Poll of the Day > Ireland legalized abortion

(+) Yeah! (+)

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=ireland+abortion+vote

Ireland is surprisingly theocratic for a developed European country.
---

Well, people were flying in to vote in favor of, so... idk, doesn't seem like a massively surprising outcome. Struck me as being a safe bet.

The coverage for it was all kinds of cringeworthy:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/26/world/europe/ireland-abortion-yes.html

Supposed journalism and it's talking about the patriarchy...

Yellow posted...

Ireland is surprisingly theocratic for a developed European country.

Each nation's development is going to be different depending on its history.
---

Zeus posted...

Supposed journalism and it's talking about the patriarchy...

How can you not talk about a patriarchy when a bunch of old men are telling women what they can't do with their bodies?
---

adjl posted...

Zeus posted...

Supposed journalism and it's talking about the patriarchy...

How can you not talk about a patriarchy when a bunch of old men are telling women what they can't do with their bodies?

Because plenty of women supported the ban too.
---

Each nation's development is going to be different depending on its history.

Wow ya dont say

Good thing we have zeus around to make such insightful and informed clarifications
---

Callmege posted...

adjl posted...

Zeus posted...

Supposed journalism and it's talking about the patriarchy...

How can you not talk about a patriarchy when a bunch of old men are telling women what they can't do with their bodies?

Because plenty of women supported the ban too.

The vast majority of people in government are old men. Thats what they are obviously referring to.
---

Ireland has been under the thumb of Catholic Church for a very, very long time so talking about the effects of the patriarchy when their government and the dominant religion is run by old white men isn't that far of a stretch lol. I mean, they didn't even allow divorce until late 1995.
---

PuddingBoy posted...

Ireland has been under the thumb of Catholic Church for a very, very long time so talking about the effects of the patriarchy when their government and the dominant religion is run by old white men isn't that far of a stretch lol. I mean, they didn't even allow divorce until late 1995.

Pretty much. You wanna tell me there isn't a patriarchal element to Ireland's abortion ban? Get back to me when somebody in the Vatican has a uterus.
---

https://imgur.com/7SRsNKF
---

adjl posted...

Get back to me when somebody in the Vatican has a uterus.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Joan

@PuddingBoy posted...

run by old white men

omg not old white men!!!!!!!
---

Zikten posted...

adjl posted...

Get back to me when somebody in the Vatican has a uterus.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Joan

The story was widely believed for centuries, but most modern scholars regard it as fictional.

Get back to me when somebody in the Vatican has a uterus.

---

adjl posted...

How can you not talk about a patriarchy when a bunch of old men are telling women what they can't do with their bodies?

It's not their bodies. An unborn individual with its own set of DNA is not an organ or tissue of the mother's.

It's like saying that a life-support system is somebody's organs.

TheWorstPoster posted...

It's like saying that a life-support system is somebody's organs.

A fetus' life-support system is somebody's organs. Why shouldn't the owner of those organs get to decide whether or not they get used as life support?
---

Good lord this topic is a shitshow.
Carry on.
---

arv thinks abortion should be illegal unless it kills the host or from rape.
---

people dont like reprocautions for their actions.
---

adjl posted...

Zeus posted...

Supposed journalism and it's talking about the patriarchy...

How can you not talk about a patriarchy when a bunch of old men are telling women what they can't do with their bodies?

When the men were voted into office by women to represent them.
---

adjl posted...

A fetus' life-support system is somebody's organs. Why shouldn't the owner of those organs get to decide whether or not they get used as life support?

Because, that would be murder.

TheWorstPoster posted...

adjl posted...

A fetus' life-support system is somebody's organs. Why shouldn't the owner of those organs get to decide whether or not they get used as life support?

Because, that would be murder.

Is it murder to take somebody off life support?
---

adjl posted...

Is it murder to take somebody off life support?

Yes, since you are ending the life of an innocent person. Even if legal by doctors, would still be homicide.

The patient may still have consent to do so to the doctors. The unborn, don't.

progressives and their inconsistent consent stance

PIV w/o consent = rape
ending human being life w/o consent = not murder

minors under 18 cannot consent w/o guardian. therefore, killing anyone under 18 w/o their consent = not murder
---

Zikten posted...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Joan

"according to popular legend"

TheWorstPoster posted...

Yes, since you are ending the life of an innocent person. Even if legal by doctors, would still be homicide.

The patient may still have consent to do so to the doctors. The unborn, don't.

That's not how it works.

Amuseum posted...

progressives and their inconsistent consent stance

PIV w/o consent = rape
ending human being life w/o consent = not murder

minors under 18 cannot consent w/o guardian. therefore, killing anyone under 18 w/o their consent = not murder

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FopyRHHlt3M" data-time="
---

adjl posted...

Is it murder to take somebody off life support?

Applied artificial prolonging of a dying person's life vs removing someone from their only natural and biological source of survival - and one that wasn't asked for in the first place I might add.

You seem logical enough to spot a difference here.
---

TheWorstPoster posted...

Yes, since you are ending the life of an innocent person. Even if legal by doctors, would still be homicide.

And yet it happens every single day.

TheWorstPoster posted...

The patient may still have consent to do so to the doctors.

They may, but many (my own father included) haven't. In the (very common) absence of a formal DNR order or similar advance directive, loved ones and doctors have to make decisions about whether or not to prolong life support, decisions which are based largely on what sort of quality of life can be expected if the person is given a chance to recover. The way I see it, abortion's no different from that, except for not being able to make personal considerations based on what you know about the person's values (since they don't have any yet).

iCurious posted...

adjl posted...

Is it murder to take somebody off life support?

Applied artificial prolonging of a dying person's life vs removing someone from their only natural and biological source of survival - and one that wasn't asked for in the first place I might add.

You seem logical enough to spot a difference here.

The natural/artificial distinction doesn't mean a whole lot. Heck, if you want to be really pedantic, human reproduction is already technically artificial, since the only criterion necessary for calling an object or process artificial is that humans make/perform it. The only salient difference is that you can't take prior wishes into account when determining what sort of life the person in question would rather miss out on than survive to see.
---

adjl posted...

Is it murder to take somebody off life support?

it can be, can't it? the distinction here is that no one has a right to use your body for life support.
---

adjl posted...

The natural/artificial distinction doesn't mean a whole lot.

Yes it does? It means a whole lot. Not the least of which is because one is dying of ailments and unlikely to survive, while the other is a developing life being denied very good odds of reaching self sufficiency in a virtually guaranteed time frame.

adjl posted...

Heck, if you want to be really pedantic, human reproduction is already technically artificial, since the only criterion necessary for calling an object or process artificial is that humans make/perform it.

What the actual fuck. This is patently false. Biological processes are considered natural. Human involvement doesn't suddenly make human reproduction artificial. Artificiality requires that a thing be unnatural. We even have terms to address artificial forms of reproduction, such as artificial insemination. And artificial reproduction.

Natural human reproduction isn't artificial.

adjl posted...

The only salient difference is that you can't take prior wishes into account when determining what sort of life the person in question would rather miss out on than survive to see.

With this much edge in your attitude, I'm rather surprised you bother to go on living. I imagine every orphan and child abuse victim that went on to live happy lives would want to have words with you. The child you seem to think would prefer to die probably would too, if it lived long enough to have any input.

"You can't speak for yourself yet, so we're just going to assume you'd rather dodge this shitty world that we're choosing to deliberately survive in ourselves. Bye."
---

Sahuagin posted...

it can be, can't it?

It can, if there's no justification for it. That's not exactly common, though.
---

iCurious posted...

adjl posted...

The natural/artificial distinction doesn't mean a whole lot.

Yes it does? It means a whole lot. Not the least of which is because one is dying of ailments and unlikely to survive, while the other is a developing life being denied very good odds of reaching self sufficiency in a virtually guaranteed time frame.

adjl posted...

Heck, if you want to be really pedantic, human reproduction is already technically artificial, since the only criterion necessary for calling an object or process artificial is that humans make/perform it.

What the actual fuck. This is patently false. Biological processes are considered natural. Human involvement doesn't suddenly make human reproduction artificial. Artificiality requires that a thing be unnatural. We even have terms to address artificial forms of reproduction, such as artificial insemination. And artificial reproduction.

Natural human reproduction isn't artificial.

adjl posted...

The only salient difference is that you can't take prior wishes into account when determining what sort of life the person in question would rather miss out on than survive to see.

With this much edge in your attitude, I'm rather surprised you bother to go on living. I imagine every orphan and child abuse victim that went on to live happy lives would want to have words with you. The child you seem to think would prefer to die probably would too, if it lived long enough to have any input.

"You can't speak for yourself yet, so we're just going to assume you'd rather dodge this shitty world that we're choosing to deliberately survive in ourselves. Bye."

Not every fetus makes it to birth. You're also using wrong terms like child. A fetus can't be a child by definition.
---

iCurious posted...

Not the least of which is because one is dying of ailments and unlikely to survive

Likelihood of surviving is only one factor that's considered in deciding to take somebody off of life support. The other is the quality of life that can be expected if they do survive. Most of the time, if somebody's put on life support, it's to keep them alive until they can recover from whatever's endangering their life. They're only taken off when either that lifesaving effort is guaranteed to be futile, or more commonly, because they're never going to wake up with a decent life (vegetative state, profound cognitive impairment, etc.).

iCurious posted...

the other is a developing life being denied very good odds of reaching self sufficiency in a virtually guaranteed time frame.

Self-sufficiency in the sense of being able to live in the outside world? Sure. Self-sufficiency in the sense of being able to live without relying on others? That's never really guaranteed. Even after being carried to term, a child is going to be dependent on its parents for a good many years, meaning their quality of life is only going to be as good as what those parents can provide.

iCurious posted...

What the actual f***. This is patently false. Biological processes are considered natural. Human involvement doesn't suddenly make human reproduction artificial.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/artificial?s=t

produced by humans

If humans produce it, it's artificial. Is that an exceedingly narrow and pedantic interpretation of the term? Absolutely, which is why I prefaced that with "if you want to be really pedantic [...]". But it does illustrate how silly it is to use the line between natural and artificial as a basis for anything meaningful. On the flip side, most things we readily consider artificial are made possible through processes that could be considered natural, like muscle movement and brain activity. What you were saying wasn't a real example of the naturalistic fallacy, but it was relying on a similar perceived dichotomy between natural and artificial things that just isn't there. It's a very arbitrary line, and so shouldn't be used for anything as significant as a literal matter of life and death.

iCurious posted...

"You can't speak for yourself yet, so we're just going to assume you'd rather dodge this s***ty world that we're choosing to deliberately survive in ourselves. Bye."

You're making a very fundamental mistake in your understanding of my position. I am not in any way saying that every baby should be aborted because this world sucks so much. I'm saying that people who feel that they won't be able to give a baby a decent quality of life should be able to abort it. It should be a choice, made by each family (or would-be family) based on their own situation.
---

Revelation34 posted...

Not every fetus makes it to birth. You're also using wrong terms like child. A fetus can't be a child by definition.

I'm actually not fond of making that distinction, despite being pro-choice. It always feels to me like it's trying to downplay the gravity of the situation. As pro-choice as I am, I do recognize that abortion entails taking a human life. Any effort to say it doesn't strikes me as arbitrarily drawing the line for "human life" where it's most convenient/comfortable, and I don't like that at all. I just also recognize that sometimes taking a life is the lesser of two evils, and provided the choice is made with the appropriate seriousness (and it usually is, as much as pro-lifers like to bring up fringe cases of women who have abortions for fun), I'm not going to tell anyone they can't make it.
---

Good.
---

adjl posted...

If humans produce it, it's artificial. Is that an exceedingly narrow and pedantic interpretation of the term? Absolutely, which is why I prefaced that with "if you want to be really pedantic [...]". But it does illustrate how silly it is to use the line between natural and artificial as a basis for anything meaningful. On the flip side, most things we readily consider artificial are made possible through processes that could be considered natural, like muscle movement and brain activity. What you were saying wasn't a real example of the naturalistic fallacy, but it was relying on a similar perceived dichotomy between natural and artificial things that just isn't there. It's a very arbitrary line, and so shouldn't be used for anything as significant as a literal matter of life and death.

Use a better dictionary.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/artificial

adjl posted...

I'm actually not fond of making that distinction, despite being pro-choice. It always feels to me like it's trying to downplay the gravity of the situation. As pro-choice as I am, I do recognize that abortion entails taking a human life. Any effort to say it doesn't strikes me as arbitrarily drawing the line for "human life" where it's most convenient/comfortable, and I don't like that at all. I just also recognize that sometimes taking a life is the lesser of two evils, and provided the choice is made with the appropriate seriousness (and it usually is, as much as pro-lifers like to bring up fringe cases of women who have abortions for fun), I'm not going to tell anyone they can't make it.

I don't see how that is saying it isn't taking a life. I'm just pointing out using loaded words like "baby" or "child" is wrong.
---

Revelation34 posted...

Use a better dictionary.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/artificial

Made or produced by human beings

I'm afraid I'm not seeing the difference there.

Revelation34 posted...

I don't see how that is saying it isn't taking a life. I'm just pointing out using loaded words like "baby" or "child" is wrong.

The fact that you're calling them "loaded words" illustrates that specifying that they're fetuses creates distance between that state and what they will become. The only difference between a fetus and an infant is time. It's important to make the distinction in a medical context, for obvious reasons, but for laypeople, using "kid" as an informal blanket term and relying on context to indicate that it's an unborn child doesn't actually take away any important semantic information. Steering clear of such colloquialisms doesn't deny that abortion is taking a life, but it is pretty flagrantly trying to avoid the discomfort of talking about killing kids.

Basically, I don't feel that "technically it's not a baby yet" is a good response to "you're killing babies!" You don't shut down a guilt trip by pointing out that they got their terminology wrong, you shut it down by facing exactly what they're saying and not feeling guilty about it.
---

adjl posted...

I'm afraid I'm not seeing the difference there.

"made or produced by human beings rather than occurring naturally"

adjl posted...

The fact that you're calling them "loaded words" illustrates that specifying that they're fetuses creates distance between that state and what they will become. The only difference between a fetus and an infant is time. It's important to make the distinction in a medical context, for obvious reasons, but for laypeople, using "kid" as an informal blanket term and relying on context to indicate that it's an unborn child doesn't actually take away any important semantic information. Steering clear of such colloquialisms doesn't deny that abortion is taking a life, but it is pretty flagrantly trying to avoid the discomfort of talking about killing kids.

Basically, I don't feel that "technically it's not a baby yet" is a good response to "you're killing babies!" You don't shut down a guilt trip by pointing out that they got their terminology wrong, you shut it down by facing exactly what they're saying and not feeling guilty about it.

Actually it's the shitty appeal to emotion fallacy when they use those loaded words. That's why it's better to avoid them entirely.
---

Revelation34 posted...

"made or produced by human beings rather than occurring naturally"

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/natural

Existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind.

*Moonwalks out of topic*
---

adjl posted...

*Moonwalks out of topic*

Made or produced by human beings rather than occurring naturally, especially as a copy of something natural.

artificial should be in contrast to something non-artificial. normal human reproduction is natural. artificial would mean that human consciousness has intervened in the normal process and done something different. hence the term artificial insemination (which is in contrast with natural insemination).
---

adjl posted...

*Moonwalks out of topic*

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOfljXHXFjg" data-time="
---

took them long enough
---