being pregnant and the Dr's believe otherwise, that she is NOT undergoing mental stress, are you claiming that the Dr's will sign off on an abortion merely because the woman asked them to sign off on it?

Zubeneschamali

robindch wrote: »

Nope.

Worst case of Post Catholic Philosophical Disorder I have seen.

robindch

Hitman3000 wrote: »

I wonder did Pete29 accept Robindch's offer to post here?

Nope.

Mark Hamill

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

All we are still hearing about is the rare cases, the hard cases...

Maybe if the No-side stopped pretending those cases don't exist and actually discussed the issues surrounding them we could move on to something else.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

At least 90% of this debate should be about elective abortions and just why it is that people should vote to make them legal, even when both mother and baby are healthy.

They were already voted legal when the Travel amendment was passed, women just have to be able to pay the costs to travel and willing to take the health-related chances involved. All this upcoming referendum will do, if passed, is remove (at least most of) the costs and make it safer for women.

Zubeneschamali

recedite wrote: »

No, its just about killing the "not yet born" child.

The Supreme Court ruled in March that the unborn are not children.

recedite

seamus wrote: »

but I'm going to have to stick you on ignore

I never sought martyrdom; it was thrust upon me.

nozzferrahhtoo

Ah if you cant beat em, invent a narrative for em.

seamus

recedite wrote: »

Sometimes I get the feeling that Repeal is seen as a way of undoing past injustices. Stick it to the church and the gombeen politicians. Join the "right on" crusade for feminism, womens rights, workers rights...

So now that you've run out of any cogent arguments, you're down to "people are just voting Yes to be running the cool crowd".

It's a pity because you're usually a very compelling poster, but I'm going to have to stick you on ignore because now you're nothing but a timesink.

recedite

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

i'm banned from the referendum thread...

What, only the one thread? I'm banned from the whole politics forum