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

Legalise abortion

1…1415171920…40

Comments

  • #482
    RepublicanEagle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 399 ✭✭RepublicanEagle


    drkpower wrote: »
    Its a discussion forum, people ask each other questions, you know, and then get them to clarify their positions.....:P

    So, in your view, abortion is justifiable if otherwise the mothers death is inevitable or probable.

    What order of probability? 51%?
    What about if her death is possible?

    What if,what about,bla bla.Please ask relevant questions instead of going off topic.


  • #483
    RepublicanEagle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 399 ✭✭RepublicanEagle


    Wicknight wrote: »
    I killed approx 4 million sperm last night. I didn't get all worked up about it. No one charged me for genocide.

    You think masturbation is the same as ripping an infant out of a woman's uterus? GTFO and STFU.


  • #484
    metrovelvet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,375 ✭✭✭metrovelvet


    Flamed Diving wrote: »
    Sperm and eggs are potential humans.
    We are dealing with actualities here, not potentialities.


  • #485
    Flamed Diving
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    metrovelvet wrote: »
    We are dealing with actualities here, not potentialities.

    How arbitrary and convenient for you.


  • #486
    metrovelvet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,375 ✭✭✭metrovelvet


    Flamed Diving wrote: »
    How arbitrary and convenient for you.

    I beg your pardon. What are you talking about? A potential human is not a human. An actual human is a human. Pretty basic.

    An acorn is a potential tree, but is not a tree. A tree is a tree.


  • Advertisement
  • #487
    Flamed Diving
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    metrovelvet wrote: »
    I beg your pardon. What are you talking about? A potential human is not a human. An actual human is a human. Pretty basic.

    An acorn is a potential tree, but is not a tree. A tree is a tree.

    Arbitrary.


  • #488
    metrovelvet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,375 ✭✭✭metrovelvet


    Flamed Diving wrote: »
    Arbitrary.
    Not at all. The potential argument doesnt cut it. Sorry.


  • #489
    Flamed Diving
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    metrovelvet wrote: »
    Not at all. The potential argument doesnt cut it. Sorry.

    Why, because you make an arbitrary statement and then say sorry?

    How arrogant.


  • #490
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #491
    Flamed Diving
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    To MV: as I clearly stated earlier, your post was arrogant.


  • Advertisement
  • #492
    Zulu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,967 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


    In a perverse way, you gotta love the way people rationalise convenience killing.

    The simple crux of this argument/discussion is that people wish to have the option to defend their social lives regardless of the impact this has on other people. Simply put: they want to have option to kill another person because of the inconvenience that person’s life apparently may impose on them.

    Personally, that idea is abhorrent to me, and I’ll always vote against such ideas being permitted in a society I’m part of. However, the idea isn’t as alien as we’d like to believe – throughout history humans have, pretty much constantly, killed other humans out of convenience.

    The question, I find, is: wouldn’t I rather try and change that?


  • #493
    Flamed Diving
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    Zulu wrote: »
    In a perverse way, you gotta love the way people rationalise convenience killing.

    The simple crux of this argument/discussion is that people wish to have the option to defend their social lives regardless of the impact this has on other people. Simply put: they want to have option to kill another person because of the inconvenience that person’s life apparently may impose on them.

    Personally, that idea is abhorrent to me, and I’ll always vote against such ideas being permitted in a society I’m part of. However, the idea isn’t as alien as we’d like to believe – throughout history humans have, pretty much constantly, killed other humans out of convenience.

    The question, I find is, wouldn’t I rather try and change that?

    This is the perfect example of a "pro-life" statement. It attempts to introduce so much emotive language that it ends up spilling out the edges. Never does it consider some of the more complex issues at play with respect to this topic. Everything is splashed in straight-edged lines of black and white. It is the reason why these debates stand no chance of being held in a rational way, and why no reasonable solutions will ever be found. It's just an angry mob with torches and nothing more.

    Any discussion on paedophilia is doomed to the same fate.


  • #494
    Zulu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,967 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


    I don't believe I was using emotive language.
    Never does it consider some of the more complex issues at play with respect to this topic.
    You want a single statment that can address all issues? Thats a bit of an ask, isn't it?
    Everything is splashed in straight-edged lines of black and white.
    I'm being clear and concise if that's what you mean.


  • #495
    Flamed Diving
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    It attempts to introduce so much emotive language.
    Zulu wrote: »
    Where?

    The metaphor of your statement attempts to link abortion to say, genocide.
    Zulu wrote: »
    throughout history humans have, pretty much constantly, killed other humans out of convenience

    Linking all abortion => "convenience killing" => genocide/war/bible/etc is pretty damn emotive. You can't even see it anymore...

    Never does it consider some of the more complex issues at play with respect to this topic.
    Zulu wrote: »
    You want a single statment that can address all issues? Thats a bit of an ask, isn't it?

    Well... you kinda did:
    Zulu wrote: »
    The simple crux of this argument/discussion is that people wish to have the option to defend their social lives regardless of the impact this has on other people.

    But, you are struggling to understand what I mean. Allow me to help.
    Zulu wrote: »
    Simply put: they want to have option to kill another person because of the inconvenience that person’s life apparently may impose on them.

    Is it an "inconvenience" in the case of Ectopic pregnancy for the pregnant female to abort the foetus in order to save her life? According to your statement, this is a... "social life" choice? Should we let the mother die, according to your "hard and fast" principles? I repeat:

    Never does it consider some of the more complex issues at play with respect to this topic.
    Zulu wrote: »
    I'm being clear and concise if that's what you mean.

    So with the ban on abortion, this women is condemned to death. Hmm, there is a quote that comes to mind...
    Zulu wrote: »
    In a perverse way, you gotta love the way people rationalise convenience killing.


  • #496
    drkpower
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭drkpower


    RepublicanEagle wrote: »
    What if,what about,bla bla.Please ask relevant questions instead of going off topic.
    `
    Asking you when abortion is justifiable is off-topic in a thread entitled 'Legalise Abortion'.......?:eek:

    I sense you are dodging my questions, for some reason....:rolleyes:


  • #497
    metrovelvet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,375 ✭✭✭metrovelvet


    Flamed Diving wrote: »
    It attempts to introduce so much emotive language.




    The metaphor of your statement attempts to link abortion to say, genocide.



    Linking all abortion => "convenience killing" => genocide/war/bible/etc is pretty damn emotive. You can't even see it anymore...

    Never does it consider some of the more complex issues at play with respect to this topic.



    Well... you kinda did:



    But, you are struggling to understand what I mean. Allow me to help.



    Is it an "inconvenience" in the case of Ectopic pregnancy for the pregnant female to abort the foetus in order to save her life? According to your statement, this is a... "social life" choice? Should we let the mother die, according to your "hard and fast" principles? I repeat:

    Never does it consider some of the more complex issues at play with respect to this topic.



    So with the ban on abortion, this women is condemned to death. Hmm, there is a quote that comes to mind...
    No. You can get abortions for ectopics.

    Lets face it. Most women get abortions because they want to finish a masters, or cheated on their husbands, or some other convenience or another. Everyone likes to pretend theres some huge tragedy behind the decision and there is a total taboo on judging women who get them because we sre supposed to think the woman is the victim, which she is, but not until after the abortion, just as her child is.

    I know many women who have had abortions. Not one was rape, ectopic, incest,or feotal abnormality. They were all for convenience. And not one was shown a scan of the baby beforehand.


  • #498
    TEMPLAR KNIGHT
    Closed Accounts Posts: 961 ✭✭✭TEMPLAR KNIGHT


    SLUSK wrote: »
    Abortions should be legalised in Ireland. In the long run it will help bring crime down because potential criminals will not be born. It is a well known fact that poor people commit more crimes, they also have more kids out of wedlock and so on. If these women can have abortions instead it would be good for all of us.



    just kill the criminals or stop giving them suspended sentences?


  • #499
    Flamed Diving
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    metrovelvet wrote: »
    No. You can get abortions for ectopics.

    Ah, now we are getting somewhere. So you are saying that there can be a good reason for someone killing a defenceless human getting an abortion. Good. Welcome to the world of relativism.


  • #500
    metrovelvet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,375 ✭✭✭metrovelvet


    I never claimed to be a pacifist. Im pro life, but im not a pacifist.


  • #501
    Zulu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,967 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


    Flamed Diving wrote: »
    The metaphor of your statement attempts to link abortion to say, genocide.
    Linking all abortion => "convenience killing" => genocide/war/bible/etc is pretty damn emotive. You can't even see it anymore...
    YOU made that up all by yourself. I never suggested that abortion was genocide. I think it's you thats guilty of "emotive" language.
    Is it an "inconvenience" in the case of Ectopic pregnancy for the pregnant female to abort the foetus in order to save her life?
    I love this, next you'll trot out the example of a little girl thats raped by her father...

    Listen, the reality of the matter is, when we talk about legalising abortion, we mean making abortion available as a form of "birth control", not Ectopic pregnancies. Or other pregnancies where the mothers life is in cronic danger.

    So discuss the minor % of cases if you must, but you won't convince anyone until you tackle the real issue.

    Stop skirting around the obvious.


  • Advertisement
  • #502
    mariaf24
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,242 ✭✭✭mariaf24


    Someone at the beginning said that a fetus is a fetus, it is the womans fetus and therefore her choice to do what she wants with this fetus.
    This angers me no end. Would you also argue that a baby is a baby, the womans baby, therefore she should be allowed to do whatever she wishes with it? No you would not. The fetus is a life, it is a baby, i have been pregnant and given birth myself and had the joy of feeling my baby move inside me from very early in the pregnancy.
    And the idea that legalising abortion will cause a decrease in the level of crime? Ridiculous. That is like arguing fewer potential geniuses will be born in the future because they face being aborted.
    Maybe making contraception more readily available, accessible and cheaper might be a good idea, with the possibility of the introduction of the morning after pill available over the counter (but closely monitored) but abortion should never be seen as a solution to a problem like crime for for any other reason in my opinion.


  • #503
    Eliot Rosewater
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,745 ✭✭✭Eliot Rosewater


    Zulu wrote: »
    I never suggested that abortion was genocide

    Lets see...
    Zulu wrote: »
    However, the idea isn’t as alien as we’d like to believe – throughout history humans have, pretty much constantly, killed other humans out of convenience.

    What that sentence is suggesting is that peoples desire (convenience) for abortion springs from the same desire that has caused wars and genocides and pretty much all intentional killing in history.

    Thats what I would term emotive language, and I'm pretty sure I'm in rather large majority in thinking so.


  • #504
    femalemarxist
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4 ✭femalemarxist


    Hi guys, long time reader/lurker first time poster.

    I'm interested in this particular thread as I happen to be one of many Irish women forced to endure the trauma of going abroad to terminate a pregnancy. Having accepted the significant cost of travel, staying overnight etc ,I also experienced complications on returning to our lovely little backwater. When I went to the clinic I was treated like an animal by the secretary when she learned why I was there. I was made to wait for an hour, sitting on a hard wooden chair whilst almost bent double hoping I wouldnt pass out or start bleeding.
    I think we need to leanr how to treat our current citizens better before we start worrying about those who havent even taken a breath yet.


  • #505
    Zulu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,967 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


    Eliot Rosewater wrote: »
    Lets see...
    I said humans killed other humans out of convenience, is this something you dispute?

    Please leave the extrapolations out of it.


  • #506
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Flamed Diving wrote: »
    This is the perfect example of a "pro-life" statement.
    I think you'll get that on both sides in this debate - the obsession of pro-life groups to ensure the foetus considered a 'person' is only matched by the the obsession of pro-choice groups to discount the foetus as being a 'person'. The reason for this is simple; no amount of logic, reason, evidence or cogent argument will sway people for or against abortion once we have decided whether a foetus is this or this.

    In reality even if the foetus is a person, this may not make any difference to whether it is moral, or at least not immoral, to abort it. We allow 'murder' in many situations - from war, through to capital punishment. Every day decisions are made that indirectly result in the death of people, often innocent people - it's called triage.
    femalemarxist wrote: »
    I'm interested in this particular thread as I happen to be one of many Irish women forced to endure the trauma of going abroad to terminate a pregnancy.
    For all your interest, you may have missed the point of the thread which is to consider the morality of abortion. If moral, or at least not immoral, then you have a point, otherwise you are asking others to show sympathy for an immoral act.

    TBH, discussing the trauma of abortion abroad for the woman in such debates is on much the same level as showing pictures of an aborted foetus - it seeks to convince through emotion and not reason.
    I think we need to leanr how to treat our current citizens better before we start worrying about those who havent even taken a breath yet.
    So abortions at eight months or were you just being glib?


  • #507
    metrovelvet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,375 ✭✭✭metrovelvet


    Zulu wrote: »
    I said humans killed other humans out of convenience, is this something you dispute?

    Please leave the extrapolations out of it.
    I think people mistook convenience for efficiency and and inferred that you meant genocide. But even if you did, I dont see whats wrong with using that word. No one would have a problem with it if applied to Philip morris.


  • #508
    femalemarxist
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4 ✭femalemarxist


    The Corinthian wrote: »

    So abortions at eight months or were you just being glib?


    No I was not being glib. Abortion is the killing of the unable by the able. I have learned to accept this. I have no guilt over what I did and would not have any more so had I left my termination until later on in the pregnancy. I honestly dont see how someone could go 8 months and then decide its not for them. Yes I know there are certain cases where women dont realise they're pregnant blah de blah. In short, the option should remain open regardless of time frame. This is why I admire Obama's decision concerning late term abortions.

    Also, I think the sooner we overcome our outdated notions of morality the better. We are animals first and foremost. Satisfying our personal desires is our primary goal.


  • #509
    Zulu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,967 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


    femalemarxist wrote: »
    Also, I think the sooner we overcome our outdated notions of morality the better. We are animals first and foremost. Satisfying our personal desires is our primary goal.
    And you extend this logic fully? You support rape, sexual assault, sexual inercourse &/or relations with animals, sexaul intercourse &/or relations with persons incapable of consent? You support murder, assault & physical abuse?

    These are all our desires. Is this what you mean? or do you only retain that logic solely for abortion?


  • #510
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    femalemarxist wrote: »
    I honestly dont see how someone could go 8 months and then decide its not for them.
    Some decide its not for them after birth - don't look on the availability of a choice from your own perspective, but from every conceivable perspective, even if you would never choose so.
    Zulu wrote: »
    These are all our desires. Is this what you mean? or do you only retain that logic solely for abortion?
    I don't think she's thought it through, tbh - a bit like RepublicanEagle earlier, but from the other direction.


  • Advertisement
  • #511
    metrovelvet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,375 ✭✭✭metrovelvet


    femalemarxist wrote: »
    No I was not being glib. Abortion is the killing of the unable by the able. I have learned to accept this. I have no guilt over what I did and would not have any more so had I left my termination until later on in the pregnancy. I honestly dont see how someone could go 8 months and then decide its not for them. Yes I know there are certain cases where women dont realise they're pregnant blah de blah. In short, the option should remain open regardless of time frame. This is why I admire Obama's decision concerning late term abortions.

    Also, I think the sooner we overcome our outdated notions of morality the better. We are animals first and foremost. Satisfying our personal desires is our primary goal.
    So while you were driving your mother demented with tantrums and no sleep it would have been ok for her to smother you with a teddy?

    Morality protects you too. But you could truly be amoral and remorseless. About 3% of the population are but this could be an underdiagnosed figure.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement