Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

en entirely non-sentient non suffering entity is being killed that does not warrant any of the concerns you pretend to show it.

a human being is having it's life ended which does warrent the concerns we actually show it. the fact it's non-sentient means nothing, it's just a dodge used to justify the ending of it's life, and to dehumanise it.

end of the road wrote: »

it's just a dodge used to justify the ending of it's life, and to dehumanise it.

So again, you've dodged the question posed to you.
You have read the question, you have to cut them out of the posts you do reply to.
Your point is nothing but hypocritical waffle.

Calina

end of the road wrote: »

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

en entirely non-sentient non suffering entity is being killed that does not warrant any of the concerns you pretend to show it.

a human being is having it's life ended which does warrent the concerns we actually show it. the fact it's non-sentient means nothing, it's just a dodge used to justify the ending of it's life, and to dehumanise it.

You show zero concern for the women who is sentient. You do not respect her life. She is born.

Why don't you care as much about her? They cannot be equal.

end of the road wrote: »

a human being is having it's life ended which does warrent the concerns we actually show it. the fact it's non-sentient means nothing, it's just a dodge used to justify the ending of it's life, and to dehumanise it.

Nope, pointing out sentience is lacking and entirely absent is not to dehumanize it but to point out that YOUR attempts to dehumanize it are unwarranted entirely. Which is the reality you are running away from while pretending we are running away from the reality of abortion which we are not and never have.

AGAIN: Pointing out the irrelevance (and explaining why it is irrelevant which you yourself never do when screeching "irrelevant" at an argument you do not like) of something is not at all the same as hiding from the reality of it.

Learn the difference, and learn that denying reality...... like claiming never to have called abortion murder when you demonstrably have on multiple occasions...... would not make that reality go away.

However the fact it is non-sentient means a hell of a lot more than nothing, and I have explained hwo and why it does multiple times in the past. As usual however you throw out things like "Irrelevant" and "means nothing" without ever stopping to argue how and why it is irrelevant or means nothing. You genuinely seem to think that merely calling things "irrelevant" magically makes them take on that attribute and you do not need to actually argue your case in any way. Just like you seem to think claiming you never called abortion murder somehow makes all the posts where you demonstrably did do so, suddenly vanish.

Calina wrote: »

You show zero concern for the women who is sentient. You do not respect her life. She is born. Why don't you care as much about her? They cannot be equal.

i do. suggesting i don't is false.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Nope, pointing out sentience is lacking and entirely absent is not to dehumanize it but to point out that YOUR attempts to dehumanize it are unwarranted entirely. Which is the reality you are running away from while pretending we are running away from the reality of abortion which we are not and never have.

AGAIN: Pointing out the irrelevance (and explaining why it is irrelevant which you yourself never do when screeching "irrelevant" at an argument you do not like) of something is not at all the same as hiding from the reality of it.

Learn the difference, and learn that denying reality...... like claiming never to have called abortion murder when you demonstrably have on multiple occasions...... would not make that reality go away.

However the fact it is non-sentient means a hell of a lot more than nothing, and I have explained hwo and why it does multiple times in the past. As usual however you throw out things like "Irrelevant" and "means nothing" without ever stopping to argue how and why it is irrelevant or means nothing. You genuinely seem to think that merely calling things "irrelevant" magically makes them take on that attribute and you do not need to actually argue your case in any way. Just like you seem to think claiming you never called abortion murder somehow makes all the posts where you demonstrably did do so, suddenly vanish.

the fact the unborn is non-sentient for a time does absolutely mean nothing as it's simply part of the process of development.

end of the road wrote: »

the fact the unborn is non-sentient for a time does absolutely mean nothing as it's simply part of the process of development.

But you said abortion wasn't murder...?

end of the road wrote: »

i do. suggesting i don't is false. the fact the unborn is non-sentient for a time does absolutely mean nothing as it's simply part of the process of development.

Except you have not shown a single model or moral or ethical concern that suggests we should afford any to entities that are not AT ALL sentient. So it means the opposite of nothing here, in your usual every day dismissals. It means everything.

We do not give rights to processes. You are merely trying to use the process to pull rights from the entities future into the present. And refusing, despite being asked MULTIPLE times in the past, to offer any argument as to why we should actually be doing that.

No, you simply screech "human" at the question, and then basically run away. That or tell lies to us like the lie that you never called abortion murder, when you demonstrably did multiple times. Which is it, is abortion murder or not? If it is not, then whats your issue?

iguana

antiskeptic wrote: »

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.

Posting this kind of shît literally proves that you know that the embryo is not a human being. There are women on this thread who have posted about their miscarriages. Miscarriages of wanted pregnancies. If you really truly believe that the embryo is a human child, we are women who have been bereaved of real human children. And yet on this thread, with women who have lost these real human children, you are posting horrifically graphic, massively exaggerated descriptions of our children's deaths. Bullshît you think that embryos are children because nobody but an absolute abusive psychopath would post like that to bereaved parents.:mad:

So either you are an abusive pyschopath or a bullshîtting liar. Either way your posts are worthy of nothing but absolute derision because they are clearly not coming from a place of love or concern for life. They come from nothing other than a desire to hurt and control. Thankfully the harder you try, the more the mask of concern slips and the awful motive becomes clear.

Hotblack Desiato

Peregrinus wrote: »

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.

Sure, but there would have been fewer people living in dire poverty in the first place if women were allowed to control their fertility.

antiskeptic wrote: »

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.

Skin in the game? Really? I'll see your pregnancy, and raise you pre-eclampsia? That sort of thing?

antiskeptic wrote: »

As it happens, I didn't actually look at the processes of abortion during the referendum campaign.

Is this an example of "mental reservation" when you mean to imply that you somehow only found out now about how abortions are done, when in reality you knew all about this years ago and it's one of the reasons you continually post about abortion on this site? Your fellow No campaigners were posting and tweeting links to (made up / exaggerated) sites about this dozens of times per day and you never clicked on a single one, until AFTER the vote??

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Except you have not shown a single model or moral or ethical concern that suggests we should afford any to entities that are not AT ALL sentient. So it means the opposite of nothing here, in your usual every day dismissals. It means everything.

We do not give rights to processes. You are merely trying to use the process to pull rights from the entities future into the present. And refusing, despite being asked MULTIPLE times in the past, to offer any argument as to why we should actually be doing that.

No, you simply screech "human" at the question, and then basically run away. That or tell lies to us like the lie that you never called abortion murder, when you demonstrably did multiple times. Which is it, is abortion murder or not? If it is not, then whats your issue?

except i did show models or moral or ethical concern that suggests we should afford any to entities that are not AT ALL sentient.

iguana wrote: »

your posts are worthy of nothing but absolute derision because they are clearly not coming from a place of love or concern for life. They come from nothing other than a desire to hurt and control. Thankfully the harder you try, the more the mask of concern slips and the awful motive becomes clear.

this is not correct. this poster is someone who does genuinely care. i have been reading their posts in relation to this discussion since they began posting, so i can confirm it. they are simply posting the graphic reality because while it's uncomfortable, it's necessary that everyone is 100% aware of the process of abortion.

end of the road wrote: »

except i did show models or moral or ethical concern that suggests we should afford any to entities that are not AT ALL sentient.

But you said it wasn't murder though.

end of the road wrote: »

except i did show models or moral or ethical concern that suggests we should afford any to entities that are not AT ALL sentient.

No, you did not. Or at least I have not seen you do so. You certainly have not done so in ANY conversation with me.

But this has been EXACTLY what has happened in every conversation I have had with you. I point out that you have not argued for one of your assertions...... but rather than then argue for that assertion you CLAIM you did before..... but never link back to, or refer to where you think it happened.

So again and again all I get from you is claims you did things I have never once seen you do.

Now given you claim you never called abortion murder, even though I can link to MULTIPLE posts where you actually did............... so essentially you claim you did not do things you demonstrably did do......... and given you in previous conversations claim to have replied to posts of mine that you demonstrably did NOT reply to..... thus claiming you did do things you demonstably did not do.............. I am not about to buy your similar claims that you DID do things you appear simply not to have.

When referring back to things you did do..... you demonstrably lie. So without a link or citation in THIS case, I can only assume you are, once again, lying.

So it would be helpful if you present that model/argument here, or link to where you did before..... and not simply claim you did when I simply do not believe you have.

end of the road wrote: »

it's necessary that everyone is 100% aware of the process of abortion.

Here we fully agree. I think we need a more complete comprehensive sex education in schools. And that education should include what abortion is, how it works, what forms it takes, why we have it, how to access it, what precludes it and much more. Contrary to your outright lie that we are "hiding" from the reality of abortion, the actual reality outside the sphere of your lies is that many of us are not only aware of that reality, acknowledge that reality, and understand that reality..... we want to ensure people are educated about that reality. Inconvenient for your narrative of course, but true none the less.

And I think we need to also be VERY clear on what it is that is actually being aborted so that fallacious narratives like your own...... or complete misunderstandings of biological research like Pete's obsession with and misinterpretation of, moving tongues............ do not take hold in the minds of children and adults.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I think we need to also be VERY clear on what it is that is actually being aborted so that fallacious narratives like your own...... or complete misunderstandings of biological research like Pete's obsession with and misinterpretation of, moving tongues............ do not take hold in the minds of children and adults.

we are already clear on it. a human being. pete hasn't misinterpreted anything. you haven't been able to argue against anything he has said however.

end of the road wrote: »

we are already clear on it. a human being. pete hasn't misinterpreted anything. you haven't been able to argue against anything he has said however.

See? I point out you did not make an argument, you claim you did, so I ask you to link to it or make it, and you simply change the subject again.

You simply cant make the argument you lie to me that you have made before. Just like you lie that you did not call abortion murder when I can link to MANY posts where you in fact not only did, but very clearly and vehemently did. The string of lies from you is nothing if not consistent I guess.

And yes, he misrepresented much about both the study and the conclusions and I have argued back against EVERYTHING he said, and you. And neither of you can rebut any of it. Nice. I explained everything he misrepresented and why it is a misrepresentation, and I can do so again OR link to it if you like (what you do not do when you claim to have already made an argument) which is the difference between you and I. I can make the arguments, you can only pretend you made them before.

But no you are not clear on it at all. Because "Human being" used incorrectly is misleading and distorting. We need to be clear in our education what "Human Being" means in every context. Which context is relevant to a fetus at 12 weeks, and which are not. And which context is relevant to rights, morality and ethics and which not.

The problem that you keep running away from, and have not (except to lie and pretend you have) offered actual arguments on....... is that the only context that applied to a 12 week old fetus is the taxonomy one. And that is precisely the context that is NOT relevant to ethics, morality and rights. Bully for you I guess.

end of the road wrote: »

we are already clear on it. a human being. pete hasn't misinterpreted anything. you haven't been able to argue against anything he has said however.

But again, according to you, abortion isn't murder.
So how does that gel?

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Skin in the game? Really? I'll see your pregnancy, and raise you pre-eclampsia? That sort of thing?

Golly, I never thought of it that way. Thanks!

:rolleyes:

Is this an example of "mental reservation" when you mean to imply that you somehow only found out now about how abortions are done, when in reality you knew all about this years ago and it's one of the reasons you continually post about abortion on this site?

I never actually saw an abortion happen .. or the results thereof. Nor did I ever actually examine a No abortion poster.

My objection to abortion didn't need to see the result first hand any more than I need to see the result of plastic filled oceans, in order to object to societies "close your eyes and flush it down the toilet" solution to problems.

Seeing dismembered arms and legs lying in puddles of blood, as if a portion of chicken wings, does tend to sharpen one's pencil however. Seeing a 10cm long mini-person wriggling around in the palm of someones hand, like a fish out of water, is very disturbing. I don't think you have to be pro-life to find such things disturbing (from whence, no doubt, the "when the rubber meets the road" advice not to look and what you've just "passed" from your uterus.) .

Your fellow No campaigners were posting and tweeting links to (made up / exaggerated) sites about this dozens of times per day and you never clicked on a single one, until AFTER the vote??

I didn't as it happens - both Yes and No involved propaganda. Hardly first call stuff. In so far as I did, I never came across an operation and never saw dismembered body parts, never saw a live abortee.

It's like what watching Saving Private Ryan for the first time does to whatever notions you had of war beforehand.

.......

This post has been deleted.

robindch

iguana wrote: »

So either you are an abusive pyschopath or a bullshing liar.

While this topic is always going to be emotional, this kind of comment is a little excessive. Please tone down the language. Thanks.

Hotblack Desiato

How can something with no functioning nervous system "wriggle"?

Total nonsense.

recedite

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

How can something with no functioning nervous system "wriggle"?
Total nonsense.

Both parts of your statement can't be true, so one part must be nonsense. But which one?

At the same time, special neural cells form and migrate throughout the embryo to form the very beginnings of nerves. Your baby's nervous system is made up of millions upon millions of neurons; each of these microscopic cells have itty-bitty branches coming off of them so that they can connect and communicate with each other. With this comes baby's first synapses, which essentially means baby's neurons can communicate and create early fetal movements...like curling into (you guessed it!) the fetal position.
Other movements follow quickly, with your fetus wiggling his developing limbs at around 8 weeks. By the end of the first trimester, your baby-to-be has garnered quite a repertoire of motion, though you won't be able to feel any of it quite yet. And at about the same time as baby first wiggles his limbs, he begins to develop the sense of touch.

Are we going to argue now about whether a wiggle is a wriggle?

FWIW I have never looked at an abortion video, and never looked at the pictures of aborted foetuses up close. Nor did I ever look at one of those decapitation videos that the Islamists post on the internet.
I don't feel I need to pollute my mind any more than is strictly necessary.
I'm quite happy to look at an image of a healthy embryo or foetus though.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I don't think you have to be pro-life to find such things disturbing (from whence, no doubt, the "when the rubber meets the road" advice not to look and what you've just "passed" from your uterus.) .

The idea of having your own heart exposed and handled by another person is disturbing. Doesn't mean that heart surgery is bad.
The idea of having your skull sawn open, your brain exposed, then operated on while you are awake is disturbing, but that doesn't mean that brain surgery is bad.
The idea of a tiny sharp drill boring into the crowns of your teeth before someone shoves stuff into the hole is disturbing.

You are dishonestly, and deceptively using hyperbolic language.
But you can use it for any kind of medical procedure.

It's propaganda.
And it's been pointed out it's a bit underhanded and inappropriate for you to use it on a thread where people have shared stories of miscarriages and abortions.
They don't need you making up horror stories cause you "suddenly" decided to find out what what you are opposing.

At least grow a spine and address that post.

antiskeptic wrote: »

both Yes and No involved propaganda. .

Yes propaganda such as...?

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

How can something with no functioning nervous system "wriggle"?

Total nonsense.

Google it: 'foetus alive after abortion'. There's any number of copies of it - 16 secs long. Puddle in latex gloved hand.

I saw same vid but longer, where the person is prodding and flipping this human life around in his/her hand.

Foetus about the length of your thumb so around the 12 week mark.

King Mob wrote: »

The idea of having your own heart exposed and handled by another person is disturbing. Doesn't mean that heart surgery is bad.
The idea of having your skull sawn open, your brain exposed, then operated on while you are awake is disturbing, but that doesn't mean that brain surgery is bad.
The idea of a tiny sharp drill boring into the crowns of your teeth before someone shoves stuff into the hole is disturbing.

You are dishonestly, and deceptively using hyperbolic language.
But you can use it for any kind of medical procedure.

It's propaganda.
And it's been pointed out it's a bit underhanded and inappropriate for you to use it on a thread where people have shared stories of miscarriages and abortions.
They don't need you making up horror stories cause you "suddenly" decided to find out what what you are opposing.

At least grow a spine and address that post.

Yes propaganda such as...?

I just thought it telling that after all the arguments about sentience, number of neurons, viability and the like, the advice, when rubber meets road is "don't look". For to look is to usurp those arguments in a stroke.

aloyisious

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.

If an abortionist can get a writhing baby into the palm, one must assume the baby is intact and not torn limb from limb, re the abortion staff having to count the limbs to ensure all had been evacuated? Can you square the circles in your descriptive post?

antiskeptic wrote: »

I just thought it telling that after all the arguments about sentience, number of neurons, viability and the like, the advice, when rubber meets road is "don't look". For to look is to usurp those arguments in a stroke.

Bull****, cowardly answer.

It's not about not looking or whatever you are bleating.
The people who need abortions are acutely aware of the procedure.

You writing your own little horror movie about that procedure does not make the procedure bad. It does not make it any less necessary. It does not counter any of the hundreds of points leveled at you and your buddies that you've ignored.

Address this post please:
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=107310093&postcount=7419
Or at least explain why you are ignoring it.

Or is it a case of you not wanting to look at how your position and your tactics are a bit disgusting?

Also: Examples of Yes side propaganda. Please provide them.

Or maybe explain how you guys justify ignoring points to yourself.

King Mob wrote: »

The idea of having your own heart exposed and handled by another person is disturbing. Doesn't mean that heart surgery is bad.
The idea of having your skull sawn open, your brain exposed, then operated on while you are awake is disturbing, but that doesn't mean that brain surgery is bad.
The idea of a tiny sharp drill boring into the crowns of your teeth before someone shoves stuff into the hole is disturbing.

abortion on demand is bad however so your medical procedures aren't comparible.

King Mob wrote: »

You are dishonestly, and deceptively using hyperbolic language.
But you can use it for any kind of medical procedure.

he isn't no . just giving the reality.

King Mob wrote: »

It's propaganda.
And it's been pointed out it's a bit underhanded and inappropriate for you to use it on a thread where people have shared stories of miscarriages and abortions.
They don't need you making up horror stories cause you "suddenly" decided to find out what what you are opposing.

it's not propaganda and nothing is or has been made up. reality sometimes is uncomfortable, we can't hide away from it because people have gone through horrible situations. we can only show sympathy for those people and their situations but we have to deal with reality regardless of how uncomfortable it is

aloyisious wrote: »

If an abortionist can get a writhing baby into the palm, one must assume the baby is intact and not torn limb from limb, re the abortion staff having to count the limbs to ensure all had been evacuated? Can you square the circles in your descriptive post?

Different circumstances? You do agree surgical abortions do involve dismemberment? Have you seen the vid?

end of the road wrote: »

abortion on demand is bad however so your medical procedures aren't comparible.

he isn't no . just giving the reality.

They are different procedures, but you can use the same tactics to make them sound as horrifying as you like.
It's irrelevant however.

end of the road wrote: »

it's not propaganda and nothing is or has been made up. reality sometimes is uncomfortable, we can't hide away from it because people have gone through horrible situations. we can only show sympathy for those people and their situations but we have to deal with reality regardless of how uncomfortable it is

So...
Is abortion murder?
Why did you lie and say you never said it was?

Are we ever going to deal with that reality, or are you going to hide away from it yet again?

How about you and Antiskeptic address this uncomfortable reality?: https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=107310093&postcount=7419

King Mob wrote: »

Bull****, cowardly answer.

It's not about not looking or whatever you are bleating.
The people who need abortions are acutely aware of the procedure.

I think the term 'acute' might be more appropriately applie to your own, personal abortion. Awareness will be somewhat less than that when considering it at a more abstract stage

Or is it a case of you not wanting to look at how your position and your tactics are a bit disgusting?

What? You mean not letting things rest in sanitised terminology like sentience? ( apparently the term used for the severed head which had to be crushed before removal is 'No.1'. I mean can you imagine an abortionist calling it a head).

A landslide 'mandate' doesnt alter anything - it doesnt make a head a 'No.1' no matter how many vote so.