Advertisement
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.
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.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum
Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Abortion Discussion, Part Trois
Comments
-
-
Social media and reality are very different things, in the cold hard light of day people don't always do what the type on a keyboard.
That's exactly why I don't trust people, because all too often I've seen how they go with the crowd in public, and in private hold a very different view.If you don't trust people to make decisions that affect their own lives and those of their familys and friends then I'm very sorry to hear that you have such poor faith in our species.
Stall the horses there Cabaal! I never said anything about any "faith in our species", I said I don't trust people based upon my experience of the way people have a public and private persona and often the position they hold will depend upon the company they're in. I understand why they do it, but they shouldn't expect I should trust them then.
As it happens - I don't. But that doesn't mean I automatically think they're a terrible person. It just means they're human.The referendum commission exists for just that (its independent after all), in addition the two sides get equal media time.
On top of that people can do their own research.
The "sides" can be disappointing at times, after all they throw around an awful lot of fear mongering such as "Bye Bye Daddy", mothers day will be banned and the fear of tornado's (:pac:) and the likes. But people can also use the referendum commission info and their own research to come to a decision.
If there's one thing I've learned from this thread, it's that the last thing people want to do, is their own research. I can't say I blame them, there's mountains of it available, and it's time consuming, and it's generally a pain in the hole, so unless they're personally affected by the issue, I don't expect people will be too motivated to do their own research.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Yes, it is. If pro-choice people had the opportunity they would also be imposing their views on people. Whether there's a debate as to the validity of any part of those views (and there obviously is on both sides) doesn't change the fact that one side getting their way imposes their view on others, in each case it's an opinion which informs public policy.oscarBravo wrote: »No, it wouldn't. Pro-life people are imposing their views on people. There's no debate over the question of whether a pregnant woman is a person. The question of whether or not an implanted embryo is a person is far from one of simple fact. So no: it's not a similar imposition.
Or put it another way; people shouldn't be free to choose whether or not to kill someone. Isn't it reasonable to think that killing someone is more of an imposition than denying someone a choice?oscarBravo wrote: »Or, to put it another way, people could choose whether or not to be pregnant. Isn't it reasonable to think that allowing someone to make a choice is less of an imposition than denying them a choice?
A view that some parts of the UN disagrees withoscarBravo wrote: »That's a pretty patriarchal attitude. It's also one the UN disagrees with.
Like some parts of the Irish population disagree with it. And there's nothing patriarchal about stating a fact. 0 -
-
-
You're equating "you get to choose whether or not to be pregnant" with "you don't get to choose whether or not to be pregnant", and claiming that they are equivalent. That's, frankly, nonsense.Yes, it is. If pro-choice people had the opportunity they would also be imposing their views on people.
Yet again, you have to indulge in the ridiculous fiction that an embryo is a person in order to draw your equivalence.Or put it another way; people shouldn't be free to choose whether or not to kill someone.
It would be a fascinating discussion purely in the abstract, but the simple fact is that denying access to safe, legal and free abortion has only one real consequence, and that is that desperate women will put their own lives at risk trying to procure abortions in unsafe ways, or jeopardise their liberty by procuring them in illegal ways.
And that's what this comes down to, for me. Counting the angels on pinheads isn't just wankish omphaloskepsis, it's actively harmful.
If you want to assume a spherical chicken of uniform density that an embryo is a person, feel free. But restrictions on abortions are actively harming women, and that's something that nobody in a civilised country should be proud of.
Listen to yourself. You just said that "some parts" of the UN agree with an assertion, and that "some parts" of the Irish population disagree with it - and then go on to declare the contrary to be a fact, and ergo dismiss the idea that stating it could possibly be patriarchal.A view that some parts of the UN disagrees with Like some parts of the Irish population disagree with it. And there's nothing patriarchal about stating a fact.
If someone states that women are inherently less worthy than men, there are "some parts" of the Irish population that will agree with that statement. That doesn't make it a fact, and it most certainly doesn't exempt it from an accusation of being patriarchal.
The idea that a woman has no right not to be pregnant is just a subtly different hue of the belief that she is her husband's property, or that there's no rape in marriage. It's, quite frankly, a disgraceful view for anyone to hold in this day and age, and I have no problem with calling them out for it.0 -
Advertisement
-
Nope I'm not. You'd like me to, but I'm not. I'm equating one majority opinion informing public policy with another majority opinion informing public policy. Much much more straightforward.oscarBravo wrote: »You're equating "you get to choose whether or not to be pregnant" with "you don't get to choose whether or not to be pregnant", and claiming that they are equivalent. That's, frankly, nonsense.
Your notion of a ridiculous fiction is just that; a notion. I understand, considering the unborn to be a person doesn't suit your point of view, but you know you've no substantive basis to refute someone else holding the position. I think that's why you find yourself resorting to snarl words like 'ridiculous fiction' and 'idiotic idea' rather than taking a factual line when you come up against it.oscarBravo wrote: »Yet again, you have to indulge in the ridiculous fiction that an embryo is a person in order to draw your equivalence
Well, it does actually have another real consequence; it prevents a number of people being killed in the jurisdiction that otherwise would have been killed had there been safe, legal, and free abortion. Or do you think the incidence of abortion in Ireland would not rise if it were more readily available?oscarBravo wrote: »It would be a fascinating discussion purely in the abstract, but the simple fact is that denying access to safe, legal and free abortion has only one real consequence, and that is that desperate women will put their own lives at risk trying to procure abortions in unsafe ways, or jeopardise their liberty by procuring them in illegal ways.
Odd ideas of navel gazing aside, I don't think anyone wants to be proud of harming anyone, whether it's women or children. Most people would prefer to see the least harm done in all cases, it's just we disagree on what constitutes the least harm. And to be fair, if you thought you could show a relationship between a highly simplified theoretical scientific model and the attribution of the term person to an unborn child you would; simply placing the two side by side as if referencing one gives credibility to your position on the other is more than a tad disingenuous. Or desperate.oscarBravo wrote: »And that's what this comes down to, for me. Counting the angels on pinheads isn't just wankish omphaloskepsis, it's actively harmful. If you want to assume a spherical chicken of uniform density that an embryo is a person, feel free. But restrictions on abortions are actively harming women, and that's something that nobody in a civilised country should be proud of.
I think you should read what I said again sooscarBravo wrote: »Listen to yourself. You just said that "some parts" of the UN agree with an assertion, and that "some parts" of the Irish population disagree with it - and then go on to declare the contrary to be a fact, and ergo dismiss the idea that stating it could possibly be patriarchal. Some parts of the UN disagree with the idea that abortion is not a human right, just like some parts of the Irish population disagree with it. But abortion is not an expressly stated right in UN human rights treaties; I agree there are those who feel it is an interpreted right, but it is not an expressly stated right in UN human rights treaties, hence the fact that ireland, as a signatory to those treaties, is not obligated to expand the availability of abortion any further than our own Constitution allows, despite the concerns and recommendations of certain UN committees. Ragnar Lothbroks position that no such human right exists is not unreasonable; the right does not exist in Ireland (notwithstanding that a doctor may determine it is a correct medical course to terminate a pregnancy by aborting the life of a foetus in certain circumstances), it's not expressed in UN human rights treaties, and in such jurisdictions as allow abortion, practically none express the facility as an actual right to abortion; it's generally an extension or extrapolation of a right to privacy or wellbeing. Effectively but not explicitly a right to abortion. And I didn't offer an 'ergo' in dismissing your statement that saying no such human right actually exists is (not could possibly be) a pretty patriarchal statement. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, as some posters are fond of saying.
I totally agree, it certainly doesn't make it a fact. And any accusation of it being patriarchal would need some substantiation before anyone could be expected to give it credence.oscarBravo wrote: »If someone states that women are inherently less worthy than men, there are "some parts" of the Irish population that will agree with that statement. That doesn't make it a fact, and it most certainly doesn't exempt it from an accusation of being patriarchal.
How about you provide some evidence for the idea that a woman has some right not to be pregnant, before throwing epithets and accusations of mysogny at anyone who might have the temerity to point out that no one has established such a right as might cause them to propose the idea that a woman has no apparent right not to be pregnant? Before we even get to the idea that such a right might entail a right to kill someone else in the cause of vindicating that right?oscarBravo wrote: »The idea that a woman has no right not to be pregnant is just a subtly different hue of the belief that she is her husband's property, or that there's no rape in marriage. It's, quite frankly, a disgraceful view for anyone to hold in this day and age, and I have no problem with calling them out for it.
I can see you have no problem calling people out on things quiet frankly, but I do get the impression you're calling them out on things you've made up just to call them out on....0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Not sure if this is accidental or intentional on your part, but this is not what he said...
There is a very big difference between having a right not to become pregnant and what oscarBravo has said, a right to choose not to be pregnant. Two completely different things.
There's also a very big difference between the right not to be pregnant, and the right to an abortion.
It was intentional tbh, to point out that what we're talking about here is not the right not to be pregnant, but the right to an abortion. I may not agree with denying women the right to avail of an abortion, but I have an even more fundamental disagreement with people using weasel wording, misdirection, misrepresentation and just outright falsehoods to further their own position.
I couldn't have picked a more apt description myself!
A summary of an Amnesty International UK meeting held in 2013 revealed the intention to support the decriminalisation of prostitution before any consultation with Amnesty members or stakeholders. When a draft copy of the policy was leaked in early 2014, many feminists and prostitution survivors condemned the proposal, and Amnesty were met with considerable resistance. Members were consequently offered three weeks — from April 2 to 21, 2014 — to provide feedback on the document, although most members did not even receive notification that this process was available to them. On July 7, 2015, an updated draft was released to Amnesty International members, which was again criticised by feminist organisations, including The Coalition Against Trafficking of Women (CATW), who published an open letter signed by over 400 advocates and organisations, condemning “Amnesty’s proposal to adopt a policy that calls for the decriminalization of pimps, brothel owners and buyers of sex — the pillars of a $99 billion global sex industry.” Contrary to claims that decriminalisation would make prostituted people safer, critics pointed to research from numerous countries in which deregulation of the sex industry had produced catastrophic results: "the German government, for example, which deregulated the industry of prostitution in 2002, has found that the sex industry was not made safer for women after the enactment of its law. Instead, the explosive growth of legal brothels in Germany has triggered an increase in sex trafficking." These campaigners instead asked Amnesty to support the so-called Nordic model, in which sex buyers and pimps are criminalised, while prostituted people are decriminalised. In early August, a large number of NGOs published an open letter in support of the criminalisation proposal. The organizations supporting Amnesty International's position included the Committee on the Rights of Sex Workers in Europe (ICRSE), Sex Workers’ Rights Advocacy Network in Central and Eastern Europe and Central Asia (SWAN), Human Rights Watch, and the Global Alliance Against Traffic in Women.
On 11 August 2015, the International Council Meeting (ICM) adopted a resolution which authorized the International Board to develop and adopt the decriminalisation policy.
Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Amnesty_International0 -
So by making it look as though you were replying to something that had been said when in fact you were making up your own argument to something that hadn't been said at all, were you also intentionally providing us with an example of weasel wording, misdirection and misrepresentation?One eyed Jack wrote: »There's also a very big difference between the right not to be pregnant, and the right to an abortion.
It was intentional tbh, to point out that what we're talking about here is not the right not to be pregnant, but the right to an abortion. I may not agree with denying women the right to avail of an abortion, but I have an even more fundamental disagreement with people using weasel wording, misdirection, misrepresentation and just outright falsehoods to further their own position.
Or were we not meant to notice?
Nice that you were able to find criticism of Amnesty International to back up your claims, but it looks like more misdirection, TBH.One eyed Jack wrote: »I couldn't have picked a more apt description myself!
Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Amnesty_International
What has this particular issue got to do with your complete dismissal of the entire organization?
Do you imagine that any organization present in so many countries for so many years will never have done anything that could lead to criticism of its actions? Or indeed never made a mistake in its handling of all the issues it has taken on over the years?
Or are you saying that AI is so rotten that their approach to prostitution is not an example of where they may - or may not - just have got something wrong but is actually evidence that they are in reality lobbying for some Mafia group or something?"If a woman cannot stand in a public space and say, without fear of consequences, that men cannot be women, then women have no rights at all." Helen Joyce
0 -
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement