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

Do you find these billboards offensive?

Options
1…1920222425

Comments

  • Options
    #632
    old hippy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,441 ✭✭✭old hippy


    philologos wrote: »
    And that represents my position how?

    Posts like these can't be considered much more than trolling. It is because I'm pro-life that I reject bombing abortion clinics or murdering abortionists funnily enough.

    Now to my previous post - Yes, it is biologically true that the embryo is a human life. The sentinence argument is an argument based on development. Essentially because life X is younger and less developed than Y therefore Y has the right to kill it.

    It's an arbitrary pointer. I could equally say that someone doesn't become truly alive until they can juggle 1024 bananas, whilst riding a unicycle up Mt Snowdon and playing Mozart's Eine Kleine Nachtmusik on a violin in the height of winter.

    Thankfully, we do have biological fact to back up that the embryo is alive so we don't need to get into arbitrary standards such as these.


    The embryo is "alive" in the same way my big toe is "alive", that's all.

    The people of Ireland should have every right to terminate that "life" and would do well to concentrate on the woes of people already out in that big, bad world rather than get into a state over a cluster of random cells.


  • Options
    #633
    robp
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,934 ✭✭✭robp


    old hippy wrote: »
    There are some pro life persons who believe bombing clinics and murdering doctors is acceptable, there ya go :D

    Life, life is so precious :rolleyes::rolleyes:

    If we want to resort to mud slinging its worth mentioning the pro-choice folk who murdered pro-lifers in the USA in 2009 because their pro-life posters offended them (see the case of James Pouillon).

    Now, I know this in no way reflects the majority of pro-choicer people but the on the other-hand the reference to infanticide is not irrelevant because amongst pro-choicers there is a huge amount of disagreement on what should be used to define the right to life. The most dominant idea is the personhood argument. On the surface it sounds reasonable until you notice that in no way has a newborn child or severely mentally handicapped person full personhood. It does not have self awareness, reason, language or compassion. So a right to life based on personhood leaves the door open to infanticide which very few agree with. This why pro-lifers see the personhood argument as a wishy washy and inconsistent point of view. We prefer clearer definitions based on milestones in physiological development not abstract and vague milestones in behavioral development. Frankly personhood isn’t measurable enough.


  • Options
    #634
    blacklilly
    Registered Users Posts: 2,687 ✭✭✭blacklilly


    28064212 wrote: »
    You couldn't have missed the point any more if you tried.

    Yes, I'm sure some pro-choice people believe in infanticide. I'm also sure some of them are actual murderers, and I'm sure some of them don't wash their hands after going to the bathroom. I'm equally sure that some on the pro-life side have bombed clinics, beaten pregnant teens and, on occasion, gone over the speed limit.

    None of that has any bearing on the discussion

    Does your toe have its own hearbeat, nearvous system, brain waves, is your big toe considered a human being? No it doesn't.

    To suggest the right to life of the unborn is nill as it is entirely dependant on the mothers womb and therefore the mother has the right to abort this life is the same arguement use for after birth abortion. A new born is wholly dependant on the mother (persons) for survival. I believe this does have a bearing on this discussion.
    Also can you tel me when the unborn does have a right to life, at what point in pregnancy is it not ok to abort and at what point does the unborns right become equal to that of the mother?


  • Options
    #635
    old hippy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,441 ✭✭✭old hippy


    Dunno who you're replying to there lilly but an embryo isn't a human being, not yet. It's an embryo. That's all.


  • Options
    #636
    Shenshen
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 9,453 Mod ✭✭✭✭Shenshen


    blacklilly wrote: »
    Does your toe have its own hearbeat, nearvous system, brain waves, is your big toe considered a human being? No it doesn't.

    To suggest the right to life of the unborn is nill as it is entirely dependant on the mothers womb and therefore the mother has the right to abort this life is the same arguement use for after birth abortion. A new born is wholly dependant on the mother (persons) for survival. I believe this does have a bearing on this discussion.
    Also can you tel me when the unborn does have a right to life, at what point in pregnancy is it not ok to abort and at what point does the unborns right become equal to that of the mother?

    Well, can you tell me at what point any living person has the right to use someone else's body for their survival against their will?
    Or even just parts of someone else's body? No, there has to be consent by the donor, even if it's just for a few millilitres of blood.

    As I said earlier, corpses have more right to self-determination than women.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #637
    blacklilly
    Registered Users Posts: 2,687 ✭✭✭blacklilly


    Shenshen wrote: »
    Well, can you tell me at what point any living person has the right to use someone else's body for their survival against their will?
    Or even just parts of someone else's body? No, there has to be consent by the donor, even if it's just for a few millilitres of blood.

    As I said earlier, corpses have more right to self-determination than women.

    Preganncy is 100% natural your point suggests that it is something unnatural.

    By having sex you are giving consent to become pregnant, you may not want to become pregant but pregnancy is a result of sex.

    Preganncy is 100% avoidable.

    I'm not sure you could consider a womb to be an organ that is donanted.

    Irish Women have the knowledge and power to make decisions that will prevent pregancy should they wish to not become pregnant, we do not live in a third world country.
    There is a multitude of contraceptives available, use condoms and the pill for example. I understand pregnacy can still occur but it is unlikley if both are used correctly.

    In society,there is a movement towards people not willing to take responsibility for their actions.


  • Options
    #638
    Shenshen
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 9,453 Mod ✭✭✭✭Shenshen


    blacklilly wrote: »
    Preganncy is 100% natural your point suggests that it is something unnatural.

    By having sex you are giving consent to become pregnant, you may not want to become pregant but pregnancy is a result of sex.

    Preganncy is 100% avoidable.

    I'm not sure you could consider a womb to be an organ that is donanted.

    Irish Women have the knowledge and power to make decisions that will prevent pregancy should they wish to not become pregnant, we do not live in a third world country.
    There is a multitude of contraceptives available, use condoms and the pill for example. I understand pregnacy can still occur but it is unlikley if both are used correctly.

    In society,there is a movement towards people not willing to take responsibility for their actions.

    What's unnatural about a blood transfusion? It can safe a life, yet it is not compulsory for anybody to give blood.
    The mere idea would strike people as unethical.

    Yes, pregancy can be avoided. But if it hasn't been avoided for whatever reason, that alone cannot be constructed to be implied consent to pregnancy.
    After all, most traffic accidents are entirely avoidable, yet we wouldn't refuse people who had just been in an accident medical treatment to restore them to their previous state on the basis that the moment they got in the car/on the bike/whatever other means of transport they were using they knew about the risks and went for it anyway.


  • Options
    #639
    blacklilly
    Registered Users Posts: 2,687 ✭✭✭blacklilly


    Shenshen wrote: »
    What's unnatural about a blood transfusion? It can safe a life, yet it is not compulsory for anybody to give blood.
    The mere idea would strike people as unethical.

    Yes, pregancy can be avoided. But if it hasn't been avoided for whatever reason, that alone cannot be constructed to be implied consent to pregnancy.
    After all, most traffic accidents are entirely avoidable, yet we wouldn't refuse people who had just been in an accident medical treatment to restore them to their previous state on the basis that the moment they got in the car/on the bike/whatever other means of transport they were using they knew about the risks and went for it anyway.

    A blood transfusion does not happen by itself, therefore it is not natural, I don't see what relevance this has to this discussion.

    Again your comparasions with your big toe, traffic accidents and blood transfusions are totally irrelevant to this discussion. You are not comparing like with like.


  • Options
    #640
    Shenshen
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 9,453 Mod ✭✭✭✭Shenshen


    blacklilly wrote: »
    A blood transfusion does not happen by itself, therefore it is not natural, I don't see what relevance this has to this discussion.

    Again your comparasions with your big toe, traffic accidents and blood transfusions are totally irrelevant to this discussion. You are not comparing like with like.

    Pregnancy doesn't "happen by itself" either, unless you're a really serious Catholic of course.

    I am comparing similar with similar. I cannot companr pregnancies with pregnancies, obviously. And what big toes are you talking about?


  • Options
    #641
    blacklilly
    Registered Users Posts: 2,687 ✭✭✭blacklilly


    Shenshen wrote: »
    What's unnatural about a blood transfusion? It can safe a life, yet it is not compulsory for anybody to give blood.
    The mere idea would strike people as unethical.

    Yes, pregancy can be avoided. But if it hasn't been avoided for whatever reason, that alone cannot be constructed to be implied consent to pregnancy.
    After all, most traffic accidents are entirely avoidable, yet we wouldn't refuse people who had just been in an accident medical treatment to restore them to their previous state on the basis that the moment they got in the car/on the bike/whatever other means of transport they were using they knew about the risks and went for it anyway.
    Shenshen wrote: »
    Pregnancy doesn't "happen by itself" either, unless you're a really serious Catholic of course.

    I am comparing similar with similar. I cannot companr pregnancies with pregnancies, obviously. And what big toes are you talking about?

    Sorry it was another poster that mentioned his/her big toe.

    How do you think pregnancy does happen then? Whats with the catholism hit?
    Now mabe I'm mistaken but I remember being told that pregnancy happens when a sperm and egg meet and become friends, this happens when a male and female have sex, so yes, in one way "it doesn't happen by itself" as you have to have sex in order for it to happen


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #642
    woof im a dog
    Registered Users Posts: 195 ✭✭woof im a dog


    i wouldnt say they offend me i think theyre a bit in bad taste though


  • Options
    #643
    sbsquarepants
    Registered Users Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭sbsquarepants


    blacklilly wrote: »
    Preganncy is 100% natural your point suggests that it is something unnatural.

    By having sex you are giving consent to become pregnant, you may not want to become pregant but pregnancy is a result of sex.

    .


    Come on now!
    What about in the case of rape, as the most immediately obvious example of sex not being the same as consenting to pregnancy.


  • Options
    #644
    blacklilly
    Registered Users Posts: 2,687 ✭✭✭blacklilly


    sbsquarepants wrote: »
    Come on now!
    What about in the case of rape, as the most immediately obvious example of sex not being the same as consenting to pregnancy.

    Obviously I'm not saying being raped is consenting to pregnancy, the woman hasn't consented to sex in these cases.

    I don't have the exact percentages to hand, however I do not a very low precentage of rape victims become pregnant.
    Also not all victims of rape who become pregnant decide to terminate their pregnancies. I believe the largest study done on this subject found between 75-85% of pregancies resulting from rape did not end in abortion.


  • Options
    #645
    sbsquarepants
    Registered Users Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭sbsquarepants


    Was just the most obvious example of sex and consent to becoming pregnant being completely seperate entities.

    I believe in fact that they are usually seperate entities - and the vast majority of times any average woman will have sex in her lifetime, she is in no way consenting to becoming pregnant


  • Options
    #646
    28064212
    Registered Users Posts: 10,533 ✭✭✭✭28064212


    And the other 15-25% of rape victims who fall pregnant? They should be forced to take the pregnancy full-term?

    Boardsie Enhancement Suite - a browser extension to make using Boards on desktop a better experience (includes full-width display, keyboard shortcuts, dark mode, and more). Now available through your browser's extension store.

    Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/boardsie-enhancement-suite/

    Chrome/Edge/Opera: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/boardsie-enhancement-suit/bbgnmnfagihoohjkofdnofcfmkpdmmce



  • Options
    #647
    blacklilly
    Registered Users Posts: 2,687 ✭✭✭blacklilly


    28064212 wrote: »
    And the other 15-25% of rape victims who fall pregnant? They should be forced to take the pregnancy full-term?

    I cannot tell people what to do, however I am anti-obortion in any case. Rape is a tramatic and if a woman falls pregnany through rape, she will obviously be in crisis.

    I know one woman who was raped about 30 years ago and become pregant, she put her daughter up for adoption and for her this was the best thing to do.

    The vast majority of abortions are not due to the woman being raped and although it does happen I think a discussion on this should not be centered around a small precentage of women who do fall pregnant through rape.
    I do not intend for that to sound as if I am not concerned for the women that do fall pregnant through rape however taking minority situations and applying them to this discussion tends to hamper the true reality of abortion and the reasons for it.


  • Options
    #648
    28064212
    Registered Users Posts: 10,533 ✭✭✭✭28064212


    blacklilly wrote: »
    I do not intend for that to sound as if I am not concerned for the women that do fall pregnant through rape however taking minority situations and applying them to this discussion tends to hamper the true reality of abortion and the reasons for it.
    No it doesn't. The only way it does is if you assume that anyone who thinks abortion should be legal in some circumstances means they think it must be legal in all circumstances.

    Do you think a woman who has been raped and fallen pregnant should be allowed to procure an abortion?

    Boardsie Enhancement Suite - a browser extension to make using Boards on desktop a better experience (includes full-width display, keyboard shortcuts, dark mode, and more). Now available through your browser's extension store.

    Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/boardsie-enhancement-suite/

    Chrome/Edge/Opera: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/boardsie-enhancement-suit/bbgnmnfagihoohjkofdnofcfmkpdmmce



  • Options
    #649
    blacklilly
    Registered Users Posts: 2,687 ✭✭✭blacklilly


    28064212 wrote: »
    No it doesn't. The only way it does is if you assume that anyone who thinks abortion should be legal in some circumstances means they think it must be legal in all circumstances.

    Do you think a woman who has been raped and fallen pregnant should be allowed to procure an abortion?


    I have already made my opinion very clear, I do not agree in abortion in any case (except where the mothers life is in danger). In saying that it does not mean that I do not have compassion for a women who through rape has become pregnant and decides to abort her preganncy.


  • Options
    #650
    28064212
    Registered Users Posts: 10,533 ✭✭✭✭28064212


    blacklilly wrote: »
    I have already made my opinion very clear, I do not agree in abortion in any case (except where the mothers life is in danger). In saying that it does not mean that I do not have compassion for a women who through rape has become pregnant and decides to abort her preganncy.
    But you still want it to be illegal for her to procure one?

    Boardsie Enhancement Suite - a browser extension to make using Boards on desktop a better experience (includes full-width display, keyboard shortcuts, dark mode, and more). Now available through your browser's extension store.

    Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/boardsie-enhancement-suite/

    Chrome/Edge/Opera: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/boardsie-enhancement-suit/bbgnmnfagihoohjkofdnofcfmkpdmmce



  • Options
    #651
    blacklilly
    Registered Users Posts: 2,687 ✭✭✭blacklilly


    28064212 wrote: »
    But you still want it to be illegal for her to procure one?

    I still belive that the unborn has a right to life so, yes, regardless of the way in which the unborn is concived I do not agree with abortion.

    This discussion boils down to the rights attribuited to the unborn, it should not be dependant upon the circumstances of conception.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #652
    sbsquarepants
    Registered Users Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭sbsquarepants


    blacklilly wrote: »
    I still belive that the unborn has a right to life so, yes, regardless of the way in which the unborn is concived I do not agree with abortion.

    This discussion boils down to the rights attribuited to the unborn, it should not be dependant upon the circumstances of conception.

    I don't quite understand your stance. You say you'd have compassion for a pregnant rape victim, but yet you also say you'd like to see her legally forced to carry on with the pregnancy?
    Point out the compassion for me please, i'm having trouble seeing it.:confused:


  • Options
    #653
    Shenshen
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 9,453 Mod ✭✭✭✭Shenshen


    blacklilly wrote: »
    I still belive that the unborn has a right to life so, yes, regardless of the way in which the unborn is concived I do not agree with abortion.

    This discussion boils down to the rights attribuited to the unborn, it should not be dependant upon the circumstances of conception.

    I still fail to see why an unborn should have more rights than any born person on this planet.
    And you are right, the circumstances should not come into it.


  • Options
    #654
    Zulu
    Registered Users Posts: 10,965 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


    Shenshen wrote: »
    I still fail to see why an unborn should have more rights than any born person on this planet.

    Thats a little disingenuous, it's not "more rights", just the right to not be killed! Nobody is advocating that an unborn person should have greater rights.


  • Options
    #655
    Shenshen
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 9,453 Mod ✭✭✭✭Shenshen


    Zulu wrote: »
    It's not "more rights", just the right to not be killed! Nobody is advocating that an unborn person should have greater rights.

    Which born person can you name that has the right to use another person's body against their consent for their own survival?


  • Options
    #656
    Zulu
    Registered Users Posts: 10,965 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


    Shenshen wrote: »
    Which born person can you name that has the right to use another person's body against their consent for their own survival?
    Ohhhhh, how shrewd! But pretty much every single person born. None could have survived their first year without their parents intervention & there are laws forcing the same.

    Which born person can you name that doesn't have the right to live?


  • Options
    #657
    Shenshen
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 9,453 Mod ✭✭✭✭Shenshen


    Zulu wrote: »
    Ohhhhh, how shrewd! But pretty much every single person born. None could have survived their first year without their parents intervention & there are laws forcing the same.

    Which born person can you name that doesn't have the right to live?

    Oh, and those parents obviously all objected to providing their bodies for their offsprings' benefit, but were forced to do so anyway by law?

    Could you explain the fact that all parents are entitled by law to offer their children for adoption, then?
    Not only do they not need to provide blood, tissue or organs unless they consent, they are not even required to otherwise care for their children.

    The only ones who are forced to provide their bodies, consenting or not, are pregnant women.

    Everybody has the right to live. But nobody has the right to live using the body of anyone else. Nobody can force you to donate blood, or even tissue.
    Nobody can even take those from a corpse if the person objected while alive.
    Yet women do not have these rights, if they become pregnant, all of a sudden they no longer have rights we even extend to dead people. The unborn's right suddenly superceed the woman's most basic human right.


  • Options
    #658
    tiny_penguin
    Registered Users Posts: 1,090 ✭✭✭tiny_penguin


    Zulu wrote: »
    Ohhhhh, how shrewd! But pretty much every single person born. None could have survived their first year without their parents intervention & there are laws forcing the same.

    Which born person can you name that doesn't have the right to live?

    This argument is used all the time. There is no requirement for that person to be their natural birth parent. They depend on somebody but that could be anybody. If you link the 2 then it would not allow for adoption as the birth parent should be forced to care for the child born to them.


  • Options
    #659
    Zulu
    Registered Users Posts: 10,965 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


    tiny_penguin wrote: »
    This argument is used all the time. There is no requirement for that person to be their natural birth parent...
    Quite, however if adoption wasn't availed of, the parents are legally obliged to look after the helpless child.
    Shenshen wrote: »
    Oh, and those parents obviously all objected to providing their bodies for their offsprings' benefit, but were forced to do so anyway by law?
    Sorry, what? IF they objected, then yes, the law forces them. :confused:
    Could you explain the fact that all parents are entitled by law to offer their children for adoption, then?
    Why, it's a red herring. We're talking about abortion - why are you trying to shift the focus?
    The only ones who are forced to provide their bodies, consenting or not, are pregnant women.
    Unless we're talking of rape, consent was given.
    Everybody has the right to live.
    Well they either do are they don't. Your point is that everyone does NOT have the right to live.
    Yet women do not have these rights, if they become pregnant, all of a sudden they no longer have rights we even extend to dead people.
    And to "balance" this apparent injustice you'd give people the right to kill another person? Sorry, but that isn't a suitable solution in my eyes.
    The unborn's right suddenly superceed the woman's most basic human right.
    No it does not. The woman's most basic human right is to live. No one is advocating killing women - that is except for you ironically, in that roughly half of the people aborted will be of the female gender.


  • Options
    #660
    Malari
    Registered Users Posts: 18,150 ✭✭✭✭Malari


    Zulu wrote: »
    Quite, however if adoption wasn't availed of, the parents are legally obliged to look after the helpless child.

    Sorry, what? IF they objected, then yes, the law forces them. :confused:
    Why, it's a red herring. We're talking about abortion - why are you trying to shift the focus?

    Unless we're talking of rape, consent was given.

    Well they either do are they don't. Your point is that everyone does NOT have the right to live.

    And to "balance" this apparent injustice you'd give people the right to kill another person? Sorry, but that isn't a suitable solution in my eyes.
    No it does not. The woman's most basic human right is to live. No one is advocating killing women - that is except for you ironically, in that roughly half of the people aborted will be of the female gender.

    Consent was given for pregnancy? No, it was given for sex. Not at all the same thing. Don't have sex (because let's face it that's the only 100% way to be sure) or deal with the consequences of your body being used as a life support system. You deserve it because you had sex. Sickening.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #661
    Shenshen
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 9,453 Mod ✭✭✭✭Shenshen


    Zulu wrote: »

    Sorry, what? IF they objected, then yes, the law forces them. :confused:
    Why, it's a red herring. We're talking about abortion - why are you trying to shift the focus?

    The law doesn't force them.
    The law allows them to give their children to someone else, via adoption.
    Unless we're talking of rape, consent was given.

    Consent to have sex =/= consent to pregnancy.
    Well they either do are they don't. Your point is that everyone does NOT have the right to live.

    And to "balance" this apparent injustice you'd give people the right to kill another person? Sorry, but that isn't a suitable solution in my eyes.
    No it does not. The woman's most basic human right is to live. No one is advocating killing women - that is except for you ironically, in that roughly half of the people aborted will be of the female gender.

    If you fall ill tomorrow and need a blood transfusion, do you have the right to force people with a matching blood type to give their blood to you?
    Does it make any difference at all if you would die without the transfusion?


Advertisement