nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

PopePalpatine

I didn't know whether to post this here or in the Sanctimony of Pro-Lifers thread in t'udder forum - a BBC article on Paraguay's "epidemic" of child pregnancies. Paraguay only allows for abortion if the mother's life is at risk. On average, two girls aged 14 and under become pregnant in Paraguay every day.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

"Misreading" what the O/P posted for one's own purposes is misleading and delusional.

Misleading and delusional? Certainly a difficult trick to pull off. But if misreading is an issue for you, I suggest you start here, and work your way forward. As I said, I think you may have been rushing to reply just a little too quickly.

In the meantime, perhaps you'd like to say; given that you agree there's no doubt that both sides have someone's best interests at heart, how do you think the position of 'the Pro-Life group' demonstrates they have someones best interests at heart?

aloyisious

Absolam wrote: »

Well if you can agree to that much, we've at least marginally moved your opinion of 'the Pro-Life group' forward a little

"Misreading" what the O/P posted for one's own purposes is misleading and delusional.

Canadel

aloyisious wrote: »

Your 1st para is silly, if not insulting, in the extreme, talking about conveyor-belt abortion, big business and little factories dotted around the country where women are lined up ready for processing. Women are intelligent thinking people fully aware of their rights.

Abortion on Supply.

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

To use your quote: Sure, everyone thinks they're right in this discussion, both sides have someone's best interests at heart, no doubt.

Well if you can agree to that much, we've at least marginally moved your opinion of 'the Pro-Life group' forward a little

Absolam

Cabaal wrote: »

Absolam,
Honest question for you, I know people writing for newspapers can get paid per word, by any chance do you get paid per quoted reply?
I see no other reason why you multi quote so much other then to allowing you to nitpick the heck out of posts to tire everyone out

Cabaal, honest answer for you; I think if someone puts forward a number of arguments in support of a cause, if I'm going to answer they deserve to have each argument given due consideration and have it addressed rather than ignored. Personally I think it would be disrespectful to do otherwise, except perhaps where the argument is so nonsensical as to be patently embarrassing, like above, where even so the nonsense should be pointed out at least. Don't you think the posts you discuss deserve your full engagement?

Though there is something in emmet02s assertion of gish gallops; it seems to me that some posters present a large number of small points with the intent of giving the appearance of supporting larger ones, when in fact the arguments presented don't stand up individually, don't in fact support their post at all, and when addressed they switch to other, equally unsupporting points. If that's a posters preferred style fair enough; but in presenting a number of points it would be unreasonable of them to expect that some or any of them would get a free pass; either they can stand over them or they can't. The disadvantage of internet fora for gish gallopers is that everything they say can be addressed by anyone who wants to do so, unlike oral debates.

That may be why some posters take such umbrage at having someone 'nitpick the heck out of' their posts; they know they won't stand up to scrutiny. It certainly appears that such posters often then tend to abandon discussing the posts and start discussing the posters; maybe sneering at people lets them feel involved even if they're not contributing anything to the actual discussion, I don't know, but it does seem an odd tack to take if you think you have a valid point to make.

Still, as I've said before, this is the Abortion Discussion thread, not the Absolam Discussion thread, so rather than be accused of dragging the thread off topic by answering your no doubt well meant question, that's enough about me I think.

robdonn

lazygal wrote: »

Bets

Gambling is a terrible vice, you really shouldn't.

lazygal wrote: »

with self

Is that your inner self?

lazygal wrote: »

on how many

How long is a piece of string?

lazygal wrote: »

quotes

He said it, not me!

lazygal wrote: »

this can

It can, but should it?

lazygal wrote: »

be broken

If it ain't broken, don't fix it!

lazygal wrote: »

into.

This makes no sense by itself!

lazygal

Cabaal wrote: »

Absolam,
Honest question for you,

I know people writing for newspapers can get paid per word, by any chance do you get paid per quoted reply?
I see no other reason why you multi quote so much other then to allowing you to nitpick the heck out of posts to tire everyone out

Bets with self on how many quotes this can be broken into.

[Deleted User]

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop

Cabaal

Absolam,
Honest question for you,

I know people writing for newspapers can get paid per word, by any chance do you get paid per quoted reply?
I see no other reason why you multi quote so much other then to allowing you to nitpick the heck out of posts to tire everyone out

aloyisious

Absolam wrote: »

I must say, I do think to the contrary. 'the Pro-Life group' aren't using the 8th Amendment for anything. In the absence of 'the Pro-Life group' the Constitution stills confer a right to life on the unborn. 'the Pro-Life group' doesn't prevent women from aborting children; the Constitution (and the law) does. Yes... it is in fact a deniable case I'm afraid.
Riiiiiggghtt...... Well, you can't trump mystical abilities. Might as well give up now, eh?

You.... might want to reread what I posted?

Again, you might want to reread what I posted. You may be rushing to reply just a little too quickly.

To use your quote: Sure, everyone thinks they're right in this discussion, both sides have someone's best interests at heart, no doubt.

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

It is an undeniable case (unless you think to the contrary) that the Pro-Life group are using the 8th amendment to prevent women from having a yea or nay say in the matter of keeping the feotus growing within their wombs. If you think the 8th amendment does NOT stop women from having any right to an abortion here, perhaps you could point out to me where in that amendment it specifically states women do have the right to an abortion.

I must say, I do think to the contrary. 'the Pro-Life group' aren't using the 8th Amendment for anything. In the absence of 'the Pro-Life group' the Constitution stills confer a right to life on the unborn. 'the Pro-Life group' doesn't prevent women from aborting children; the Constitution (and the law) does. Yes... it is in fact a deniable case I'm afraid.

aloyisious wrote: »

Re Do people who are members of pro life groups have some mystical ability to lobby harder - I'd say yes in that they seem to believe they are doing the lord's work, certainly not the O/P's work for sure.

Riiiiiggghtt...... Well, you can't trump mystical abilities. Might as well give up now, eh?

aloyisious wrote: »

Re your "Or do you think they're not vocal enough with opinions already?" I reckon that, as you apparently do, we (the Pro-choice group) are vocal enough. I've no need to create any argument on THEIR behalf, seeing as I'm pro the Pro-choice group.

You.... might want to reread what I posted?

aloyisious wrote: »

Thank's for pointing out the pointing out (How precisely does pointing out that every law which limits personal freedom....) you believe I did, I'm still trying to find that in what I wrote.

Again, you might want to reread what I posted. You may be rushing to reply just a little too quickly.

aloyisious

Absolam wrote: »

Sorry, could you try to explain how it makes your case there? Do people who are members of pro life groups have some mystical ability to lobby harder than anyone else who wants a say on pregnant womens right to integrity of body? Are Pro choice groups not pushing for the status-quo to change with equal vigour? How precisely does pointing out that every law which limits personal freedom tells women (and men) "you will do as we dictate, NOT what you choose" make your case?

Unless your case is we should have some sort of utopian anarchy?
I bet you won't find a single pro life group which has ever offered that argument. Creating an argument on their behalf seems somewhat pointless, wouldn't you say? Or do you think they're not vocal enough with opinions already?
Sure, everyone thinks they're right in this discussion, both sides have someone's best interests at heart, no doubt.

It is an undeniable case (unless you think to the contrary) that the Pro-Life group are using the 8th amendment to prevent women from having a yea or nay say in the matter of keeping the feotus growing within their wombs. If you think the 8th amendment does NOT stop women from having any right to an abortion here, perhaps you could point out to me where in that amendment it specifically states women do have the right to an abortion.

Re Do people who are members of pro life groups have some mystical ability to lobby harder - I'd say yes in that they seem to believe they are doing the lord's work, certainly not the O/P's work for sure.

Re your "Or do you think they're not vocal enough with opinions already?" I reckon that, as you apparently do, we (the Pro-choice group) are vocal enough. I've no need to create any argument on THEIR behalf, seeing as I'm pro the Pro-choice group.

Thank's for pointing out the pointing out (How precisely does pointing out that every law which limits personal freedom....) you believe I did, I'm still trying to find that in what I wrote.

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

You make my case there. The Pro-life group is NOT the state, not even a Quango, yet THEY push for the status-quo to remain as is, so that THEY continue to have more say on pregnant womens right to integrity of body than the women themselves, by way of existing state law, all in the name of the feotus.

Sorry, could you try to explain how it makes your case there? Do people who are members of pro life groups have some mystical ability to lobby harder than anyone else who wants a say on pregnant womens right to integrity of body? Are Pro choice groups not pushing for the status-quo to change with equal vigour? How precisely does pointing out that every law which limits personal freedom tells women (and men) "you will do as we dictate, NOT what you choose" make your case? Unless your case is we should have some sort of utopian anarchy?

aloyisious wrote: »

The argument of the Pro-Life group is that women, merely because they are pregnant, must sacrifice their bodily integrity for that of the feotus within their wombs, whether the women like it or not, "sorry missus, you're pregnant, you no longer have the right to decide what happens to your body".

I bet you won't find a single pro life group which has ever offered that argument. Creating an argument on their behalf seems somewhat pointless, wouldn't you say? Or do you think they're not vocal enough with opinions already?

aloyisious wrote: »

The Pro-choice group is arguing for Irish women to be allowed the chance of a right to decide what they want to do with their bodies, and persuade the public that women should the right to decide what is best for women at the base personal level of citizen, that that choice is for the women themselves. I haven't seen the Pro-choice group going about protesting at women making personal decisions to keep on with pregnancies, instead of abortions. They view that woman's choice as being a basic personal right.

Sure, everyone thinks they're right in this discussion, both sides have someone's best interests at heart, no doubt.

aloyisious

Absolam wrote: »

As for telling the woman "you will do as we dictate, NOT what you choose, you will have no right in law to choose what your future is to be", that's pretty much the case with every single law a State enacts that limits the freedom of individuals to do as they please, isn't it? It's hardly a position exclusive to 'the Pro-Life groups'.

You make my case there. The Pro-life group is NOT the state, not even a Quango, yet THEY push for the status-quo to remain as is, so that THEY continue to have more say on pregnant womens right to integrity of body than the women themselves, by way of existing state law, all in the name of the feotus. The argument of the Pro-Life group is that women, merely because they are pregnant, must sacrifice their bodily integrity for that of the feotus within their wombs, whether the women like it or not, "sorry missus, you're pregnant, you no longer have the right to decide what happens to your body".

The Pro-choice group is arguing for Irish women to be allowed the chance of a right to decide what they want to do with their bodies, and persuade the public that women should the right to decide what is best for women at the base personal level of citizen, that that choice is for the women themselves. I haven't seen the Pro-choice group going about protesting at women making personal decisions to keep on with pregnancies, instead of abortions. They view that woman's choice as being a basic personal right.

Cabaal

Lets go back to 1983 for a moment....

Barrister Adrian Hardiman discusses the 1983 pro life amendemnt with RTÉ’s John Bowman and Brendan Shorthall of the pro-life campaign on Today Tonight.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrSL-RRGCsI

pauldla

It seems that there has been an increase in the number of searches for home abortions on google, according to this article on slate.com.

The states whose residents searched least for home abortion methods were states that have enacted few restrictions on abortions. Accordingly, eight of the 10 states with the highest rates of Google searches about self-induced abortions are noted as “hostile” or “very hostile” to abortion, as measured by state restrictions on the procedure by the Guttmacher Institute. Mississippi, whose one remaining abortion clinic has been fighting the state’s admitting privileges law for years, had the highest search rate for self-induced abortions in 2015.

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

Your 1st para is silly, if not insulting, in the extreme, talking about conveyor-belt abortion, big business and little factories dotted around the country where women are lined up ready for processing. Women are intelligent thinking people fully aware of their rights. Thinking people can see your simile to Europe of the 30's & 40's and know there is no comparison.

It's an extreme rendition, but it seems no more extreme that claiming the Pro Life groups expect that women will be forced to have abortions surely? Perhaps even less extreme....

aloyisious wrote: »

Perhaps if you change your perspective and see that the walking talking host of the feotus, the pregnant woman, has a choice to make when she learns that the feotus in her womb has a medical condition which is terminal and will not change on being born; 1... continue on with the pregnancy to full term when the feotus is then born to live but a short while and die from the terminal medical condition, or 2... terminate the pregnancy by way of abortion.

Surely the point of the discussion is that in Ireland (unless she goes to another country) the walking talking host of the foetus, the pregnant woman, does not have a choice to make when she learns that the foetus in her womb has a medical condition which is terminal and will not change on being born, because that choice is not offered to her. So frostyjacks doesn't really need to change his perspective in that regard.... unless you want his perspective to be incorrect?

aloyisious wrote: »

The pro-Life groups are asking pregnant women who have been informed of the future facing the feotus in their wombs, that of death shortly after birth due to the terminal medical condition it is affected by, to continue to full-term births.

Well, I suppose some pro life proponents are asking them to continue to do so, but it's silly, if not insulting, in the extreme, to say The pro-Life groups as if you're not talking about some pro life proponents.

aloyisious wrote: »

The Pro-Life groups are also aware that a/the pregnant woman/en can have her/their life/lives put at risk due to the medical condition the feotus in her/their womb/s is affected by if she/they choose to continue the pregnancy full term. It seem's to me that the Pro-Life groups are asking pregnant women to risk their future, take a gamble on living, for the sake of the feotus with a known destiny, that of a short life after birth. The Pro-life people will have no risk attached at all to their position, while the woman's life and very existence will have.

And it's silly, if not insulting, in the extreme, to not note that even less people who you characterise as The pro-Life groups are opposed to abortion when a condition threatens the life of the pregnant woman, is it not?

aloyisious wrote: »

The woman and the baby mentioned in the 2nd para of your post would NOT have any right mentioned removed by the deletion of the 8th amendment.

Well; the baby certainly would have a right removed by the deletion of the 8th amendment; it's right to life (the only right mentioned in frostyjacks post) would be removed.

aloyisious wrote: »

A deletion of the 8th would NOT mean that the woman would face an instruction from the state that she must have an abortion.

But... nobody said it would?

aloyisious wrote: »

The choice would still be that of the pregnant woman.

You mean it would become that of the pregnant woman, surely?

aloyisious wrote: »

The position of the Pro-Life groups is not that of empathy with the pregnant woman, it is that of a group telling the woman "you will do as we dictate, NOT what you choose, you will have no right in law to choose what your future is to be".

Well, I suspect it is one of empathy with the foetus to some degree, and to at least some degree empathy with the pregnant woman. As for telling the woman "you will do as we dictate, NOT what you choose, you will have no right in law to choose what your future is to be", that's pretty much the case with every single law a State enacts that limits the freedom of individuals to do as they please, isn't it? It's hardly a position exclusive to 'the Pro-Life groups'.

aloyisious

frostyjacks wrote: »

Conveyor belt abortion...a horrible term but that is essentially what pro-abortionists want; little factories dotted around the country where women are lined up ready for processing. I didn't realise abortion was such big business in the UK. I can see why they would lobby to take the right to life out of our constitution.

“I just felt I was doing the best for me and my baby,” says Rebecca. “In my mind I always felt I wanted to keep it. The counselling really helped me.” Doing the best for me AND my baby...not me, me, me, which is what we constantly hear from the abortion lobby. My body, my choice etc. Respecting the rights of another. Empathy. Love. Are these concepts so difficult for the #repealthe8th crowd to comprehend?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/8727344/The-pregnant-pause.html.

Your 1st para is silly, if not insulting, in the extreme, talking about conveyor-belt abortion, big business and little factories dotted around the country where women are lined up ready for processing. Women are intelligent thinking people fully aware of their rights. Thinking people can see your simile to Europe of the 30's & 40's and know there is no comparison.

Perhaps if you change your perspective and see that the walking talking host of the feotus, the pregnant woman, has a choice to make when she learns that the feotus in her womb has a medical condition which is terminal and will not change on being born; 1... continue on with the pregnancy to full term when the feotus is then born to live but a short while and die from the terminal medical condition, or 2... terminate the pregnancy by way of abortion.

The pro-Life groups are asking pregnant women who have been informed of the future facing the feotus in their wombs, that of death shortly after birth due to the terminal medical condition it is affected by, to continue to full-term births. The Pro-Life groups are also aware that a/the pregnant woman/en can have her/their life/lives put at risk due to the medical condition the feotus in her/their womb/s is affected by if she/they choose to continue the pregnancy full term. It seem's to me that the Pro-Life groups are asking pregnant women to risk their future, take a gamble on living, for the sake of the feotus with a known destiny, that of a short life after birth. The Pro-life people will have no risk attached at all to their position, while the woman's life and very existence will have.

The woman and the baby mentioned in the 2nd para of your post would NOT have any right mentioned removed by the deletion of the 8th amendment. A deletion of the 8th would NOT mean that the woman would face an instruction from the state that she must have an abortion. The choice would still be that of the pregnant woman. The position of the Pro-Life groups is not that of empathy with the pregnant woman, it is that of a group telling the woman "you will do as we dictate, NOT what you choose, you will have no right in law to choose what your future is to be".

lazygal

frostyjacks wrote: »

Conveyor belt abortion...a horrible term but that is essentially what pro-abortionists want; little factories dotted around the country where women are lined up ready for processing. I didn't realise abortion was such big business in the UK. I can see why they would lobby to take the right to life out of our constitution.

“I just felt I was doing the best for me and my baby,” says Rebecca. “In my mind I always felt I wanted to keep it. The counselling really helped me.” Doing the best for me AND my baby...not me, me, me, which is what we constantly hear from the abortion lobby. My body, my choice etc. Respecting the rights of another. Empathy. Love. Are these concepts so difficult for the #repealthe8th crowd to comprehend?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/8727344/The-pregnant-pause.html.

I did the best for my babies during pregnancy, took the vitamins, paid for vaccines not paid for by the state despite being recommended and agreed to c sections and subsequently breastfed and I'm still breastfeeding My second toddler. I'm also pro abortion for those who want and need abortions or pro life for those who want to continue pregnancies. It's actually pathetic that you continue to think that pro choice means every pregnancy must be aborted regardless of any other considerations.

Shrap

frostyjacks wrote: »

“I just felt I was doing the best for me and my baby,” says Rebecca.

See, this is exactly where you miss the point entirely all the time. Rebecca says "my baby", so she is already emotionally invested enough in a minute foetus to call it "my baby". She wanted a baby, or she would in no way, shape or form be invested enough to call it "my baby".

Most women know that they need to hold back on emotional investment on any pregnancy (even wanted ones) due to the high failure rate. This is why many women don't announce their pregnancies before 3 months. In my case, I did not feel that there was a little human growing inside me till I could feel it and till I acknowledged it would continue to grow. Till then, it wouldn't have been such a great loss if I had miscarried, or indeed, if I had not been in a position to continue with the pregnancy and so decided to have an abortion. Such is life.....and death. You'd want to get over yourself to my mind - some people aren't pragmatic like that and then get a short sharp shock (or like you, remain eternally disappointed that not everyone is as sentimental as yourself).

oscarBravo

frostyjacks wrote: »

“I just felt I was doing the best for me and my baby,” says Rebecca. “In my mind I always felt I wanted to keep it. The counselling really helped me.” Doing the best for me AND my baby...not me, me, me, which is what we constantly hear from the abortion lobby. My body, my choice etc. Respecting the rights of another. Empathy. Love. Are these concepts so difficult for the #repealthe8th crowd to comprehend?

It seems Rebecca had a choice. It also seems that you respect her choice. It further seems that you only respect her choice because you agree with the choice she made.

I respect the choice she made. I would also have respected her choice had she chosen differently. You know, empathy: and not just empathy for people who make choices you approve of.

PopePalpatine

How rich of you to talk of "empathy", somehow you don't talk about it in relation to pregnant rape & incest victims and women carrying a foetus that will be lucky to survive for more than a few minutes.

frostyjacks

Conveyor belt abortion...a horrible term but that is essentially what pro-abortionists want; little factories dotted around the country where women are lined up ready for processing. I didn't realise abortion was such big business in the UK. I can see why they would lobby to take the right to life out of our constitution.

“I just felt I was doing the best for me and my baby,” says Rebecca. “In my mind I always felt I wanted to keep it. The counselling really helped me.” Doing the best for me AND my baby...not me, me, me, which is what we constantly hear from the abortion lobby. My body, my choice etc. Respecting the rights of another. Empathy. Love. Are these concepts so difficult for the #repealthe8th crowd to comprehend?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/8727344/The-pregnant-pause.html.

aloyisious

The public fight in Dublin is getting hotter. Passed by the premises next to the Marie Stopes clinic on Berkeley St and saw it has English newspaper cuttings in it's window linking Marie Stopes to conveyor-belt abortion. One of the pages has a photo of a house in it, with the same image on another page plus a story of a pregnant woman stabbing herself in the house. Two of the 3 pages have the clinic's name in handwritten ink on white paper imposed over the original published news story.

Hotblack Desiato

aloyisious wrote: »

Some people were commenting on the topic in a Dublin V the country manner.

I am not aware of ANY poll which supports that line of argument.

aloyisious

The Black Oil wrote: »

On the one hand, some people are saying the election showed that the majority of the electorate have no interest in abortion. On the other, they're celebrating the election of pro-life TDs. Which is it? Make up your mind.

Just listening now to an item on RTE 1 radio about some of the candidates in one constituency in the election just gone. From the doorstop conversations with voters, the abortion issue is a major one with some women definitely against changing the status-quo. Some people were commenting on the topic in a Dublin V the country manner.

The programme name is Sandbags V Handbags and a podcast is available.
The sandbags V handbags title refers to the gender quota and the floods, male V female candidates.

Cabaal

The Black Oil wrote: »

On the one hand, some people are saying the election showed that the majority of the electorate have no interest in abortion. On the other, they're celebrating the election of pro-life TDs. Which is it? Make up your mind.

On the other hand most pro-life TD's did not get elected

volchitsa

frostyjacks wrote: »

Worse damage than killing them in the womb?

Unless you think that any existence is automatically preferable to non existence, and being born even into the most miserable and abused existence possible is preferable to never having been born in the first place, then yes, there can be damage worse than never having been born at all.

frostyjacks wrote: »

It's depressing that the pro-abortion lobby keep couching a little human life in terms of a burden or a infliction upon women.

In some cases being pregnant against her will can destroy a woman. You seem to think that's just tough sh1t, but you're wrong. There is no reason for women to be treated as vessels for reproduction against their will, those days are gone.

The Black Oil

On the one hand, some people are saying the election showed that the majority of the electorate have no interest in abortion. On the other, they're celebrating the election of pro-life TDs. Which is it? Make up your mind.

Samaris

frostyjacks wrote: »

Worse damage than killing them in the womb? It's depressing that the pro-abortion lobby keep couching a little human life in terms of a burden or a infliction upon women.

Because yes, it can be. Not always, but there are circumstances where "a little human life" can be catastrophic to a woman who finds she has a small pre-human growing inside her against her choice, her will, or her ability to look after.