Irish abortion referendum: Ireland overturns abortion ban - Page 25 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in Europe's nation states, the E.U. & Russia.

Moderator: PoFo Europe Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum, so please post in English only.
#14925433
Drlee wrote:I love the non-person argument. It really reminds me of the arguments about male slaves in the US. They were non-persons until the day of emancipation. A lot of ink went to enshrining this idea.


And a lot f hot air has gone into attempting to make unborn human entities people and has failed in every case
.

Your point being?



And this is the key. I posted poll numbers and every one of the "abortion anytime" folks ignored them. Godstud congratulated Ireland on passing very restrictive abortion laws because he said they were better than nothing.


Which is true. It's a step in the right direction.



We can argue all that we want to. We see that the unrestricted abortion people have descended into referring to unborn children as "spit" and "parasites". Really unintelligent arguments by the way. Obvious hyperbole.


Nobody is arguing they aren't human. What they aren't is people.

Remember the reference to Canada allowing abortion even at a late stage in the pregnancy is a reference by anti late term folks to the absurdity that can exist on that side of the equation. Do we all want hyperbole?


I don't want any hyperbole at all. Canada has it right.

Why shouldn't women have full bodily autonomy?


Why is what Ter said key? Again. Because all law flows from the consent of the people in a democracy. Late term abortion is wildly unpopular and therefor it will continue to be very rarely allowed in most civilized nations.



Democracy should never be about mob rule.

Some people believe men should be able to have abortions. If they were in the majority, just how could be made to happen?

there's a sizeable number of them in the US. They could easily form a majority.


So what does Canada really think about unborn children? They allow and pay for fetal surgery. Why would they operate on a parasite? Why spend money on a gob of DNA or spit? Why pay for this surgery in the US when it was not available in Canada previously?


Because that is what the pregnant woman chooses. Simple, isn't it?

Its much better than anything you have in the USA, where pregnant women have been forced to undergo surgery against their will.


https://www.aclu.org/other/coercive-and ... -pregnancy

The overwhelming majority of people in civilized countries reject the absolute ownership of an unborn child by its mother. And so it will likely stay. It is interesting to me to see the examples here of people who claim to believe in democracy until they disagree with the will of the people. Then, like religious fanatics, they look for some moral absolute to determine right from wrong. Like it or not though, in the majority of countries in the world, the law is created by the people through their representatives. And it stands in the face of opposition by some. It really is as simple as that.


I thought you wanted to reject hyperbole?

While it's inside of a woman, who is undoubtedly a person with rights, it should belong to her.

Not the man next door, or to anyone else.

When a woman becomes pregnant ,she chooses to suspend some of her rights in favour of her foetus. Or she might choose not to do that. It must be up to her.

She should never need the approval of anyone else.


I would point out to the abortion on demand folks that they stand a great deal to lose with their heated rhetoric. Anyone want to hear the political speech I would give if running for office on this subject?


As long as you are prepared to hear my rebuttal, then go ahead.

Would any of those arguing that fetuses are non-human want me to quote them in my speech? Calling babies in the womb parasites will garner countless votes for my side. I suppose the people making these arguments should be celebrated politically as the useful idiots that they are. They do more to limit woman's choice than any baptist preacher could.



It doesn't really matter. If you are going to concentrate on what are unimportant trivialities, then you won't win.

You wont, anyway, as your argument is based purely on emotion and false supposititions and not cold hard facts.

Canada decided that laws restricting abortion were an affront to women's reproductive freedom and bodily autonomy.

Which they are.

Argue against that.

And, Boycey, it's not possible to adopt a foetus.

why is so diffisult for some of you to differentiate between born children and foetuses?

Surely it's quite simple?
Last edited by snapdragon on 17 Jun 2018 15:53, edited 1 time in total.
#14925435
B0ycey wrote:Still, you have an issue with a user on here you still should quote. It gives them chance to respond and doesn't confuse arguments.

I agree, but when you can't argue the validity of a statement, the only way to challenge it is to pervert the context and confuse the issue. Dr. Lee knows this, as do most posters here.

For those who are unaware, I am not a champion of abortion. I support freedom, and that even includes freedom for women, unpopular as that may be. A fetus is incapable of freedom, so while I wish it well, I do not support the misconception that it has a right to it, at the expense of it's mother.

Zam :smokin:
#14925438
snapdragon wrote:And, Boycey, it's not possible to adopt a foetus.

why is so diffisult for some of you to differentiate between born children and foetuses?

Surely it's quite simple?


But it is possible to adopt a child - which despite her confusion about what constitutes the definition of Humanbeing within science, was described accurately by Kaiser as an outcome for the human embryo/fetus.

As for Women's rights, they can do what they like to their body in regards to the law of the nation they live in. So abortion is not a personal choice like deciding what clothes to wear on a night out btw, as medical procedures are required to be performed. After all, abortions by choice are not natural unless you want to do self harm. I think 24 weeks into pregnancy is fine to consider the full implications of an abortion. 39 weeks is pure evil when you can be induced and have an adoption actually. But that is my opinion on the matter.
#14925444
Zamuel wrote:For those who are unaware, I am not a champion of abortion. I support freedom, and that even includes freedom for women, unpopular as that may be. A fetus is incapable of freedom, so while I wish it well, I do not support the misconception that it has a right to it, at the expense of it's mother.


Sorry Zam, just came across this now and would like to reply if I may.

Fetus rights is a moral/practical issue in regards to the law. To give a fetus rights would cause a number of legal issues. So it is practical to give it no rights what-so-ever even though morally it would be great to do so. And it is possible to remove fetus rights by the definition of what constitutes the question - what is human? But let's no confuse women's rights with what she is legally entitled to do shall we. I support abortions as there are numerous, sometimes difficult, reasons why a women might want one. But in my opinion there should be a limit on the time they can decide to have one. That of course is a national decision as there is no right or wrong opinion here. So even though a women can do what they like to their body, they shouldn't be able to ask for the governments help here unless the law allows it. There are other choices they can make after all.
#14925447
B0ycey wrote:So even though a women can do what they like to their body, they shouldn't be able to ask for the governments help here unless the law allows it. There are other choices they can make after all.

This, I believe is a matter best left to the states and their medical programs (Medicaid) or to public organizations like planned parenthood. Freedom is never free ... someone must pay the bills and IMHO the local public is the best judge of how their $$$ is spent. It might also help remove the abortion issue from the national agenda.

Zam
#14925450
B0ycey wrote:But it is possible to adopt a child - which despite her confusion about what constitutes the definition of Humanbeing within science, was described accurately by Kaiser as an outcome for the human embryo/fetus.


Giving up a child for adoption is a entirely separate matter from ending a pregnancy.
It's a choice between keeping your child or giving him or her away to someone else.

The whole point of abortion is so the embryo or foetus doesn't become a child.

The woman concerned doesn't want to be pregnant any longer for reasons that are a private matter that only concern her and her doctors.

The definition of what a human being is in science is immaterial.

Science doesn't define personhood.


As for Women's rights, they can do what they like to their body in regards to the law of the nation they live in.


True...and those rights should be equal for both men and women, or else they should be changed.

Or do you disagree?

So abortion is not a personal choice like deciding what clothes to wear on a night out btw, as medical procedures are required to be performed.


It's still a personal choice, as are all medical procedures.

After all, abortions by choice are not natural unless you want to do self harm.


I don't understand your meaning?

I think 24 weeks into pregnancy is fine to consider the full implications of an abortion. 39 weeks is pure evil when you can be induced and have an adoption actually. But that is my opinion on the matter.


Exactly. It's an opinion based just on your feelings, as well, and not really about keeping people safe.

Abortion restrictions just harm women. They don't keep order in society or make any of us any safer.

Here in Britain, we don't really suffer much from the anti abortion nutters, so it's easy just to let things ride.

I don't believe that's a good thing.
#14925465
Godstud wrote:Your argument is emotional, and I am responding to it with your rationale. The fact is, you guys really don't care all that much. You are all about yourselves, and making sure a child is born, be it into poverty, disability, or to parents who do not want it


Nonsense

This is a false question, there are no competing 'rights' between a mother or the foetus that she bears.
There is no dichotomy between the 'actual' or the 'potential', because there is no dichotomy, there is just a unique individual living being, sharing the same path through life.

Indeed, history is replete with example of mothers giving their life for the successful birth of their offspring, circumstances that have the near certainty & imminence of the mother's demise.
In them circumstances, many a partner\husband, given the choice, would sacrifice the foetus rather than the mother of their of their soon to be child.

To say that an unborn living being has no 'rights' is an abuse of language.

It's no different in effect than a murderer saying that, " The victim never complained when I killed her\him, so how have I done any wrong"?
Likewise a foetus, it cannot articulate itself when faced with it's impending death at the hands of another human being.

Both examples show that the law is an 'ass', a murder victim, like a foetus is not in a position to defend themselves, both face death, not by natural selection, but by other humans playing the role of 'god'.
Last edited by Nonsense on 17 Jun 2018 22:21, edited 1 time in total.
#14925488
snapdragon wrote:The woman concerned doesn't want to be pregnant any longer for reasons that are a private matter that only concern her and her doctors.


Perhaps. But the decisions they make can only be in accordance with the law. And I think that is important to remember.

The definition of what a human being is in science is immaterial.


Actually, it is very important. More than you can imagine. If a fetus was to be declared to be a human being then to terminate it would be classed as murder in the eyes of the law.

It's still a personal choice, as are all medical procedures.


It may be a personal choice to want one, but you rely on the law and willing practitioners to actually have one. So as I said, this isn't like picking your clothes you want to wear. You need to have the legal right to be able to have one. And that is a national decision.

Abortion restrictions just harm women. They don't keep order in society or make any of us any safer.


You can still have restrictions on abortions and keep women safe btw. Canada's system works for them, but so say does the UKs. If a pregnant women's life is in danger, it will take priority over the fetus, regardless of the term length. The only difference is that decisions such as an abortion might be taken away and replaced with caesarean section by the practitioners if there is no need to perform such a procedure. The mother however could be given a choice to reverse that decision unless there is a medical reason to remove such choice (ie the abortion is a risk to her life).

I think when it comes to abortions everything needs to be put into perspective. I suspect the UK doesn't have an issue with opposing abortion voices as it seems to have a very fair system in place. I suspect if their was an issue with healthy fetuses being aborted at 39 weeks there would be an outcry - ironically by women no doubt, that the law was too relaxed. A limit on wheb the decision can be made with medical exceptions seems to keep people in favour of abortions here.
#14925494
snapdragon wrote:For crying out loud:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/8

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
(b)As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.


That is why I don't use the term human being for a foetus, but prefer to use the term human entity.

I'm sure Irish law until it is changed has different definitions. They are different in many other jurisdictions as well.

If the laws was changed tomorrow so that a foetus was legally a person, I doubt you would start using the term person, because you would object to it. At any rate, we are discussing what the law should be, so again this is as irrelevant as the decision of the Canadian supreme court.

snapdragon wrote:It stops stupid and pointless arguments about the supposed rights of unborn human entities stone bloody dead.

Not at all. You seem to be under the impression that terminology has mythical powers that people can't resist.

Seriously, imagine the law defined the members of a minority in such a way that they have fewer rights. By your logic, this would stop arguments about the rights of that group "stone bloody dead". I hope you realise that that's an asinine position.

snapdragon wrote:And you are wrong, kaiserscharm. A parent will not be put into prison for leaving their born child behind whether they go to Spain or Timbuk bloody tu.

No, I'm not wrong. You also cannot just head out for a night of partying and leave your infant alone at home. And there are many more restrictions placed on parents by the law which often can be more restrictive and punitive than those concerning pregnant women in cases where the child is endangered or harmed.
#14925503
Snapdragons "human entity" is worth five million votes in a campaign. It is not really very smart to goad people, like me, who believe that a human being who can survive on its own is a person and worthy of more respect than her laundry.
#14925509
It also boggles the mind that as a progressive woman she basically asserts that legal definitions cannot be challenged. I wonder if she imagines female emancipation just miraculously happened.

The other major stupidity is the argument that people have absolute autonomy over their bodies. As far as the law is concerned, nobody has. You are forbidden from taking your own life in most jurisdictions and you'll be prevented by force to do so. There might be the option of euthanasia, but you'll have to go through a process regulated by law and it might be denied. There are plenty of legal restrictions with respect to what people can and cannot do with and to their bodies in every jurisdiction on the planet, so this is pretty much just assertions with no basis in reality.
#14925522
It also boggles the mind that as a progressive woman she basically asserts that legal definitions cannot be challenged. I wonder if she imagines female emancipation just miraculously happened.


I do not think her position is progressive.

1. It puts property rights over human rights.

2. It follows a strict libertarian ethos which always but the individual ahead of others/community.

3. It is monumentally selfish.

4. It allows the pain and suffering of another human being for individual convenience.

5. It denigrates the role of mother.

6. It virtually eliminates the role of the father during pregnancy and perhaps eliminates it entirely.

About the only progressive notion is that it is extremely permissive while downplaying any notion of personal responsibility and consequences.
#14925540
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:^ I agree that her position is not progressive in any meaningful way, although I have to say it's difficult to find much good with the current strand of progressivism anyway. I suspect she identifies as progressive though which was my intended meaning.
I intended to reply to you about this in another thread, so forgive me this will be off topic a little.

By virtue of the political situation today a centrist position is in actuality a radically progressive one. So whomever conforms to the socially accepted norms promoted today is by virtue an individual who is radically different in their outlook from one lets say 50-60 years ago. Social norms of today would be considered insane by most of humanity throughout history.

I might also add that the current norms are enforced by the state. People are also indoctrinated into progressivism through education and they are not persuaded into it by rational debate. We have young people growing up today thinking that what we have today is the norm and anything out of it is unthinkable wrong, because they are taught this from birth.

As people we have to realize that we live in abnormal times ever since the 60s's "cultural revolution", but I have to add things had been changing slowly prior to, 60s is just when it really came into fruition. And all hell broke loose as they say.
#14925585
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:I'm sure Irish law until it is changed has different definitions. They are different in many other jurisdictions as well.



Possibly. I don't see your point? Whatever it may have been called, human being being refers only to people, so calling a foetus a human being would be wrong. Human, yes. Human being, no.

If the laws was changed tomorrow so that a foetus was legally a person, I doubt you would start using the term person, because you would object to it. At any rate, we are discussing what the law should be, so again this is as irrelevant as the decision of the Canadian supreme court.


Whatever you believe the law should be doesn't change what it is now.


Whether human being has the same meaning in law in all countries doesn't matter. It does in some, so best not to use it for any human that isn't a person.

Using the wrong term just confuses the issue. As does calling the pregnant woman a mother and calling the man who helped impregnate her a father.

They aren't. Laws that pertain to parents don't pertain to potential parents, so a lot of what people against legal abortion claim, is utter nonsense.

Not at all. You seem to be under the impression that terminology has mythical powers that people can't resist.


Unfortunately, they do. They cause people to make assumptions that aren't facts.

Seriously, imagine the law defined the members of a minority in such a way that they have fewer rights. By your logic, this would stop arguments about the rights of that group "stone bloody dead". I hope you realise that that's an asinine position.


No, its not. You obviously don't inderstand that using laws that pertain only people to justify your stance is not going to work.

By calling a foetus a human being, you go on to assume it has rights it doesn't, then base your argument on that.


No, I'm not wrong. You also cannot just head out for a night of partying and leave your infant alone at home. And there are many more restrictions placed on parents by the law which often can be more restrictive and punitive than those concerning pregnant women in cases where the child is endangered or harmed.


You've changed your argument, so you obviously know you were wrong.

Explain how leaving your child with a voluntary minder is any way the same as having a human entity inhabit your body and use your organs to sustain its life.

You see how it's far better to to use the correct terms?

It prevents stupid and futile arguments and kills them stone bloody dead.


To Dr Lee:

1. My argument does not put property rights over human rights.
Only people have human rights. Women are undoubtedly people.

2. Absolutely not. It gives the same right to bodily sovereignty to everyone.

3. So what?

4. No it doesn't. Laws that restrict a woman's right to control her own reproductive health add pain and suffering to another human being.

5. How does it do that?

6. Fathers don't have a role in pregnancy in any way and can't be given one.
Men , in general, don't, whether they're fathers or not.
If the pregnant woman chooses to involve the potential father , she is free to go ahead. She should never, ever be forced to do that.

Women who want to end an unwanted pregnancy don't care what your notions might be about responsible behaviour. I fail to see any reason why they should.

They are doing what's best for them, not you, or anyone else.
#14925607
snapdragon wrote: Fathers don't have a role in pregnancy in any way and can't be given one.
Men , in general, don't, whether they're fathers or not.
If the pregnant woman chooses to involve the potential father , she is free to go ahead. She should never, ever be forced to do that.

Women who want to end an unwanted pregnancy don't care what your notions might be about responsible behaviour. I fail to see any reason why they should.

They are doing what's best for them, not you, or anyone else.


Spoken like a true feminist.
Just take note of two things:
1. If women act without involving the man they can do that, but do not come whining for child support.
2. Women can legally have the foetus removed/killed but they should do it within the first twelve weeks of gestation.
#14925616
Ter wrote:Spoken like a true feminist.



Yep. Equal rights for all people.

Just take note of two things:
1. If women act without involving the man they can do that, but do not come whining for child support.


The clue is in the name. It's called child support. Not mother or father support.

2. Women can legally have the foetus removed/killed but they should do it within the first twelve weeks of gestation.


For what reason?
#14925618
snapdragon wrote:Yep. Equal rights for all people.

Yes, equal rights and then some, right?
Feminism is sooo 1980s

snapdragon wrote:The clue is in the name. It's called child support. Not mother or father support.

That is a transparant lie.
The mother gets custody in about 76% of the cases so the "child support" is also "mother support"
They even invented a demeaning term for men who do not play this game.. Deadbeat fathers.
Guess what ? I and many others will not play along.
Make your decisions to abort or to keep but live with the consequences.
snapdragon wrote:For what reason?

Twelve weeks is time enough to ponder keeping the baby or not.
The foetus will have become more human-like as the gestation goes along so a moral principle comes into play.
In view of your earlier posts in this thread I do suppose that you have no idea what I am talking about so you are excused.
#14925621
snapdragon wrote:
Possibly. I don't see your point? Whatever it may have been called, human being being refers only to people, so calling a foetus a human being would be wrong. Human, yes. Human being, no.

Whatever you believe the law should be doesn't change what it is now.

Whether human being has the same meaning in law in all countries doesn't matter. It does in some, so best not to use it for any human that isn't a person.

Using the wrong term just confuses the issue. As does calling the pregnant woman a mother and calling the man who helped impregnate her a father.

They aren't. Laws that pertain to parents don't pertain to potential parents, so a lot of what people against legal abortion claim, is utter nonsense.

Unfortunately, they do. They cause people to make assumptions that aren't facts.

No, its not. You obviously don't inderstand that using laws that pertain only people to justify your stance is not going to work.

By calling a foetus a human being, you go on to assume it has rights it doesn't, then base your argument on that.

Well, a foetus is a human being and alive. Sorry to disappoint you, but I'm not going to debate this on your terms.

I mean the above is construed to set up a debate that you will always win, so why on earth would you expect me to accept it? How about I dictate terms so that you'll automatically loose? :lol:

I'm not sure if you are just arrogant or actually don't realise this, so please note that the terms of any debate are not dictated by one side only. If there is disagreement on the terms, then these have to be debated first.

snapdragon wrote:You've changed your argument, so you obviously know you were wrong.

Explain how leaving your child with a voluntary minder is any way the same as having a human entity inhabit your body and use your organs to sustain its life.

You see how it's far better to to use the correct terms?

It prevents stupid and futile arguments and kills them stone bloody dead.

This is not difficult. You are not allowed to do with your body whatever you want if this leads to the child being harmed, endangered or dying. This is the equivalent case to an abortion.
  • 1
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 31

Isn't oil and electricity bought and sold like ev[…]

@Potemkin I heard this song in the Plaza Grande […]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

The "Russian empire" story line is inve[…]

I (still) have a dream

Even with those millions though. I will not be ab[…]