David Quinn spouting nonsense again. See Mod Warning post #249.

Grayson · 13-01-2013 07:53PM

Methody wrote: »

Any woman who wishes to kill her own flesh and blood needs help, not encouragement.

FYI: Ivana Bacik is pro-abortion-on-demand. That includes aborting for any reason the mother wishes: Down's Syndrome, cleft palette, sex, lifestyle, financial, etc. Her opinions are disgusting.

How she continues to get into the Oireachtas is beyond me. The woman needs to be outed from office. She is a left-wing extremist; a remnant of the feminist era, and has no place in civilised public life in Ireland of 2013.

Damn those feminists. Put women back into the kitchen and tell them to keep their opinions to themselves.

Methody · 13-01-2013 07:53PM

lazygal wrote: »

What's your position on abortion? I support abortion on demand and I'm glad my view is represented in parliament. Not everyone thinks like you, you know. Some of us feminists (its not an insult BTW) believe women should be able to have autonomy over our reproductive system. Like how men do. I want my daughter to be able to avail of an abortion in her own country should she so wish.

lols :pac:

partyatmygaff · 13-01-2013 07:54PM

lazygal wrote: »

Why? Do you support forced pregnancy, regardless of the impact on a woman? Or are you pro choice, supporting termination in the cases where a woman will die if a pregnancy continues or other cases?

Pro-life doesn't mean "forced pregnancy regardless of the impact". To my mind at least, it refers to not allowing people the power to elect whether or not their child should live for anything but the most severely pressing of reasons.

Supporting medical terminations on the other hand is not something exclusive to "pro-choicers" either.

It's not as simple as making a false dichotomy and making out your own side to represent everything that's good and the other side to represent everything that's horrible.

lazygal · 13-01-2013 07:55PM

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Pro-life doesn't mean "forced pregnancy regardless of the impact". To my mind at least, it refers to not allowing people the power to elect whether or not their child should live for anything but the most severely pressing of reasons.

Supporting medical terminations on the other hand is not something reserved solely to "pro-choicers" either.

It's not as simple as making a false dichotomy and making out your own side to represent everything that's good and the other side to represent everything that's horrible.

What are severely pressing reasons? Pregnancy is no walk in the park and neither is childbirth. Are not wanting to go through either severely pressing reasons?

Grayson · 13-01-2013 07:58PM

Methody wrote: »

I would take such results with a pinch of salt.

Anyway, even if this figure were true, it's still a minority of people. That's democracy for ya, eh?

So what elected representatives support abortion-on-demand (Down's syndrome, cleft palette, gender selective abortions, etc.)?

From that survey,

While 8%
do not want to see any legalisation of abortion law

Most want some legislation, whether it's on demand or when the mothers life is at risk.

So, it's actually a very small minority that want no legislation at all. Now, that's democracy.

B0jangles · 13-01-2013 08:01PM

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Pro-life doesn't mean "forced pregnancy regardless of the impact". To my mind at least, it refers to not allowing people the power to elect whether or not their child should live for anything but the most severely pressing of reasons.

Supporting medical terminations on the other hand is not something exclusive to "pro-choicers" either.

It's not as simple as making a false dichotomy and making out your own side to represent everything that's good and the other side to represent everything that's horrible.

And for those who do not meet your requirements to allow for a abortion?

Do you not recognise that your views would involve forcing them to continue with an unwanted pregnancy and thus: forced pregnancy?

Methody · 13-01-2013 08:02PM

Legislating for "severely pressing reasons" is flawed. You need to define each and every scenario legally. Legislation, therefore, is a very blunt instrument.

The Bar Council of Ireland realise this. Given their absence from the parliamentary hearings, one can conclude that they are unable to come to a reasoned consensus on the best way forward. We should legislate to protect those charged with the decision-making on the ground; not legislate for or against very very specific scenarios.

What is far more preferable, and an outcome I see as being the likely outcome of this recent parliamentary hearing, is regulation and clarification so that medical professionals and moral experts who are on the coal face can make quick decisions in the best interests of both mother and child.

Remember also that Enda Kenny is a practising Catholic and any decisions he makes will weigh heavily on his mind right up to his death bed. Eamon Gilmore has no such conscience.

Anyway, we are safe in the knowledge that one outcome that won't be implemented is Ivana Bacik's abortion-on-demand ideations. For that we should all be thankful.

B0jangles · 13-01-2013 08:04PM

Methody wrote: »

moral experts

Would these so-called "moral experts" be members of the clergy?

If so I have some very interesting recent reports you might like to peruse...

Grayson · 13-01-2013 08:05PM

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Pro-life doesn't mean "forced pregnancy regardless of the impact". To my mind at least, it refers to not allowing people the power to elect whether or not their child should live for anything but the most severely pressing of reasons.

Supporting medical terminations on the other hand is not something exclusive to "pro-choicers" either.

It's not as simple as making a false dichotomy and making out your own side to represent everything that's good and the other side to represent everything that's horrible.

I'm pro choice, but was anti choice for a while ( very catholic upbringing) and my conversion was slow.

But there are many people who are pro life who are in favour of abortion when the mothers life is at risk (lets not go into discussion about what the actual diseases are. I'm not a doctor, I'll just assume it's a scenario where the doctor says that the mother will die or there is a very big chance the woman will die if the pregnancy progresses). They don't see it as being pro abortion. They see it as choosing the lesser of two evils.

Based on personal experience and that survey mentioned earlier, I'd say that most of the population are in favour of legislation for this. It's been voted on in a referendum and I can't believe it hasn't been done already.

lazygal · 13-01-2013 08:05PM

[QUOTE=Methody;82670031
The Bar Council of Ireland realise this. Given their absence from the parliamentary hearings, one can conclude that they are unable to come to a reasoned consensus on the best way forward. We should legislate to protect those charged with the decision-making on the ground; not legislate for or against very very specific scenarios.

Remember also that Enda Kenny is a practising Catholic and any decisions he makes will weigh heavily on his mind right up to his death bed. Eamon Gilmore has no such conscience.[/QUOTE]

The Bar Council doesn't produce draft legislation, parliamentary draftspersons do.

And the sky god Enda Kenny or anyone else likes to follow are beside the point when it comes to any legislation.

Also, I have a conscience. I don't need a supernatural being watching over my every move to be good. I can just, you know, not be an asshole to people because its the right thing to do, not because I'm afraid I won't get into heaven or whatever.

partyatmygaff · 13-01-2013 08:06PM

lazygal wrote: »

What are severely pressing reasons? Pregnancy is no walk in the park and neither is childbirth. Are not wanting to go through either severely pressing reasons?

Not severely pressing enough. Humanity has survived pregnancy, childbirth and parenting for millenia. Evidently, it's an experience people can by and large manage.

I've already said all of this about at least ten times over the past few months in the usual few threads that pop up every week and it's getting quite repetitive so i'll just leave it at that.

Methody · 13-01-2013 08:09PM

B0jangles wrote: »

Would these so-called "moral experts" be members of the clergy?

If so I have some very interesting recent reports you might like to peruse...

There were legal, medical and moral experts at the parliamentary hearing. Each group was given one day each. It just shows that abortion is not a solely legal or medical dilemma. It's also a moral dilemma. All three groups of people inform each other so as to make an informed decision.

The bishops are head of the majority of this country's hospitals. They have a duty of care to mothers and their unborn babies. They must act to ensure that life is protected at all stages.

Anyway, even if "limited abortion" was introduced in this country, you can be damn well sure that none of it will be going on inside catholic hospitals.

lazygal · 13-01-2013 08:12PM

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Not severely pressing enough. Humanity has survived pregnancy, childbirth and parenting for millenia.

I've already said all of this about at least ten times over the past few months in the usual few threads that pop up every week and it's getting quite repetitive so i'll just leave it at that.

Have you ever been pregnant? Have you ever vomited for nine months and had to wear a back support? Have you had to take sick leave at your own expense due to pregnancy complications? Have you had to have invasive abdominal surgery to deliver a baby safely? Have you ever had the skin between your vagina and anus cut and stitched? Have you ever had mastitis, post partum bleeding or SPD?

Pregnancy and childbirth, even in the most straightforward of cases, has lifelong impacts on the health of the most healthy of women. For millenia, women have died during pregnancy and giving birth. To dismiss not wanting to deal with the inevitable complications of childbirth and pregnancy as if there's no impact on a woman whatsoever strikes me as lacking in compassion and understanding, and not having a full grasp of what growing and birthing a foetus does to a woman. If you knew anyone with a complication you wouldn't be so arrogant and dismissive as to pretty much force them to be pregnant and give birth, regardless of the impact, physical or psychological, on their bodies.

TomoBhoy · 13-01-2013 08:12PM

Methody wrote: »

Down's Syndrome Ireland would be honoured to hear the opinions of you guys.

Downs Syndrome is not a FATAL FETAL ABNORMALITY is it, and maybe if you ask plenty of well adjusted people who just happen to Downs they will tell you themselves its not FATAL!

Methody · 13-01-2013 08:13PM

TomoBhoy wrote: »

Downs Syndrome is not a FATAL FETAL ABNORMALITY is it, and maybe if you ask plenty of well adjusted people who just happen to Downs they will tell you themselves its not FATAL!

Ever sat down and asked yourself why there are hardly any Downs Syndrome kids in the UK? (not to state the BLATANTLY OBVIOUS)!

Must be something in Irish genes...

TomoBhoy · 13-01-2013 08:14PM

Methody wrote: »

Ever sat down and asked yourself why there are hardly any Downs Syndrome kids in the UK? (not to state the BLATANTLY OBVIOUS)!

Must be something in Irish genes...

we're not England

lazygal · 13-01-2013 08:15PM

Methody wrote: »

Anyway, even if "limited abortion" was introduced in this country, you can be damn well sure that none of it will be going on inside catholic hospitals.

Do you think the constitutional amendment on the right to travels should be voted on again to prevent women travelling to abort their 'unborn children'.

Abortions, by the way, were performed in 'Catholic' hospitals last year. Three in Holles Street, possibly one of the most Catholic from my experience. So its already happening.

Grayson · 13-01-2013 08:16PM

Methody wrote: »

There were legal, medical and moral experts at the parliamentary hearing. Each group was given one day each. It just shows that abortion is not a solely legal or medical dilemma. It's also a moral dilemma. All three groups of people inform each other so as to make an informed decision.

Moral decisions don't involve legislation. Ethical ones do.

Morality is a personal choice. Whether or not you would have an abortion is a moral choice.

Whether the state should stop you would be an ethical decision.

So strangly, you've just agreed with people who are pro choice. Let the person decide if it's right for them.

And which ethicists were there? Which ethicist did they reference? I'd be interested in finding out.

Methody · 13-01-2013 08:17PM

lazygal wrote: »

Do you think the constitutional amendment on the right to travels should be voted on again to prevent women travelling to abort their 'unborn children'.

Abortions, by the way, were performed in 'Catholic' hospitals last year. Three in Holles Street, possibly one of the most Catholic from my experience. So its already happening.

Termination is not morally wrong when every effort is made to save both the life of the mother and that of her baby. You really ought to read up on Catholic moral teaching.

Grayson · 13-01-2013 08:17PM

Methody wrote: »

Ever sat down and asked yourself why there are hardly any Downs Syndrome kids in the UK? (not to state the BLATANTLY OBVIOUS)!

Must be something in Irish genes...

If you're going to say that there aren't many kids with down in the UK, then you're going to have to back that up. Where's the statistics?

Methody · 13-01-2013 08:17PM

Grayson wrote: »

Moral decisions don't involve legislation. Ethical ones do.

Morality is a personal choice. Whether or not you would have an abortion is a moral choice.

Whether the state should stop you would be an ethical decision.

In your opinion...

Methody · 13-01-2013 08:18PM

Grayson wrote: »

If you're going to say that there aren't many kids with down in the UK, then you're going to have to back that up. Where's the statistics?

lazygal · 13-01-2013 08:18PM

Methody wrote: »

Termination is not morally wrong when every effort is made to save both the life of the mother and that of her baby. You really ought to read up on Catholic moral teaching.

So were abortions or terminations carried out in Catholic hospitals last year? You said it wouldn't happen, but it already has. So can you say you were wrong?

And as I'm thankfully not Catholic, its moral teaching holds no value for me. I can think for myself.

TomoBhoy · 13-01-2013 08:19PM

lazygal wrote: »

Do you think the constitutional amendment on the right to travels should be voted on again to prevent women travelling to abort their 'unborn children'.

Abortions, by the way, were performed in 'Catholic' hospitals last year. Three in Holles Street, possibly one of the most Catholic from my experience. So its already happening.

Exactly
Qustion to the masses Has any one even tried to get Tubal Ligation done in Holloes st? Its hard as hell
Least the other half got hers done in the Coombe without Much trouble but even after the last c section she poss would not been able to get it in Holloes st

Methody · 13-01-2013 08:21PM

lazygal wrote: »

So were abortions or terminations carried out in Catholic hospitals last year? You said it wouldn't happen, but it already has. So can you say you were wrong?

And as I'm thankfully not Catholic, its moral teaching holds no value for me. I can think for myself.

Of course you know better than some of the greatest intellectuals (not just catholic) the world has produced... Fair play to ye... Can't wait for your book.

That aside, let's not get hung up on terminology here.

"abortion" is the wilful and intentional taking of human life.

I use "termination" to refer to morally just scenarios.

Grayson · 13-01-2013 08:22PM

Methody wrote: »

In your opinion...

No, that's what the words actually mean.

Here's a handy link that explains.

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-difference-between-ethics-and-morals.htm

When considering the difference between ethics and morals, it may be helpful to consider a criminal defense lawyer. Though the lawyer’s personal moral code likely finds murder immoral and reprehensible, ethics demand the accused client be defended as vigorously as possible, even when the lawyer knows the party is guilty and that a freed defendant would potentially lead to more crime. Legal ethics must override personal morals for the greater good of upholding a justice system in which the accused are given a fair trial and the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt...........

.............In the case of homosexuality, many believe it is morally wrong, yet some of the same people also believe it is unethical to discriminate legally against a group of people by disallowing them the same rights afforded heterosexuals. This is a plain example of ethics and morals at battle. Ethics and morals are central issues as the world strives to overcome current challenges and international crossroads. Hopefully, in the coming years, a growing understanding will lead to peaceful and productive solutions.

lazygal · 13-01-2013 08:23PM

Methody wrote: »

Of course you know better than some of the greatest intellectuals the world has produced... Fair play to ye...

That aside, let's not get hung up on terminology here.

"abortion" is the wilful and intentional taking of human life.

I use "termination" to refer to morally just scenarios.

What's the difference between a termination and an abortion? It's terminology you seem to be hung up on. Why do you get to chose which is which?

Methody · 13-01-2013 08:24PM

Grayson wrote: »

No, that's what the words actually mean.

Here's a handy link that explains.

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-difference-between-ethics-and-morals.htm

I don't need some random punter on boards.ie to explain to me the difference between ethics and morals.

FYI, all hospitals have ethics committees where decisions are made in the best interest of patients with due respect to the particular hospital's ethos. It is not uncommon for members of the clergy and lawyers to sit on these committees.

Methody · 13-01-2013 08:25PM

lazygal wrote: »

What's the difference between a termination and an abortion? It's terminology you seem to be hung up on. Why do you get to chose which is which?

Evidently you forgot to read the bit "I use". I can't help you with your comprehension skills. For someone who thinks for themselves, it's evident you've quite a bit of pondering to do. Some weed might help you.

Are you trying to suggest that an "abortion" is not the wilful and intentional taking of human life?

Grayson · 13-01-2013 08:28PM

Methody wrote: »

I don't need some random punter on boards.ie to explain to me the difference between ethics and morals.

FYI, all hospitals have ethics committees where decisions are made in the best interest of patients with due respect to the particular hospital's ethos. It is not uncommon for members of the clergy and lawyers to sit on these committees.

Random punter?

And what's your qualification in ethics? What the nuns told you? You obviously didn't know the difference since you were using the words incorrectly.

David Quinn spouting nonsense again. See Mod Warning post #249.

Comments