Abortion Referendum

[Vixen]

Is the elderly parent literally living in and off of the woman's body?

Then sure in that hypothetical scenario knock yourself out.

It's a 'burden' 'forced on her', is it not?

 

[Vixen]

Bullcrap.

Again, yet again there were more abortions in the "Good Old Days"

You aren't the least bit concerned about either the children or the unborn. You just want it to happen in secret.

If people are brought up to behave properly, then they shouldn't find themselves in that mess in the first place.

So the doctors who have made the Hippocratic Oath to do their all to save people's lives, are now being forced to do something horrible, that has little to do with a medical reason.

 

[JoeMorgue]

You're totally off in yet another of your fantasy worlds.

 

[fuelair]

That's exactly what Hitler called people he wanted rid of. 'Parasites', 'vermin', 'rats'. Objectify them first, as less than human, then exterminate.

At least your stance is more honest than an appeal to fancy slogans such as 'Women's right to choose'. Just get at'em.


Seeing as you despise children and their right to life, you might be better off just getting sterilised from the get go?

I am quite certain L. no more despises children than I do - and the people who have known me for a short or long period are quite sure that I love children and they know that children respond well to that and to me. Yes we support abortion but we do not hate children - and the children I meet know that, their parents know that and I have received a lot of first smiles (outside of family) from children. They are also very safe around me.

 

[JesseCuster]

OK, fair enough. You claim your cousin was 'forced' to carry an unviable foetus 'for months'.

I'll take your word for it that this is a fact and not an emotive exaggeration to make a point.

Well, that's awfully big of you.

Of course there should be medical discretion in cases such as these.

But because of the Eighth Amendment to the Irish Constitution, there isn't any "medical discretion" in cases such as these.

We're arguing that it is right to remove the Eighth Amendment from the Irish Constitution to at least allow for cases like this (and others) (my opinion on the matter is much more liberal as I think up to a certain point a foetus is not a human being by any stretch of the imagination and I have no qualms whatsoever for women deciding to terminate their pregnancies up to a certain point for any reason at all, I just don't see what's morally wrong with it).

So you're in agreement that the Eighth Amendment is a bad thing because it forces horrible situations like this on women and that it should be gotten rid of to allow for legislation to allow women in these situations to legally and safely terminate their pregnancies?

 

[JesseCuster]

The police didn't prevent her going anywhere, Jesse Custer has the details of that one wrong.

Thanks for the correction, I fired that post off without thinking.

 

[ddt]

Think rationally, ddt. What do you think happened in the olden days? People had sex, got pregnant, had to get married in a hurry.

Or had a back-ally abortion.

People cared about the fate of those offspring. Gave them a name and a secure home.

Or they ended up in a Magdalene laundry.

Your view of the "golden olden days" is very one-sided.

 

[ddt]

That's exactly what Hitler called people he wanted rid of. 'Parasites', 'vermin', 'rats'. Objectify them first, as less than human, then exterminate.

There is a silent holocaust going on here.

Bravo for going the whole way and making a complete fool of yourself in this discussion.

 

[Giordano]

So what about if the same woman, whose 'right to choose' is sacrosanct, has an elderly parent who is suffering a painful and distressing terminal illness. Is it her right to choose to euthanise this parent, rather than having to be lumbered with the burden of caring for him or her, possibly for many years?

As you say, it doesn't matter what we perceive her intellectual capability to be. It is her right to choose to do away with 'em.

To make your argument other than a strawman one would have to view a blob of cells in someone's womb as equivalent to an elderly parent. Pretty insulting to the old! The key issue in abortion is of course when a sperm and an oocyte become anything like a human being.

I posted a discussion of this issue in the "Abortion, sex, and assumption of risk thread" at the same time I posted my defense of women's right to chose here, but I chose not to redundantly post the same in the current thread. The detailed points are in my post in that other thread, but briefly, unlike her parent's existence, the arrival of personhood after spermogenesis and ovulation is defined neither by the biology nor by a widely shared common moral code: different people, different religions, and different ethics/philosophies legitimately disagree. In fact the vast majority of voters Ireland believe that the prior restrictions on abortion were wrong and that an embryo is not a full person. I understand that you believe you are right, but come on, it is clear that people widely and obviously disagree. Therefore apply your own view to your own life, but others have other views and apply them to their lives. Read my post in the other thread if you want to know the details of this discussion.

My post here is specifically in response to the anti-choice movement's core assumption that they alone know the right answer to this complex and unresolved (unresolvable?) question, that the embryo is a full human being, whereas the pregnant woman is too selfish and too stupid to see this and to make the morally correct choice herself. That their religion and their conclusions as to the beginning of personhood are the only ones that count, and the pregnant woman's are meaningless and should be ignored. That women in general are so callous and uncaring that they would have an abortion for casual reasons of convenience and the anti-choice people must impose their views on all others even though they themselves are a minority in these views. This is both horribly incorrect and deeply insulting.

Are anti-choice people claiming that the bulk of abortions are casual and uncaring decisions by women with such little or no regard for human life that they would also kill off their elderly parents when they became inconvenient, if not for the laws against it? That is the underlying implication. That is the underlying insult and underlying anti-woman bias.

 

[ddt]

As I understand it, the Netherlands (or was it Belgium?) also has euthanasia centres where people can go to 'die with dignity'.

And? The physicians there have to comply with the same rules as someone's GP and has to be convinced that the person asking euthanasia has a consistent, well-informed wish to end their life.

So what about if the same woman, whose 'right to choose' is sacrosanct, has an elderly parent who is suffering a painful and distressing terminal illness. Is it her right to choose to euthanise this parent, rather than having to be lumbered with the burden of caring for him or her, possibly for many years?

No, euthanasia is performed on the wish of the person themselves. Your attempt to equate an adult person with a fetus, a mere clump of cells that has not grown a nervous system let alone own consciousness, is derisible.

 

[Darat]

I accept there are women who want to abort an unwanted pregnancy. What I don't understand is why everybody is so joyous about the 'yes' vote. Even the reporter on BBC was bouncing around as though it was the Berlin Wall coming down.

Let's face it, the only people who will benefit are those who want an abortion.

How many of the kids women who wanted to abort but couldn't are you bringing up?

 

[Darat]

W

As a matter of interest, do the "rights of others" include the rights of the unborn foetus, or the father of it?

Or are only highly vocal women who want, "a woman's right to choose" the only voices we should listen to?

That slogan in itself implies a doctor is being 'sexist' if an abortion is refused, because of the law or because of personal ethics, and that the woman's predicament is because of this dreadful 'sexist' society.

But hang on, what is the premise based on? Is a pregnancy really forced on women?

When abortion is made compulsory you may have a point.

 

[Darat]

Abortion is common decency? Murder is just plain being polite, I guess.

If ones view is that abortion in all cases and all circumstances is murder then you would also support a massive increase in prosecutions for women in regards to such crimes as manslaughter and assault?

 

[catsmate]

As emphasized above by me, yes, ONLY the involved woman should be able to decide and make the choice. I have believed that since the mid-late 1950s based on local newspaper reports on that and unwed mother's facilities. Yes, that means I was around ten years old then. During the fourth grade I did as little work as I could pass on while reading the entire World Book and a number of Horatio Alger books (both in the classroom). For those thinking that odd, it was the year after the one where I was tested for reading speed and was at 800 some wpm with 90 (some odd) % accuracy on questions on the reading. Took me some time to realize that was unusual.

In the referendum polling men supported abolishing the constitutional prohibitions by 2:1.

 

[catsmate]

Edited by zooterkin: 

<SNIP>
Edited for rule 0 and rule 12

Pathetic. Are you actually so incapable of reasoned, rational, argument that you have to resort to crap like this?

I ask (again); To what extent can the continuation of a pregnancy endanger a woman's life before a medical termination is allowed, in your opinion?
An extra 10%? 25%? 50%? 100%? 200%? 400%? 800%?

 

[catsmate]

Yes around 180 thousand abortions were performed in the UK last year where it is legal and (at least somewhat) socially acceptable.

In Pakistan last year 2.25 million abortions were performed. Abortion is highly restricted legally in Pakistan.

Again the more legal and socially accepted abortion is the less it happens.

If your concern is "too many abortions" what you are arguing for is completely divorced from reality and implies an ulterior motive.

Generally societies with more liberal attitudes to abortion also have better access to contraception and sex education, hence lower unwanted pregnancy rates.

 

[catsmate]

Think rationally, ddt. What do you think happened in the olden days? People had sex, got pregnant, had to get married in a hurry.

People cared about the fate of those offspring. Gave them a name and a secure home.

No. Actually infant mortality killed many of them and frequently women died in pregnancy and childbirth too. I see you're unaware of these historical facts; traditionally children weren't named for several months (or even 1-2 years) after birth specifically because they were likely to die (~25% chance of dying before one year) and weren't really considered 'persons'.
You'll find all this well documented in historical researches; if you can be bothered to actually look. Try Infant Mortality and Child-Naming.

Another fascinating historical fact is that for most of recorded history a fetus wasn't considered a person until it had 'quickened'. For example Pope Gregory XIV declared that the fetus wasn't 'quickened' until 166 days after conception. Ensoulment at conception only became church doctrine in 1869.

 

[catsmate]

Bravo for going the whole way and making a complete fool of yourself in this discussion.

I'm waiting for the abortion causes breast cancer lie to be trotted out. It was during the referendum campaign after all.

 

[catsmate]

If ones view is that abortion in all cases and all circumstances is murder then you would also support a massive increase in prosecutions for women in regards to such crimes as manslaughter and assault?

And what about spontaneous abortions? About two-thirds of pregnancies end that way.

 

[Vixen]

To make your argument other than a strawman one would have to view a blob of cells in someone's womb as equivalent to an elderly parent. Pretty insulting to the old! The key issue in abortion is of course when a sperm and an oocyte become anything like a human being.

I posted a discussion of this issue in the "Abortion, sex, and assumption of risk thread" at the same time I posted my defense of women's right to chose here, but I chose not to redundantly post the same in the current thread. The detailed points are in my post in that other thread, but briefly, unlike her parent's existence, the arrival of personhood after spermogenesis and ovulation is defined neither by the biology nor by a widely shared common moral code: different people, different religions, and different ethics/philosophies legitimately disagree. In fact the vast majority of voters Ireland believe that the prior restrictions on abortion were wrong and that an embryo is not a full person. I understand that you believe you are right, but come on, it is clear that people widely and obviously disagree. Therefore apply your own view to your own life, but others have other views and apply them to their lives. Read my post in the other thread if you want to know the details of this discussion.

My post here is specifically in response to the anti-choice movement's core assumption that they alone know the right answer to this complex and unresolved (unresolvable?) question, that the embryo is a full human being, whereas the pregnant woman is too selfish and too stupid to see this and to make the morally correct choice herself. That their religion and their conclusions as to the beginning of personhood are the only ones that count, and the pregnant woman's are meaningless and should be ignored. That women in general are so callous and uncaring that they would have an abortion for casual reasons of convenience and the anti-choice people must impose their views on all others even though they themselves are a minority in these views. This is both horribly incorrect and deeply insulting.

Are anti-choice people claiming that the bulk of abortions are casual and uncaring decisions by women with such little or no regard for human life that they would also kill off their elderly parents when they became inconvenient, if not for the laws against it? That is the underlying implication. That is the underlying insult and underlying anti-woman bias.

No, that is what I suggested YOU are arguing. You complained that some poor women were 'being forced' to 'take on the burden of having to care for someone against their will'. I simply extrapolated YOUR argument to say, so that means it's OK to get rid of anyone (or 'clump of cells', as pro-abortionists like to objectify it, in true eugenics style) that's an unwanted burden.

That's all I was doing. I was saying your argument doesn't give sufficiency to what you are proposing.