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
The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
Outlaw Pete wrote: »It happens, but look, you're missing the point to focus on that as I am not suggesting that women are queuing up to have very late stage abortions. Nor am I saying that repealing the 8th will result in that (and most of the users thanking your post know that by the way, trust me
).
The point is that you will often hear people make comments like: 'How dare you support a law that forces women to remain pregnant' or 'Every woman should be able to do WHATEVER she wants with her own body' etc etc but everybody (including those people) have a limit in mind at which they feel a woman should not be able to procure an abortion at. They may not admit it, but they do (I have many prochoice friends - haven't met one in my 40+ years that doesn't believe there should be a cut off point).
For some that point is 0, others 12 weeks, and others still it's 24, but beyond that, most (sane) people wouldn't support the legal availability of abortion (other than for therapeutic reasons of course) and would in fact very much support laws being in place that would make it illegal for abortionists like this lovely chap to set up offering late stage terminations.
But here's the crucial point: if those people (that pontificate to others that women should be able to do what they like with their own bodies) truly believed in body automony (as they claim) then they would support laws that made it legal for abortionists like Gosnell to legally offer his services but they wouldn't. So why then is it not okay to believe in laws that force a woman to remain pregnant at 12 weeks when they believe in laws that force women to remain pregnant at 38 weeks? Shouldn't they just take their own advice and mind their own business? And let women do what they want with their own bodies, like they keep telling others to do?
You see, the truth is that the reason some people support women legally being able to have an abortion at 12 weeks, has nothing at all to do with body automony. They may say it has, and post long convoluted arguments in an attempt to back it up and why it's okay for them to hold two contradictory positions, simultaneously, but it's nonsense. Such people are just trying to save face given that the body automony mantras are so ingrained in the prochoice movement and who can blame them.
No, the real reason some people support the legal availability of abortions at 12 weeks (or 16, 20 etc) is because of how they see the fetus with regards to it's development. We know this as that is the only thing that differs between a healthy woman who is pregnant at 12 weeks and a healthy woman pregnant that is almost due. So the body automony nonsense (with regards to pregnancy at least) needs to end. It's not helpful, nobody believes in it and all it does is distract away from what's really important here: the health of all concerned and the level of development which the fetus has reached.
Oh goody goody, Outlaw Pete regurgitating a OneEyedJack argument (and not a top tier one), we all must have died and gone to boards heaven:)
You generally oppose abortion Pete, right? But not in cases where the mother's life is at serious risk or, for example, where treatments such as chemotherapy would be prevented? So, do you really oppose abortion or do you just essentially not oppose it at a slightly different point on the spectrum to me? How can you come on here and pretend to vindicate the right to life of the unborn when in some cases you'd allow it? Just because those cases are vastly different to others, doesn't matter does it, you're a big old hypocrite aren't you?:)
Or gosh, maybe you do oppose abortion but this is rather a nuanced and complex question, and people taking that nuance and complexity into account when forming their opinions are doing the adult, intelligent thing and not being hypocritical?
And you don't need to bother answering, I actually know what you think and I'll just full in the gaps myself, believe me.;)
I apologise in advance for any thanks that this post may get, seeing as for some reason those really bug you.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Excellent postMisael Echoing Horse wrote: »Outlaw Pete wrote: »It happens, but look, you're missing the point to focus on that as I am not suggesting that women are queuing up to have very late stage abortions. Nor am I saying that repealing the 8th will result in that (and most of the users thanking your post know that by the way, trust me).
The point is that you will often hear people make comments like: 'How dare you support a law that forces women to remain pregnant' or 'Every woman should be able to do WHATEVER she wants with her own body' etc etc but everybody (including those people) have a limit in mind at which they feel a woman should not be able to procure an abortion at. They may not admit it, but they do (I have many prochoice friends - haven't met one in my 40+ years that doesn't believe there should be a cut off point).
For some that point is 0, others 12 weeks, and others still it's 24, but beyond that, most (sane) people wouldn't support the legal availability of abortion (other than for therapeutic reasons of course) and would in fact very much support laws being in place that would make it illegal for abortionists like this lovely chap to set up offering late stage terminations.
But here's the crucial point: if those people (that pontificate to others that women should be able to do what they like with their own bodies) truly believed in body automony (as they claim) then they would support laws that made it legal for abortionists like Gosnell to legally offer his services but they wouldn't. So why then is it not okay to believe in laws that force a woman to remain pregnant at 12 weeks when they believe in laws that force women to remain pregnant at 38 weeks? Shouldn't they just take their own advice and mind their own business? And let women do what they want with their own bodies, like they keep telling others to do?
You see, the truth is that the reason some people support women legally being able to have an abortion at 12 weeks, has nothing at all to do with body automony. They may say it has, and post long convoluted arguments in an attempt to back it up and why it's okay for them to hold two contradictory positions, simultaneously, but it's nonsense. Such people are just trying to save face given that the body automony mantras are so ingrained in the prochoice movement and who can blame them.
No, the real reason some people support the legal availability of abortions at 12 weeks (or 16, 20 etc) is because of how they see the fetus with regards to it's development. We know this as that is the only thing that differs between a healthy woman who is pregnant at 12 weeks and a healthy woman pregnant that is almost due. So the body automony nonsense (with regards to pregnancy at least) needs to end. It's not helpful, nobody believes in it and all it does is distract away from what's really important here: the health of all concerned and the level of development which the fetus has reached.
Oh goody goody, Outlaw Pete regurgitating a OneEyedJack argument (and not a top tier one), we all must have died and gone to boards heaven:)
You generally oppose abortion Pete, right? But not in cases where the mother's life is at serious risk or, for example, where treatments such as chemotherapy would be prevented? So, do you really oppose abortion or do you just essentially not oppose it at a slightly different point on the spectrum to me? How can you come on here and pretend to vindicate the right to life of the unborn when in some cases you'd allow it? Just because those cases are vastly different to others, doesn't matter does it, you're a big old hypocrite aren't you?:)
Or gosh, maybe you do oppose abortion but this is rather a nuanced and complex question, and people taking that nuance and complexity into account when forming their opinions are doing the adult, intelligent thing and not being hypocritical?
And you don't need to bother answering, I actually know what you think and I'll just full in the gaps myself, believe me.;)
I apologise in advance for any thanks that this post may get, seeing as for some reason those really bug you.
+100000 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
No one was going to sue anyone, as you agree, the unborn was nowhere near the stage of survival outside the womb when she died, so what happened was a stunt, otherwise why do it when the mother was dead, and the unborn had no hope of surviving...
There was zero need for the medical team to go to the courts, unless they thought there was a point to prove. The only thing they proved was how cruel they were to a dead woman and her family, and to use the 8th amendment to try and make some legal point - which they failed to do was a stunt and a disgrace.
Again with the talk of suing
So it was a stunt because the foetus was so far from viability. Right.
So at what stage would it be reasonable to keep a brain dead woman incubating a foetus? 17 weeks? 20? 24? Do we need to go to the courts each time for guidance, or do the family and the medical team get to decide, regardless of the constitution’s and the high court opinion that we must try to vindicate the right to life? And what of the case where a foetus did survive to birth from a similar gestational age? Does that case not inform us when making the decision? All very simple questions in your parallel universe where everything is black and white and the difficult questions only arise because of conspiracies among the medical and legal profession and the judiciary.
And incredible that it took several sittings of the high court and several days of deliberation by the best legal minds in this country to answer. 0 -
-
Outlaw Pete wrote: »The irony in these posts, honestly.
First of all, those who are against abortion are not just men, and so what's all this nonsense about men wanting to control women all about? For me comments like that are really masks slipping. Is the desire for the right to abort healthy fetuses really just about getting back at men? For some, sadly, it would seem it is.
Secondly, and more importantly, this whole nonsense about control itself is laughable and shows a total lack of self awareness on the part of those who are prochoice. Let's not forget, that the choice you all want to have, includes (and represents 95%+ of those who generally procure abortions in western countries - not that you'd think it reading these threads) the choice for healthy women (who are pregnant from consensual sex) to able to legally have the baby in their womb pulled limb from limb, have it's skull crushed, heartbeat stilled and it's bloody broken remains binned (or sold, depending on where you live). Now, tell me, who's "controlling" who there?
This isn't about the right for women to do what the want with "their" bodies. This is about the right for women to be able to do what they want with another body. That of their developing young. Here's a real woman. A woman excited by the baby moving (and not just autonomically) inside her. A woman not wanting to kill it in the name of women's rights.
That reminds me of my 12 week scan, I was delighted to see the baby moving about, a proper baby shape, you could make out limbs and see and hear the heartbeat.
But here's the bit you won't like. I went for my scan in the Beacon Clinic where I was getting a NIPT. A Panorama test to be precise. We wanted the baby, but I was very aware of the fact that I was over 40, hadn't been taking folic acid and had literally "fallen pregnant" without much trying. The chances of a chromosomal disorder or FFA were far higher than a woman in her early 30s say, so I wanted to make sure that I had all the available knowledge rather than getting ambushed at a 20 week anomaly scan.
If I had been told that the chances of a significant problem were going to be high, I would have been booking flights that afternoon. No question. I'm one of the lucky ones, I can afford testing and I have a fully supportive husband, who would have been 100% on the same page. In our view, it would be the most selfish thing in the world to bring a profoundly disabled child into the world, a couple in our 40's who don't have family support close by, or any other children for sibling support, so when we died we would be leaving our disabled child alone with scant state support. We certainly couldn't rely on the likes of LoveBoth or any other ProBirth organisation, once that baby is out of the womb they don't give a rats ar$e.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wydN7mhJOIg
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement