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

RBG, abortion and Ireland

Options
1234579

Comments

  • Options
    #182
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    bfa1509 wrote: »
    Yes my sister was privaleged to have been in the house she was, my point was rather than opening up access to abortion, we should be looking after the women and their unborn children just like she was. You completely missed the point on this.

    No disrespect, but the "Sending her on a plane to England" or "Exporting the problem" argument was always incredibly weak and lazy. It completely ignores the moral foundation on which people object to abortion. Abortion on healthy unborn is not ok in Ireland or England.

    You’re the one who completely missed the point.
    Outlawing it changes nothing, abortion has always happened and will always happen. So long as there are women becoming pregnant there will be a percentage of women who cannot remain so, whether we as a society think it’s ok or not. This is a fact.

    We can make it it safe and regulated to support the women experiencing a crisis or we can look the other way.
    You can say exporting the problem is a weak argument but I’m sure the thousands of women who made that lonely journey in secret without the support of their family/friends would disagree with you.

    You can morally object to it when it comes to your own womb, and I support your right to do that. You just don’t get to impose those morals on anyone else any more.


  • Options
    #183
    bfa1509
    Registered Users Posts: 1,022 ✭✭✭bfa1509


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    i dont engage with brand new posters. they are only out for one thing. nor do i engage with ridiculous strawman arguments.

    Still avoiding the question. Kinda sounds to me like you are stumped on this one.


  • Options
    #184
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,283 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    bfa1509 wrote: »
    Still avoiding the question. Kinda sounds to me like you are stumped on this one.

    it is a stupid question.


  • Options
    #185
    dark crystal
    Registered Users Posts: 10,962 ✭✭✭✭dark crystal


    Yellow_Fern wrote: »
    No one is forced to be a mother. There is adoption.

    Ah adoption...that old chestnut.

    Maybe we could go back to the good old days and throw the fallen women back into the Magdalene laundries and sell off their babies to rich yanks again, eh?


  • Options
    #186
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 28,998 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    SusieBlue wrote: »
    Adoption is pretty much non existent in Ireland, there were 5 infants domestically adopted in 2016 according to the CSO.
    There are probably more recent statistics available now but those are the ones I’m familiar with.
    I don’t think it’s ethical to force a woman to gestate a pregnancy just to resign an innocent child to a life stuck in the foster care system.
    Regardless, adoption is of no help to a woman who cannot or will not stay pregnant.

    The referendum is over, these same points were raised ad nauseam before it and the majority of people saw through them for what they are. Farcical.
    The 2018 deja vu is intense tonight.


    again, the ballot paper didn't contain any questions in relation to specific arguments put forward and as to whether one agreed or disagreed with them.
    so your statement that.
    "these same points were raised ad nauseam before it and the majority of people saw through them for what they are"
    is not a statement that can be made with any certainty, because we weren't asked about the arguments and voting 1 way doesn't mean you automatically agree or disagree with specific arguments.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #187
    bfa1509
    Registered Users Posts: 1,022 ✭✭✭bfa1509


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    it is a stupid question.

    It's not stupid at all. It is 100% a valid question. It just makes your position either completely contradictory or completely immoral. So which is it?


  • Options
    #188
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    Cartogrophy wrote: »
    I never imposed my opinion on others, I voted to repeal the 8th so what you're saying makes no sense.

    I wasn’t replying to you, why would you assume I was? Unless you have more than one account here and got confused? Hmmmm?


  • Options
    #189
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,283 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    bfa1509 wrote: »
    It's not stupid at all. It is 100% a valid question. It just makes your position either completely contradictory or completely immoral. So which is it?

    do you honestly think you have come up with some clever gotcha that nobody else has thought to ask before? really?


  • Options
    #190
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    Cartogrophy wrote: »
    Yes you were replying to me, keep up, you don't need to be Sherlock Holmes to figure it out.

    3 whole posts on boards and you’ve chosen a divisive abortion debate as your first port of call to post on. Right.


  • Options
    #191
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,283 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Cartogrophy wrote: »
    Do you understand what it means to debate? It's normal to identify inconsistencies in arguments, that is not a "gotcha".

    the debate is done.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #192
    bfa1509
    Registered Users Posts: 1,022 ✭✭✭bfa1509


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    do you honestly think you have come up with some clever gotcha that nobody else has thought to ask before? really?

    It wasn't me who came up with it. Is it a "gotcha" though? If a woman should not be forced to give birth (as is your opinion), is she compelled to give birth at 36 weeks?


  • Options
    #193
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,283 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Cartogrophy wrote: »
    Debate is never finished. But why are you here then?

    passing the time. unless you have something new to add on abortion, and nothing you have posted suggests you do, then further debate is pointless.


  • Options
    #194
    nolivesmatter
    Registered Users Posts: 888 ✭✭✭nolivesmatter


    bfa1509 wrote: »
    What does it matter if it's a new poster or not? This sounds like a deflection if ever I heard one. Why don't you answer his/her question as to whether or not a woman should be compelled to give birth to a 36 week old baby?

    Yeah, failure to answer this question typically indicates there's hypocrisy that someone doesn't want to reveal.


  • Options
    #195
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 28,998 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    why do these threads ALWAYS attract "brand new" posters? curious.


    new posters join the site all the time, that's what it is there for, the more the merrier and the better for the site.
    the site needs new users if it is to survive long term, i presume you do want the site to survive long term? i certainly do.
    so you should be welcoming new users joining up.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #196
    bfa1509
    Registered Users Posts: 1,022 ✭✭✭bfa1509


    end of the road wrote: »
    new posters join the site all the time, that's what it is there for, the more the merrier and the better for the site.
    the site needs new users if it is to survive long term, i presume you do want the site to survive long term? i certainly do.
    so you should be welcoming new users joining up.

    There should only be new posters so long as they agree with their ideology.


  • Options
    #197
    dark crystal
    Registered Users Posts: 10,962 ✭✭✭✭dark crystal


    Cartogrophy wrote: »
    Do you believe the unborn deserve protection or even consideration? If they feel pain do you believe you should try to minimise the pain they feel?

    I believe in trusting women to make choices about their own bodies. Not the Iona institute or random strangers who will never walk in their shoes.

    That's what I believe. If you ever get pregnant, make whatever choice befits your circumstances, but do not preach about how others should make decisions that will affect the rest of their lives from the comfort of your armchair (or pulpit).


  • Options
    #198
    circular flexing
    Registered Users Posts: 2,585 ✭✭✭circular flexing


    end of the road wrote: »
    again, the ballot paper didn't contain any questions in relation to specific arguments put forward and as to whether one agreed or disagreed with them.
    so your statement that.
    "these same points were raised ad nauseam before it and the majority of people saw through them for what they are"
    is not a statement that can be made with any certainty, because we weren't asked about the arguments and voting 1 way doesn't mean you automatically agree or disagree with specific arguments.


    The government published the bill they would introduce if the referendum passed and I believe the bill passed largely intact. So while the ballot paper was yes/no, people were aware of the specifics of what they were voting for.


  • Options
    #199
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 28,998 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    circular flexing wrote: »
    The government published the bill they would introduce if the referendum passed and I believe the bill passed largely intact. So while the ballot paper was yes/no, people were aware of the specifics of what they were voting for.




    yes, we were aware of what we were voting on.
    the reason susie's statement can't be said with any certainty, is because we could only vote yes or no . you were either all in or not in, there was no option to only vote to repeal but vote against the legislation, or tick a box as to whether you agree or disagree with a list of specific arguments.
    as well as that, even within those who voted to repeal, there were varying views, as there are within the pro-life movement, where some of us agreed with repealing the 8th itself, but didn't agree with the legislation as proposed.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #200
    KiKi III
    Registered Users Posts: 2,653 ✭✭✭KiKi III


    nolivesmatter wrote: »
    Yeah, failure to answer this question typically indicates there's hypocrisy that someone doesn't want to reveal.

    No, it indicates that people see an obvious distinction between a pregnancy that’s just off full-term where a healthy baby that can think and feel is likely to be born and an 8-12 week old foetus with a central nervous system not yet developed enough to feel pain.


  • Options
    #201
    dark crystal
    Registered Users Posts: 10,962 ✭✭✭✭dark crystal


    Medvedev504 wrote: »
    Do you trust people not to steal, murder and rape?

    Trusting people is a moronic idea. Laws exist for a reason.

    Ooh another brand new poster. Hello there!

    Those comaprisons are rather silly I think, no? The law says a woman has the right to seek a safe abortion in this country, so no one is breaking any laws in doing so. Rape, murder and theft are against the law.
    It's easy to preach about how the life of the unborn should be ended, you're not in a womb awaiting your demise.

    Do you believe a 36 week old pregnant woman should be legally allowed to kill the unborn child? It's her body after all, is it not her choice?

    Preaching...indeed.

    No, a healthy viable fetus should not be aborted in the 36th week. I doubt most people would disagree with that.
    I voted to repeal the eight because I believe that there should be a balance between the life of the unborn and the option for women to terminate a pregnancy.

    Sure you did.
    The key word is balance, this is not a black and white dilemma, it's nuanced. Get that into your head. Learn to see the perspective of others and not just your own self centred view.

    I do see the perspective of others. That's why I would never force anyone to comply with my personal moral standards. Choice is king in these situations - you don't agree with abortion? Don't have one!

    To force any woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy is extremely self-centered, seeing as I wouldn't be the one responsible for looking after the child for the next 18 years and beyond. She would. Get that into your head.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #202
    Antares35
    Registered Users Posts: 3,845 ✭✭✭Antares35


    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »
    My friend lives in the UK. Her husband would be conservative. They were back in Ireland for a funeral during the referendum campaign and her husband was shocked at the state of the NO campaign posters. Absolutely shocked. He could not believe they were even allowed. This is somebody who would not necessarily vote to legalise abortion. My father voted no but came close to abstaining, so disgusted was he with the antics of the NO campaign.

    I personally the NO campaign shot themselves in the foot with the campaign they ran.
    Why didn't he like the posters?


  • Options
    #203
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    Medvadev54 wrote: »
    You are missing the point about trusting people. You can't just trust people to do the right or moral thing. Lots of people won't. "Trust women" is a stupid slogan. Laws need to exist for a reason. This is why we don't trust people not to rape or murder.

    Do you think it should be illegal to abort a 36 week old foetus?

    Yes I did vote to repeal the eight. I believe women should have the right to abort early in a pregnancy. After a certain point it should be illegal in my opinion. In my opinion the unborn deserve consideration.

    You force people to comply with your personal moral standards if you believe assault should be illegal.

    Your problem is you lack the perspective and empathy to see other viewpoints, you are unable to grasp that some people have different morals. They believe abortion is immoral.

    I believe rape is immoral therefore I think it should be illegal. If I were to adopt your attitude I should not force my opinion on others and let people make their own decision if they want to rape. That's ridiculous, as is your flawed argument.

    And yet it appears you’d trust yourself to such a high regard that you feel confident enough to make that decision for others on their behalf?
    You are misunderstanding the slogan.
    The slogan isn’t saying to trust women without question in all matters, at all costs.
    It’s saying to give them a choice and trust them with that choice, should they experience a crisis pregnancy. Seeing as they are the ones who have to live with the consequences either way I don’t think that’s a particularly contrary position to take.
    Trust women to make the right choice for their body and their future, and make it a private matter between her and her doctor and not something the court of public opinion gets to have a say in.

    Not one person here has advocated or even raised the issue of late term abortion on this thread apart from yourself, so you’re arguing against a point that no one has even made.

    You lack the perspective to to recognise how arrogant it is to expect to impose your morals on other people.
    I don’t think abortion is immoral, so why should my options be limited if I had a crisis pregnancy just because you think it’s wrong?
    Why should I respect your opinion when you won’t have to live with the consequences should I become unexpectedly pregnant?
    Can you not see how blindingly ignorant that is?
    Your perspective is completely irrelevant and meaningless when it comes to other people’s wombs. It’s unwanted and unreasonable to expect other people to oblige you in that regard.

    Women are more than capable of making these choices for themselves and don’t need to be saved by do gooders.
    If you can’t even trust them with a choice, I can’t understand why you’d trust them with the responsibility of caring for a child for 18+ years.

    I also don’t believe for one minute that you voted to repeal, you’re fooling no one there.


  • Options
    #204
    nolivesmatter
    Registered Users Posts: 888 ✭✭✭nolivesmatter


    dark crystal wrote: »
    No, a healthy viable fetus should not be aborted in the 36th week. I doubt most people would disagree with that.

    And that is why specifically the "It's the woman's body so it's her choice" argument is so flawed - its still the woman's body even when the fetus is in the 36th week.
    KiKi III wrote: »
    No, it indicates that people see an obvious distinction between a pregnancy that’s just off full-term where a healthy baby that can think and feel is likely to be born and an 8-12 week old foetus with a central nervous system not yet developed enough to feel pain.

    What I wrote above should clarify what I meant by hypocrisy.


  • Options
    #205
    KiKi III
    Registered Users Posts: 2,653 ✭✭✭KiKi III


    nolivesmatter wrote: »
    And that is why specifically the "It's the woman's body so it's her choice" argument is so flawed - its still the woman's body even when the fetus is in the 36th week.

    In the 36th week of pregnancy, there are two fully-formed bodies, and the smaller one can live independently of the adult one. At 36 weeks, the foetus can think and feel, and survive on its own outside the womb. That’s why it’s not legal to abort at this point anywhere in the world. And that’s why this point you’re making is nonsense.


  • Options
    #206
    nolivesmatter
    Registered Users Posts: 888 ✭✭✭nolivesmatter


    KiKi III wrote: »
    In the 36th week of pregnancy, there are two fully-formed bodies, and the smaller one can live independently of the adult one. At 36 weeks, the foetus can think and feel, and survive on its own outside the womb. That’s why it’s not legal to abort at this point anywhere in the world. And that’s why this point you’re making is nonsense.

    The point is not nonsense, saying that shows you're missing the point.

    The point I'm making is that clearly there are other more pertinent points at play that override the argument that "it's the woman's body". For example (while I may not agree) the point you just explained yourself highlights the fact that primarily it's not about the fact that it's the woman's body, its about whether or not you think the fetus is another body that needs to be considered. So such an argument about "it's the woman's body" is pointless.


  • Options
    #207
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 28,998 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    dark crystal wrote: »
    Sure you did.

    to be fair, if the poster says they voted repeal, then they did so until such time as it can actually be shown otherwise.
    the reality is that there is no hive mind on either side, so yes voters will have different views to you on specific points of argument/debate, it doesn't mean they didn't vote the way they have stated they did.
    dark crystal wrote: »
    I do see the perspective of others. That's why I would never force anyone to comply with my personal moral standards. Choice is king in these situations - you don't agree with abortion? Don't have one!

    the problem for your argument is that we force our moral beliefs on each other all of the time, via the laws of the land, social norms, etc.
    saying to someone that if they don't agree with something then don't do it, isn't always valid, as sometimes the thing they don't agree with is something they don't agree with for a good and valid reason that is consistent with the values that society generally hold in other related situations.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #208
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 34,258 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    nolivesmatter wrote: »
    And that is why specifically the "It's the woman's body so it's her choice" argument is so flawed - its still the woman's body even when the fetus is in the 36th week.

    :rolleyes: It has to come out one way or the other. For example when the foetus dies in late pregnancy, labour is induced. So the obvious thing, when the foetus is still alive and the woman is unable to bring it to full term for whatever reason, is to induce labour. It's a stupid argument to be frank.

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Options
    #209
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 34,258 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Colton Odd Strife wrote: »
    if the judge-made law of Roe v Wade was not in place, it is likely that Trump and Congress would make abortion a thing of the past.

    Except they can't, without amending the US constitution which is almost impossible.

    There was legalised abortion in several states before Roe v Wade. Overturning Roe v Wade would mean that states could introduce anti-abortion laws which would be unconstitutional at present, but many states would not be at all inclined to make abortion illegal or to even restrict it.

    So your fantasy of 'making abortion a thing of the past' is never going to happen.

    What the American people are fighting tooth and nail to free themselves from

    Some American people are obsessed with Roe v Wade and taking away abortion rights, but this puts womens' lives at risk.

    The majority of the US public are in favour of legal abortion.

    Manach wrote: »
    That this striped the right from the unborn and has led at last count to over six thousand less children

    You do realise these abortions were happening anyway, either in the UK or here illegally with pills?

    If we want this number to go down, and we should, we need to do a lot better with access to contraception (free), proper sex education (no religious nutters peddling abstinence in schools) and supports for disadvantaged mothers. But the catholic right crow endlessly about how much they oppose abortion, while also opposing everything which reduces the need for abortion. Hypocrisy at its finest.

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Options
    #210
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 34,258 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Asdfgh2020 wrote: »
    Was it explained that the recommendations were to come into law immediately....?

    I would have thought the post appeal ‘legislation’ to be passed into law would have been debated and passed by both houses prior to becoming law....? Admittedly I’m no expert on dail procedures...but in this case it was like the ‘recommendations’’ that were talked about during the referendum campaign became law almost immediately once the yes won maybe this is normal protocol...but should the ‘recommendations’ not have gotten more debate..... who drafted the ‘recommendations’ the ‘citizens assembly’ group....?

    It was debated at great length in the citizens' assembly and at the Oireachtas committee, and the draft Bill was published before the referendum. Afterwards the Bill was debated in the usual way by both houses of the Oireachtas same as any other legislation, and only started to come into effect over six months after the referendum vote.

    If you weren't paying any attention that was entirely your problem.

    Deleted User wrote: »
    Pretending a cleaner was a nurse, images that served to distress rather than inform. Those are two I can think of offhand.

    They claimed both that the legislation would allow abortion up to six months, and that it would allow abortion up until birth (couldn't get their lies straight between the two campaigns.)

    Stuck a lovely poster right outside my kids' primary school, too :mad:

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #211
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,339 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    bfa1509 wrote: »
    Who's side are you arguing? This is an argument not to have an abortion

    Only if you completely fail to understand the argument. The point of the text you quoted is to show that "organs" are not a useful, or sensible, methodology to mediate morality.

    But rather than falsely and erroneously declare by fiat that what I said is an argument against abortion.... maybe actually explain HOW you think it is. Otherwise you might as well just quote me saying the word "apple" and declare that is an argument against my own position too for all the sense (read: none) that you are making here.
    bfa1509 wrote: »
    Do you think we should "abort" someone in a coma? They are essentially a bundle of cells.

    That is a common misunderstanding/misrepresentation of my opinion. But no that is not what I think/say/suggest at all. You are misunderstanding (willfully? I dunno) the difference between consciousness and conscious. When you are asleep for example you are not conscious in that moment. But you do not have more or less rights than someone who is awake. You are still a consciousness agent. A sentient agent. So is a coma patient.

    Throw away analogy: A broken down car is still a car. No car is however always going to be no car at all. A coma patient is a sentient agent. A 16 week old fetus is not and never has been.
    bfa1509 wrote: »
    The burning building analogy should be used for the exceptional circumstances, the times when only one can be saved. This is the typical example of using the hard cases to argue for full unrestricted abortion.

    Except it is not as the burning building is only the context to present the point and the point itself is not reliant on it in any way. Ignoring the point and demeaning the backdrop is weak from you. For shame.

    The point is that people treat different animals in different ways. People who would react to cruely to pets for example might have no qualms about swatting and killing 1000 flies.

    The point is that when you derided someone as having some kind of "list" of importance..... you failed to address the fact that many if not most people actually do. And the attributes that mediate where people generally place things on that list are EXACTLY the attributes a fetus lacks.
    bfa1509 wrote: »
    What do you mean "foot in mouth often" you are acting like you have achieved some kind of victory here. Far from it. Patients don't get to choose their own chemo don't be ridiculous.

    AGAIN yes they do. You not knowing what goes on in medical contexts does not mean these things do not happen. And it is not just with Cancer. With many medical conditions we do in fact give patients a range of options, including taking no option at all and letting the disease take it course and kill them. And we do it percisely because it is their body and their choice.

    You seem to be a complete lay man to cancer but I repeat for you a third time now: Many cancer patients are given treatment options. They will be told the different options, the different chances for success, the different side effects. They will be then talked through the option to opting for no treatment at all.

    And ultimately the choice of which, if any, treatment to take is THEIRS.

    Perhaps get your facts straight before you shout "ridiculous" at things you know next to nothing about?


Advertisement