Advertisement
We've partnered up with Nixers.com to offer a space where you can talk directly to Peter from Nixers.com and get an exclusive Boards.ie discount code for a free job listing. If you are recruiting or know anyone else who is please check out the forum here.
If you have a new account but can't post, please email Niamh on [email protected] for help to verify your email address. Thanks :)

Any other women here vote NO for the 8th?

179111213

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 26,966 ✭✭✭✭ Hotblack Desiato


    Or just go and kick for the other team for a few years, it's got to be better than no sex at all, right? 😁



  • Registered Users Posts: 390 ✭✭ Jeremy Sproket


    How is it a Freudian slip?


    I meant to type "options for men" instead of "options for me".


    It's funny how pathetic people always resort to abusive language and correcting people's spelling and grammar when they run out of arguments. I pity you actually.


    Life begins at conception.



  • Registered Users Posts: 390 ✭✭ Jeremy Sproket


    So why doesn't the abstinence mantra apply to women then?


    Don't want to get pregnant, keep your knees together.



  • Registered Users Posts: 26,966 ✭✭✭✭ Hotblack Desiato


    It appears that in some cases the internet can act as a portal back to the 1950s, it's uncanny.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 390 ✭✭ Jeremy Sproket


    Your side also lost several previous referendums.


    That didn't stop the people who wanted to kill babies from throwing shapes until they got a referendum.


    Why should the option exist to kill a baby in the womb for simply being disabled?


    Didn't a bloke with a funny stache in the 1930's and 1940's advocate a similar strategy?? Help me remember who that was... he was born in the Austro-Hungarian Empire in the 1880's, went on to become Chancellor of Germany .....



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,855 ✭✭✭ Igotadose


    Godwinized. Didn't take long.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,677 ✭✭✭ Loueze


    Oh I understand perfectly.

    But it didn't answer the question - what is the difference between a foetus conceived through rape, and one that was not? (Hint, there isn't one).

    But your reply does go to show that this is never really about the foetus at all, and reveals what it is about. You dress it up as "making moral decisions" but what it really is about, is controlling womens' decisions. You said it yourself. But you call it balancing some "moral equation". And that's what its always been about.

    Well, its not anyone else's moral decision to make or "moral equation" to balance, as far as I'm concerned.

    I just wish these so-called pro-lifers would spare us the "every life is precious" or "life begins at conception" spiel if they're then going to turn around and say its okay to abort in circumstances where the woman "didn't have a choice in avoiding the risk of becoming pregnant".

    Be honest. Call it what it truly is. Controlling women.

    Post edited by Loueze on


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,429 ✭✭✭ nudain


    I've no idea where to find mods anymore - but can someone just ban this OP WUM account?

    At the very least, make them make another one with a female name if they're going to pretend to be female.

    A cursory glance at their threads should be enough.

    Reported, anyway.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,309 ✭✭✭ Ulysses1874



    There's no "moral equation" here at all. If someone is going to die, and the only way to save their life is for me to give up a kidney, or some blood, or some bone marrow, it is nobody's business but mine whether I choose to help that person live or not. It's my body, my personal integrity and my right to privacy, so therefore it is my choice and I should not be forced to act in a particular way. The same logic applies at any point in time, and for any person. Therefore there is no distinction between conceptions of different types. There is no moral equation, and so it never "balances". This is no more and no less than a matter of personal integrity and of conscience, and the law should ensure that it is treated as such. The only logical alternative would be to force me to undergo a medical intervention to give up a kidney, or some blood, or some bone marrow, if that's the only way to keep another person alive. None of those things would kill me, but that is not a good enough test for the law, because they would interfere with my bodily integrity and my privacy.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,677 ✭✭✭ Loueze


    You could try, I guess.

    But you just sound ridiculous.



  • Registered Users Posts: 952 ✭✭✭ secondrowgal


    And there we have it. Knew it wouldn't take long for the dirty sluts rhetoric to appear. The veil wasn't even thin to begin with.


    Women can have as much sex as they like with other women and not get pregnant. Do they have to keep their knees together?

    Women can have as much sex as they like with men who have had a vasectomy and not get pregnant. Do they have to keep their knees together.

    Both are yes or no questions by the way, for the avoidance of doubt, since you used the blanket phrase "Don't want to get pregnant, keep your knees together".



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,677 ✭✭✭ Loueze


    It is ridiculous.

    Because I do have autonomy in this matter. Abortion is legal. If I found out today I was pregnant, I can decide to abort that pregnancy.

    I don't have to consult any one in "the society I live in" for their permission or opinion, and my decision has NO impact on them.

    They wouldn't even know.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,208 ✭✭✭ taxAHcruel


    Not sure transferring "logic" from a situation about a single persons decisions of personal autonomy over onto a discussion of crime from one person on another person - is going to look like anything other than ridiculous though? One is a victimless not-crime. The other is neither. The mapping does not track.

    The temptation at this point to press the summon button is overwhelming :)




  • Registered Users Posts: 8,855 ✭✭✭ Igotadose


    Nonsense. Theft is illegal. Likewise, abortion is legal. You're talking the law, not 'morals.' Morals are subjective. The law isn't, that's why it's a good thing, and there are (defined by law) ways to modify bad laws, like the 8th amendment. For example, genital mutilation. Some cultures, it's o.k. Not here (or most Western society.) So, it's illegal here. Not a morals issue at all.


    And, as has been repeatedly stated on this thread, if you have an issue with how abortion is controlled by the State, the Dail can legislate changes. So, have a go.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 10,744 ✭✭✭✭ JupiterKid


    This is the reason why I tend to avoid these circular argument threads...




  • Registered Users Posts: 2,309 ✭✭✭ Ulysses1874


    What has that got to do with anything?

    The choice isn't between forcing a person to have a kidney removed and letting someone else die. The choice is between forcing a person to have a kidney removed and not forcing a person to have a kidney removed.

    It is wrong to force someone to have a kidney removed and donated, regardless of whether someone else would live or die as a result of its donation. I know that, and before you even comment I am over 99% certain that you agree.



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,855 ✭✭✭ Igotadose


    Fortunately, we have the rule of law. Not morals. And they don't have to align.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,677 ✭✭✭ Loueze




  • Registered Users Posts: 2,309 ✭✭✭ Ulysses1874


    At the risk of stating the obvious, death is a quite effective way to bring an end to someone's concerns about their right to privacy (though in many places it doesn't bring an end to privacy rights). You seem to be taking a view of this which is centred around the process. I'm taking a view which is centred around the patient. People have rights to bodily integrity, and to privacy, and the rights of person A to their bodily integrity and privacy are not subject to the rights of person B to theirs.


    Of course theft shouldn't be legal. You have property rights to your own property, but you don't have rights to expropriate the property of others. On the other hand, you do have rights to bodily integrity and personal privacy that are not subject to the rights of others to theirs.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    I wrote in Atari Jaguar.



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,591 ✭✭✭ circadian


    So, several years later. Has it led to "unconditional and limitless abortions and essentially being used as a contraceptive"?



  • Registered Users Posts: 17,058 ✭✭✭✭ Mr. CooL ICE


    "Pro-abort" doesn't even make sense.


    I voted to repeal the 8th. I have had two children since access to abortion services became legal. Does that make me "pro-abort"?



  • Advertisement
Advertisement