Does anyone feel insulted by the abortion proposals?

lazygal wrote: »

If I was to describe the csection I had, or the episiotomies many pregnant women have, or the manual removal of the placenta, or a forceps delivery, to Jim Walsh, he probably wouldn't find them too pleasant. Just because a medical procedure might sound gruesome doesn't mean it shouldn't be carried out. I'd be squeemish at footage of open heart surgery or skin grafting, but I don't see that as a reason to speak out against it.

According to his Wiki page he has claimed that women working outside the home is a major cause of depression in young people, and also expressed annoyance that he couldn't call gay people "fairies". He resigned the Fianna Fáil parliamentary party whip, in protest at the Civil Partnership bill.

The man's a complete moron.

I remember one of my old religion teachers reading us some story like that "Oh, I wonder what my room is like. Do I have a crib yet? Oh no, I'm being murdered". Sorry if I sound crass, but I bloody hate anthropomorphisation.

kylith wrote: »

How can they then claim personhood from conception?

Cos they declare that 'ensoulment' happens at conception.
That from that point there is a soul and it's a unique combination of DNA which will make a unique person.

I'm listening to Jim Walsh's full speech and it's even worse than I thought. He mentioned the case study of a woman who had an abortion at 18 and wh now, at 35, is cutting herself. He describes this self-harm as a "symbolic act of atonement".

The accepted psychology behind self-harm is an inability to cope with one's feelings. Her feelings may be related to this abortion but his insinuation that people self-harm as some kind of penance is ridiculous.

His argument hinges on anecdotes from women who voluntarily had abortions when their lives were not in danger and who were not suicidal, completely irrelevant to this particular legislation.

He reads a speech containing phrases that make him look like a puppet for american pro-life groups, using the word "automobile" instead of "car" or "vehicle", as would be most common in Ireland.

And reminding that valid does not equal reliable.

I feel more dismayed by the current legislation than anything else tbh.

It's really disappointing that, were a referendum held today where voting options were presented as a multiple select(as a check box for each circumstances in which one finds it acceptable to legalise), I think we'd almost certainly see it legalise abortion for fatal fetal abnormalities, risk to life of the mother, cases of rape/incest etc. and wouldn't be surprised to see economic circumstances or straight-forward "on-demand up to X weeks" passed.

I've no polling to prove that but looking around me, I can't help but feel the scales have tipped in favour of the Pro-Choice side of the debate and yet our politicians being, for the most part, of an older, more conservative (and anti-abortion) generation than those who'd post on these forums and won't even entertain the notion of holding such a referendum.

So vote for someone else, I hear you say? Who? The only parties that are socially progressive enough to bring forward such a motion are also so daft on economic issues that they seem to think money grows on trees and that leaves many of us (well me at least) in the position where my views on such topics as abortion, gender equality, gay rights etc. aren't reflected in my voting as I'm too concerned about the economic survival of our state to vote in anyway I perceive damaging to it.

kylith wrote: »

That doesn't even tie in with the bible. Biblically ensoulment occurs when the foetus starts to kick. The biblical penalty for causing a miscarriage is a fine.

Fecking Christians, can't even follow their own holy book.

A papal bull changed that in the 1880.

Morag wrote: »

A papal bull changed that in the 1880.

Thanks for the information. Funny how they can just decide to change the received wisdom of their god so easily.