Woman uploads abortion video - goes viral

Chattastrophe! wrote: »

Go for it. Give us these statistics you speak of. No point in referring to ambiguous statistics as part of your "argument" unless you're going to provide them.

I suspect no amount of statistics will excuse her obnoxiously intrusive line of "questioning". Hardly the socratic method to badger a poster about her sex life, even if green_screen has the patience of a saint.

Chattastrophe! wrote: »

Just ... what? Why would that surprise you? The vast vast majority of those who take a mature responsible attitude to their sexual health will never end up in an abortion clinic, yet some do, through no fault/neglect of their own. Most methods of contraception are 90-99% effective, and anyways there are only a few days of the month when conception is possible. One in four couples have trouble conceiving. Given all those odds, someone using contraception correctly is SO unlikely to ever end up needing an abortion

exactly my point, except for the luck/unlucky bit, thank you and 'the through no fault of their own?' who's fault is it?

Chattastrophe! wrote: »

Right, what about when a couple definitely want kids in the future, but just not right now? Or a single person, for that matter. Sterilisation isn't exactly an option! You reckon everyone should abstain entirely from sex "just in case" until they're ready to have a child?

did I said sterilisation was for everybody? no

did I say everyone should abstain?

no

quote me

Boombastic wrote: »

exactly my point, except for the luck/unlucky bit, thank you and 'the through no fault of their own?' who's fault is it?



did I said sterilisation was for everybody? no

did I say everyone should abstain?

no

quote me

We can't quote you because you don't say anything of substance; you just kick a lot of dirt around to cover up your inability to listen and follow an argument. When someone challenges you, you revert to yesterday's fallacies.

Boombastic wrote: »

tell me muise... what exactly have you challenged me on, I look back through your posts and see a lot of name calling and abuse directed towards me, but nothing that actually addresses the content of my posts.

Q.E fcuking D.

Boombastic wrote: »

tell me muise... what exactly have you challenged me on, I look back through your posts and see a lot of name calling and abuse directed towards me, but nothing that actually addresses the content of my posts.

I addressed your posts, and you replied with some stuff about statistics, without addressing anything I brought up.

Czarcasm wrote: »

Boom you seem to advocate for sterilization thinking that it's a 100% infallible contraceptive method with no possible complications, side effects or long term implications.
You'd be wrong on all three counts, and that's only one reason why many women who experience unexpected pregnancy - lack of education. For example if you were to take an average 14 year old and talk to her about sex, the ignorance doesn't shock me any more, it's expected.

Another reason why a woman may choose not to use contraception is because it conflicts with her religious beliefs (so if she is raped, her religious beliefs also deter her from opting for an abortion). Try getting a deeply religious woman to go against everything she believes in, come back and let me know how that goes for you.

Another reason why women opt for "home abortions", is because they cannot afford to travel for an abortion, and they cannot afford to bring up a child. Sometimes they lack the mental capacity to raise a child (often a case in women who suffer with mental illness or are intellectually disabled).


I could fill this page with numerous reasons why a woman may find herself unexpectedly pregnant, but suffice to say your ridiculously simplistic sterilization "solution" isn't worth jack shìt tbh, and even abstinence isn't worth jack shìt, so I'm down to just one question for you -


Would you force a woman to continue her pregnancy and give birth against her will?

sex ed should be done a lot earlier than 14, anyway iirc it's more women 25 + who have abortions and there has been a drop in teenage pregnancies?

if she's that deeply religious, she won't agree with abortion, so that point doesn't hold for me

mentally ill, yes a valid medical condition

sterilisation is an option for some. I never suggested it was an solution for everybody, I want to yet again clarify that because it seems some are trying to Goodwin the thread (ironically)

A woman should have full power, rights and responsibility over her own body. If she chooses not to use them, she shouldn't be able to have an abortion because she feels like it.actions have consequences and with rights comes responsibilities.

green_screen wrote: »

So, if people shouldn't rely on contraception, and shouldn't abstain, what do you suggest?

Ok, i'll adress this post

this is not what I am saying

people shouldn't rely in one form of contraception. the important word being 1. there are many available methods, many without the need for user interaction, therefore removing user error. this includes the morning after pill.

what are the chances of everything failing? the statistics

but I've already explained this

anything else?

KyussBishop wrote: »

Right, so are you saying it is impossible for a woman to become pregnant, through no fault of her own? That no matter how a women is impregnated (e.g. rape), it is her fault?

If you aren't saying that, be good to make it unambiguous/clear, that you support abortion in those cases.

I support abortion for valid medical reasons

rape is one of these
it is not the woman's fault of she gets pregnant after rape, I was referring in the context of a normal healthy sexual encounter

clear?

Boombastic wrote: »

I support abortion for valid medical reasons

rape is one of these
it is not the woman's fault of she gets pregnant after rape, I was referring in the context of a normal healthy sexual encounter

clear?

Okey, that is clearer - so: Is the probability of a woman becoming pregnant through sex - even after undertaking all safe sex measures short of having her ovaries removed - is the probability greater than 0%?

Boombastic wrote: »

sex ed should be done a lot earlier than 14, anyway iirc it's more women 25 + who have abortions and there has been a drop in teenage pregnancies?

Boom I'm all for informing young people about sex and sexuality and taking responsibility for their sexual health, but while we are effectively outsourcing abortions in this country, there's no reason for the State to invest in a program that even comes close to tackling the issue of ignorance surrounding sex education and sexual health.

I don't have the statistics to hand, but I'm not sure of the reliability of statistics gathered about an illegal activity anyway. However if abortion were made legal in this country, it would be much easier to gather statistics on abortion and underage pregnancy, or even pregnancy numbers of women in their 40's who have to travel for an abortion.

if she's that deeply religious, she won't agree with abortion, so that point doesn't hold for me

That's my point - women who for religious reasons fundamentally disagree with abortion, having to have an abortion, and the torture they put themselves through afterwards, and due to lack of support in Ireland, because of lack of funding, because of lack of statistics to support funding, because of abortion being illegal here unless in certain circumstances, the whole combination of factors takes it's toll on her mental health, and I think you're fully aware of the lack of resources given to mental health in this country. Does the point hold for you now?

mentally ill, yes a valid medical condition

Therein lies the problem - a reason that's valid to you, is invalid to someone else, in the same way as a woman saying she just does not want to be pregnant is a valid reason to her, but an invalid reason to you. Do you want a say in her contraceptive choices too, or is it just when she is pregnant it becomes an issue for you by proxy?

sterilisation is an option for some. I never suggested it was an solution for everybody, I want to yet again clarify that because it seems some are trying to Goodwin the thread (ironically)

What if just like you feel about abortion, they feel just as strongly about sterilization? Who decides who's right, thumb war? Or are each of you best left to determine for yourselves what you are and aren't comfortable with?

I do hope this thread isn't shut down Boom because once we got past the whole baby murdering parasites nonsense it has finally begun to concentrate on the real issue - a woman's right to choose and control what happens with her own body and decide for herself what is in her own best interests.

A woman should have full power, rights and responsibility over her own body. If she chooses not to use them, she shouldn't be able to have an abortion because she feels like it.actions have consequences and with rights comes responsibilities.

You can see how your second sentence contradicts the first, and your third sentence contradicts the second?

That's exactly the same sort of mental mind fcuk some women I have talked to who have had abortions go through - the idea of an abortion is abhorrent to them, but the idea of not having one presents an alternative just as difficult to come to terms with, and even after the abortion, they still can't resolve in their own minds what they did. If there were support services for them in Ireland, that would help them somewhat, but it would never "solve" anything for them, nor would being forced to give birth against their will, to a child they would have been fully responsible for.

Seriously Boom, do some thinking about it before you come back with petty jibes that are difficult to make sense of. If you truly give a shìt about human life the way you say you do, and you want people to take you seriously, then don't be so blasé about the issues involved.

That's what happens when advocacy groups care more about an issue than they do about the women they are supposed to be advocating for and supporting - they disappear so far up their own arse holes that they lose sight of the person, the human being who they claim they are speaking for, yet they couldn't be more disconnected from them.

That mindset is what caused the release of the video in the OP, some jazzed up, sexed up doozy that hogs the camera and ponders the wonders of making a baby while she has a period off camera. The idea was supposed to fight the stigma of abortion. All it did was polarized opinion on one individual.

The video that Morag posted earlier in this thread wasn't half as dramatic or sexed up, and related life stories from a number of women who'd had abortions and managed to show that an abortion doesn't mean your life is over. They did more to break the stigma of abortion than a failed actress working in an abortion clinic who never used contraception and wanted to be famous for, well, nothing really.

That video gave the pro-life movement every stereotype they ever wanted.

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

Unborn child is term steeped in history. Good luck on your mission trying to banish it. No doubt you would object if someone referred to a 22 week old developing fetus as a Baby too. Strange though, how when a fetus has a plastic tube attached to them rather than a flesh made one: a baby they suddenly become.

Flat earth is a term steeped in history too. No one is trying to 'banish' the term 'unborn child' to a museum of misconceptions; we're pointing out that it is anatomically anti-chronological. No one would object to the developing foetus being called a 'baby' by its mother - if she calls it a baby it's because she's thinking ahead and she wants it, and we respect her choice.

Why are you stuck on the point of tubes and incubators? The process of giving birth is a dramatic event and hard to miss as the point when a foetus in the womb becomes a baby out in the world.

You're seriously using an online dictionary as your source document ...?

Chattastrophe! wrote: »

You're seriously using an online dictionary as your source document ...?

One that lists 'childish person' among its definitions of 'child' too.

/Childish person laughing

If you're talking about an eight-week-embryo, it's appropriate to refer to it as an eight-week-old embryo. You, me, and everyone else all know that a "child" is a different being altogether.

Don't sell yourself short. I'm sure you're probably more intelligent than that? A child is not an embryo. An embryo is not a child