end of the road wrote: » yes that is correct. i would include her freedom to think and decide matters for herself in my definition of her having control of her body and full bodily autonomy yes . she's just not allowed to decide to kill her unborn child for social, economic or lifestyle and other ultimately trivial reasons.
aloyisious wrote: » On the basis of your replies, and thinking things through, I assume that the Pro-life protestors also mentioned in this thread accept that a pregnant woman who has full control of her body and full bodily autonomy also has full freedom to think and decide matters for herself within that control and autonomy, and that is why they would try to change her mind if she had not the same position on abortion to them.. The protestors have the same autonomy rights and the same right to think things through for themselves as the pregnant woman before they decided what position it is they hold on abortion. Even here in this debate, we give each other autonomy rights extra to those outlined in the site rules and conduct-regulations. We don't rule by dictat. Your position is clearly different to that of the protestors in that you would not allow the woman have a right to choose within the freedom to think and decide and the full bodily autonomy you ascribe to her when it comes to abortion unless you permit it. That is limited freedom by dictat from you.
end of the road wrote: » my position on AOD is the same as not allowing someone to commit any other act that causes actual bodily harm to another.
Delirium wrote: » And what about the harm (physical and/or mental) to the pregnant person caused by forcing them to carrying a pregnancy to term without their consent?
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » But there is no "other" as you have yet to provide an argument as to why a not slightly but COMPLETELY non-sentient entity should have any rights. Direct question: Why should a non-sentient 12 week old fetus have rights at all? Let alone ones that curtail the rights, well being, or free choice of an ACTUAL sentient agent?
end of the road wrote: » there is another, a human being which is unborn. it is entitled to the right to life because it's a human being and we prohibit the killing of all other human beings except in extreme circumstances.
end of the road wrote: » no free choice or well being or rights are being curtailed by preventing the killing of unborn human beings
end of the road wrote: » mental harm can be treated with the appropriate treatment in relation to mental health. if there is a risk of serious and permanent physical harm then that would come under the same rules which allow abortion where the mother's life is under threat. mental health is not a justification for killing unborn human beings. there is another, a human being which is unborn. it is entitled to the right to life because it's a human being and we prohibit the killing of all other human beings except in extreme circumstances. no free choice or well being or rights are being curtailed by preventing the killing of unborn human beings for social and lifestyle and convenience reasons, for which i am satisfied are the reasons for most abortions.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Except it is not a human being in anything but taxonomy. It is a fetus. A biological machine that is building a person. It is not a person. You have said as much yourself in the past when you said yourself it is BECOMING a person. Because you can not be X and be becoming X at the same time. You are either X or not X. So you have not answered the question I asked, but one of your own invention. Upon what basis do we afford rights to a completely.... COMPLETELY.... non-sentient agent? And on what basis do we presume to do so in a way that curtails the rights, well being, and free choice of an ACTUAL sentient agent? Further you just asserted as fact that it is entitled to a right to life. Where is this written, or is it just your opinion? And no rights, well being, or free choice is being curtailed by killing a fetus either. Is has no well being, as it is ENTIRELY non-sentient. It has no free choice at all, or the capacity for it, for the same reason. And you have demonstrably, even when DIRECTLY asked like I just did in the post above, failed to provide a single argument as to why it should have rights. A failure that is at the very core, I believe, of why you failed the referendum and failed it massively.
end of the road wrote: » i'm not going to get into that whole debate again as i've done it already.
end of the road wrote: » mental harm can be treated with the appropriate treatment in relation to mental health. if there is a risk of serious and permanent physical harm then that would come under the same rules which allow abortion where the mother's life is under threat. mental health is not a justification for killing unborn human beings. .
end of the road wrote: » a fetus is a human being. the term fetus i believe means baby or child
King Mob wrote: » Getting into a debate requires engaging with points and answer questions. You have run away from every difficult question put to you. You are doing so in that post above. You do every time you butt in on my posts, then ignore them when I ask you follow up questions. You do not get into any debates at all. You declare your points, then stick your fingers in your ears, close your eyes and pretend you aren't just embarrassing yourself and the entire anti-abortion side.
end of the road wrote: » mental harm can be treated with the appropriate treatment in relation to mental health. if there is a risk of serious and permanent physical harm then that would come under the same rules which allow abortion where the mother's life is under threat. mental health is not a justification for killing unborn human beings.
end of the road wrote: » a fetus is a human being. the term fetus i believe means baby or child either in greek or italian. it is not a term which came to be in the aim of trying to deny humanity to the unborn.
end of the road wrote: » the right to life
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Nothing new here. And no you have not "done it already". You simply never have answered this direct challenge. I doubt you EVER will. You. Just. Can't.
Odhinn wrote: » So its "screw you, woman" and make her have the baby because you don't take mental health seriously.
SusieBlue wrote: » Mentalhealth is EQUALLY as important as physical health.
SusieBlue wrote: » You may choose to hold no importance or care in your own mental health, which I have no problem with, but you don't get to dismiss and disregard other peoples struggles.
SusieBlue wrote: » All your posts are all about you, your feelings, your thoughts and opinions, your personal take on the predicament. But that's all relative to you. You are so self centered you can't see beyond the end of your nose. Nothing of the woman, nothing of her circumstances or struggles, just I, I, I, I, over and over again. Repeated concern for the embryo with none at all for the living woman in which it grows. Your opinions won't lessen the burden of an unwanted pregnancy, they won't help mental health issues, they won't cure an FFA, they won't love and financially support a child. Your thoughts and opinions are of NO value and NO help to a woman in the midst of a crisis. What she needs is support without judgment and options. That's what she needs. The sooner you stop making this all about you, the bigger the chance that you might be able to find a bit of compassion deep down and maybe see this is a bigger issue than being just about YOU.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » The issue is one can not "deny" what is not there. You are just pretending "humanity" and then acting like others are removing it. You have done nothing except appeals to taxonmy to assign that attribute. You are simply begging the question. I ask you twice now on what basis you think it has rights, and twice you just basically answer me that it has rights. Like here... .... after I ask you on what basis it has any rights, you just go on asserting that it has this one. Thus, as ever, refusing to answer the question ACTUALLY asked of you and going off on an (at best) tangential diatribe that dodges it. Nothing new here. And no you have not "done it already". You simply never have answered this direct challenge. I doubt you EVER will. You. Just. Can't.
end of the road wrote: » i haven't dismissed or disregarded anything.
end of the road wrote: » i take mental health very seriously. it is very important that all of us look after our mental health. however i cannot and will not agree that it is okay to specifically and deliberately kill an unborn human being in the aim of treating mental health when mental health can be treated without doing so. ...............
end of the road wrote: » humanity is there.
end of the road wrote: » humanity isn't simply having 2 legs, walking and talking etc. humanity is simply being of the human race.
end of the road wrote: » at the main stage where it is on the way to developing personhood.
end of the road wrote: » there is plenty of concern for both mother and baby hence my opposition to abortion on demand. she has plenty of options without resorting to killing her unborn child when there is no serious medical reason to do so. where there is such a serious medical reason then that is a different story and such a situation is not one where i have opposition to an abortion being carried out. the issue is about in most cases, the killing of unborn healthy human beings for what are in reality trivial reasons.
splinter65 wrote: » You do realise that in the 46 years since Roe vs Wade that the protests and objections arguments have never ceased? And this is replicated all over the civilized world?
splinter65 wrote: » but I voted no, I’m not even Irish
tretorn wrote: » On the other hand children with Downs Syndrome cost an awful lot in State resources and their numbers will drop to one in ten being born within five years so huge savings will be made there.
tretorn wrote: » Society will be a lot better off those without the children of these scrotes, that is an undeniable fact.
tretorn wrote: » Economically speaking abortion will be great for our finances.
King Mob wrote: » So again, because none of you guys answered the very direct question:Why would the doctors be unwilling to name themselves as refusing to offer abortion services? By arguing that they should be allowed to remain anonymous, you are offering them protection from protests and interfering with people's rights to protest these people.
King Mob wrote: » Except questions you find inconvenient. Please go back and address my post please. Or simply say that you will not and explain why.https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109125819&postcount=9183
Bredabe wrote: » Terrified old ppl scared of the ppl standing outside of their dr's offices in two counties and at least one other dr's offices disrupted for days due to callers on a loop objecting to the clinic being on 'my options'. Not one of these ppl I mention have anything to do with the clinic's decision but still negatively impacted by these actions. Not the riots in Venezuela as you say but still impacting on ppl who should not be involved in this at all. Just because YOU dont think its scary doesn't mean it isn't.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » It really isn't. America is very much an outlier and has a vast number of religious nutcases. In most of the rest of the world, abortion is not controversial. BTW your constitutional right to protest is constrained by law. You can't protest wherever you want, whenever you want, and in whatever way you want. There is no suggestion from any credible source that I have seen which even suggests Harris's proposed law might be unconstitutional, and he will have taken the advice of the attorney general in this regard. Only Irish citizens are allowed to vote in referendums So, did you vote illegally?
tretorn wrote: » Where is your right to engage in peaceful assembly constrained by law, case law please. The Constitution specifically states citizens have the right to peaceful assembly and in order to amend this right another referendum will have to be called. Any new laws introduced cannot conflict with fundamental constitutional rights. The Gardai can do nothing about peaceful assemblies except sit on their bikes looking on.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w8.vanillicon.com/v2/867a9f20e705add43a3ada2e4f4480cc.svg)
