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 the Fourth

robindch

...continuing on from previous threads on abortion (abortion part 1, part 2 and part 3).

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

.......

recedite wrote: »

Just to be clear, the statements

and here...

.. DO NOT add up to a denial that EOTR ever used the word murder.

They are perfectly reasonable statements, and I would expect nothing less from anyone posting from a pro-life perspective.

They add up to a denial that EOTR ever said abortion is murder.

Why are you nit picking this to death?

Its quite clear what EOTR does. We dont need yet another exhaustive nit pick of it.

He claimed he never said abortion is murder then he was shown 15 posts where he said just that. Thats it - its that simple.

[Deleted User]

recedite wrote: »

Yes, you're right, I fell for the sneaky sophistry there. But the implication is still clear.

What sophistry?

Any implication, is purely your opinion, I'm asking you why you spend so much time arguing against your own stated position?

Timberrrrrrrr

recedite wrote: »

As pointed out, after hours has a completely different forum charter. That's the whole point of it.
Not only that, but it is considered very poor form to hound a poster on one forum with quotes taken from another forum.

And yet EOTR never posted in that thread again after being told to provide evidence. Why do you think that was?

However, on this forum, calling someone a liar is a very clear breach of the forum charter.

The evidence is there for all to see.

And for the record, i didn't call anyone a liar.

Hotblack Desiato

recedite wrote: »

And we did exactly the same recently. The abortion referendum was specifically a vote to remove the right to life of the unborn (which they had previously enjoyed) and which effectively re-categorised them as subhuman.

We did not do exactly the same, at all.

The right to life of the "unborn" did not exist in our constitution until 1983.

The full range of human rights apply to al human beings. The zygote, foetus or embryo did not enjoy any human rights under the 8th amendment except for a qualified right to life (equal right to life of the mother, X case decision, 13th and 14th amendments.) It was already sub-human under the 8th amendment.

"Murder" can be thought of as something strictly technical and connected to local laws and the mood of the times. Or it can be thought of in some higher plane, connected with morality and ethics, and not restricted by the local mood or times.

The nearest thing we have to that is the universal declaration of human rights, which does not prohibit abortion.

You seem to be claiming that some sort of absolute morality exists, where is this to come from? This is a frankly bizarre claim for a non-theist to make.

volchitsa

recedite wrote: »

That's an honest answer.
And we did exactly the same recently. The abortion referendum was specifically a vote to remove the right to life of the unborn (which they had previously enjoyed) and which effectively re-categorised them as subhuman.

This has already been shot down so I won't repeat why it's wrong.

recedite wrote: »

You have addressed it honestly, but I don't think you have refuted it. And BTW don't bother searching for links on nazi era Germany- that is not really the point.

Indeed it isn't, and yet you brought it in as a point of comparison, so you can't now complain when people point out the flaws in your argument.

recedite wrote: »

There is a general point of principle here. "Murder" can be thought of as something strictly technical and connected to local laws and the mood of the times. Or it can be thought of in some higher plane, connected with morality and ethics, and not restricted by the local mood or times.

Indeed. Which is why when someone says abortion is murder but insists that they don't want the women committing these murders to be punished - or even to be physically stopped from committing them, just to have a finger wagged at them for being very naughty girls, one has to wonder whether they understand what the word murder actually means.

recedite

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It's not murder because you cannot murder that which has not been born yet.

Can't discuss this anymore. You may not have noticed, but the M word has been banned. Check the newly updated forum charter.

Bannasidhe

recedite wrote: »

Can't discuss this anymore. You may not have noticed, but the M word has been banned. Check the newly updated forum charter.

My understanding is that it's still a draft updated charter but I am quite happy not to use that word in connection to abortion as it is not applicable in the first place.

Turtwig

I want to emphasise a word here:

i know i and most no voters on here have never said all abortion is murder

EOTR stated he did not believe that all abortion is murder. Indeed, even in Catholicism there are times when abortion is acceptable. Ectopic pregancies for one.

However, in the instances where abortion is morally questionable to his/her view of ethics it's considered murder. This isn't a morally inconsistent opinion. It's one I heavily disagree with but if you consider a foetus the same as an adult person then it's not that much of a leap to suggest killing one is the equivalent of killing the other.

amcalester

Turtwig wrote: »

I want to emphasise a word here:

EOTR stated he did not believe that all abortion is murder. Indeed, even in Catholicism there are times when abortion is acceptable. Ectopic pregancies for one.

However, in the instances where abortion is morally questionable to his/her view of ethics it's considered murder. This isn't a morally inconsistent opinion. It's one I heavily disagree with but if you consider a foetus the same as an adult person then it's not that much of a leap to suggest killing one is the equivalent of killing the other.

Actually, he stated he never said all abortion is murder not that he didn't believe all abortion is murder.

There is a subtle difference because the former implies that in his previous posts there was some qualifier while the later is clear that there are cases where abortion is not murder.

But if you look at his statements no such qualifier exists.

Just this post alone is clear and concise, there is no ambiguity to his position.

end of the road wrote: »

it's an unborn baby and is murder.

So, maybe end o can explain how we are meant to interpret the above post and reconcile it back to his later post where he claimed to never have said all abortion is murder.

And, just to head this argument off at the pass, I'm aware the post doesn't contain the word ALL, but nor does it contain a limiter like most, many, majority etc.

volchitsa

Turtwig wrote: »

I want to emphasise a word here:

EOTR stated he did not believe that all abortion is murder. Indeed, even in Catholicism there are times when abortion is acceptable. Ectopic pregancies for one.

However, in the instances where abortion is morally questionable to his/her view of ethics it's considered murder. This isn't a morally inconsistent opinion. It's one I heavily disagree with but if you consider a foetus the same as an adult person then it's not that much of a leap to suggest killing one is the equivalent of killing the other.

It doesn't have to be, but in practice it is when you look at current prolife (stated) views.

An example : child sex abuse is still child sex abuse when westerners travel to poor countries to abuse children there, even if their laws have a much lower age of consent. Reports of child marriage for instance talk about children in Yemen etc being married but in Yemen that's perfectly legal. Why try to stop Yemeni children being married in Yemen but not object to Irish abortions in England?

Yet Irish prolifers (allegedly) don't even want to stop Irish women from travelling for abortions in the first place.

Compare that to the uproar when Ali Selim used the 8th amendment travel exception to suggest that Muslim families would be allowed to travel abroad to have FGM for their daughters. IIRC he even had to withdraw the comment.

Borders don't make a difference when something is genuinely perceived as a crime, whether or not it's legal in that country.

So no, when looked at in context, it's clear that prolifers are not being frank and open about their claim to believe that abortion can ever be murder. They don't like it, sure, but they either don't really think it's murder, or they're not telling the truth about what they would really like to see happen to women who have abortions.

Cabaal

I find it amusing for all the debate, EOTR seems incapable of posting himself.
Instead he's relying on recedite to post for them and thanking posts like there's no tomorrow, its like a school yard thing and is fairly tragic.

I'm sure end of the road is well capable of using a keyboard and explaining what he did or did not mean.

We're all adults I assume and well capable of speaking for ourselves?

robindch

Folks - I believe we're all agreed that the use of the word "murder" in the context of abortion generates more heat than light and does not lead to civil discussion.

Future posts which use, or refer, to the word in the disjunctive context in which it's been used of late will be deleted and the posters who post them may be carded or banned.

Mark Hamill

Turtwig wrote: »

I want to emphasise a word here:

EOTR stated he did not believe that all abortion is murder. Indeed, even in Catholicism there are times when abortion is acceptable. Ectopic pregancies for one.

However, in the instances where abortion is morally questionable to his/her view of ethics it's considered murder. This isn't a morally inconsistent opinion. It's one I heavily disagree with but if you consider a foetus the same as an adult person then it's not that much of a leap to suggest killing one is the equivalent of killing the other.

Leaving aside the semantic arguments to the other posters taking them on, the problem actually is that EOTR made that claim very nearly a year ago, was called out on it the same day, but never once defend themselves with your argument here. Or any argument at all. If they had done that, then the discussion could have continued, maybe over semantic points but continue none the less.

recedite

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Leaving aside the semantic arguments to the other posters taking them on, the problem actually is that EOTR made that claim very nearly a year ago, was called out on it the same day, but never once defend themselves with your argument here. Or any argument at all. If they had done that, then the discussion could have continued, maybe over semantic points but continue none the less.

But the discussion did continue. Because in the after hours forum, posting controversial and/or unsupported opinions is the norm.

And then other people can either respond or ignore the comment, but they move on immediately.

Mark Hamill

recedite wrote: »

But the discussion did continue. Because in the after hours forum, posting controversial and/or unsupported opinions is the norm.

And then other people can either respond or ignore the comment, but they move on immediately.

Except it didn't continue, because as a quick thread search shows, EOTR never posted in that thread again. There was never a discussion involving EOTR about that claim. Not in AH, or in even this thread, despite him continuing to read the AH thread (as evidence by him still thanking posts) and continuing to post here.

recedite

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Except it didn't continue, because as a quick thread search shows, EOTR never posted in that thread again. There was never a discussion involving EOTR about that claim. Not in AH, or in even this thread, despite him continuing to read the AH thread (as evidence by him still thanking posts) and continuing to post here.

It makes no difference whether or not EOTR ever posted there again. The discussion continued.
Why are you getting upset over it now, in a different forum, a year later?

Timberrrrrrrr

recedite wrote: »

It makes no difference whether or not EOTR ever posted there again. The discussion continued.
Why are you getting upset over it now, in a different forum, a year later?

EOTR nevwr posted there because EOTR was told not to post until they could provide evidence for their claims. Now why do you think EOTR never posted there after that mod note was posted?

No one is getting "upset" over anything, all anyone is asking is that if EOTR or others continue to post opinion as fact then (just like thenother abortion threads) they should be told to post evidence for their claims or at least ensure that they state this is their opinion and not fact!

Do you think it would be ok for me to go to the Christianity forum and state as fact there is no God? Or the cycling forum and claim 100% of cyclists break the rules of the road and just expect to get away with those claims?

recedite

Sometimes an opinion is just an opinion. Does EOTR claim that his opinion is an accepted fact?

amcalester

recedite wrote: »

Sometimes an opinion is just an opinion.

Not when presented as fact.

recedite

amcalester wrote: »

Not when presented as fact.

Well, we can no longer discuss the M word in detail, but we covered various interpretations of it, quite extensively, just a few pages back.

amcalester

recedite wrote: »

Well, we can no longer discuss the M word in detail, but we covered various interpretations of it, quite extensively, just a few pages back.

It’s a regular tactic from certain posters, the murder example was just that, an example.

recedite

amcalester wrote: »

It’s a regular tactic from certain posters, the murder example was just that, an example.

Kinda ironic, posting that claim without any evidence to support it.

Anyway as already pointed out to you, those things have always been against the charter and have always been dealt with accordingly where and when they actually happen.

Kidchameleon

What would be the correct term to use in a situation where abortion pills are ground up, put into a pregnant (8+ months) woman's tea, her drinking said tea & leading to the death of the fetus?

volchitsa

Kidchameleon wrote: »

What would be the correct term to use in a situation where abortion pills are ground up, put into a pregnant (8+ months) woman's tea, her drinking said tea & leading to the death of the fetus?

It's an assault on the woman for one thing. And I don't know that it could be done at 8 months+ because the abortion pill doesn't really work by the end of the first trimester. So the amount required to end a late pregnancy would almost certainly be toxic for the woman.

However I believe in England the term for the crime of killing someone else's fetus by any means is "child destruction" and that may well require the fetus to be viable or nearly so.
I don't know what the equivalent is in Irish law.

EDIT:
I checked this out, and the situation is that in England a woman can actually be found guilty of the destruction of her own fetus after 24 weeks because she's entitled to end her pregnancy only up to that date, and abortion is still technically illegal there outside of that time. But before that, she can't, though someone else could. Like you can't be arrested for assaulting yourself.

Now. What's your point exactly?

Kidchameleon

I wonder if it is a form of the "m" word. I know there was a case in the USA where a guy got 10 years for dissolving abortion pills in his partners coffee. his charge was "conspiracy to commit first degree murder". The fetus died as a result of his actions.

https://www.hayspost.com/2016/02/18/bollig-sentenced-to-almost-10-years-for-conspiracy-to-commit-first-degree-murder/

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwio3MCqtoLiAhWQQRUIHTQCCHsQFjAAegQIABAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcaselaw.findlaw.com%2Fks-court-of-appeals%2F1894689.html&usg=AOvVaw0d3jVjmOhi2I-odBIoxJXR

The term "foeticide" is interesting. Having an abortion is not considered foetcide but slipping abortion pills is....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foeticide

aloyisious

Kidchameleon wrote: »

What would be the correct term to use in a situation where abortion pills are ground up, put into a pregnant (8+ months) woman's tea, her drinking said tea & leading to the death of the fetus?

Are we asking a multiple-person question here, or is there a single person behind the three separate actions described in your post?

Edit: question answered in last post. The pregnant woman seems to have been absolved of involvement in the production of the abortion by means of legal trial - ipso facto, not a case of a pregnant woman inducing an abortion at a personal level.

Kidchameleon

volchitsa wrote: »

Now. What's your point exactly?

I am wondering if there is any case where an abortion could be considered "the m word"

amcalester

recedite wrote: »

Kinda ironic, posting that claim without any evidence to support it.

Anyway as already pointed out to you, those things have always been against the charter and have always been dealt with accordingly where and when they actually happen.

Fair point. Here is end o stating an opinion as fact. I’ve also included the post he was replying to.

It’s worth noting that he has also stated he is not a protester, so how can he claim their intentions are 100% honest. He may think it, and is entitled to think that, but he can’t know that for a fact, yet makes the claim.

eviltwin wrote: »

Your right. No one can stop you protesting outside a hospital or doctors office if you want. But don't be disingenuous about it. Be honest about the true intention, you don't give a damn about women -what woman in crisis would go anywhere near a person waving a prolife placard - your intention is to shame women, scare them and intimidate medical staff in the naive hope they will stop providing abortions.

end of the road wrote: »

the protesters are 100% honest about their intention.their intention is not as you claim.

[Deleted User]

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I am wondering if there is any case where an abortion could be considered "the m word"

The examples your giving aren't abortion. So no.

Igotadose

Recent report out of Westminster trashing Northern Ireland's grotesque (their words) abortion laws.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/apr/25/northern-ireland-abortion-laws-westminster-dup-women

The law in Northern Ireland criminalizing abortion is from the 1860's. 66% of Northern Ireland favors decriminalization, and politicians in Westminster are agitating to make changes whether there's an assembly or not. Not sure how that works. Friends in the various pro-choice groups I know in Ireland are trying to do 'something' about the laws in NI, but no assembly makes it impossible. As does the DUP, of course.

A 12-year old girl had to travel under police escort to the UK from NI for an abortion. She was a rape victim. The cruelty of the pro-birth types knows no bounds. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/northern-ireland-girl-rape-victim-abortion-england-travel-police-escort-age-12-a8750016.html