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

nozzferrahhtoo

There may be downsides, but what your contrived hyperbole of suggesting there is not is ignoring is no one is saying there is none. They are just saying the one YOU are currently peddling is nonsense.

You are basically being non-objective and selective by solely taking issue with women (who you imagine are) pressured into abortions. You seem to have no issue however with the converse of this, women who do want them but are pressured.... socially or in law or by other means...... not to have one. And in this way you make your bias and agenda, if not an actual coherent argument, abundantly clear.

[Deleted User]

splinter65 wrote: »

You want to pretend that being forced to have an abortion when you want to have the baby is comparable to having an episiotomy? Ok. Let’s pretend that there is no downside to availability of abortion. I forgot.

Lol, no downside of banning abortions then?

People have pointed out that women are going to have abortions forced on them regardless. Just like they have pregnancies forced on them.

Banning abortion solves neither of these problems and causes far, far more.

Your "concern" rings very false if not just poorly thought out.

splinter65

I apologize. Clearly no woman of any age has ever been forced to have an abortion. It’s all stuff and nonsense. No old or vulnerable people will ever be forced to agree to euthanasia either. Disregard any evidence to the contrary. It’s obviously religious nutcases trying to control people’s nether regions again.
Legal abortion is the greatest thing ever to have happened in any country it was ever introduced and there have never ever been any downsides.
Now please go back to your gentle calm back slapping in the knowledge that you have put another naysayer to bed.

[Deleted User]

splinter65 wrote: »

I apologize. Clearly no woman of any age has ever been forced to have an abortion..

Point to one single person who said this.

Ya see guys, this is why you lost. The fact you lost should be making you reevaluate your tactics, if not your position.
Yet here you all are, showing just how unpalatable your position is.

nozzferrahhtoo

It is interesting how quickly you need to rush to hyperbole sarcasm when you can not defend your views. People rubbish the nonsense you are peddling so you throw out a line like "Let’s pretend that there is no downside to availability of abortion." when no one here has actually said or claimed or indicated that.

Now you rush to "Clearly no woman of any age has ever been forced to have an abortion." when no one has said that either.

This is one of the reasons I feel you lost this referendum so badly. The level of distortion, hyperbole, and throwing your hands up and making straw man comments without reason did nothing but shot your own foot several times.

But what you are clearly not doing, now or previously in earlier conversations.... is engaging in any level of good faith with what people are ACTUALLY saying to you.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Calina

splinter65 wrote: »

Over on the relationship issues forum a poster is anxious to have discovered that his partner (who he referred to as “a girl” in the OP) is pregnant and he feels reluctant to become a parent.
Two different replies have encouraged him to tell her to “get rid of it”.
One of the many reasons I voted no was the fact that women all over the world are put under pressure to have an abortion every day.
How do the yes voters feel about this and have they any suggestions about how it might be countered?

So you force them to stay pregnant instead when they don't want.

Many men force women into things they don't want to. A man leaning on a women to abort is not a nice person. How it might be countered is educating men to treat women with respect in general. This should also lead to reduces rape rates, assault rates, domestic violence...

Hotblack Desiato

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That would require some level of honesty in engagement with the discussion.

Hotblack Desiato

Calina wrote: »

Many men force women into things they don't want to. A man leaning on a women to abort is not a nice person.

The man who tries to force or persuade a woman to not have an abortion is no better.

Hannibal_Smith

splinter65 wrote: »

Over on the relationship issues forum a poster is anxious to have discovered that his partner (who he referred to as “a girl” in the OP) is pregnant and he feels reluctant to become a parent.
Two different replies have encouraged him to tell her to “get rid of it”.
One of the many reasons I voted no was the fact that women all over the world are put under pressure to have an abortion every day.
How do the yes voters feel about this and have they any suggestions about how it might be countered?

The same with any other form of domestic abuse, a private consultation between mother and doctor, where the woman feels safe enough to tell her side.

What else can be done? If a woman tells a doctor she wants an abortion how can said doctor, other than by using your skills as a doctor in situations where your concerns are raised, guess that that may not be what she actually wants?

robindch

splinter65 wrote: »

You’ve just said that you’d prefer that they are abused in the comfort of their own community then abused in another jurisdiction.

"....." made no such assertion and it constitutes misrepresentation to claim that he/she did.

Before continuing to post here, please read the forum charter.

Thanking you.

Loafing Oaf

Carol Nolan quits SF over abortion policy, jumping before she's pushed I'd say. Peadar Toibin to follow?
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/offaly-td-carol-nolan-resigns-from-sinn-f%C3%A9in-1.3536169

Cabaal

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Carol Nolan quits SF over abortion policy, jumping before she's pushed I'd say. Peadar Toibin to follow?
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/offaly-td-carol-nolan-resigns-from-sinn-f%C3%A9in-1.3536169

Hopefully,
at the end of the day if you don't like party policy's then don't align yourself with that party.

Join Renua (snigger) or become independent

aloyisious

Listening to a programme on RTE earlier today on the issue of abortion, pills and condoms, I was surprised to here it mentioned they were legal here in Southern Ireland [during the Free State period] and only became illegal in the state after a constitution was enacted. Now it didn't mention which constitution it was but that wouldn't really matter if they were all legally available here for men and women after we gained independence from the UK. The inference was that it was an Irish Govt which de-legalized their use here.

1935 was the year contraceptives became illegal to import or sell them here, though a legal loophole was around whereby one could be "invited" to try them, alongside which a small cash donation could be given in return. I can't figure out how the importation part was done for the legal loophole to exist, unless the items just arrived on the doorstep.

I was a bit surprised at the mention of non-illegal abortions here in the programme as i thought their illegality was carried over after independence by the continuance of the British offences against the person 1861 provisions in law use here.

Hotblack Desiato

I've posted on this before. Women had more rights in Ireland in 1922 than they did in 1972.

In 1922:

All over-21s had the vote
Contraception was legal
Divorce was legal
Women had the right to work after marriage

In 1972:
Women still had the right to vote, but that was it.

aloyisious

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I've posted on this before. Women had more rights in Ireland in 1922 than they did in 1972.

In 1922:

All over-21s had the vote
Contraception was legal
Divorce was legal
Women had the right to work after marriage

In 1972:
Women still had the right to vote, but that was it.

The more I look at what our state's history is on what was enacted from the early decades to the late decades of the last century through the Oireachtas here, It's looking like it was not carefully thought through where the benefit of the people was concerned, more it might have been paternalistic in style. a paternalism that can be now seen as cloaked mysogyny, especially when it was literally given a blessing.

Peregrinus

aloyisious wrote: »

The more I look at what our state's history is on what was enacted from the early decades to the late decades of the last century through the Oireachtas here, It's looking like it was not carefully thought through where the benefit of the people was concerned, more it might have been paternalistic in style. a paternalism that can be now seen as cloaked mysogyny, especially when it was literally given a blessing.

Well, yeah, but there are two sides to the story. We notice the social policy failures and weakness of the Irish state, which were many, and we particularly notice them when they are at odds with current values. But if we're drawing up a "balance sheet" on the treatment of women, there's a credit side too. For example by 1972 Irish women had extensive property rights that had been denied to them in 1922, by virtue of the Married Women's Property legislation of the mid-1950s.

And we need to put the question in a wider context. When the new state came into being, 25% of the population of Dublin lived in accommodation where there was one room or less per family. It took decades of investment in slum clearance, public housing and urban development to address this. We don't now think of this as one of the great social policy success stories of the Irish state, but that's what it was. (We might contrast it with the extent of government action to address housing problems today.) And, if we're honest, it probably conferred more benefits on Irish women than they ever lost through the withdrawal of the divorce-for-the-wealthy-and-privileged (primarily availed of by men, not women) that was available prior to 1922.

I'm not suggesting that the Irish state's successes or progress in social policy justify or excuse its failures. But an account which only lists the failures is a one-sided account.

antiskeptic

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

The man who tries to force or persuade a woman to not have an abortion is no better.

Since the man in question might well be the father, he has skin in the game and as such, has a voice, whether unto persuading to abort or persuading not to.

antiskeptic

As it happens, I didn't actually look at the processes of abortion during the referendum campaign. I have since then. A few things struck me:

- how brutal surgical abortion (suction based) is. As a mechanical engineer, I couldn't help admire the protection given by the body to the baby. First the vagina has to be prised open, then inward to the cervix, which too has to be prized open. Thereafter, the relatively delicate membrane (probably aimed more at bacteriological rather than than physical protection) to be punctured. The frontal positioning in the body, located deep within and protected by the above defences. And the rough work involved in sucking everything out - a bit like those liposuction operations they carry out.

I'm reminded of the sense you get of mechanical warfare: brute machinery dispensing with humans. Abortion staff talking about having to count the limbs to ensure all has been evacutated - before flushing the bits down the sink. Or the picture of a writhing baby, neatly fitting in the abortionists palm, being prodded at as a soldier would prod at mortally wounded enemy.

- how medical abortions appear to sanitize the process. Yet the brutality merely switches mechanical warfare for chemical warfare. Detaching the embryo from the uterus wall prior to flushing it out. For all the talk of pills and GP led services, the best advice to someone obtaining this kind of abortion appears to be "don't look" at what comes out.

nozzferrahhtoo

amazing how the obvious can seem striking to some people, especially lay people. Yes medical procedures can be involved and intricate and invasive. And unpleasant. If you look at aspects of brain surgery, cancer treatment, heart surgery and transplants they are highly invasive and very unpleasant too.

I would not call it "brutal" however. I would reserve such a word for entities that actually suffer in some way. The fetus does not, no matter how much people want to distort aspects of it like how it's tongue moves or some such.

A significant number of pregnancies, more than you would expect, end in miscarriage in the first 12 weeks. Nothing brutal about it. Medical abortion merely causes that to happen.

Loafing Oaf

antiskeptic wrote: »

Or the picture of a writhing baby, neatly fitting in the abortionists palm, being prodded at as a soldier would prod at mortally wounded enemy.

[Deleted User]

antiskeptic wrote: »

As it happens, I didn't actually look at the processes of abortion during the referendum campaign. I have since then. A few things struck me:

- how brutal surgical abortion (suction based) is. As a mechanical engineer, I couldn't help admire the protection given by the body to the baby. First the vagina has to be prised open, then inward to the cervix, which too has to be prized open. Thereafter, the relatively delicate membrane (probably aimed more at bacteriological rather than than physical protection) to be punctured. The frontal positioning in the body, located deep within and protected by the above defences. And the rough work involved in sucking everything out - a bit like those liposuction operations they carry out.

I'm reminded of the sense you get of mechanical warfare: brute machinery dispensing with humans. Abortion staff talking about having to count the limbs to ensure all has been evacutated - before flushing the bits down the sink. Or the picture of a writhing baby, neatly fitting in the abortionists palm, being prodded at as a soldier would prod at mortally wounded enemy.

- how medical abortions appear to sanitize the process. Yet the brutality merely switches mechanical warfare for chemical warfare. Detaching the embryo from the uterus wall prior to flushing it out. For all the talk of pills and GP led services, the best advice to someone obtaining this kind of abortion appears to be "don't look" at what comes out.

Silly hyperbolic scaremongering. You can use the exact same language to describe removing a tooth. Hell, you can even use worse language to describe the horrors of childbirth.

You guys are just embarrassing yourselves.

[Deleted User]

- how brutal root canals are. As a mechanical engineer, I couldn't help admire the protection given by the body to the nerves and pulp in the tooth. First the mouth has to be prised open, then then the jaw which too has to be prized open. Thereafter, the relatively delicate, brittle enamel (which offered physical and bacterial protection) to be drilled away in a horrifying fashion. And the rough work involved in sucking everything out - a bit like those mining operations they carry out.

I'm reminded of the sense you get of mechanical warfare: brute machinery dispensing with humans. dentists talking about having to check all the pieces of tooth to ensure all has been evacutated - before flushing the bits down the sink. Or the picture of a weeping baby tooth, neatly fitting in the dentists palm, being prodded at as a soldier would prod at mortally wounded enemy.

Here's a gif if you want to see how brutal the real thing is...
https://media3.giphy.com/media/5iRhkdhGYFx28/giphy.gif

nozzferrahhtoo

Ah you missed out on contriving to use a word like "writhing" that implies more than it actually says in the context. A word chosen specifically for what it implies and suggests and brings to mind, than for any actually applicability or relevance to what is actually being described.

[Deleted User]

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Ah you missed out on contriving to use a word like "writhing" that implies more than it actually says in the context.

I meant it as in the tooth was actually crying, cause it had a face like the mascots on the dentists wall.
https://previews.123rf.com/images/pixdesign123/pixdesign1231408/pixdesign123140801802/31140276-cartoon-character-of-teeth-with-tooth-brush.jpg

Loafing Oaf

Well you certainly live up to your moniker antiskeptic, credulously swallowing any old guff you come across on 'pro-life' propaganda sites...

.......

This post has been deleted.

end of the road

King Mob wrote: »

Silly hyperbolic scaremongering. You can use the exact same language to describe removing a tooth. Hell, you can even use worse language to describe the horrors of childbirth.

You guys are just embarrassing yourselves.

not at all, just simple reality which some seem to wish to hide from. we aren't embarrassing ourselves at all.

King Mob wrote: »

- how brutal root canals are. As a mechanical engineer, I couldn't help admire the protection given by the body to the nerves and pulp in the tooth. First the mouth has to be prised open, then then the jaw which too has to be prized open. Thereafter, the relatively delicate, brittle enamel (which offered physical and bacterial protection) to be drilled away in a horrifying fashion. And the rough work involved in sucking everything out - a bit like those mining operations they carry out.

I'm reminded of the sense you get of mechanical warfare: brute machinery dispensing with humans. dentists talking about having to check all the pieces of tooth to ensure all has been evacutated - before flushing the bits down the sink. Or the picture of a weeping baby tooth, neatly fitting in the dentists palm, being prodded at as a soldier would prod at mortally wounded enemy.

Here's a gif if you want to see how brutal the real thing is...
https://media3.giphy.com/media/5iRhkdhGYFx28/giphy.gif

irrelevant wafflery and whataboutery.

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Well you certainly live up to your moniker antiskeptic, credulously swallowing any old guff you come across on 'pro-life' propaganda sites...

parts of reality not suiting one's agenda does not make propaganda.

[Deleted User]

end of the road wrote: »

not at all, just simple reality which some seem to wish to hide from. we aren't embarrassing ourselves at all.

Hey, so do you believe that abortion is murder?
Why did you say it wasn't and then said that you never said that?

end of the road wrote: »

irrelevant wafflery and whataboutery.

I know, that's the point I was making.
What's the difference between my description and the one you call a simple reality?
Is mine inaccurate?

nozzferrahhtoo

end of the road wrote: »

not at all, just simple reality which some seem to wish to hide from. we aren't embarrassing ourselves at all.

Yet I have not once seen anyone trying to hide from it. That is just the distortion and spin YOU put on it. What I HAVE however seen, quite often, is people pointing out the irrelevance of it and, unlike you when you write a dodge like this....

end of the road wrote: »

irrelevant wafflery and whataboutery.

.... they can actually explain and argue as to WHY it is irrelevant. But suffice to say questioning the relevance of something is not at all hiding from the reality of it. It is in fact the reality of it that YOU people hide from, usually through the use of contrived and cherry picked language like "writhing"...... which is that en entirely non-sentient non suffering entity is being killed that does not warrant any of the concerns you pretend to show it.

But what you might learn some day is parts of reality not suiting one's agenda does not make it go away. Just like, for example, claiming never to have called it "murder" does not make all the posts where you actually demonstrably did call it "murder" magically disappear from the boards.ie servers.