The new, vicious fight

arayess · 06-07-2015 01:25PM

the_monkey wrote: »

Disgusting isn't it ?

brain washing them and telling them that pro choice people are basically baby murderers ...

terrible stuff indeed.
God forbid you demonstrate an opinon and right to protest to your kid.
Should all parents refuse to discuss politics or social agenda stuff with kids.

I'll bet you won't have an opinion with kids at a pro-choice rally?
:rolleyes:

frostyjacks · 06-07-2015 01:29PM

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Then it was especially silly of you to repeatedly suggest it, wasn't it?

On the contrary, I have been crystal clear.

Repeating the same silly stock phrase in answer to reasonable questions in a debate is obtuse. It's like trying to debate with a stroppy 8 year old.

You think asking how to communicate with a baby inside the womb is a reasonable question?

NachoBusiness · 06-07-2015 01:41PM

Daith wrote: »

A developing baby in a womb has no autonomy though. It relies on the mother and her body.

Just because a baby in womb relies on the mother for it's survival, does not therefore mean they should have the automatic right to end that baby's life whenever they see fit just because of that. A baby at 22 weeks development in an incubator is relying on hospital care for survival but they would be done for murder if they decided to end that baby's life, as would indeed the mother if she decided to unplug the incubator.

Daith · 06-07-2015 01:42PM

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Just because a baby in womb relies on the mother for it's survival, does not therefore mean they should have the automatic right to end that baby's life whenever they see fit just because of that.

Not my point. You asked about the developing babies autonomy.

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Where do you stand on the developing baby's body autonomy one wonders?

It doesn't have one. Far too simplistic from you to suggest that the women's body and babies body are not linked.

NachoBusiness wrote: »

A baby at 22 weeks development in an incubator is relying on the hospital for survival but they would be done for murder if they decided to end their life, as would indeed the mother if she unplugged the incubator.

What about three weeks, four weeks?

Lingua Franca · 06-07-2015 02:03PM

frostyjacks wrote: »

You think asking how to communicate with a baby inside the womb is a reasonable question?

You think telling people to talk to foetuses is a reasonable answer to a question. We're trying to figure out if you are mad enough to believe that it's possible or if you are actually have to resort to repeating clichés when you can't respond to a question. That's all sorted now. You have no interest in debate. Good luck to you.

NachoBusiness · 06-07-2015 02:04PM

Daith wrote: »

Far too simplistic from you to suggest that the women's body and babies body are not linked.

I never suggested they weren't linked. In fact I did the very opposite of that.

Yes they are linked BUT again, as I said:

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Just because a baby in womb relies on the mother for it's survival, does not therefore mean they should have the automatic right to end that baby's life whenever they see fit.

What about three weeks, four weeks?

At that stage I would consider it more a procurement of miscarriage than procuring an abortion. Almost 20% of pregnancies result in miscarriages before 12 weeks.

frostyjacks · 06-07-2015 02:08PM

Lingua Franca wrote: »

You think telling people to talk to foetuses is a reasonable answer to a question. We're trying to figure out if you are mad enough to believe that it's possible or if you are actually have to resort to repeating clichés when you can't respond to a question. That's all sorted now. You have no interest in debate. Good luck to you.

The point I'm making, which seems to have sailed over your head, is that abortion is imposing your will on someone else, and that it's not not just the mother involved.

Fat Christy · 06-07-2015 02:09PM

Buzz Meeks wrote: »

Could it not all be settled with paper, rock, scissors?

You mean Rock, paper, scissors, lizard, spock?

bodice ripper · 06-07-2015 02:18PM

frostyjacks wrote: »

The point I'm making, which seems to have sailed over your head, is that abortion is imposing your will on someone else, and that it's not not just the mother involved.

Says you.

Grayson · 06-07-2015 02:20PM

frostyjacks wrote: »

Well, wasn't that the point of the abortion referendum? That we accepted that the unborn have rights? Or am I misreading our constitution. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

And the debate is whether or not to change it.

We could give dogs the right to vote and have a debate about it.

Abortion is really just about the right of a woman to choose. This can be divided into two separate issues and most people view it this way.

1) the right to choose based on personal reasons.
2) the right to receive medical care when her life is in danger or the pegnancy isn't viable.

The first issue has about 50% support in the population.
The second has well over 90% support. That included an awful lot of people who are pro-life/anti-choice.

The 8th amendment stops this. It's the reason so many women are being denied adequate care within this country.

Now I'm pro choice but we are in a situation where even the majority of pro life people feel that the 8th amendment is overkill.

Daith · 06-07-2015 02:23PM

NachoBusiness wrote: »

I never suggested they weren't linked. In fact I did the very opposite of that.

No your original point was about the babies autonomy then you changed your position.

NachoBusiness wrote: »

At that stage I would consider it more a procurement of miscarriage than procuring an abortion. Almost 20% of pregnancies result in miscarriages before 12 weeks.

Would you have an issue with a woman seeking an abortion after a month?

frostyjacks · 06-07-2015 02:23PM

bodice ripper wrote: »

Says you.

...and the constitution.

NachoBusiness · 06-07-2015 02:34PM

Daith wrote: »

No your original point was about the babies autonomy then you changed your position.

Eh no, you fail to grasp what I am saying. No position change.

That's also te reason why you just suggested I had said "the women's body and babies body are not linked" when I hadn't.

You said a baby in the womb relies on the mother for life and so has no body autonomy and I retorted that nonsense by saying that a baby in an incubator relies on the hospital keeping the incubator witched on for life, but yet the hospital cannot just decide to switch it off, as they would be done for murder.

The point you're failing to grasp is that reliance on another for life does not =/= lack of body autonomy.

Would you have an issue with a woman seeking an abortion after a month?

*knock knock* Is this mic on?

NachoBusiness wrote: »

..also have no problem with first trimester abortions.

Daith · 06-07-2015 02:39PM

NachoBusiness wrote: »

The point you're failing to grasp is that reliance on another for life does not =/= lack of body autonomy.

Yes it does. Autonomy means the baby can survive on it's own. It can't. A baby in an incubator doesn't have autonomy either.

NachoBusiness · 06-07-2015 02:41PM

Daith wrote: »

Yes it does. Autonomy means the baby can survive on it's own. It can't. A baby in an incubator doesn't have autonomy either.

Nope, that's fetal viability.

Daith · 06-07-2015 02:42PM

NachoBusiness wrote: »

No, that's fetal viability.

A developing baby in a womb isn't autonomous. It relies on the mothers body. You are denying what a woman can do with her body.

Find a different word but stop using autonomous.

NachoBusiness · 06-07-2015 02:47PM

Daith wrote: »

You are denying what a woman can do with her body.

No, I'm not, just with what she does with the body that is developing within her.

Find a different word but stop using autonomous.

Says the chap confusing autonomy with viability.

Fat Christy · 06-07-2015 02:52PM

The woman's life should always take precedent over the unborn's in my opinion, always.

kylith · 06-07-2015 03:05PM

NachoBusiness wrote: »

No, I'm not, just with what she does with the body that is developing within her.

So why do the 'rights' of something with no brain, functioning nervous system, or ability to survive independently trump the rights of the person with the functioning brain, functioning nervous system, and ability to survive independently?

DarkyHughes · 06-07-2015 03:42PM

Daith wrote: »

A developing baby in a womb isn't autonomous. It relies on the mothers body. You are denying what a woman can do with her body.

Find a different word but stop using autonomous.

There probably looking to be granted Home Rule then.

NachoBusiness · 06-07-2015 03:51PM

kylith wrote: »

So why do the 'rights' of something with no brain, functioning nervous system, or ability to survive independently trump the rights of the person with the functioning brain, functioning nervous system, and ability to survive independently?

I have already dealt with the nonsense that is the 'can't survive independently' argument but with regards to no brain and functioning nervous system:

The Second Trimester

The second trimester is the fourth, fifth, and sixth months of a pregnancy. During the course of the second trimester, the brain becomes fully developed. Even though the brain has not reached its full size, most of the neurons within the central nervous system are present. A neuron is another name for a nerve cell, or the cells that conduct electrical impulses and make up the brain, spinal column, and nerves.

During the fourth month, the fetus begins to prepare itself for the outside world. The fetus can experience sensory sensations such as sound, taste, and smells. By the fifth month, the fetus is learning to control its reactions to these sensory sensations and to control its movement. The ability to consciously react to sensory sensations becomes even stronger during the sixth month. During the sixth month, another major mark of brain development occurs; the cerebral cortex splits into two separate hemispheres. Some researchers believe that the fetus develops the ability to remember at this stage.

kylith · 06-07-2015 04:11PM

NachoBusiness wrote: »

I have already dealt with the nonsense that is the 'can't survive independently' argument but with regards to no brain and functioning nervous system:

"During the second trimester", so what about the first trimester?

NachoBusiness · 06-07-2015 04:25PM

kylith wrote: »

"During the second trimester", so what about the first trimester?

...

NachoBusiness wrote: »

..have no problem with first trimester abortions.

osarusan · 06-07-2015 04:43PM

Daith wrote: »

You are denying what a woman can do with her body.

NachoBusiness wrote: »

No, I'm not, just with what she does with the body that is developing within her.

Yes you are - it's a pointless distinction to try and make.

By arguing that there should be limits to what she can do to the body developing within her, it is obvious that she will be therefore denied the right to do certain things with her own body.

That is obvious, no matter what side you lean to on abortion.

Skullface McGubbin · 06-07-2015 04:46PM

While I don't support most of the things the Left comes out with, I actually find myself in favour of abortion. Especially when it comes those impregnated against their will and cases like Savita Whatshername and so on.

But when it come to the self described Pro-choice types, their Left wing fanaticism rubs me the wrong way (as left wing fanaticism always does).
Their use of dehumanizing language like calling unborn foetusus (or whatever the correct plural is) parasites is cringeworthy.

Anyway, I'm surprised there isn't a referendum on the whole issue yet.

Dick phelan · 06-07-2015 04:57PM

I hate when people turn abortion into some sort of wider debate, abortion has nothing to do with religion, you could quite easily be against it and have no religious belief, it has nothing to do with gay marriage, you can easily be in favor of gay marriage and against abortion. I'ts not some liberal vs conservative debate it's about abortion nothing else yet people turn it into something else. Personally i don't no what way i'd vote in a referendum, the issue is not as black and white as people make out, i'd favor abortion under certain circumstances but does that mean it should be legal on demand? Honestly i don't know enough about it and would have to examine it closer if a referendum was called. What i will say is that both sides are an embarrassment most of the time and just like the gay marriage referendum it seems people are not capable of having an honest and proper debate on the issue, instead both sides seem to just throw insults at each other.

wp_rathead · 06-07-2015 05:18PM

Jaysus it gonna be nasty if it is put to a referendum to remove The 8th Amendment.
We saw how fiery it got now and then during the SSM Referendum

While I'm Pro-Choice myself atleast I GET the Pro-Life crowd's argument to a certain degree..
Now I think their argument is wrong, but it is much stronger argument than anyone could give for a reason to Vote No to SSM yet 743,000 did so

Merces · 06-07-2015 05:43PM

wp_rathead wrote: »

Jaysus it gonna be nasty if it is put to a referendum to remove The 8th Amendment.
We saw how fiery it got now and then during the SSM Referendum

While I'm Pro-Choice myself atleast I GET the Pro-Life crowd's argument to a certain degree..
Now I think their argument is wrong, but it is much stronger argument than anyone could give for a reason to Vote No to SSM yet 743,000 did so

Oh it will be an ugly affair, no doubt about it. The SSM referendum will be a friendly game of cricket in comparison. It will also be far,far closer.

NachoBusiness · 06-07-2015 06:10PM

osarusan wrote: »

Yes you are - it's a pointless distinction to try and make.

It's anything but pointless..

By arguing that there should be limits to what she can do to the body developing within her, it is obvious that she will be therefore denied the right to do certain things with her own body.

It's not her body that she would be choosing to destroy though is it, that's the point. It's an ignorant and selfish point of view for a woman (or a man if they agree with her) to choose to take the life of a second trimester stage (particularly late stage) developing baby and to pretend that this is them just doing something to the woman's body and that this action should be nobody else's business but theirs.

In any case, you imply that nobody should deny a woman "the right to do certain things with her own body" but sure everybody believes women should to be denied the right to do certain things with "their body". Even you. You can't tell me that you believe it should be legal or considered fine in society for the likes of Sarah Catt to do what she did.

osarusan · 06-07-2015 06:28PM

NachoBusiness wrote: »

It's anything but pointless..

It's not her body that she would be choosing to destroy though is it, that's the point. It's an ignorant and selfish point of view for a woman (or man if they agree with her) to choose to take the life of a second trimester stage (particularly late stage) developing baby and to pretend that this is them just doing something to the woman's body and then suggest that this action should be nobody else's business but theirs.

In any case, you imply that nobody should deny a woman "the right to do certain things with her own body" but sure everybody believes women should to be denied the right to do certain things "with her body". Even you. You can't tell me you believe in should be legal or considered fine in society for Sarah Catt to do what she did.

None of that relates to what I said, and I did not imply what you said I did.

My point is that the 'You are not being denied the right to do what your body, just the body developing inside you' argument doesn't hold weight.

Protecting the body developing inside a woman necessitates denying the woman certain rights over her own body. That is obvious.

It is not a statement on the morality of abortion, just a statement on your argument.

The new, vicious fight

Comments