nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Abortion Discussion, Part the Fourth

robindch

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

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Bannasidhe

AllForIt wrote: »

Though this wouldn't be exclusive to this topic. For example the Left care about minorities, especially of late LGBT issues. Now, do they really care, or as I think, they're more motivated to going after a certain type of person who isn't in a minority.

How is looking for people who are part of a minority to be treated the same as a person who is part of a majority constitute "going after a certain type of person who isn't in a minority"?

Is equal treatment finite?
Does extending rights to a minority diminish the amount of those rights the majority has?

Salary Negotiator

Bannasidhe wrote: »

How is looking for people who are part of a minority to be treated the same as a person who is part of a majority constitute "going after a certain type of person who isn't in a minority"?

Is equal treatment finite?
Does extending rights to a minority diminish the amount of those rights the majority has?

Serious victim complex on the part of the oppressors.

ancapailldorcha

smacl wrote: »

Thing is, I don't actually believe that many of those pushing a pro-life agenda do care about babies. I think they care solely about pushing their entirely unpleasant agenda.

Exactly what caused me to move away from the anti-choice side. It became patently obvious to me that anyone who considered themselves "pro-life" but wasn't advocating for better support for hard-up mothers and their children was just arguing disingenuously.

smacl

AllForIt wrote: »

So you admit then that some of the protesters do care about the unborn above any other personal religious/political objective.

edit: I was only making an analogy by the way.

I dare say there are a few, but the majority of vocal pro-life advocates tend also to be either hard right and/or religious conservatives. To my mind they care first and foremost about themselves and pushing their agenda, and are selfishly using and fueling the abortion debate as a means to an end.

nozzferrahhtoo

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It became patently obvious to me that anyone who considered themselves "pro-life" but wasn't advocating for better support for hard-up mothers and their children was just arguing disingenuously.

We even had one user around boards who was completely pro choice.... almost extremist pro choice in advocating termination right up until birth and that a child has no rights until it travelled the birth canal..... up until around the time the referendum was announced.

At which point he not only SUDDENLY turned completely anti-abortion.... but he also advocated for the removal of social welfare and single parent allowance from such women too.

The reason given for not letting them have abortion or welfare? Apparently he as a privileged middle/late aged male thinks that lower class women need unwanted pregnancies and financial hardship in order to be motivated to better themselves in life. And therefore allowing them to have access to abortion is actually a form of oppression because it keeps them unmotivated to improve their lot in life. I kid you not.

Where women would be without guys like that who know whats good for them, and are willing to give it to them whether they want it or not, I do not know. It is a wonder any of them survive without such a good and enlightened male guiding hand to show them the right way to live.

[Deleted User]

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

We even had one user around boards who was completely pro choice.... almost extremist pro choice in advocating termination right up until birth and that a child has no rights until it travelled the birth canal..... up until around the time the referendum was announced.

At which point he not only SUDDENLY turned completely anti-abortion.... but he also advocated for the removal of social welfare and single parent allowance from such women too.

The reason given for not letting them have abortion or welfare? Apparently he as a privileged middle/late aged male thinks that lower class women need unwanted pregnancies and financial hardship in order to be motivated to better themselves in life. And therefore allowing them to have access to abortion is actually a form of oppression because it keeps them unmotivated to improve their lot in life. I kid you not.

Where women would be without guys like that who know whats good for them, and are willing to give it to them whether they want it or not, I do not know. It is a wonder any of them survive without such a good and enlightened male guiding hand to show them the right way to live.

The person you are talking about, if I remember them correctly, is still around and posting from under their bridge in other threads

ancapailldorcha

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

We even had one user around boards who was completely pro choice.... almost extremist pro choice in advocating termination right up until birth and that a child has no rights until it travelled the birth canal..... up until around the time the referendum was announced.

At which point he not only SUDDENLY turned completely anti-abortion.... but he also advocated for the removal of social welfare and single parent allowance from such women too.

The reason given for not letting them have abortion or welfare? Apparently he as a privileged middle/late aged male thinks that lower class women need unwanted pregnancies and financial hardship in order to be motivated to better themselves in life. And therefore allowing them to have access to abortion is actually a form of oppression because it keeps them unmotivated to improve their lot in life. I kid you not.

Where women would be without guys like that who know whats good for them, and are willing to give it to them whether they want it or not, I do not know. It is a wonder any of them survive without such a good and enlightened male guiding hand to show them the right way to live.

I think I know who you are talking about.

Ten years ago, I would have been on the anti-choice side. I just couldn't see it as anything other than morally wrong. As time went on, my position became more nuanced and I wouldn't have objected to things like legalising it for incest, rape, mental health issues, etc...

However, since then we've seen the culture war and are still mired in it. On the left, you have aggressive climate change activists, Antifa and so on but the modern libertarian right are just so much worse IMO. They just seem to loathe everyone who isn't a white male and even then they'd probably oppose measures targeted at the white working classes which I think are needed. LGBT people, BAME people, women, liberals and so on. It was pretty clear from the SSM referendum what their motivation was and still is.

When I was going through my libertarian phase years ago, it was at least a consistent ideology. You might not have liked it but they were consistent across issues like gun ownership, drugs, abortion and same sex marriage. Then it became big state for me, small state for everyone else.

I would have voted to repeal the eighth and I'm glad the Irish electorate chose this, if for no other reason than abusing the constitution like this for political ends is utterly disgraceful and actively harmed the lives of several people.

nozzferrahhtoo

Hah my journey to pro choice was a little different to yours I think. I did not know what I was on the issue for a long time. But since I was what people would call "Atheist".... though I do not use that label myself all that much.... I was expected to be pro-choice. And I hated that. I hated people thinking they knew what my position should be based on something else entirely.

So one day I said F-this. I am going to go and TALK at length with those people outside the Central Bank in Dublin with all the pictures of fetuses who were so against abortion. I was just gonna walk up, entirely open minded, and hear their argument and be entirely open to them and finding out I was against abortion too. I was literally there for the taking. Biased by teenage rebelliousness TOWARDS being converted.... due to my ire from being assumed to be pro-choice by default without even asking me.

So I set aside an entire afternoon expecting to talk to them for hours. I rocked up, said I was interested in their message, and asked them what their issues against abortion were. I wanted the WHOLE manifesto.

"look at the photos" I was told. I said yes they were indeed unpleasant photos, but I wanted to hear their arguments and points and so on.

"Look at the pictures maaahhhnnn" I was told again in a mindless drawl. So I moved on to a completely different person at the booths (different in both age and gender) and got exactly the same thing. And I realised very quickly they had nothing. Literally. Nothing.

I have been asking them on and off line ever since for arguments against the morality and ethics of abortion. I was about 15/16 then. I am 41 now. So it is no short amount of time. They STILL got nothing. One resident poster on these threads for example has nothing much more than his excitement about the way the tongue on the fetus moves about and his idea of a counter argument on the subject is looking up your posts from 10 years ago to see if you used a different word then than you do now when talking about these things. Because seemingly if you do not use the EXACT same words for everything 10 years on, the your position on the matter is void.

Yet over the years the pro choice side have given me loads of arguments and points. Many of which I rejected. For example I never use the incest or rape arguments myself when arguing pro choice. I do not find them good arguments, and in fact self defeating in some ways.

The rest of the arguments I have refined and improved on and adopted over time.

Mr. CooL ICE

Bannasidhe wrote: »

How is looking for people who are part of a minority to be treated the same as a person who is part of a majority constitute "going after a certain type of person who isn't in a minority"?

Is equal treatment finite?
Does extending rights to a minority diminish the amount of those rights the majority has?

The same train of thought was around during the SSM debates. Some hetero couples were feeling oppressed at the thought of extending the same right. Same sh1t, different issue.

ancapailldorcha

Mark Rippetoe wrote: »

The same train of thought was around during the SSM debates. Some hetero couples were feeling oppressed at the thought of extending the same right. Same sh1t, different issue.

It's pathetically transparent and a perfect example of the tyranny of the majority. Human rights aren't a zero sum game.

Bannasidhe

Mark Rippetoe wrote: »

The same train of thought was around during the SSM debates. Some hetero couples were feeling oppressed at the thought of extending the same right. Same sh1t, different issue.

The interesting thing is this weird perception that saying a minority group who have been denied xxxx will now be granted the exact same xxxx as the majority enjoy somehow means a)the minority now have an 'advantage', and b) the xxxx available to the majority is diminished.

When as SSM has shown us what actually happens is the minority get a watered down version of xxxx (ask any married LBGT+ parents if they are equal to married heterosexual parents) and a small majority ask them why they still need ... oh...a Pride March for example.... :rolleyes:

AllForIt

Bannasidhe wrote: »

How is looking for people who are part of a minority to be treated the same as a person who is part of a majority constitute "going after a certain type of person who isn't in a minority"?

Is equal treatment finite?
Does extending rights to a minority diminish the amount of those rights the majority has?

I'm dumbfounded how you managed to extrapolate from what I said to infer my point was about minority rights infringing on majority rights.

I could make a good case for it, let's say, diversity quota's, but that wasn't what I was getting at at all.

aloyisious

AllForIt wrote: »

I'm dumbfounded how you managed to extrapolate from what I said to infer my point was about minority rights infringing on majority rights.

I could make a good case for it, let's say, diversity quota's, but that wasn't what I was getting at at all.

So your point was more about presumed leftists going after certain majorities merely because they are majorities [maybe what is presumed to be right-ish because of the particular protest campaign they're involved in] and not because of the stated POV of those majorities or reasons or causes the majorities might be protesting about?

Hotblack Desiato

Abortion: New laws come into force in Northern Ireland

AllForIt

aloyisious wrote: »

So your point was more about presumed leftists going after certain majorities merely because they are majorities [maybe what is presumed to be right-ish because of the particular protest campaign they're involved in] and not because of the stated POV of those majorities or reasons or causes the majorities might be protesting about?

I was unable to parse the latter part of your point but to answer the former, yes.

Haven't you heard about the current times variant's of the Left, The radical leftist's, the radical feminist's, the WOKE and such forth. It was those variant's I was referring to and not the good ole standard Left.

I do feel sorry for the standard Leftist of old, who feel behoved to defend these new Left variants after a lifetime of being the Left, presumably because they were particularly involved in Left politics in the past.*

*edit: I forgot to say, as a result of this, there are some who I see as being extremely touchy for any kind of criticism of the Left whatsoever (not the first time I've seen that on this forum) and that explains for me how psychologically an intelligent person could misinterpret points and the character of the point maker, and use it as an opportunity to soapbox.

I joked on another thread that Left is the new Right. I wasn't talking about politics but from what I observe, it's a bit like that now in respect of politics as well.

smacl

AllForIt wrote: »

I was unable to parse the latter part of your point but to answer the former, yes.

Haven't you heard about the current times variant's of the Left, The radical leftist's, the radical feminist's, the WOKE and such forth. It was those variant's I was referring to and not the good ole standard Left.

I do feel sorry for the standard Leftist of old, who feel behoved to defend these new Left variants after a lifetime of being the Left, presumably because they were particularly involved in Left politics in the past.*

*edit: I forgot to say, as a result of this, there are some who I see as being extremely touchy for any kind of criticism of the Left whatsoever (not the first time I've seen that on this forum) and that explains for me how psychologically an intelligent person could misinterpret points and the character of the point maker, and use it as an opportunity to soapbox.

I joked on another thread that Left is the new Right. I wasn't talking about politics but from what I observe, it's a bit like that now in respect of politics as well.

All the above tells me is that, as indicated previously, your reason for getting involved in the abortion debate is solely to push a hard right wing agenda and has little to do with the care of babies or pregnant women. I don't think I'm alone in thinking that the two poster boys for right wing politics in the developed world look and act like they're auditioning for a remake of 'Dumb and Dumber'. As clearly shown in recent referendums, the people of this country clearly reject this greedy nonsense opting instead for kindness and egalitarianism. Regardless of your politics, the one thing the current crisis is showing us is the importance of a caring, inclusive and responsible society and the true value of those who work on the front lines of that society over those that reap the largest benefits. Going forward it seems apparent that we need to change our society such that we encourage many more of the next generation to work in caring professions and reward them for doing so. The right wing in the anti-abortion debate seems hell bent on punishing women as part of a broader agenda to maintain an anti-egalitarian status quo that protects the small minority of wealthy people who largely contribute nothing of value back to society.

Hotblack Desiato

Also more white baybees and keep the brown types out... NP stick out because they actually say this, but their fellow travellers while not expressing this sentiment directly, won't condemn it either.

aloyisious

AllForIt wrote: »

I was unable to parse the latter part of your point but to answer the former, yes.

Haven't you heard about the current times variant's of the Left, The radical leftist's, the radical feminist's, the WOKE and such forth. It was those variant's I was referring to and not the good ole standard Left.

I do feel sorry for the standard Leftist of old, who feel behoved to defend these new Left variants after a lifetime of being the Left, presumably because they were particularly involved in Left politics in the past.*

I joked on another thread that Left is the new Right. I wasn't talking about politics but from what I observe, it's a bit like that now in respect of politics as well.

My latter referred to the stated aims and intents of anti-abortion protestors, that of protecting the right to life of the unborn - as against those of the pregnant women and girls and that some of those gathered within said protests had other intents, simply using the protests as soapboxes.

As for the old left, well it might be that they feel obliged to show care for those other leftists referred to in your post, as to do otherwise would leave the right-ists to claim there was a split in the left. As for the label fascist, well that can apply to anyone. It's no longer the right who can enjoy the privilege and fame from the label.

Hotblack Desiato

Senator Catherine Noone, of the abortion Oireachtas committee, has lost her seat. Lots of pro-lifer gloating about, including on her previous twitter handle which has now been taken over by a parody account (well, parodies are supposed to be funny - this is just nasty.)

https://twitter.com/CatholicArena/status/1245706352724410368

I find it very strange, do they think that no mass attendee is allowed express an opinion on a sermon?

How can a catholic expressing an opinion on a priest's utterings be sectarian? Stupid.

The 'parody' account:

https://twitter.com/SenatorNoone

Although, she was an Enda Kenny appointee in 2016, Leo has stated that all appointees of the new Taoiseach should be female to address the appalling gender balance, so he might nominate her? Last laugh would be on the bitter pro-lifers then

Igotadose

interesting. US congress members petitioning HHS to allow fetal tissue in vaccine research for Covid-19.
Imagine, delaying vaccines due to dogma. Well, that's today's GOP

https://huffman.house.gov/imo/media/doc/fetal%20tissue%20research%20letter%204.6.20_updated.pdf

[Deleted User]

Igotadose wrote: »

interesting. US congress members petitioning HHS to allow fetal tissue in vaccine research for Covid-19.
Imagine, delaying vaccines due to dogma. Well, that's today's GOP

https://huffman.house.gov/imo/media/doc/fetal%20tissue%20research%20letter%204.6.20_updated.pdf

Always been the position for most of them to be against stem cell research. Some like Nancy Reagan only come out in support of it when personally affected.

You also however have the lieutenant governor of Texas stating that he and a lot of other grandparents would rather die than see the economy suffer due to the cost of public health measures against covid, so take from that what you will.

aloyisious

When Northern Irish women think they have got past the last hurdle where legalised abortion service in N/I is concerned, the local administration coincidentally screws up again... https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-britain-nireland-abortion/northern-irish-women-told-to-sail-to-england-for-abortions-despite-pandemic-idUKKBN21P2S1

aloyisious

Following on from the Covid-19 outbreak here, it seems that there have been some application relaxations in the HSE regulations in respect to the law applying to abortion services here. These seem to be in respect to visits to the doctor [GP] and the actual taking/supervision of the medications by the women patients. I don't have any details or links but presume as the relaxations were discussed on his RTE show by Sean O'Rourke with a HSE official [a Dr] that the discussed changes will/would be available on a HSE website.

Hotblack Desiato

https://www.abortionrightscampaign.ie/2020/04/08/press-release-abortion-rights-campaign-welcomes-remote-consultation-in-the-republic-but-says-urgent-action-is-needed-to-ensure-access-in-northern-ireland/

Hotblack Desiato

https://www.rte.ie/news/2020/0408/1129326-interim-model-sees-abortion-care-take-place-remotely/

The Health Service Executive's clinical lead for terminations of pregnancies has said the interim model of care in relation to early access to abortion allows for a woman "to have the entirety of her abortion care without having to visit her doctor".

Dr Aoife Mullally said that this "will not be the long-term model of care, because the legislation has not changed; this is just the interim model of care for the duration of the Covid-19 emergency".

The previous model of care allowed for two visits to a GP, but now these visits will be remote consultations.

This should have been allowed all along really - especially given the lack of GPs taking part in this service in some areas.

Two visits to a GP is totally unnecessary and that needs to go when the legislation is reviewed.

aloyisious

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

https://www.rte.ie/news/2020/0408/1129326-interim-model-sees-abortion-care-take-place-remotely/

This should have been allowed all along really - especially given the lack of GPs taking part in this service in some areas.

Two visits to a GP is totally unnecessary and that needs to go when the legislation is reviewed.

Ta. When I heard the name Mullally mentioned on RTE, I didn't use it in case it wasn't the person I supposed.

Hotblack Desiato

Would these people ever fúck off.

The article linked from my previous post has been updated and renamed.

"Pro-life group criticises temporary change to abortion services"

Pro Life Campaign spokesperson Eilís Mulroy has described the guidelines as "utterly reckless".
"In the blink of an eye, the minister has done a complete about turn in order to facilitate abortions taking place during the Covid-19 lockdown," she said.

So she wants to use this crisis to force people to remain pregnant against their will?

What part of 66.4% do these thickos not understand?

aloyisious

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Would these people ever fúck off.

The article linked from my previous post has been updated and renamed.

"Pro-life group criticises temporary change to abortion services"

So she wants to use this crisis to force people to remain pregnant against their will?

What part of 66.4% do these thickos not understand?

The percentage in it of women voting to improve their health rights.

end of the road

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Would these people ever fúck off.

The article linked from my previous post has been updated and renamed.

"Pro-life group criticises temporary change to abortion services"

So she wants to use this crisis to force people to remain pregnant against their will?

What part of 66.4% do these thickos not understand?

perhapse you could ask those who didn't simply go away when they were voted against in 1983, what part of the relevant percentage who voted against them do they not understand?
i think you are just going to have to get over it and accept that just like in 1983, a percentage of people voting one way does not stop those in opposition from continuing to have a voice and to use that voice to express their viewpoint and opinion.

uptherebels

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Would these people ever fúck off.

The article linked from my previous post has been updated and renamed.

"Pro-life group criticises temporary change to abortion services"

So she wants to use this crisis to force people to remain pregnant against their will?

What part of 66.4% do these thickos not understand?

Well I have been asking various "pro life" mouth pieces on various social media platforms that are moaning about this, (and also complaining about the pills being takien unsupervised, the hypocrisy of that complaint having gone way over their heads) if they would be looking for a temporary increase in the time limit for abortions to allow for examinations/supervision to take place, or other solutions to this issue.
To my absolute amazement the question was ignored and no alternative solutions given.