Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Abortion Discussion, Part the Fourth

1181921232460

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,482 ✭✭✭Kidchameleon


    Yes that was my error. I meant 639 the post directly after it. My bad. But at the same time you should have been able to spot that minor error yourself if you had cared to. 639 was a large post, hard to miss, but you ignored it in it's entirety. Then and now.
    Oh bull. The lack of a question mark does not reduce it from being a two way conversation. A conversation you ignored and dropped out of entirely by ignoring just about everything in the post. Then and now.

    Not everyone's browser renders this site the same way. What might be the next post for you may be the next page for me so please dont make assumptions. Its not really fair to accuse me of ignoring you considering I have directly asked you what questions you would like me to answer and then, to the best of my knowledge, answered them.

    Response to post 639:

    Well firstly, I thanked that post so I most certainly did not ignore it. It is very very unfair on your part to continually accuse me of ignoring you. That being said, at this stage I feel I have pretty much covered everything in that post with a response but I will clarify one thing. In my opinion, a fertilized egg is a form of human. A fetus is a form of human. I am not saying they are sentient humans, I am simply saying that they are somewhere on the scale of humanity.
    Not so at all. There is no evidence for this. Could you substantiate this claim please? Maybe with an introduction defining what you think "sentient" means in this context. Clue: It has nothing to do with viability.

    Sentience to me means having self awareness. If you have ever met a 24 week old baby you would not doubt that they are sentient. There is a reason that medical staff encourage parents to touch & hold premature babies, to be near them, because the babies need to feel it.
    YOU cited this video and I think you further eroded your own credibility by doing so given how dishonest and distortion based the speakers points were. I would, as should you with even the minimum application of self awareness, be mightily embarrassed to have been seen to cite such a crock of guff and dishonesty.

    If you find you are not embarrassed to have done so, I can only prescribe a serious and very elongated bout of introspection on the matter.

    As I have said twice now, I do not speak for Ben Shapiro, I do not follow him. I have no problem with him other than his annoying voice. I am not embarrassed for sharing the video. I have already stated that I do not agree with much of what he said in the video. It was a response to a poster who claimed he was against abortion because he is Jewish, nothing more.
    Nor, I trust you will note, did I claim you did. So I am not sure what this statement is for other than filler.

    You implied it:
    Further however, we can not assume that everyone seeking abortion is having an unplanned pregnancy.

    *****
    What I did say and do however was point out that while we are talking about the efficacy rates of contraception.... it also pays to remember that that is only part of the big picture. Many people seeking abortion are doing so despite having a PLANNED pregnancy. And we should not lose sight of that while discussing unplanned ones.

    I certainly will not avoid answering. I think you are only maintaining the narrative that people will avoid answering by only targeting the users you already believe will. Without discussing it with the ones who have not yet dodged one of your questions EVER. Such as me.

    My position on it is quite clear. The moment the fetus reaches a stage of development at which we have any reason to believe it has become a sentient agent, then it has rights. And the mother no longer has the right to kill it. I would certainly therefore deny her that right.

    What I would allow for however is for her not to have to carry the entire pregnancy. The moment we have reason to believe we can terminate the pregnancy and maintain the life of the child.... we should do so at her request.

    See? Not so hard to answer now was it? You can now openly and honestly and loudly retract your claim we will avoid answering you.



    I am comfortable with 12, 16, even 20 weeks. At 24 weeks it starts to get grey. Actually we have good reason to STILL think the fetus has not attained sentience at that point but I am less inclined to stand by it as a scientific fact. So I would certainly start to get uncomfortable around then. But neither would I lose sleep if I woke up in an Ireland with 24 week abortion tomorrow.

    Thankfully however the near totality of choice based abortion ALWAYS happens.... we are talking 95-98% of the time..... in or before week 16. Actually over 90% in or before week 12. And this statistic appears to hold true in countries with NO legal abortion, in countries with 24 week legal abortion, or in countries like Canada with no theoretical limits on abortion.

    So in THAT light I would not really legislate for 24 weeks as it is pretty much not required except for some rare outlier cases which we could legislate for separately, if at all.

    Some great food for thought there thank you. Personally, where I am at the moment is I could not deny an abortion to a rape victim, regardless of how long it takes her to come to terms with the trauma and make a decision. I would imagine it is the most horrific experience a human can go through. I dont believe her genetic legacy should be tied to her rapist if she is against it & she should get the final say in that, not the state, in my opinion. It is unfortunate that the child/fetus may need to suffer but rape really is a heinous crime with disastrous consequences for many, not least the victim, in my opinion. The fallout it the fault of the evil perpetrator.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,482 ✭✭✭Kidchameleon


    aloyisious wrote: »
    The couple who are involved in the NMH medical mishap are waiting to see who will be running the review of what happened, and its terms and conditions before deciding on what they will do, according to their solicitor. With a lawyer representing them, its entered the legal arena with attendant risks for commentators so I'll be staying away from commenting on that case for now.

    Hopefully none of the HSE staff will be found guilty of negligence, they are a dedicated lot with so much on their plates. They do such amazing work. At the end of the day, there is no real loss for the couple, they can simply try again.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,482 ✭✭✭Kidchameleon


    DubInMeath wrote: »
    Your starting to contradict yourself a bit here, you apparently known a person who was born at 24 weeks and is a healthy youngster. You spent some time arguing the point with a poster where you infer that the survival rate was higher.

    If you have read the exchanges between myself and that poster you will see that I know full well what the survival rate is of premature births of 24 weeks - it is circa 35%. Pretty good odds in my opinion. Perhaps not good odds in yours but we dont have to agree on that. If I were to define viability as a term, I would say that is is a favorable assessment but does not imply guarantees.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    Whistle blowers by definition will break the law to bring information to public attention.
    It's a case of serving the greater good.
    How else can things be changed for the better

    Private citizens medical notes & records have no place in the public domain.
    Any civil servant who breaches confidentiality should be punished to the fullest extent of the law, hopefully imprisoned to deter future vigilantes.

    What you are suggesting is unacceptable and a serious breach to patient privacy. I doubt you’d be so in favour if it was your own private matters being discussed in a public domain.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,420 ✭✭✭splinter65


    SusieBlue wrote: »
    It’s not my opinion, it’s a fact. You endlessly insisting otherwise is shameful to the memory of that woman. How dare you.

    Mrs Halepeenaver died of sepsis due to neglect 4 days after miscarrying. That’s what the autopsy report says. I’m not endlessly insisting anything. I’m not saying anything to be ashamed of and your outraged “how dare you” falls on deaf ears.
    What’s actually shameful is how the pro abortion lobby have hauled and continue to haul Mrs Halapanaveer around the media to be used in this way. That really is shameful.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Calina


    splinter65 wrote: »
    Mrs Halepeenaver died of sepsis due to neglect 4 days after miscarrying. That’s what the autopsy report says. I’m not endlessly insisting anything. I’m not saying anything to be ashamed of and your outraged “how dare you” falls on deaf ears.
    What’s actually shameful is how the pro abortion lobby have hauled and continue to haul Mrs Halapanaveer around the media to be used in this way. That really is shameful.

    She requested a termination. We would not be here discussing her if she had been given one.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,420 ✭✭✭splinter65


    SusieBlue wrote: »
    Private citizens medical notes & records have no place in the public domain.
    Any civil servant who breaches confidentiality should be punished to the fullest extent of the law, hopefully imprisoned to deter future vigilantes.

    What you are suggesting is unacceptable and a serious breach to patient privacy. I doubt you’d be so in favour if it was your own private matters being discussed in a public domain.

    But you had no problem dragging Mrs Halapanaveers records out into the public over and over in order to use them to get your abortion on demand agenda over the line. The hypocrisy here is ripe.


  • Posts: 5,917 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    If you have read the exchanges between myself and that poster you will see that I know full well what the survival rate is of premature births of 24 weeks - it is circa 35%. Pretty good odds in my opinion. Perhaps not good odds in yours but we dont have to agree on that. If I were to define viability as a term, I would say that is is a favorable assessment but does not imply guarantees.

    It's 20 to 35% chance of survival, but increased risk of health issues later in life with a shorter overall life expectancy.

    Not great odds in my opinion.


  • Posts: 5,917 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    splinter65 wrote: »
    But you had no problem dragging Mrs Halapanaveers records out into the public over and over in order to use them to get your abortion on demand agenda over the line. The hypocrisy here is ripe.

    Nope your being hypocritical, the report was a public one and was in relation to the cause of her death. The public was not provided with her medical records.


  • Posts: 5,917 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    splinter65 wrote: »
    Mrs Halepeenaver died of sepsis due to neglect 4 days after miscarrying. That’s what the autopsy report says. I’m not endlessly insisting anything. I’m not saying anything to be ashamed of and your outraged “how dare you” falls on deaf ears.
    What’s actually shameful is how the pro abortion lobby have hauled and continue to haul Mrs Halapanaveer around the media to be used in this way. That really is shameful.

    It's pretty shameful how you and most of the anti choice side deny the fact she would be alive if she was granted an abortion.
    But hey don't let the truth get in the way.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    splinter65 wrote: »
    Mrs Halepeenaver died of sepsis due to neglect 4 days after miscarrying. That’s what the autopsy report says. I’m not endlessly insisting anything. I’m not saying anything to be ashamed of and your outraged “how dare you” falls on deaf ears.
    What’s actually shameful is how the pro abortion lobby have hauled and continue to haul Mrs Halapanaveer around the media to be used in this way. That really is shameful.

    She would be here if she had been given an abortion.
    The negligence could never have happened and the sepsis couldn’t have developed and she wouldn’t have died.

    At the very least she wouldn’t have spent a whole week in hospital, suffering in pain and grieving while her baby slowly died inside her. Deny it all you want but it’s the truth.

    If you have an issue with the media & others highlighting how our barbarian law caused her death perhaps you should take it up with her father & husband who both supported the Repeal movement & wanted Savitas unnecessary death to be remembered for what it was.

    splinter65 wrote: »
    But you had no problem dragging Mrs Halapanaveers records out into the public over and over in order to use them to get your abortion on demand agenda over the line. The hypocrisy here is ripe.

    Public record, public knowledge, and public reports all already in the public domain.
    Not quite the same as hacking into someone’s medical files and publishing them.
    Don’t let that stop your hyperbolic faux outrage though.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,795 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    splinter65 wrote: »
    The hypocrisy here is ripe.
    DubInMeath wrote: »
    Nope your being hypocritical

    Mod: While this is an emotive topic, please remember to attack the post and not the poster.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    splinter65 wrote: »
    But you had no problem dragging Mrs Halapanaveers records out into the public over and over in order to use them to get your abortion on demand agenda over the line. The hypocrisy here is ripe.

    Savita halappanavar's next of kin went public.
    Her parent's issued an appeal for the 8th to be repealed.
    The details of her case were a matter of public record - I believe, but open to correction, at her husband's insistence.

    That is absolutely not the same thing as a civil servant sneakily accessing a patient's confidential details and making details available to third parties without either the prior knowledge or consent of the living individual.

    Here are two examples of that apparently happening;
    The HSE is to investigate whether a patient’s confidentiality was breached after a “despicable” social media post was followed by an anti-abortion protest outside a hospital.

    On Sunday Raymond Kinsella, a former professor at University College Dublin, tweeted that Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital in Drogheda was scheduled to carry out its first termination yesterday morning. “Please pray hard that the #mother will recognise the #baby as a gift from God,” he added.

    Seven demonstrators were outside the hospital yesterday holding placards that read “Warning: killing in progress” and “Abortion is murder”.

    Simon Harris, the health minister, said that he had discussed the matter with the HSE interim director-general, who shared his view that abortion was lawful and that patients deserved respect and were entitled…
    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/patient-data-leak-alerts-abortion-protesters-drf59rzk5
    The allegation claims a woman who had an abortion this week was sent home following a scan and told no further scans were needed.

    It alleges the woman received a call from a mobile number from a man who knew her name and address, and said she would need to undergo a follow-up scan. This call was allegedly followed by a text giving directions to a premises on the northside of Dublin.

    The woman claims that following a call to the hospital, which knew nothing of the appointment, she called the number again and was subjected to verbal abuse for having an abortion.

    The woman says she does not know how those behind the call obtained her personal details and said she was sharing the allegation as a warning to other women.
    https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/details-allegedly-leaked-of-woman-who-had-abortion-901597.html


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    Just came across this heatbreaking video from Louisville, Kentucky of a woman being guided into a clinic under protection with a coat over her head to hide her identity, while ‘peaceful’ protestors try to obstruct her path & shout at her.

    I’m very curious as to whether anyone here, particularly EOTR, thinks this is acceptable. Is this the kind of ‘peaceful protest’ they’d like to see outside our own doctors offices?

    Or can we all agree that this is a shameful attack of intimidation on a frightened woman who is just trying to go about her private business without interference?

    I feel so, so sorry for her.
    Bravo to the clinic assistants who protected her, more compassionate people like that are needed.
    I hope we never see the likes of this here.

    https://www.facebook.com/100001985828913/posts/2203693379706835?s=1543554142&sfns=mo


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,421 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Alabama’s governor, one Kay Ivey, signed the state’s hardline antiabortion bill into law on Wednesday. This evening, Alabama plans to execute Michael Samra, the seventh person to be executed by Alabama since Ivey took over just over two years ago.

    https://www.latimes.com/opinion/enterthefray/la-ol-alabama-abortion-death-penalty-20190516-story.html

    Ivey’s tweet announcing the antiabortion law claimed that every Alabamian believes deeply “that every life is precious & that every life is a sacred gift from God.”

    https://twitter.com/GovernorKayIvey/status/1128781312750432262


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,598 ✭✭✭robarmstrong


    “Every life is precious & every life is a sacred gift from god”

    - outlaws abortion and endorses capital punishment.

    You couldn’t make that up tbh. Pro-life if and when it suits or applies.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,482 ✭✭✭Kidchameleon


    SusieBlue wrote: »

    Thats sick. You will see that in Ireland unfortunately.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,789 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I believe every abortion is the killing of a child.

    Then you must see miscarriages as the death of a child, so why don't you believe that miscarriages should be investegated, like the sudden unexplained death of a born child would be?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,180 ✭✭✭Charles Ingles


    Then you must see miscarriages as the death of a child, so why don't you believe that miscarriages should be investegated, like the sudden unexplained death of a born child would be?

    Ok the fair enough let's do that so


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,795 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Thats sick. You will see that in Ireland unfortunately.

    I honestly don't think so. There isn't the same concentration of hard-line conservative religious loons in this country, nor would they be tolerated abusing pregnant women in public if there were. American society is far more polarised than Ireland in many respects. I honestly believe for all the horrors in our past, Ireland is a considerably more tolerant, egalitarian and inclusive society. The weather may be crap but the people by and large are decent. Purely my opinion that.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,795 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    SusieBlue wrote: »
    I hope we never see the likes of this here.

    I've seen similar, but less extreme, travelling with a friend to the UK in the late 80s, having had to deflect angry protesters. While it no doubt still goes to some extent, not many people in Northern Europe would either accept or tolerate this hateful nonsense in this day and age. I don't for a moment believe any of them give a damn about the lives of children. In my opinion it is all about power, repression and forcing their barbaric and anachronistic morality on others. Judging by recent referendum results, I don't think I'm alone here.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,482 ✭✭✭Kidchameleon


    smacl wrote: »
    I honestly don't think so. There isn't the same concentration of hard-line conservative religious loons in this country, nor would they be tolerated abusing pregnant women in public if there were. American society is far more polarised than Ireland in many respects. I honestly believe for all the horrors in our past, Ireland is a considerably more tolerant, egalitarian and inclusive society. The weather may be crap but the people by and large are decent. Purely my opinion that.

    I hope you are right, people dont need this crap. You may find this article interesting (and worrying) from earlier on this year:

    https://www.rte.ie/news/health/2019/0218/1031284-abortion-services/
    The National Women's Council of Ireland (NWCI) has called for the fast-tracking of legislation providing for exclusion zones around centres providing abortion services in Ireland.

    It comes after an investigation by the Times Ireland found that a US anti-abortion group was training people in Ireland to intercept women before they access abortion services to talk them out of it.

    Sidewalk Advocates for Life was the subject of an undercover investigation by the newspaper over a number of months.

    An undercover reporter received training material from the group, including videos and documents.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,795 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    I hope you are right, people dont need this crap. You may find this article interesting (and worrying) from earlier on this year:

    https://www.rte.ie/news/health/2019/0218/1031284-abortion-services/

    Yeah, I saw that at the time and think it came up on the thread here. Bloody yank God botherers invading our shores, maybe we could build a wall or some such .... ;)

    What it does show is that the more extreme elements here have to import the requisite loons from abroad to make up the numbers, it isn't really part of our national character. Again, purely opinion*, but I think even among conservative Catholics here there is a deep seated awareness of injustice and maltreatment of vulnerable and innocent women in the past and a corresponding desire that it will not happen again going forward.

    (* and also a number of conversations over a few drams with my very elderly, very religious, and surprisingly pragmatic mother in-law)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,482 ✭✭✭Kidchameleon


    I'm all for peoples right to protest and I would have huge reservations about banning people from exercising that right but the scenario like in the video Susieblue shared just could not be allowed to happen. I'm struggling to think of a solution that doesn't involve restricting peoples free speech. Exclusion zones could work but then like the article says, car parks etc would be staked out instead. Hopefully it doesn't come to that here of course.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    I'm all for peoples right to protest and I would have huge reservations about banning people from exercising that right but the scenario like in the video Susieblue shared just could not be allowed to happen. I'm struggling to think of a solution that doesn't involve restricting peoples free speech. Exclusion zones could work but then like the article says, car parks etc would be staked out instead. Hopefully it doesn't come to that here of course.

    I think there is a huge difference between protest and intimidation.
    Targeting private individuals about to do something that is legal is, I think, firmly in the latter camp.
    Free Speech doesn't extend to the right to bully which is what screaming abuse at women already in a difficult situation amounts to.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    I fully support the right to protest, but there is a time and place for it.
    Outside Dáil Éireann, local TD offices, O’Connell st. & equivalent etc are all fair game and reasonable.

    Standing outside maternity hospitals & GP clinics with graphic posters shouting about murder is not appropriate and not acceptable.
    Women/couples have a right to obtain medical care without obstruction or interference and protesting outside clinics allows just that.
    It’s just not an appropriate place to protest.

    If the goal is to spread awareness and actually appeal to those who can change our laws, then most pro-life people will agree places of public office & government are the best places to stage their protest.
    Insisting on protesting outside clinics & hospitals leads me to believe their goal is to intimidate, harass, interfere and obstruct.
    Which weakens their argument that they have good intentions.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,297 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    At the end of the day, there is no real loss for the couple, they can simply try again.

    Perhaps you should write a letter to the editors of our major dailies containing your above view/opinion for publication along with your name and address so the editors can naturally ascertain the sincerity of the letter's content.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    aloyisious wrote: »
    The couple who are involved in the NMH medical mishap are waiting to see who will be running the review of what happened, and its terms and conditions before deciding on what they will do, according to their solicitor. With a lawyer representing them, its entered the legal arena with attendant risks for commentators so I'll be staying away from commenting on that case for now.

    Hopefully none of the HSE staff will be found guilty of negligence, they are a dedicated lot with so much on their plates. They do such amazing work. At the end of the day, there is no real loss for the couple, they can simply try again.

    It is a loss for the couple. They didn't get what they chose for

    On the other hand they did chose to be guided by a test which is never going to be 100% accurate (whether the test itself or some clerical mix up)

    So in a sense they chose to play .. and lost. I'm sure somewhere in the small print there was some disclaimer to that effect. "The value of your investment may go down.." is something folk don't pay full attention to when they want the benefits.

    *I'm not intending any comment here on whether the couple didn't want the trouble grief of an FFA (one end of the spectrum) or didn't want their child to suffer ( the other end of the spectrum).


    -


    Btw: was there a reason to opt for an abortion on the basis of the '99% accurate' test. I heard on the radio that the child-to-be was much wanted.

    A chance in a 100 wouldn't be odds I'd opt for, for a much wanted baby, if I didn't have to opt for them


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,349 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    please dont make assumptions.

    The only assumption I made was that if something was not where a user said it was, that you might have the capability to have a TINY look around just in case. Apologies if I over estimated your willingness to engage openly here, as that was the only assumption inherent in that.
    Its not really fair to accuse me of ignoring you

    It is VERY fair given whole enormous posts got ignored and when you do deign to reply to a post you reply to a single sentence within it and ignore the rest. Not only is it fair therefore, it is 100% accurate and true. Demonstrably so if asked in fact. And hitting "thanks" on a post is not engaging with it, it is still ignoring it.

    However it is a matter of record now. Anyone here can go back to my posts, consider your responses (or lack of them) and decide themselves if you are engaging honestly with this discourse or not. There is no point going on the merry go around pointing out your behaviour any further. I shall drop it and discuss it no further.
    In my opinion, a fertilized egg is a form of human. A fetus is a form of human. I am not saying they are sentient humans, I am simply saying that they are somewhere on the scale of humanity.

    Which absolutely no one to my knowledge on this thread, least of all me, has denied. But consider just how vague a non-statement it is you are making there. By that description a Blob of Cancer is a "form of human" too. It has human DNA and is functioning to a cellular reproduction script of it's own. Further what does it even mean to be "Human" in the "a form of human" narrative you propose given the majority of your body mass as a human is not even human?

    What we are doing with the "form of human" narrative therefore is serving up another plate of red herring.

    The issue here is we have one word "human" for many very different things. And the discourse on abortion over the years has been clouded and harmed by people contriving quite transparently to shift seamlessly between those different meanings to the point of using some of those meanings in contexts where they simply do not apply.

    Let us merely use a small h and capital H. I believe the fetus and fertilised egg to be "human". I do not even remotely believe it to be "Human". And I can explain, when and if asked, the differences between the two at no small length.
    Sentience to me means having self awareness. If you have ever met a 24 week old baby you would not doubt that they are sentient.

    Now who is making assumptions? Real ones, not pretendy ones like you failed to call me out on above? Do not presume or assume to know who or what I have "met" or what "doubts" they did or did not instill in my in my time on this earth. You will be, and are, wrong.

    While I doubt, given the lack of evidence, you have ever met one yourself..... the "I just know it" narrative you use here is rather empty. Why would you have no "doubt" about it? Because it moves a bit? Responds to stimulus? Is human shaped? None of those are indicative of sentience. What it IS indicative of is your willingness to project your emotive responses to it at a conclusions you personally want to reach.
    There is a reason that medical staff encourage parents to touch & hold premature babies, to be near them, because the babies need to feel it.

    Do you have citations to the effect of why touch is encouraged or are you merely piling more assumption onto previous assumption in the hope one will validate the other? Please cite actual medical papers researching why touch is beneficial and encouraged in this regard, and on what basis.
    As I have said twice now, I do not speak for Ben Shapiro, I do not follow him.

    And as I have said also, and I am happy to repeat it in a circle as long as you are, endurance is never my weak point..... your credibility suffers if you support your positions by citing incredibly dishonest sources. If you cite a video that is REPLETE with lies, distortions, straw men, and dis-ingenuity that is going to reflect on you.

    And that currency payment is massively increased when you then say "I have no problem with him other than his annoying voice." as you are then openly saying you have NO problem with the lies and distortions he used. When you show someone who lies in a string of lies and then say the only thing you have a problem with is his voice you are DIRECTLY saying you have no problem with those lies.

    THAT is the bit you should be embarrassed about. That you are not..... speaks volumes here.
    You implied it:

    Nope. You would do well to ask me what my implications are rather than erroneously attempt to project yours onto me. I told you what my implications were. And I am happy to repeat them again:

    What I did say and do however was point out that while we are talking about the efficacy rates of contraception.... it also pays to remember that that is only part of the big picture. Many people seeking abortion are doing so despite having a PLANNED pregnancy. And we should not lose sight of that while discussing unplanned ones.
    Personally, where I am at the moment is I could not deny an abortion to a rape victim, regardless of how long it takes her to come to terms with the trauma and make a decision. I would imagine it is the most horrific experience a human can go through.

    I imagine that too. But I can not let that emotion over ride my conviction that a sentient agent either has rights or it does not. I do not believe it's rights are, or can be, or should be, forfeit due to the circumstances of it's creation. Nor do I believe it guilty or a crime it did not perpetuate. As uncomfortable as that may be to me, I need to maintain the courage of my convictions.

    Thankfully however the time between the cut off of moral abortion.... and the point when we can terminate a pregnancy without terminating the life..... is a small and ever shrinking one as our medical science evolves. So hopefully we are not far off a future where it is a non-point entirely. Hopefully we are close to a point where there is no time period between our ability to terminate a fetus and our ability to terminate a pregnancy.

    I have a lot of hope for our medical and ethical future. We appear to be making the right moves and choices in both. Very much including the referendum to allow abortion on our soil.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,349 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    I believe it should be used in extreme cases only. I believe every abortion is the killing of a child.

    And those errors mean YOU should never access such services. But until you can argue those things from mere belief into some level of substantiated facts..... are you not just soap boxing by merely saying those sentences over and over again without engaging in any discussion with the users who reply to them.

    On that note will you be replying to any of MY posts that you have thus far ignored, or should I be closing off those threads of conversation in my brain as complete?
    I also believe abortion on demand will just lead to abortion been seen as a form of birth control

    What else do you think abortion "controls" exactly? Body Weight?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    ..... are you not just soap boxing by merely saying those sentences over and over again without engaging in any discussion with the users who reply to them.

    Mod: As per the shiny new charter please refrain from, and I quote, referring " to each other, directly or indirectly, as "liars", "trolls", "bigots", "bullies", "soap-boxers" or any other terms which impute antisocial motives to other posters."

    Thanking you.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,482 ✭✭✭Kidchameleon


    @nozzferrahhtoo

    I wont quote you post because that becomes tiring, but I will try to respond to everything you said in some kind of narrative.

    Firstly I hope you can see that I am NOT ignoring you, the fact that I am going to such pains to respond to you should be evidence of this. Referring to the mis-quoted post, you asked for courtesy regarding your error, which I gave you, but you still have not shown courtesy to me regarding mine. Please stop accusing me of ignoring you.

    Regarding the scale of humanity, it seems you misinterpreted what I said or I did not explain it properly. Ill try to clarify... A "blob of cancer" in my opinion is not a form of humanity, and I dont believe I eluded to anything of the sort. A blob of cancer in my opinion is a byproduct, as is an unfertilized egg. In my opinion, a human egg fertilized with sperm is on a scale that ultimately leads to a human being, so I believe it is safe to say it is some form of a human.

    Regarding meeting a 24 week old baby. Firstly I did not assume you have ever met one. It is quite unlikely that anyone here has. I have not met one myself. My sister has met one and was encouraged to spend as much time with the child as possible, to touch and hold her as much as possible. These are trained medical professionals who know more about such things than you and I. I have never researched this topic before but I did some quick Googling just now. There seems to be plenty of studies that back up what my sister experienced, I have linked two such studies. I cannot find a study that indicates what age the babies were when born but I am guessing that the earlier they are born, the more important touch is to them...

    https://www.newscientist.com/article/2124885-premature-babies-brains-respond-differently-to-gentle-touching/

    https://www.biologicalpsychiatryjournal.com/article/S0006-3223(13)00764-6/fulltext
    These findings are the first to demonstrate long-term effects of early touch-based intervention on children’s physiologic organization and behavioral control and have salient implications for the care practices of premature infants. Results demonstrate the dynamic cascades of child physiological regulation and parental provisions in shaping developmental outcome and may inform the construction of more targeted early interventions.

    Regarding Ben Shapiro, I am not embarrassed for sharing that video. You keep saying I have "cited" it, could you define that term please? I shared that video because a poster here said his views on abortion were informed by his faith. I believe that video shows that his views on abortions are not just informed by his faith. I dont care if he lies, everyone should have free speech. You dont have to listen to him, you did not need to click on the video. Just ignore him if you dont like him. Perhaps you should be questioning him on his views and not me, who does not speak for him? I believe he regularly responds to people on twitter. Try that avenue (warning, you will get destroyed :)).

    Regarding the efficacy rates of contraception, just to clarify, I believe abortion should be available to anyone who wants it, regardless of weather they were, in my opinion, acting responsibly or not. It should be available, in my opinion, regardless of weather the pregnancy was planned or not.
    I imagine that too. But I can not let that emotion over ride my conviction that a sentient agent either has rights or it does not. I do not believe it's rights are, or can be, or should be, forfeit due to the circumstances of it's creation. Nor do I believe it guilty or a crime it did not perpetuate. As uncomfortable as that may be to me, I need to maintain the courage of my convictions.

    Thankfully however the time between the cut off of moral abortion.... and the point when we can terminate a pregnancy without terminating the life..... is a small and ever shrinking one as our medical science evolves. So hopefully we are not far off a future where it is a non-point entirely. Hopefully we are close to a point where there is no time period between our ability to terminate a fetus and our ability to terminate a pregnancy.

    I have a lot of hope for our medical and ethical future. We appear to be making the right moves and choices in both. Very much including the referendum to allow abortion on our soil.

    I respect your honesty here. It is a very difficult conundrum to think about. The issue for me is, even if the fetus has reached the stage of sentience, it is condemning the victim to a life of heartache to force her to give birth to her rapists child, in my opinion. The rapist has committed a horrific act of violence and it should be on him if the child dies, in my opinion.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,784 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    I respect your honesty here. It is a very difficult conundrum to think about. The issue for me is, even if the fetus has reached the stage of sentience, it is condemning the victim to a life of heartache to force her to give birth to her rapists child, in my opinion. The rapist has committed a horrific act of violence and it should be on him if the child dies, in my opinion.

    Does this only apply before the birth? What if she has already given birth and then decides some days or weeks later that she cannot bear to have this child in existence as a reminder of her rape? Is that still on the rapist if the child dies then?

    If not, what's the difference between a sentient fetus and a newborn child in your view?

    Reem Alsalem UNSR Violence Against Women and Girls: "Very concerned about statements by the IOC at Paris2024 (M)ultiple international treaties and national constitutions specifically refer to women & their fundamental rights, so the world (understands) what women -and men- are. (H)ow can one assess fairness and justice if we do not know who we are being fair and just to?"



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,482 ✭✭✭Kidchameleon


    volchitsa wrote: »
    Does this only apply before the birth? What if she has already given birth and then decides some days or weeks later that she cannot bear to have this child in existence as a reminder of her rape? Is that still on the rapist if the child dies then?


    Before and after. I would not stand in the way of the euthanization of a child who had resulted from rape, if the victim so desired. It would be another one of the unfortunate consequences of the rape, and I would blame the perpetrator for it. At this moment in time, I cannot think of what kind of a time-limit would apply before the victims right is revoked, if at all (this aspect is something that I am still pondering).


    volchitsa wrote: »
    If not, what's the difference between a sentient fetus and a newborn child in your view?


    No difference in my opinion.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,784 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    Before and after. I would not stand in the way of the euthanization of a child who had resulted from rape, if the victim so desired. It would be another one of the unfortunate consequences of the rape, and I would blame the perpetrator for it. At this moment in time, I cannot think of what kind of a time-limit would apply before the victims right is revoked, if at all (this aspect is something that I am still pondering).

    No difference in my opinion.

    So it's not that you're ok with abortion, you're actually grand with infanticide in general.

    With all due respect, that's not a prochoice position at all - although it's true that logically, someone who doesn't have an issue with the murder of living children will have no issue with abortion either. But for very different reasons.

    Reem Alsalem UNSR Violence Against Women and Girls: "Very concerned about statements by the IOC at Paris2024 (M)ultiple international treaties and national constitutions specifically refer to women & their fundamental rights, so the world (understands) what women -and men- are. (H)ow can one assess fairness and justice if we do not know who we are being fair and just to?"



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,482 ✭✭✭Kidchameleon


    volchitsa wrote: »
    So it's not that you're ok with abortion, you're actually grand with infanticide in general.


    Not in general, I didn't say that. In certain circumstances I am OK with it. I'm not happy about it, it is unfortunate, but ultimately it is not up to me, it is up to those who's lives are affected, in my opinion.

    volchitsa wrote: »
    With all due respect, that's not a prochoice position at all - although it's true that logically, someone who doesn't have an issue with the murder of living children will have no issue with abortion either. But for very different reasons.


    Agreed, I am pro-choice, that does not exclude me from having any other number of stances.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,420 ✭✭✭splinter65


    Before and after. I would not stand in the way of the euthanization of a child who had resulted from rape, if the victim so desired. It would be another one of the unfortunate consequences of the rape, and I would blame the perpetrator for it. At this moment in time, I cannot think of what kind of a time-limit would apply before the victims right is revoked, if at all (this aspect is something that I am still pondering).






    No difference in my opinion.

    I suppose I’m wasting my time in supposing and hoping that this is an elaborate effort in demonstrating how late term abortions are really no different to killing your born baby because it turned out to be very inconvenient.
    Because justifying the killing of a baby because it was the product of rape, and that justification being acknowledged and accepted, is so wrong it really couldn’t get any wronger.
    If those are your genuinely held views then I’m speechless. And I’m sorry for you and anyone who has to deal with you.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    splinter65 wrote: »
    And I’m sorry for you and anyone who has to deal with you.

    Mod: Not as sorry as you will be if you continue to comment on the poster not the post. Play nice or don't play at all please. Thank you.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,784 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    Not in general, I didn't say that. In certain circumstances I am OK with it. I'm not happy about it, it is unfortunate, but ultimately it is not up to me, it is up to those who's lives are affected, in my opinion.

    So what are the circumstances in which you could envisage allowing a woman to kill her 8 year old child, say? At what point does the child become an individual with the same rights as you or me not to be killed?
    Agreed, I am pro-choice, that does not exclude me from having any other number of stances.

    But they are other stances, which is my point. Not pro choice ones.

    You are pro-infanticide and therefore you cannot really have any principled objection to abortion, that would make no sense at all.

    Reem Alsalem UNSR Violence Against Women and Girls: "Very concerned about statements by the IOC at Paris2024 (M)ultiple international treaties and national constitutions specifically refer to women & their fundamental rights, so the world (understands) what women -and men- are. (H)ow can one assess fairness and justice if we do not know who we are being fair and just to?"



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,482 ✭✭✭Kidchameleon


    volchitsa wrote: »
    So what are the circumstances in which you could envisage allowing a woman to kill her 8 year old child, say? At what point does the child become an individual with the same rights as you or me not to be killed?


    I have already told you my current position on that:


    I cannot think of what kind of a time-limit would apply before the victims right is revoked, if at all (this aspect is something that I am still pondering).

    Please remember volchitsa, we already have late term abortions in this country if the mothers life is at risk. Viable fetuses can and are terminated in this country in favor of their mothers life. We as a society already make decisions on who gets to live and who doesn't. I know what I am saying is a step up from that of course.


    Lets say, in the scenario that you proposed ie. a rape victim wants the baby euthanized some weeks after birth, but add the extra complication of the victim threatening suicide if her wishes are not carried out. Lets say for arguments sake that she will definitely commit suicide if she is not listened to. Who in your opinion should live? Should the state make that decision for the victim or should the victim have the ultimate say?

    volchitsa wrote: »
    But they are other stances, which is my point. Not pro choice ones.

    You are pro-infanticide and therefore you cannot really have any principled objection to abortion, that would make no sense at all.


    Look, label it whatever way you want, I dont really care.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Calina


    I have already told you my current position on that:





    Please remember volchitsa, we already have late term abortions in this country if the mothers life is at risk. Viable fetuses can and are terminated in this country in favor of their mothers life. We as a society already make decisions on who gets to live and who doesn't. I know what I am saying is a step up from that of course.


    Lets say, in the scenario that you proposed ie. a rape victim wants the baby euthanized some weeks after birth, but add the extra complication of the victim threatening suicide if her wishes are not carried out. Lets say for arguments sake that she will definitely commit suicide if she is not listened to. Who in your opinion should live? Should the state make that decision for the victim or should the victim have the ultimate say?.

    Actually, once the child is born, their right to life kicks in, end of. This thought experiment is utterly sick and your position is utterly chilling.


    The line most people draw is physical non-independence. Post birth that dependence is gone. Close to term it is gone which is why most late term terminations are live deliveries.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,482 ✭✭✭Kidchameleon


    Calina wrote: »
    Actually, once the child is born, their right to life kicks in, end of. This thought experiment is utterly sick and your position is utterly chilling.


    Do you think the death penalty in the states is sick and chilling? We as a species end peoples lives for various reasons every day. It is a fact of life and it has been since we first walked the Earth.

    Calina wrote: »
    The line most people draw is physical non-independence. Post birth that dependence is gone. Close to term it is gone which is why most late term terminations are live deliveries.


    What exactly do you mean by late term terminations? Where the pregnancy ends or where the child's life ends?


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,349 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    As I said I am not intending to go on about you having ignored me. If you have decided to stop, that is good and is progress of a sort. Let's work with that. If you want to keep making your points by linking to videos of people outright lying, that is fine too. Expect me to keep pointing it out when you do it, even if you refuse to understand why.
    A "blob of cancer" in my opinion is not a form of humanity, and I dont believe I eluded to anything of the sort.

    It is not that you alluded to it, it is that you are being so vague about what you mean with terms like "a type of human" that it could just as easily include a cancer. That is my point.

    This is an issue the abortion discussion has long suffered from. That we have one word "human" which means VERY different things in VERY different contexts. But rather than that fact making people be MORE specific about what they mean while they use such a word..... they actually contrive to be less specific and act like the mere use of the word human is in some way informative to the debate.

    The reality however is that no one I am aware of is suggesting the fetus or the fertilised egg is not human. But to use my capital H again, it most certainly is not Human.... and going on about how the fetus is therefore a "kind of human" is a red herring that is not actually saying anything relevant at all. The question should not be whether it is a "kind of anything" really. The question should be whether the life form we are about to kill has any attributes upon which to coherently afford it moral or ethical concern. No one, including yourself, has yet shown me any attribute upon which to show a 12 week old fetus moral or ethical concern. And "it is a kind of human" is not likely to get us there>

    You make my point for me however when you say the fertilised egg "leads to a human being". That means it is NOT one now of course. And that is pretty much the core point of everything I have written on the topic.
    Regarding meeting a 24 week old baby. Firstly I did not assume you have ever met one. It is quite unlikely that anyone here has. I have not met one myself. My sister has met one and was encouraged to spend as much time with the child as possible, to touch and hold her as much as possible. These are trained medical professionals who know more about such things than you and I.

    Again with the assumptions, comically while claiming not to be making any. You have no idea what training I have on this issue at all. And actually being a "trained medical professional" does not tell you how much relevant training they have on the issue either. As one user pointed out yesterday while discussing the screening that was used in the recent abortion to hit the media.... it is quite often true that some types of trained professionals absolutely lack knowledge you might expect them to have.

    Which is why I asked you for citations. Citations not just discussing "touching" but how and why and when we recommend it. Rather than do that you just "guess" that "the earlier they are born, the more important touch is to them". That is all that is. A "guess". And nothing you cited supports it whatsoever.

    However the core reason I am asking for the citations is the very thing you have not provided. Which is your lack of doubt that a baby born at that stage is fully sentient. Your sole reason for thinking so, is this claim about "touching". And nothing you have offered has suggested anything of the sort. Even a little bit.

    Notable is one of your links discussed babies at 36 weeks. This does not even REMOTELY support your claims about 24 weeks or sentience. In fact the article notes at 24 weeks they have "reduced brain responses" to touch.

    However the core point here is "brain responses". Which I was hoping you would learn as your looked for citations. There is a difference between the brain responding, and sentience. I have at NO point doubted there are brain and nervous system responses in play. There are responses to stimulus in play LONG before 24 weeks in fact.

    The core point is that NONE of those responses are evidence for the claim I am calling you out on, and you have not yet supported. You might, who knows, want to get on that.
    I respect your honesty here. It is a very difficult conundrum to think about. The issue for me is, even if the fetus has reached the stage of sentience, it is condemning the victim to a life of heartache to force her to give birth to her rapists child, in my opinion. The rapist has committed a horrific act of violence and it should be on him if the child dies, in my opinion.

    An opinion I can not share. We should of course support people who have been hurt by a crime in every way we can. But not by murdering someone with rights. It might,to use your own argument, condemn the victim to a life of heartache to know her rapist is still alive. Does that warrant us to kill the rapist who is actually guilty of the crime, just to alleviate her pain? If not then why you believe it gives us the right to kill someone INNOCENT of that crime instead.... is truly opaque to me.

    Further it is not clear when, how, or why that would stop. If the continued existence of this life pains her, at what point and WHY does she forfeit the right to kill it? Birth? Why should rights be mediated by nothing more than spacial location??? What if the child hits age 4 and suddenly.... given children physically change all the time..... attains some attribute HIGHLY reminiscent of the rapist. Suddenly the baby has the rapists eyes for example. Can she kill him now???

    Being the victim of a crime, many types of crime, is horrific. In no case I can think of do we say "if the continued existence of the perpetrator is a pain to the victim we should be able to kill the perpetrator". So I am agog to hear your moral and ethical arguments for why we should be able to kill another victim of the crime instead which, in my view, the child of a rape actually is.

    As I said however, it is a rare case and one we are more capable of dealing with in different ways. So to actually expect to have to go ahead and implement your thought experiment hardly, if ever, occurs. And when it occurs for whatever reason, we can terminate the pregnancy if not the child. Which is fine with me.
    Do you think the death penalty in the states is sick and chilling?

    Whether we do or not, at least we can differentiate between the death penalty..... the killing of the perpetrator of a heinous crime...... and your proposals..... the killing of one of the victims of the crime to make the other victim feel better.

    The two are not comparable really. Much as you might want them to be.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,093 ✭✭✭Nobelium


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    As per the shiny new charter please refrain from, and I quote, referring " to each other, directly or indirectly, as "liars", "trolls", "bigots", "bullies", "soap-boxers" or any other terms which impute antisocial motives to other posters."

    A bit rich coming from yourself . . . but par for the course I suppose.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,784 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    Please remember volchitsa, we already have late term abortions in this country if the mothers life is at risk. Viable fetuses can and are terminated in this country in favor of their mothers life. We as a society already make decisions on who gets to live and who doesn't. I know what I am saying is a step up from that of course.

    Such a step up that most prochoicers would say it's a completely different issue.
    Lets say, in the scenario that you proposed ie. a rape victim wants the baby euthanized some weeks after birth, but add the extra complication of the victim threatening suicide if her wishes are not carried out. Lets say for arguments sake that she will definitely commit suicide if she is not listened to. Who in your opinion should live? Should the state make that decision for the victim or should the victim have the ultimate say?
    Well this is why your attempt to extrapolate fails, because the baby is then in the same position to her as the rapist, except it has not committed a crime against her. Now, would she be entitled to have the rapist killed by threatening to commit suicide otherwise?

    Obviously not. Because once a person is born, they have their own rights and one person cannot ask for anyone else to be executed. That's not how our justice system works.

    But the legal development that some people, like you, have some difficulty with, it seems, is acknowledging that the woman who is pregnant keeps all her rights over her own body. Traditionally in our society that hasn't been the case, but now it is.

    And there is really no need for you to get yourself tied up in knots about executing rapists or not when in reality the issue is not about the rapist or the fetus, it is about whether the woman should be forced to complete a pregnancy that she has not consented to.
    Look, label it whatever way you want, I dont really care.
    Just pointing out that you seem to have adopted the most extreme stance you can in order to present that as being prochoice when in fact it is not.

    Rather like those Youth Defence people going on prochoice marches with provocative slogans about abortion up to birth - now why would they, or you, do that?

    Reem Alsalem UNSR Violence Against Women and Girls: "Very concerned about statements by the IOC at Paris2024 (M)ultiple international treaties and national constitutions specifically refer to women & their fundamental rights, so the world (understands) what women -and men- are. (H)ow can one assess fairness and justice if we do not know who we are being fair and just to?"



  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,795 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Nobelium wrote: »
    A bit rich coming from yourself . . . but par for the course I suppose.

    Mod warning: Please attack the post and never the poster and perhaps reacquaint yourself with the rules of this forum


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,482 ✭✭✭Kidchameleon


    As I said I am not intending to go on about you having ignored me. If you have decided to stop, that is good and is progress of a sort. Let's work with that. If you want to keep making your points by linking to videos of people outright lying, that is fine too. Expect me to keep pointing it out when you do it, even if you refuse to understand why.

    I linked ONE video in a HUGE thread which I have been contributing to on and off for years. You saying I "keep making points by linking videos" is blatantly misrepresenting me.
    You make my point for me however when you say the fertilised egg "leads to a human being". That means it is NOT one now of course. And that is pretty much the core point of everything I have written on the topic.

    Firstly I never said a fertilized egg is a human being. I said it was a form of human. I am struggling to find words explain the term "form of human" to you. Actually, I would be wasting my time. You know what I mean.
    However the core reason I am asking for the citations is the very thing you have not provided.

    Can I ask you a question? If a child of yours were born at 24 weeks and survived, do you think he or she would be ok in an incubator on their own without the touch of yourself and your partner? Id imagine they would be ok. But would they be better off with the presence and touch of their parents? The studies I linked would indicate that yes, they would be better off. As I said, I cannot find links to studies that are specific to your question. That does not mean they do not exist however. Premature babies are better off with their parents touch, you dont need to be a doctor to know that and the studies I linked prove it.
    Whether we do or not, at least we can differentiate between the death penalty..... the killing of the perpetrator of a heinous crime...... and your proposals..... the killing of one of the victims of the crime to make the other victim feel better.

    The two are not comparable really. Much as you might want them to be.
    An opinion I can not share.

    Great, its good that we live in a world where people can co exist with different opinions.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,482 ✭✭✭Kidchameleon


    volchitsa wrote: »
    Such a step up that most prochoicers would say it's a completely different issue.


    Your the one that brought it up, not me.

    volchitsa wrote: »
    Well this is why your attempt to extrapolate fails, because the baby is then in the same position to her as the rapist, except it has not committed a crime against her.

    No but the baby does carry her and her rapists genes. I would not like to force her to leave a genetic legacy like that.

    volchitsa wrote: »
    And there is really no need for you to get yourself tied up in knots about executing rapists or not when in reality the issue is not about the rapist or the fetus, it is about whether the woman should be forced to complete a pregnancy that she has not consented to.


    I never once mentioned executing rapists.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,420 ✭✭✭splinter65


    I’m still here hoping that more people on this forum are going to argue against infanticide but I suppose I’m going to be disappointed. Lots of silence. Very scary stuff but then I remind myself that boards posters are only representative of a tiny tiny proportion of the general population.
    Still sends a terrible shiver down the spine though.
    On the other hand there’s no point in pretending that this kind of psychotic mentality doesn’t exist. And that’s there’s enough decency and compassion in the world to extinguish it as there ever was.
    When we defeated Hitler we proved that.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Calina


    Do you think the death penalty in the states is sick and chilling? We as a species end peoples lives for various reasons every day. It is a fact of life and it has been since we first walked the Earth.





    What exactly do you mean by late term terminations? Where the pregnancy ends or where the child's life ends?

    Yes I think capital punishment is sick and evidence of an immature people. Utterly barbaric . It was abolished in Ireland some time ago and has no relevance to the discussion here

    As for your second I mentioned live delivery. This means the child is born alive. We don't then kill them.


Advertisement