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

1…1920222425…60

Comments

  • #1052
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,795 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Kidchameleon wrote: »
    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.

    Looks like that argument is fishing for an outraged response about killing of innocents as a mechanism to allow a pro-life retort that abortion is also killing of innocents. Utter nonsense of course and I'm of the opinion that your pro-infanticide stance is disingenuous on that basis.

    Once a child has been born, either at term or through late termination of pregnancy, it assumes the full human rights, same as any other person and is not liable for the crimes of its parents. In case you were wondering about the difference between this and abortion, a fetus clearly does not have those rights as it is not yet a person, where a pregnant woman clearly does.


  • #1053
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,349 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Kidchameleon wrote: »
    You saying I "keep making points by linking videos" is blatantly misrepresenting me.

    That would be relevant had I said that. Go back and read it again. I did not say that. Even a little bit. So the misrepresenting is coming from you, yourself, the man in your mirror and theyself. Not from me.

    They key word you appear to have decided to ignore there, if you need a little help, was "IF". I said nothing more than I was done with the issue of your citing the video of lies but IF you did so again, you can expect me to call it out again.

    The rest, you made up yourself. For shame.
    Kidchameleon wrote: »
    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.

    We are agreed and again you appear to be making my point for me, it IS a waste of time. Using it or discussing it at all is. The term itself, "a kind of human" is a waste of time. It says nothing. It is a non-phrase.

    I do believe I know what you mean. You mean, as many other people before you have, that it is "human" in terms of biological taxonomy.

    The reason this is a waste of time, a red herring, irrelevant, and misleading is that biological taxonomy appears to have nothing, and from what I can see should have nothing, to do with the moral or ethical issue of abortion. At. All.
    Kidchameleon wrote: »
    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?

    The answer is clear I think, touch has been shown to be beneficial in some situations. I have not denied or refuted that. The issue I have is the point you originally made which you are now using this "touch based therapy" to substantiate. Because it does not substantiate that original position at all.

    There are reasons touch is used and can be beneficial. It has NOTHING to do with sentience. You appear to be taking my disagreement about the link between sentience and touch..... as some disagreement with your claim about the benefits of that touch. They are two VERY different things. You will not find me refuting your claims about the latter. What I am refuting is your narrative of "Babies born at 24 weeks are sentient" which you have yet to offer ANYTHING to substantiate at this time.
    Kidchameleon wrote: »
    Great, its good that we live in a world where people can co exist with different opinions.

    Can they though? The attempt to murder a sentient agent for no other fault other than being the victim of a crime is one I would resist through every avenue open to me, from legal to physical. So I am not sure how much co-existing we would actually do where there any chance of such a thing being implemented. I would join actual battle lines to resist the proposal you have made, were it to come to that.

    The only reason our opinions may co-exist is that I believe there is ZERO chance of what you are proposing here ever becoming a reality.


  • #1054
    osarusan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,713 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    Kidchameleon wrote: »
    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).


    At 9 weeks old, 9 months old, 9 years old, 19 years old...a 29 year old parent say...and you are still pondering whether that person's mother would have the right to decide to euthanise them, as they had been conceived through rape 29 years ago?


    All through this thread, I keep thinking you are desperately seeking some 'gotcha' moment where you can say to somebody that if they have a certain opinion on X, then why do they have a different opinion on Y.


    I hope that is what you are doing, rather than genuinely being on the fence about whether a woman should have an effectively limitless power to euthanise a child conceived through rape.


  • #1055
    amcalester
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,121 ✭✭✭amcalester


    splinter65 wrote: »
    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.

    To be honest I just thought it was just so ridiculous that it isn’t worth replying.

    Any response I can think of would probably warrant a banning as well.

    I think your previous post that it’s a poor attempt at drawing parallels between late term abortions or something else might be close to correct but the charter prohibits me from saying what I actually think is happening.


  • #1056
    Kidchameleon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,482 ✭✭✭Kidchameleon


    smacl wrote: »
    Looks like that argument is fishing for an outraged response about killing of innocents as a mechanism to allow a pro-life retort that abortion is also killing of innocents. Utter nonsense of course and I'm of the opinion that your pro-infanticide stance is disingenuous on that basis.

    Once a child has been born, either at term or through late termination of pregnancy, it assumes the full human rights, same as any other person and is not liable for the crimes of its parents. In case you were wondering about the difference between this and abortion, a fetus clearly does not have those rights as it is not yet a person, where a pregnant woman clearly does.


    I am not pro life and you will never see me arguing for it, so you are wrong. I get where you are coming from however.


  • Advertisement
  • #1057
    Nobelium
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,093 ✭✭✭Nobelium


    smacl wrote: »
    Please attack the post and never the poster and perhaps reacquaint yourself with the rules of this forum

    just a suggestion . . .how about at least attempting to practicing what you preach ?

    Mod: Carded for repeating breach of charter. Next one will be a ban.


  • #1058
    Kidchameleon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,482 ✭✭✭Kidchameleon


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    They key word you appear to have decided to ignore there, if you need a little help, was "IF". I said nothing more than I was done with the issue of your citing the video of lies but IF you did so again, you can expect me to call it out again.

    I misread it, you assumed I ignored it.
    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    I do believe I know what you mean. You mean, as many other people before you have, that it is "human" in terms of biological taxonomy.


    Great!

    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    There are reasons touch is used and can be beneficial. It has NOTHING to do with sentience.


    Links please. Why is it beneficial then?


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    The only reason our opinions may co-exist is that I believe there is ZERO chance of what you are proposing here ever becoming a reality.


    Thats why we have democracy. Pro lifers would be equally disgusted by your pro choice stance. We are all on a spectrum.


  • #1059
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,349 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Kidchameleon wrote: »
    I misread it, you assumed I ignored it.

    I am afraid I am going to have to doubt that. But whether true or not, suffice to say if you are going to make such an accusation.... read more carefully. Especially if you are going to put something in Quotation type marks, that I patently never said.
    Kidchameleon wrote: »
    Links please. Why is it beneficial then?

    I need provide no links. You did it yourself already. Go read your own two links. The value of touch if in the brain responses, and affects on development, they have.

    The issues is none of this requires, is a requirement of, nor indicates, sentience. Not in your links, nor in any other link I have seen anywhere.


  • #1060
    Kidchameleon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,482 ✭✭✭Kidchameleon


    nozzferrahhtoo


    What is your definition of sentience?


  • #1061
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,349 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Kidchameleon wrote: »
    What is your definition of sentience?

    Depends on the context. In the context of a fetus and abortion however I would be happy with definitions like "Sentience is the capacity to feel, perceive or experience subjectively." or " In modern Western philosophy, sentience is the ability to experience sensations."

    That there is some chance that the fetus is actually experiencing something would be a core of sentience here. That there is something it is like for that fetus to be what it is, from the perspective of that fetus.

    More importantly the fetus has to have the faculty for the above. It does not have this at 12 weeks or 16 weeks or even 20 to our knowledge. A coma patient for example has the FACULTY of sentience even if they are experiencing nothing at all IN the coma. I still see them as a sentient agent with rights.

    The fetus does not have this, and never has had.

    The error I think you make when looking at something like a birth at 24 weeks and making the proclamations you did about it...... is similar to an error another user made when posting a study about fetal tongue movements. Or the error people make when they post images of a very early stage fetus reacting to a needle.

    Reaction to a stimulus is NOT indicative of sentience/consciousness/experience. Reaction to a stimulus is in fact very common. Even an amoeba can do this.


  • Advertisement
  • #1062
    Kidchameleon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,482 ✭✭✭Kidchameleon


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Depends on the context. In the context of a fetus and abortion however I would be happy with definitions like "Sentience is the capacity to feel, perceive or experience subjectively." or " In modern Western philosophy, sentience is the ability to experience sensations."

    That there is some chance that the fetus is actually experiencing something would be a core of sentience here. That there is something it is like for that fetus to be what it is, from the perspective of that fetus.

    More importantly the fetus has to have the faculty for the above. It does not have this at 12 weeks or 16 weeks or even 20 to our knowledge. A coma patient for example has the FACULTY of sentience even if they are experiencing nothing at all IN the coma. I still see them as a sentient agent with rights.

    The fetus does not have this, and never has had.

    The error I think you make when looking at something like a birth at 24 weeks and making the proclamations you did about it...... is similar to an error another user made when posting a study about fetal tongue movements. Or the error people make when they post images of a very early stage fetus reacting to a needle.

    Reaction to a stimulus is NOT indicative of sentience/consciousness/experience. Reaction to a stimulus is in fact very common. Even an amoeba can do this.


    OK well why do you think most countries in the world do not allow abortion on demand at 24 weeks? Or even some weeks before that... The fetus is as much a clump of cells at 24 weeks as it is at 12 week no? Do you support abortion on demand at 24 weeks?


  • #1063
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,349 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Kidchameleon wrote: »
    OK well why do you think most countries in the world do not allow abortion on demand at 24 weeks? Or even some weeks before that... The fetus is as much a clump of cells at 24 weeks as it is at 12 week no? Do you support abortion on demand at 24 weeks?

    Another good question. I think conversation of this sort is much more functional between us, do you reckon? Lots of answers to that but I do not want to write a novel.

    I think much of the reasons however are historic. Our knowledge about sentience, its pre-requisites, and it's development is incomplete. But it has been getting much better as time goes on. However much of the 24 weeks comes from a historic time when our ignorance was greater.

    However people like arbitrary numbers too and 24 weeks is a nice round number divisible by 4. And we think of months as being around 4 weeks too. So 24 is a comfortable number.

    There is also the psychological impact on the woman, rather than the fetus, which is taken into account. As this article states "It is 24 weeks, where doctors believe there is a risk to the "physical or mental health" of the pregnant woman or her existing children.". So in fact the 24 weeks has less to do with the fetus at all, and more to do with the woman herself!

    There is also the fact that any abortion, even very early stages, is a medical intervention and EVERY medical intervention is a risk. However the risks to the women go UP in relation to the age of the fetus too. If you look at tables showing injury or even death as a compliation of abortion you find that 24 weeks is also around the time when the elevation becomes steep in that regard.

    So the answer to your question is manifold. But I would also add one of my own. Requirement. Nearly the totality of all CHOICE based abortion happens by week 16. 96-98%. So there is simply no requirement for much more than 16 very often. And one POLITICAL truth is if you want something, do not ask for more than you ACTUALLY need because the more you ask for the less chance you will get it. So 24 weeks is a nice compromise between actual requirements, and the political will to attain them.


  • #1064
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 5,917 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    splinter65 wrote: »
    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.

    The thread isn't a discussion on infanticide, and the argument is one to try and equate abortion with infanticide, something that a lot of pro life posters do and as such is being ignored.

    As you have previously stated that we should bring back mother and baby homes to lock up unmarried mothers and that people who are on social welfare should be sterilized rather than receiving children's allowance, I would say such a view could be seen as representing an even smaller sample of the Irish people than boards itself and one that some would see as frightening.


  • #1065
    Plumbthedepths
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,653 ✭✭✭✭Plumbthedepths


    splinter65 wrote:
    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.


    Only one poster here seems to be okay with infanticide as it was there suggestion that a child should be killed if the mother sought it. Personally I think the person in question is against abortion but is trying to present the most extreme Pro choice possible. Wonder why.


  • #1066
    Kidchameleon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,482 ✭✭✭Kidchameleon


    Plumbthedepths wrote: »
    Only one poster here seems to be okay with infanticide


    Well only one poster is able to admit it, who knows what others are thinking?


    Plumbthedepths wrote: »
    that a child should be killed if the mother sought it.


    Your leaving out the rather horrendous scenario that would lead up to it. I am not suggesting there should be a baby killing spree any time soon.


    Plumbthedepths wrote: »
    Personally I think the person in question is against abortion but is trying to present the most extreme Pro choice possible. Wonder why.


    I wonder why people keep suggesting that even though it is clearly not the case for everyone to see. I'm satisfied that the 8th was repealed, not to the extent that I was dancing around Dublin Castle, just satisfied that women have control over their own bodies.


  • #1067
    Plumbthedepths
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,653 ✭✭✭✭Plumbthedepths


    Kidchameleon wrote:
    I wonder why people keep suggesting that even though it is clearly not the case for everyone to see. I'm satisfied that the 8th was repealed, not to the extent that I was dancing around Dublin Castle, just satisfied that women have control over their own bodies.


    Personally I think you are anything other than Pro choice.


  • #1068
    Kidchameleon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,482 ✭✭✭Kidchameleon


    Plumbthedepths wrote: »
    Personally I think you are anything other than Pro choice.


    Anyone who does not support late term abortions is not pro choice by the strictest definition of the word. From the Oxford dictionary:


    pro-choice

    adjective

    Advocating the legal right of a woman to choose whether or not she will have an abortion.
    ‘a pro-choice demonstration’


  • #1069
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,795 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Kidchameleon wrote: »
    I am not pro life and you will never see me arguing for it, so you are wrong. I get where you are coming from however.

    You post extremist Ben Shapiro pro life videos you find favourable and suggest you're ok with killing born children in some circumstances as it is agreeable with your pro-choice stance. It seems entirely reasonable to question your motives and actual position on that basis.


  • #1070
    Kidchameleon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,482 ✭✭✭Kidchameleon


    smacl wrote: »
    You post extremist Ben Shapiro pro life videos you find favourable


    You used a plural there but I have only posted one video. I never said I found it favorable. In fact, I have said on a number of occasions that I find Shapiro annoying. I also stated a couple of days ago that I did not agree with everything he said in the video.


    smacl wrote: »
    suggest you're ok with killing born children in some circumstances as it is agreeable with your pro-choice stance.


    "Killing" is not the word I used, I hope your not trying to make it out to more emotive that it is :D. The term I used was "euthanize". And yes, I believe there are some cases where such an act, however horrible that may be, is justified. Things like that happen every day unfortunately. I gave examples of viable fetuses being terminated to save the life of the mother etc. It is part of life. The animal kingdom is full of examples of mothers sacrificing their young for the greater good. Chimps, rats, bears and dogs to name a few have all been observed doing it.


    smacl wrote: »
    It seems entirely reasonable to question your motives and actual position on that basis.


    I have already told you I understand that you may come to that conclusion.


  • #1071
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,795 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Kidchameleon wrote: »
    "Killing" is not the word I used, I hope your not trying to make it out to more emotive that it is :D. The term I used was "euthanize". And yes, I believe there are some cases where such an act, however horrible that may be, is justified.

    You should perhaps look up the meaning of euthanasia here because what you're talking about is execution of an innocent. Personally, i don't find what you say to be credible. My opinion is that by claiming to be pro choice and coming up with this blatantly incendiary nonsense your intent is to tar the pro choice position. As rhetoric goes, it is weak.


  • Advertisement
  • #1072
    Kidchameleon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,482 ✭✭✭Kidchameleon


    smacl wrote: »
    You should perhaps look up the meaning of euthanasia here because what you're talking about is execution of an innocent. Personally, i don't find what you say to be credible. My opinion is that by claiming to be pro choice and coming up with this blatantly incendiary nonsense your intent is to tar the pro choice position. As rhetoric goes, it is weak.


    Again, as I have said, I can see where you get that idea from. You are wrong however. We will only go around in circles with this so I am going to leave it there. That is not a cop out, if you want I will continue with my "rhetoric", no problem. I hope you will note that there are plenty of people out there who would find your stance on abortion to be as reprehensible as you find mine. It is all a matter of subjectivity.


  • #1073
    Nobelium
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,093 ✭✭✭Nobelium


    smacl wrote: »
    You post extremist Ben Shapiro pro life videos you find favourable and suggest you're ok with killing born children in some circumstances as it is agreeable with your pro-choice stance. It seems entirely reasonable to question your motives and actual position on that basis.

    when are you going to start dealing with actual the points in the posts instead of attacking the poster ?

    Mod: Nobelium is taking a wee holiday to give he/she/they an opportunity to reflect on mod instructions to attack the post not the poster.


  • #1074
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 5,917 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    [HTML][/HTML]
    Nobelium wrote: »
    when are you going to start dealing with actual the points in the posts instead of attacking the poster ?

    Where is the attack on the poster?


  • #1075
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,740 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    Ruraldweller56 wrote: »
    I think a defenceless child with no voice or ability to defend itself is a legitimate target for other people's selfishness and deserves to die.

    I also believe a human beings geographical location should determine the validity of their life.

    I am your Liberal twat.

    The only part of your idiotic post that makes sense in my opinion


  • #1076
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 5,917 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Ruraldweller56 wrote: »
    I am a twat.

    Fixed your post for you.


  • #1077
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Ruraldweller56 wrote: »
    I think a defenceless child with no voice or ability to defend itself is a legitimate target for other people's selfishness and deserves to die.

    I also believe a human beings geographical location should determine the validity of their life.

    I am your Liberal twat.
    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    The only part of your idiotic post that makes sense in my opinion

    Mod:
    Easy folks.
    Less of the implying that people who hold certain opinions are twats.

    Be civil


  • #1078
    splinter65
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,420 ✭✭✭splinter65


    Plumbthedepths wrote: »
    Only one poster here seems to be okay with infanticide as it was there suggestion that a child should be killed if the mother sought it. Personally I think the person in question is against abortion but is trying to present the most extreme Pro choice possible. Wonder why.

    It’s the silence from the other posters that’s disturbing. It’s as if people are afraid to speak in case they’re labeled “anti choice” . It’s akin to being called a racist transphobic homophobe really....


  • #1079
    splinter65
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,420 ✭✭✭splinter65


    smacl wrote: »
    You post extremist Ben Shapiro pro life videos you find favourable and suggest you're ok with killing born children in some circumstances as it is agreeable with your pro-choice stance. It seems entirely reasonable to question your motives and actual position on that basis.

    Just out of interest, in what way do you find Shapiro “extremist”? He’s just pro life.


  • #1080
    Plumbthedepths
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,653 ✭✭✭✭Plumbthedepths


    splinter65 wrote:
    It’s the silence from the other posters that’s disturbing. It’s as if people are afraid to speak in case they’re labeled “anti choice†. It’s akin to being called a racist transphobic homophobe really....


    Maybe other posters didn't think that a ridiculous suggestion warrants a reply. I certainly didn't address with him. This is an anonymous internet forum, I doubt people are afraid to voice their opinion.


  • Advertisement
  • #1081
    splinter65
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,420 ✭✭✭splinter65


    Plumbthedepths wrote: »
    Maybe other posters didn't think that a ridiculous suggestion warrants a reply. I certainly didn't address with him. This is an anonymous internet forum, I doubt people are afraid to voice their opinion.

    Maybe so. I certainly hope so.


  • #1082
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Mod: after careful consideration your friendly mod has come to the conclusion that attempts to introduce infanticide into the discussion is little more than an attempt to muddy the waters, inflame the situation, present an extreme so-called 'pro-choice' position and generally drag the entire thread down yet another rabbit hole of semantics, bickering, evasion, and general chaos - much as the use of the term "murder" did previously.

    Drop the discussion of infanticide please.


  • #1083
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,795 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    splinter65 wrote: »
    Just out of interest, in what way do you find Shapiro “extremist”? He’s just pro life.

    The picture of a dead baby and the spiel on Kermit Gosnell primarily. He is taking an extreme example of the illegal activity of one person and implying it is somehow representative of abortion, which it clearly is not. Basing your position on appeal to emotional outrage using pictures and cases that are not just atypical but entirely exceptional is extremist. He's not alone in the use of this tactic, but it is so old now I don't think anyone believes it is honest at this point in time.


  • #1084
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,795 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    splinter65 wrote: »
    It’s the silence from the other posters that’s disturbing.

    I certainly don't find the stance adopted by that poster to be credible and have already posted to that effect.


  • #1085
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,795 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    splinter65 wrote: »
    It’s as if people are afraid to speak in case they’re labeled “anti choice” . It’s akin to being called a racist transphobic homophobe really....

    Mod: Fair point. In the interests of civil debate, can we please refer to the groups on either side of this debate by their own preferred labels. i.e. pro-life and pro-choice, no more use of anti-choice or pro-abortion. Thanks.


  • #1086
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,349 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Kidchameleon wrote: »
    Well only one poster is able to admit it, who knows what others are thinking?

    I do like to think most posters who bother to post are honest about their positions. Especially given posting here is A) Optional and B) Anonymous. So it makes rare sense that anyone would bother posting on a topic they actually do not want to talk openly about.

    That said though I have been bitten by that assumption when it has been proven false.

    For example we had a poster who posted here for a long time, on the earlier instances of this thread in fact, claiming not just to be pro-choice but right up to the point of birth. That the infant had no rights at all until it travelled down the birth canal when suddenly magically it attained all it's rights.

    His argument supporting that position? Well nothing much really.... just his claim that Mary Robinson agreed with him. That was literally all I got supporting the position when I asked.

    Suddenly though when the referendum was actually announced said user pretty much over night became one of the "abortions are not warranted ever" posters on the other extreme of the spectrum. Which merely leads me to question my own assumptions about how open people are being here.

    But in general I think that there is a reason when only one person supports a particular proposition and no one else does. And in general I do not think that reason is "because everyone else cant admit it".
    Kidchameleon wrote: »
    Anyone who does not support late term abortions is not pro choice by the strictest definition of the word.

    Not really. The definitions, including the one you cited, merely suggest we are offering them a choice.

    Nothing in that definition requires it be an entirely unrestricted choice, with no limits at all. That is not, any to my knowledge of the entire history of our language has never been, what giving someone a choice has ever meant.

    Giving someone a choice with restrictions is STILL giving them a choice. The idea that you only really give someone a choice if it is actually a freedom to do anything they want, any time they want, is simply not supported by the etymology there.


  • Advertisement
  • #1087
    Kidchameleon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,482 ✭✭✭Kidchameleon


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    But in general I think that there is a reason when only one person supports a particular proposition and no one else does. And in general I do not think that reason is "because everyone else cant admit it".


    I get what you are saying. Look I am not some baby slaying fetishist. What I propose is actions in very extreme circumstances (of which, as a man, I will never fully understand admittedly). It comes down to the woman's choice for me.

    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Giving someone a choice with restrictions is STILL giving them a choice. The idea that you only really give someone a choice if it is actually a freedom to do anything they want, any time they want, is simply not supported by the etymology there.


    Its kind of pointless to discuss labels. If you are against abortion after 12 weeks, you may in the future find yourself on the same side of the fence the pro lifers are on now. I can see a time in the future when there will be a push to extend the window of when abortions are allowed.


    As it stands, women have a choice - with stipulations. They are still not free to do whatever they want with their own bodies. For example, a woman does not have a free choice to abort at 13 weeks (when the fetus is as non viable as it was at 12 weeks)


  • #1088
    Calina
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Calina


    splinter65 wrote: »
    It’s the silence from the other posters that’s disturbing. It’s as if people are afraid to speak in case they’re labeled “anti choice” . It’s akin to being called a racist transphobic homophobe really....


    Other posters have objected strongly. Stop pretending we did not.


  • #1089
    volchitsa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,784 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    Kidchameleon wrote: »
    I get what you are saying. Look I am not some baby slaying fetishist. What I propose is actions in very extreme circumstances (of which, as a man, I will never fully understand admittedly). It comes down to the woman's choice for me.

    Its kind of pointless to discuss labels. If you are against abortion after 12 weeks, you may in the future find yourself on the same side of the fence the pro lifers are on now. I can see a time in the future when there will be a push to extend the window of when abortions are allowed.

    As it stands, women have a choice - with stipulations. They are still not free to do whatever they want with their own bodies. For example, a woman does not have a free choice to abort at 13 weeks (when the fetus is as non viable as it was at 12 weeks)
    So, this is the kind of argument that makes it seem that you have so little understanding of the basic prochoice views that you cannot genuinely be prochoice yourself.

    People who support abortion up to 12 weeks do not actively oppose it at 13 "because it's killing babies" - they have merely concluded that 12 weeks seems a reasonable compromise to set a limit given our current understanding of fetal development.

    If that changes, either way, there is nothing stopping those people from adapting their stance accordingly. They would still be prochoice. Why would you imagine that they would refuse to modify the 12 week limit if there was good reason to do so? It's just a legal age limit, like the age of consent or the voting age, because the law needs clear time limits to function.


    (ETA: And just to avoid anyone "misreading" this, no I'm not saying that therefore we should extend from 12 weeks: there are very good reasons to ensure that women having abortions have them as early as possible. Since well over 90% of all terminations take place before 12/13 weeks even in the UK where there is no legal pressure to do so by that date, it seems that this is a suitable compromise. If that changes, then prochoicers can adapt their preferred dates accordingly.)

    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?"



  • #1090
    Kidchameleon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,482 ✭✭✭Kidchameleon


    volchitsa wrote: »
    ..


    So your saying that the "pro choice" label may change its meaning over time? That's fine. So I am currently not "pro choice", lets say I am "pro choice+".


    Pro life: no abortions
    Pro choice: abortions within 12 weeks

    Pro choice+: no time limit for abortion



    Its all just labels. Call me whatever you want.


  • #1091
    aloyisious
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,298 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    On the basis below, the meaning of the label on the can is left to the discretion of the reader.

    This has probably been argued out before [cant recall] but to me, some-one saying that he/she agrees that abortion is OK in even a limited set of circumstances and time-limited in law means that that person is Pro-Choice. Whilst the person may nominally be against abortion in general [in his/her mind], giving the thumbs up to women having abortions under the above circumstances and limit thereby means the person can be said to be Pro-Choice.

    IMO, the set-up or "right" to defining and labelling who is Pro-Choice or Pro-life is not limited solely to the person after he/she has made the choice to agree with abortion. You can be Pro-Choice up to the time allowed in law or by whatever limit you see as acceptable but it may mean that by you agreeing to/with that limit, you may be seen as - and said to be - Pro-life after that limit is passed IN EXISTENCE by the foetus. One might not like to be labelled Pro-this or that but by personally defining one's choice of limit, one might automatically [corollary-adjectively] fall into another camp without intent and be said to be Pro-this as against Pro-that. This may be argued against by people who may say they and they alone can define what they are and where they stand but words used can INFER further unspoken words.


  • Advertisement
  • #1092
    aloyisious
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,298 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    The educating of a president. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...s-rape-incest/ Donald Trump says he is in favour of abortion laws with exceptions for rape and incest.

    followed by his tweet below in the journal.ie

    Donald J. Trump
    ✔
    @realDonaldTrump


    As most people know, and for those who would like to know, I am strongly Pro-Life, with the three exceptions - Rape, Incest and protecting the Life of the mother - the same position taken by Ronald Reagan. We have come very far in the last two years with 105 wonderful new.....

    67.1K
    4:37 AM - May 19, 2019
    Twitter Ads info and privacy

    25.3K people are talking about this

    It seems that he had a different position in 2016 where he thought jail was the place for women who had abortions. One might ask/hope if he's sending a message to the USSC and his appointees there now with his tweet.


  • #1093
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Mod: Gentle reminder. Let that tangent go where it deserves.
    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Mod: after careful consideration your friendly mod has come to the conclusion that attempts to introduce infanticide into the discussion is little more than an attempt to muddy the waters, inflame the situation, present an extreme so-called 'pro-choice' position and generally drag the entire thread down yet another rabbit hole of semantics, bickering, evasion, and general chaos - much as the use of the term "murder" did previously.

    Drop the discussion of infanticide please.
    Calina wrote: »
    Other posters have objected strongly. Stop pretending we did not.


  • #1094
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,349 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Kidchameleon wrote: »
    It comes down to the woman's choice for me.

    A phrase I always liked is "My right to choose what to do with my fists ends at your face".

    In other words I too want to maximise the choice of women, as do you. But choice HAS to be curtailed the moment it impacts on the freedoms, well beings, and rights of another sentient agent.

    There is nowhere else where we have 100% choice, like with my fists, so why do we need it with abortion? Our choices are ALWAYS curtailed the moment another person with rights is involved.
    Kidchameleon wrote: »
    Its kind of pointless to discuss labels. If you are against abortion after 12 weeks, you may in the future find yourself on the same side of the fence the pro lifers are on now. I can see a time in the future when there will be a push to extend the window of when abortions are allowed.

    And I am happy for it to be extended until such time as it gets extended to the point where we have any reason to suspect the fetus is a sentient agent. Then I will without any reservation or embarrassment join a different battle line.


  • #1095
    Plumbthedepths
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,653 ✭✭✭✭Plumbthedepths


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote:
    A phrase I always liked is "My right to choose what to do with my fists ends at your face".


    Do you really believe the poster you responded to is Pro choice?


  • #1096
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,349 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Plumbthedepths wrote: »
    Do you really believe the poster you responded to is Pro choice?

    To be honest I am not convinced but I tend to treat people as they present themselves to be. Not because I care what THEY are, but on a public forum I am responding not to them but everyone they represent, or even just pretend to represent.

    As I said before I replied for MONTHS to a user on this very thread who now it appears may possibly allegedly only have been pretending to be quite extremely pro-choice.... supporting termination up to birth in fact because seemingly Mary Robinson told him so..... but who reversed his position magically around the time the referendum was announced.

    I now reply to that poster as he NOW presents himself to be. And if he suddenly started presenting as a pro-choicer again.... I would respond to him as one of those again too :) So I think I should afford Kidchameleon the same courtesy.


  • #1097
    Kidchameleon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,482 ✭✭✭Kidchameleon


    Plumbthedepths wrote: »
    Do you really believe the poster you responded to is Pro choice?

    Im not pro choice, im pro choice+


  • #1098
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,522 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    Kidchameleon wrote: »
    Im not pro choice, im pro choice+

    Not enough of these -> :rolleyes: , in the world


  • #1099
    volchitsa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,784 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    Kidchameleon wrote: »
    So your saying that the "pro choice" label may change its meaning over time?

    No. The detail of the limits and parameters to the choice may vary : rules in Germany are not the same as in the US or Spain, but their supporters in those countries are all prochoice.

    Just like democracies vary widely in significant aspects like how often they hold elections, who may vote, and how the vote is counted - but they are all democracies because there is a clear opposite which is completely different again, ie, all the various forms of non-democracy.
    Kidchameleon wrote: »
    That's fine. So I am currently not "pro choice", lets say I am "pro choice+".

    Pro life: no abortions
    Pro choice: abortions within 12 weeks

    Pro choice+: no time limit for abortion

    No, I explained why this does not correspond to reality.
    Kidchameleon wrote: »
    Its all just labels. Call me whatever you want.
    Words matter, so no. Your alleged support for no time limits on abortion is not based on the characteristics of the fetus so much as in your supposed support for infanticide (I can hardly believe I'm typing that, but since we all know you're only spoofing anyway, it hardly matters really.)

    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?"



  • #1100
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    Kidchameleon wrote: »
    So your saying that the "pro choice" label may change its meaning over time? That's fine. So I am currently not "pro choice", lets say I am "pro choice+".


    Pro life: no abortions
    Pro choice: abortions within 12 weeks

    Pro choice+: no time limit for abortion



    Its all just labels. Call me whatever you want.

    Its not a credible position tbh. Its not based on any "ordinary" version of morality, or even for the greater good.

    And I have already stated this days ago in the thread, but it seems like you are deliberately maintaining an extreme position in order to discredit the actual pro choice position (of which I know absolutely no one or any definition that agrees with "abortion" right up to birth, certainly some people might agree on the termination of pregnancy right up to birth, but not the death of an unborn fetus that is a few hours/days from being born as it is unnecessary).

    So, no, I dont think you are holding a credible position and if that is your understanding of the pro choice position then you are sadly mistaken.


  • #1101
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,522 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    ....... wrote: »
    Its not a credible position tbh. Its not based on any "ordinary" version of morality, or even for the greater good.

    And I have already stated this days ago in the thread, but it seems like you are deliberately maintaining an extreme position in order to discredit the actual pro choice position (of which I know absolutely no one or any definition that agrees with "abortion" right up to birth, certainly some people might agree on the termination of pregnancy right up to birth, but not the death of an unborn fetus that is a few hours/days from being born as it is unnecessary).

    So, no, I dont think you are holding a credible position and if that is your understanding of the pro choice position then you are sadly mistaken.

    Throughout the ref last year we saw numerous posters take such an extreme, unrealistic position both here and in After Hours. They eventually all slipped up in one way or another and showed their true colours.

    It's a pretty pathetic attempt to try undermine pro-choice people. It lacks any imagination what so ever.

    I view pretty much all posts made by Kidchameleon as disingenuous. Not worth the effort even reading or replying to.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement