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
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.

Abortions for 3,735, minature flags for nobody

12527293031

Comments

  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,951 ✭✭✭frostyjacks


    Kev W wrote: »
    Well...

    Do I have to explain this? A poster was complaining about men having it easy with the abortion debate because they would never be confronted with it.

    I'm saying that just because a man can't get pregnant, doesn't mean they can't form a valid opinion on it.

    So I've taken an example of an historical event (the holocaust) that is synonymous with one group (the Jews), and said that non-Jews can also form a valid opinion on this.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,536 ✭✭✭Kev W


    Can you actually read what was said?

    No but I can read what was written and it was a direct comparison of abortion to the holocaust. Just because your friend has tried to backtrack out of making the comparison doesn't mean it wasn't made.

    They could just as easily have used a less deliberately emotive example such as "I don't have to have my house graffitied to know I'm against graffiti" but that doesn't have the heft of the holocaust does it?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,951 ✭✭✭frostyjacks


    Kev W wrote: »
    No but I can read what was written and it was a direct comparison of abortion to the holocaust. Just because your friend has tried to backtrack out of making the comparison doesn't mean it wasn't made.

    They could just as easily have used a less deliberately emotive example such as "I don't have to have my house graffitied to know I'm against graffiti" but that doesn't have the heft of the holocaust does it?

    I'm not backtracking, I'm clarifying for someone who seems to have difficulty understanding.


  • Posts: 24,774 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    NI24 wrote: »
    You know what the weirdest thing is? How many old women are in those groups. It's always the men and the old women who are the loudest pro-lifers--in essence, the two groups of adults it effects the least. It's not that young women don't get involved, but they're a heck of a lot quieter/more respectful about it. I guess it really comes down to a fear of lack of control over a very essential part of society.

    What is this absolute nonsense about control?

    I am against abortion for the same reason I against a person killing their 3 year old child because they don't want it. I believe it's very wrong to kill an unborn child, it's got absolutely nothing to do with control.

    This is the reason people are against it and don't want it happening in their country.
    Kev W wrote: »
    No but I can read what was written and it was a direct comparison of abortion to the holocaust.

    I think you need to go away and learn the meaning of a direct comparison because what the poster said nothing of the sort.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,887 ✭✭✭traprunner


    It's not only my opinion, it's the opinion of many people around the world. It's also the opinion of the Irish people, which is why they voted it into the constitution. I don't need to have a womb to know that abortion is wrong, anymore than I need to be Jewish to know that the holocaust was wrong.

    It was the opinion at a point in time. I didn't get to vote on it so it is not all Irish people.

    Also, the holocaust affected more then Jews.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 641 ✭✭✭NI24


    What is this absolute nonsense about control?

    I am against abortion for the same reason I against a person killing their 3 year old child because they don't want it. I believe it's very wrong to kill an unborn child, it's got absolutely nothing to do with control.

    This is the reason people are against it and don't want it happening in their country.

    Well, that's some people's reason. Abortion is a very complex and complicated issue and there are numerous reasons why people are against it. I don't know all men or women who are pro-lifers, so I cannot say, in all truthfulness, that that is the sole reason. But I strongly suspect that it is, at least to some extent, a reason.


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


    Samaris wrote: »
    Bull**** right back. The general concept about feminism has been about raising the status of a minority group to the level of the "majority" group. This has consistently met with fighting back from elements of a majority group. The rowing is not "men" and "women", precisely, this is the loudest elements on all sides.
    Ignoring, for a moment, that women are not actually a minority, how do you then explain where that minority is raised above the majority?

    The Tender Years doctrine is a clear example of a privilege that sets one gender over another. It argues that one gender is presumed to be the better parent, not because they are judged to be, or because they have been the principle carer for the child, but because of their sex. No other reason.

    It's ironically also a principle reason why women still are at a disadvantage in the workplace. They're presumed to be the child carers, the one's who'll sacrifice the job for the family. Yet feminism has ignored this and instead focused on changes that would allow women to both retain this privilege and force society to compensate for the consequences of this privilege, through measures such as quotas.

    Feminism has never chosen to fight for any right that may threaten women's rights. It's not a movement for equality, simple as that.
    I don't want your sympathy. I want equal rights. And I will fight for yours too. Hell, I've spent quite a lot of time the last while fighting for gay marriage.
    You don't have my sympathy and in many areas you have more rights than me. And no, if you follow the feminist approach to such inequalities, you are not fighting for my rights; you're just fighting for your own and any others that do not threaten your own - regardless of whether those rights are justified or not.

    So your earlier claims to sympathize with fathers and their lack of rights are hollow. A lie.
    stinkle wrote: »
    Yeah all pregnant do women have that option - most choose not to take it though, and it's barbaric to expect that women should continue with an unwanted pregnancy and go through birth then adopt as the *only* way to deal with an unwanted pregnancy.
    Yet it is apparently not barbaric to presume that men always have the option to walk away without a second thought? That is what you wrote.

    So, do you want to admit that what you said was indeed offensive and sexist? Or apply the same standard to women? Take your pick.


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


    eviltwin wrote: »
    I don't think what she did was right, I don't think it should be a punishable offence though
    How's that? Don't we normally punish those who do something wrong?

    While an exceptional case, the one you're referring to involved a termination two days prior to the expected delivery. It's pretty much impossible to claim it's a ball of cells at that stage and it would have been possible to induce delivery as it would have almost certainly been able to survive outside the womb - biologically it was no different to infants that are already born and one would have had to actively have sought to kill it in the procedure.

    It seems a bit bizarre that give that you consider it wrong and the actual circumstances of the termination, that you would think it incorrect to seek punishment. Should infanticide be immune from punishment too?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    So do you think a woman should be allowed to abort at 36 weeks pregnant?

    They are in Ireland, because of the constitutional position. A life threatening pregnancy at 36 weeks gestation would be aborted in Ireland. My first pregnancy was aborted at 39 weeks because there was a potential risk to my life if I went into labour as the baby was in a very unusual foetal position. Abortion and termination doesn't mean a baby is always killed.

    BTW, on my notes up to the immediate delivery the term used is foetal, not baby, as in foetal heartbeat, foetal movement etc. So foetus is a medical term, it wasn't a baby until the point of delivery as per the theatre notes, when the notes went from foetal heartbeat to recording the condition of the baby, after delivery.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,262 ✭✭✭di11on


    I find views on and discussion of abortion a really curious societal phenomenon. For some reason, the logic employed is completely inconsistent with every other moral, legal and ethical discussion.

    Most of society is agreed that killing a human being is wrong, whether babies, children or adults. It's also fairly widely accepted that terminating a near-term pregnancy is wrong.

    So what makes it ok to kill a foetus early (or earlier) in pregnancy? Is it because they are not considered self-aware? Children don't become self-aware until around 18 months-2 years. So is it ok to kill them? Is it because they move less or have less function? What about incapacitated people, can we kill them too? Is it because they look less like a human than a more developed pregnancy? Hardly a strong moral argument?

    Then there's the whole "it's my body" thing. This just doesn't make any rational sense to me. It's not legal to help someone harm themselves so it is totally irrelevant that the developing life happens to be inside your body.

    It just confounds me that a civilised society can convince itself that it is ok to surgically or chemically intervene and kill a living developing child inside its mother. Just because it's convenient and hidden it's somehow ok?

    I just can't see any other rationale other than it's convenient and people want to be able to do it. But why is it ethically ok and how can it be justified?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,544 ✭✭✭Samaris


    The_Corinthian:
    I can't say I appreciate how you've managed to skip everything I've said that might contradict your very forceful opinions on whether I am lying to you. You know, the bits where I've talked about how gender roles in our society impact males and females both, and how this is an issue we all need to work against. About how it is a ridiculous situation that 87% of single-parent families are female partly because a) it is ASSUMED that the female should be the one to raise the child, placing extra societal pressure on her to do so and b) it is ASSUMED that the male will not be the one to raise the child, and people would be incredulous at the concept of a young fella staying out of work, dropping his career etc to take in a baby. He might really really want this child. He might be the natural parent of the two. She might not be. But society works against both female and male in this circumstance by ASSUMING.

    Much as you just ASSUMED that, rather than I might have enough understanding of a complex concept to sympathise with both sides and to talk about it from a point of view that isn't JUST my flag or your flag, that I was lying.

    I wasn't, by the way. But I doubt I can convince you of that, and it seems a waste of a morning to try. Look, you can either figure that "feminism" is a big bad wolf focussed on stripping you of your rights and handing them to someone else, or just maybe you can consider that a feminist movement might be like any other movement, comprised of its reasonable people, its lunatic fringe and those just along for the coffee.

    Maybe we should rename it "genderism". Eliminate prejudice based on gender, whichever gender it is. Maybe we have gotten to the point where we can afford that ground. 'Course, some people will get annoyed at it. Yes, any movement has its bigots, its hate, its anger. Generally its focussed into a few louder individuals that others then take to be everyone.

    But no, this particular random person on the internet didn't actually lie, thank you, other faceless person on the internet :P

    Look, PM me if you want to continue this argument, it's a bit of a tangent to the actual point of the thread.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    di11on wrote: »
    I find views on and discussion of abortion a really curious societal phenomenon. For some reason, the logic employed is completely inconsistent with every other moral, legal and ethical discussion.

    Most of society is agreed that killing a human being is wrong, whether babies, children or adults. It's also fairly widely accepted that terminating a near-term pregnancy is wrong.

    So what makes it ok to kill a foetus early (or earlier) in pregnancy? Is it because they are not considered self-aware? Children don't become self-aware until around 18 months-2 years. So is it ok to kill them? Is it because they move less or have less function? What about incapacitated people, can we kill them too? Is it because they look less like a human than a more developed pregnancy? Hardly a strong moral argument?

    Then there's the whole "it's my body" thing. This just doesn't make any rational sense to me. It's not legal to help someone harm themselves so it is totally irrelevant that the developing life happens to be inside your body.

    It just confounds me that a civilised society can convince itself that it is ok to surgically or chemically intervene and kill a living developing child inside its mother. Just because it's convenient and hidden it's somehow ok?

    I just can't see any other rationale other than it's convenient and people want to be able to do it. But why is it ethically ok and how can it be justified?

    I used to be a bit like this. Then friends started having babies and I got pregnant myself, with a very much planned and wanted pregnancy. Pregnancy for me was nine months of crap, followed by surgery and post op recovery. No woman who doesn't want to go through that should be forced to against her will. Even minor pregnancy complications are something no one should be forced to endure. People who oppose abortion in all circumstances, citing ethical concerns or using terms like killing a baby, don't seem to take any other considerations into account and don't seem to think pregnancy, labour and birth have any physical or mental effects on girls and women whatsoever. That approach reminds me of the 'The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion' article, where women protesting outside abortion clinics went on to have abortions, and then returned to protesting against the service of which they had availed. I don't understand why remaining pregnant, regardless of all circumstances, is the only sane option for any society.

    ETA my first pregnancy was terminated at 39 weeks. My daughter is now three. Why do you assume termination or abortion of pregnancy means a baby is always killed?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,544 ✭✭✭Samaris


    lazygal wrote: »

    ETA my first pregnancy was terminated at 39 weeks. My daughter is now three. Why do you assume termination or abortion of pregnancy means a baby is always killed?

    In fairness, while that is a good point, it is a bit of a rarity. I think the general assumption as regards abortion is that the foetus, at whatever stage of its development, will not survive.

    In regards to the rest of this thread, the VAST MAJORITY of abortions take place in the first trimester. Anything later than that generally has a very strong medical reason for it.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    Samaris wrote: »
    In fairness, while that is a good point, it is a bit of a rarity. I think the general assumption as regards abortion is that the foetus, at whatever stage of its development, will not survive.

    In regards to the rest of this thread, the VAST MAJORITY of abortions take place in the first trimester. Anything later than that generally has a very strong medical reason for it.

    YPeople seem to think that every woman who suddenly decides to terminate a pregnancy at 30+ weeks will be able to do so, and that the foetal heartbeat will be stopped before delivery. This simply isn't the case, in Ireland and many other countries. Early delivery, termination and abortion don't always mean killing the babies.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,617 ✭✭✭Virgil°


    I'm quoting this from another source but I've yet to see a decent response to it. Apologies if its been brought up before.
    I actually would love to see a good well thought out response to this.

    "You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. [If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but] in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you"

    Should you be allowed unplug yourself from this person? Or should you be legally forced to provide this person with use of your body for 9 months?
    Now, its a thought experiment. The main point of which is to show that a person is never obligated to relinquish bodily autonomy to another person for any reason. The pro-life position here grants MORE rights to the unborn child than any other person. Why should this be the case?

    I don't wanna hear that it was the mothers choice. Because as we know this isn't always the case. I'll also not be responding to any of the "Stop murdering innocent ikkle Baybees" types.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    Once I had my children, I was and am not under any obligation to undergo any medical treatment to preserve their right to life. Why am I not obliged to donate blood or organs to those who's right to life is under threat?
    And before someone says 'but you have to feed and cloth and take care of them', I'm typing this with one hand as I breastfeed my nearly two year old. Incidentally, I wasn't legally obliged to breastfeed, even though it is best as a form of nutrition until two years of age.


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


    di11on wrote: »
    Most of society is agreed that killing a human being is wrong, whether babies, children or adults.
    That's not entirely true. There are numerous circumstances where killing a human being is not considered wrong; self-defense, war, retribution (in many societies). There are also numerous cases where allowing someone to die, where they could be saved, is also not considered wrong.

    So while I agree that the whole 'is it a person' debate is a bit of a nonsense, used by both sides as an appeal to emotion or to avoid said emotion, even as a human being, it is incorrect to presume that it has any absolute right to life.
    I just can't see any other rationale other than it's convenient and people want to be able to do it. But why is it ethically ok and how can it be justified?
    If you're looking for a debate on the subject that is not fueled by self-interest or moral imprinting, let alone one which even makes a vague attempt at dispassionate objectivity, abortion is probably the wrong topic to tackle. The fact that both sides are so obsessed on whether it is a person or not - something which in itself does not prove it is right or wrong - demonstrates that you're not going to get past emotion, self-interest and religious credos.
    Samaris wrote: »
    I can't say I appreciate how you've managed to skip everything I've said that might contradict your very forceful opinions on whether I am lying to you.
    And I can appreciate how you claim you said anything even relevant to, let alone rebut, what I said, yet we see that you've simply ignored my response, made some excuse why you've done so, so that you may avoid addressing what would likely question some rather forceful opinions of yours.
    About how it is a ridiculous situation that 87% of single-parent families are female partly because a) it is ASSUMED that the female should be the one to raise the child, placing extra societal pressure on her to do so and b) it is ASSUMED that the male will not be the one to raise the child, and people would be incredulous at the concept of a young fella staying out of work, dropping his career etc to take in a baby. He might really really want this child. He might be the natural parent of the two. She might not be. But society works against both female and male in this circumstance by ASSUMING.
    Yet feminism, as I pointed out does not work to eliminate this; only to keep this presumption and diminished the negative effects of it for women. I already said in my last post and you ignored it.

    You don't want to touch that fact with a barge-poll, unfortunately, as it's an argument you know you can't win. So easier to ignore and dismiss it and change the subject.
    lazygal wrote: »
    ETA my first pregnancy was terminated at 39 weeks. My daughter is now three. Why do you assume termination or abortion of pregnancy means a baby is always killed?
    I'm not sure if that is an abortion. Abortions tend to at the very least make no attempt to ensure the survival of the fetus, and in many cases tend to dismember it as part of the procedure before evacuation from the womb. What you appear to have had was an induced birth rather than an abortion.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,544 ✭✭✭Samaris


    Virgil° wrote: »
    "You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. [If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but] in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you"

    Just because I'm the awkward type, despite being pro-choice;

    I suspect the main arguments will be that the woman made a certain tacit choice to accept that she might end up with a foetus inside her by having sex. It's probably a bit closer to "you put your name on some sort of organ donor/assistance list" and you were the unfortunate grabbed from it.

    At the same time, this one would be a bit more akin to the "carrying a rapist's foetus" argument than a general debate on abortion - the people that kidnapped you deliberately and without consent from you put you into this situation.

    Of course, it does still end up with "this person will die if you don't submit to this situation".

    And true, lazygal, but those are far more likely to be carried out in the crunch-time; doing nothing will lead to someone's death, likely both, and it's trying to save the lives of both mother and sprog. The vast majority of interventions aren't at that period of the pregnancy.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    I'm not sure if that is an abortion. Abortions tend to at the very least make no attempt to ensure the survival of the fetus, and in many cases tend to dismember it as part of the procedure before evacuation from the womb. What you appear to have had was an induced birth rather than an abortion.

    So did Miss Y have an abortion under the POLDP Act? Or a termination? Or an early delivery?

    You might want to check your terminology by the way. Induction in the context of pregnancy isn't what I had, and having had a c section Miss Y won't be able to have any future pregnancy induced either. She might be able to try for a vaginal birth, but her time on the clock for labour will be limited and she'll be monitored very closely. Of course, had she had an earlier termination/abortion/induced birth she wouldn't be in that position.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 505 ✭✭✭inocybe


    lazygal wrote: »
    I used to be a bit like this. Then friends started having babies and I got pregnant myself, with a very much planned and wanted pregnancy.

    it's funny, it was having a miscarriage and then a child that really made me aware to campaign for choice. As if it was just a vague concept before.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    inocybe wrote: »
    it's funny, it was having a miscarriage and then a child that really made me aware to campaign for choice. As if it was just a vague concept before.

    Yes, I'm really ashamed that I argued against abortion with friends years ago. I will say it was a product of the catholic school system that I thought abortion was never the right choice. Having grown up a bit and copped onto the myriad grey areas life throws at everyone, I've realised that women deserve to access whatever is the right choice for them.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,617 ✭✭✭Virgil°


    Samaris wrote: »
    I suspect the main arguments will be that the woman made a certain tacit choice to accept that she might end up with a foetus inside her by having sex. It's probably a bit closer to "you put your name on some sort of organ donor/assistance list" and you were the unfortunate grabbed from it.

    At the same time, this one would be a bit more akin to the "carrying a rapist's foetus" argument than a general debate on abortion - the people that kidnapped you deliberately and without consent from you put you into this situation.

    Indeed. I'm expecting as much.
    In response to the "Putting your own name on the donor list". Just to pre-empt it. People can withdraw consent in nearly every other situation possible having given it to begin with.

    Now the above situation i quoted seems to allow late term abortions, which I'm not comfortable with. So there is that. But then I've not seen anyone here advocating late term abortion so its probably moot.


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


    lazygal wrote: »
    So did Miss Y have an abortion under the POLDP Act? Or a termination? Or an early delivery?

    You might want to check your terminology by the way. Induction in the context of pregnancy isn't what I had, and having had a c section Miss Y won't be able to have any future pregnancy induced either. She might be able to try for a vaginal birth, but her time on the clock for labour will be limited and she'll be monitored very closely. Of course, had she had an earlier termination/abortion/induced birth she wouldn't be in that position.
    Well, I'm asking you to check your terminology too. Unless I am gravely mistaken in an abortion there is no attempt to keep the fetus alive - quite the opposite (to have a c-section as part of an abortion would be unheard of, I'd imagine; you'd be better off dismembering it in the womb and extracting the resultant tissue) - while in the 'abortion' you described, there clearly was. So I'm questioning whether what you had was an abortion, whatever about what you would otherwise call it.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    How's that? Don't we normally punish those who do something wrong?

    While an exceptional case, the one you're referring to involved a termination two days prior to the expected delivery. It's pretty much impossible to claim it's a ball of cells at that stage and it would have been possible to induce delivery as it would have almost certainly been able to survive outside the womb - biologically it was no different to infants that are already born and one would have had to actively have sought to kill it in the procedure.

    It seems a bit bizarre that give that you consider it wrong and the actual circumstances of the termination, that you would think it incorrect to seek punishment. Should infanticide be immune from punishment too?

    I don't think she did anything wrong, I don't think what she did was right but I don't think her actions were criminal. She was foolish inducing labour with no medical supervision but I'm not convinced her actions were designed to kill the baby.


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


    eviltwin wrote: »
    I don't think she did anything wrong, I don't think what she did was right but I don't think her actions were criminal. She was foolish inducing labour with no medical supervision but I'm not convinced her actions were designed to kill the baby.
    Ahh, ok. If those were the circumstances of this case, then that's a fair point.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,544 ✭✭✭Samaris


    And I can appreciate how you claim you said anything even relevant to, let alone rebut, what I said, yet we see that you've simply ignored my response, made some excuse why you've done so, so that you may avoid addressing what would likely question some rather forceful opinions of yours.

    Yet feminism, as I pointed out does not work to eliminate this; only to keep this presumption and diminished the negative effects of it for women. I already said in my last post and you ignored it.

    You don't want to touch that fact with a barge-poll, unfortunately, as it's an argument you know you can't win. So easier to ignore and dismiss it and change the subject.
    .

    Good heavens, I argued regarding that point! What on earth do you want from me?

    "True feminism champions equality, not putting women first over men or their children. Feminists for Life welcomes men. We honor and support fathers as well as mothers who are in school, the workplace and at home." - FFL, an American group.

    Yes, I want to change those statistics! Yes, I want the situation to be that no-one is assumed to not want their child, or assumed to be the one to raise it. Single-parent families should be roughly equal in whether they are male-led or female-led [in theory at least!], and males should not get less support from the other parent or the state if they are the one raising the child, a point, by the way, raised by this particular group of feminists.

    To some extent, we need HELP from everyone to change these issues, but we cannot necessarily change the very male aspects of this without males standing up and doing it too. Sometimes yes, it is easier to fight for the bits that you absolutely know you have a stand on, rather than try to change a deeply, deeply entrenched societal issue that does, also, require a subtle but revolutionary change in the minds of men - that it's ok, it's GOOD to be the carer for your child.

    I'm not avoiding your argument, or afraid of the consequences to my opinions, or obfuscating or denying or waving a barge pole or standing on my head, I am doing my absolute best here to answer your points and make my positions clear. And no, no more than you will answer for every MRA out there will I answer for all women who call themselves feminists. I, as a human being, would like to have the right to have complete dingbats that also call themselves X without that reflecting on me, thank you.

    Edit: Look, I'm not comfortable with derailing this thread any further. We can argue this again on a more relevant thread; I have made my points as clear as possible, and if you feel that I'm running from your points...well, there's nothing I can do about it. I won't be responding to any more feminism v. not feminism issues unless they are directly related to abortion.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,389 ✭✭✭NachoBusiness


    volchitsa, I will get to many of the other nonsense points you (and a few others) have made this morning in a bit, but for now just on this following one:
    volchitsa wrote: »
    Except nobody on here did say that, did they?
    Despite your best efforts. :D

    You have to love how that the above post got so well thanked, yet:
    Can you give birth? are you forced to carry something around in you for 9 months??

    If not then tbh you should shut the **** up and let the women have the choice

    Course, the 'It's a women's body, shut the **** up' sentiment has not only been said, but it has also been implied many times also, with the following:
    It hasn't got anything to do with nox unless it's his partner up the duff.
    ..my uterus and whatever the hell may or may not be in it is none of YOUR business.
    .. has absolutely nothing to do with box or you, nor should it have anything to do with you.
    It has absolutely nothing to do with you, it has no effect on you and it's none of your business unless your girlfriend decides she wants an abortion.
    If your not directly impacted by someones decision to have an abortion I propose you continue to mind your own business and let them get on with it.
    hynesie08 wrote: »
    It's none of your business, and unless someone has told you they've had one, it'll never be your business.

    Now, if we can just stop pretending that one side of this debate hasn't been treated (from the get go) as if they are speaking about something which they really shouldn't be, that would be nice.


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


    Samaris wrote: »
    Good heavens, I argued regarding that point!
    You didn't and I'll demonstrate why below.
    Yes, I want to change those statistics! Yes, I want the situation to be that no-one is assumed to not want their child, or assumed to be the one to raise it. Single-parent families should be roughly equal in whether they are male-led or female-led [in theory at least!], and males should not get less support from the other parent or the state if they are the one raising the child, a point, by the way, raised by this particular group of feminists.

    To some extent, we need HELP from everyone to change these issues, but we cannot necessarily change the very male aspects of this without males standing up and doing it too. Sometimes yes, it is easier to fight for the bits that you absolutely know you have a stand on, rather than try to change a deeply, deeply entrenched societal issue that does, also, require a subtle but revolutionary change in the minds of men - that it's ok, it's GOOD to be the carer for your child.

    I'm not avoiding your argument, or afraid of the consequences to my opinions, or obfuscating or denying or waving a barge pole or standing on my head, I am doing my absolute best here to answer your points and make my positions clear. And no, no more than you will answer for every MRA out there will I answer for all women who call themselves feminists. I, as a human being, would like to have the right to have complete dingbats that also call themselves X without that reflecting on me, thank you.
    Which is all sounds very nice, but you've actually said nothing.

    I pointed out one of, of not the principle existing legal factor that reinforces the presumption that child rearing is a woman and not a man's job; the tender years doctrine - which is still alive and well and in use throughout the western World. You want to put your money where you mouth is, then abolish it.

    Yet, you have repeatedly avoided addressing this issue because this is where feminism's commitment to equality evaporates; where equality would involve a loss of, even unjust, rights for women. Were feminism to oppose this doctrine, then it might have a leg to stand on where it comes to claims of representing equality - but it does not. Had you addressed this point you might have answered my point - but you have not.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,290 ✭✭✭orubiru


    The attitude of "it's my body so it's no one else's business" has got to be one of the most ignorant and self obsessed attitudes you can have. It's childish and petulant. How about think about someone other than yourself.

    Well, another poster has proposed a thought experiment. I'd like to hear your thoughts on that.

    From Virgil°:

    "You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. [If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but] in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you"

    Should you be allowed unplug yourself from this person? Or should you be legally forced to provide this person with use of your body for 9 months?

    Now, its a thought experiment. The main point of which is to show that a person is never obligated to relinquish bodily autonomy to another person for any reason. The pro-life position here grants MORE rights to the unborn child than any other person. Why should this be the case?


    So let's hear what you've got.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,389 ✭✭✭NachoBusiness


    eviltwin wrote: »
    I don't think what she did was right, I don't think it should be a punishable offence though

    I give you props for for at least addressing my point but let me just clarify here: you don't think a woman aborting her own child two weeks before it's due should be a punishable offence?

    eviltwin wrote: »
    I don't think she did anything wrong, I don't think what she did was right but I don't think her actions were criminal. She was foolish inducing labour with no medical supervision but I'm not convinced her actions were designed to kill the baby.

    What?!

    She had an affair and concealed the pregnancy from her husband. She then visited an abortion clinic when she was 29 weeks pregnant and when they told her that she was too far gone, she Google'd ‘Where can I get an illegal abortion?’. When she couldn't find anywhere she bought an abortion drug online. The judge stated: 'This was a cold, calculated decision that you took for your self-interest alone' .. but yet you "don't believe she did anything wrong" and suggest she just "induced labour".

    Beggars belief.


Advertisement