Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

King Mob

antiskeptic wrote: »

Was there something in what I wrote that wasn't true?

Was there anything untrue about my description of a root canal?

Your fanficition was silly, hyperbolic propaganda.

aloyisious

antiskeptic wrote: »

Interesting to read the latest hoo-haa in The Guardian (not exactly a bastion of conservative values).

This supreme court judge is retiring in the US. Which gives Trump a chance to stack the court more conservatively. With a further 'liberal' judge aged 95 (or was that 85), it would seem another opportunity might well arise.

The talk involved the threat to democracy and the suppression of human rights (in that Roe vs. Wade might be in jeopardy).

Is it not simply the case that whatever the power base is defines what's right (might is right). If, for example, the rights of the unborn in the US come to the fore (because of a conservative leaning in the supreme court) and the right to choice wanes, then so be it. It was probably a swing the other way which saw Roe vs. Wade herald in abortion on demand there.

How can the democratic process only work when liberalists hold the reins?

Have you checked up on the personal position taken on Roe V Wade by the woman [Noma McCorvey] at the centre of that decision prior to her death last year?

If you weren't aware of her change in position, might you imagine her to be the face of liberalism on abortion as a result of Roe V Wade?

Would you think her volte-face was and is of help to the anti-abortion campaign in the US?

In your opinion, is she now a conservatist or a new version of liberalist, this time on the side of the unborn?

uptherebels

antiskeptic wrote: »

Interesting to read the latest hoo-haa in The Guardian (not exactly a bastion of conservative values).

This supreme court judge is retiring in the US. Which gives Trump a chance to stack the court more conservatively. With a further 'liberal' judge aged 95 (or was that 85), it would seem another opportunity might well arise.

The talk involved the threat to democracy and the suppression of human rights (in that Roe vs. Wade might be in jeopardy).

Is it not simply the case that whatever the power base is defines what's right (might is right). If, for example, the rights of the unborn in the US come to the fore (because of a conservative leaning in the supreme court) and the right to choice wanes, then so be it. It was probably a swing the other way which saw Roe vs. Wade herald in abortion on demand there.

How can the democratic process only work when liberalists hold the reins?

So you consider deliberately picking people to a decision making position because they will agree with your agenda as some form of "democracy".

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

How can the democratic process only work when liberalists hold the reins?

I'm not sure what you mean by a "liberalist", but I'm sure you can accept that democracy works less well than it might when a nominally democratic state is taken over by people who gerrymander electoral boundaries, who refuse to confirm that they will accept the outcome of a democratic election, who engage in voter suppression, who do not accept the value of either evidence or reason, who attempt to subvert the freedom of the press, who attempt to subvert the independence of the judiciary, who prefer white over black, who prefer christian over islamic.

And so on.

aloyisious

@antiskeptic: Re your line [How can the democratic process only work when liberalists hold the reins?] would you agree that that "liberalist" judge [Judge Kennedy] holding the reins is assisting what you see as the democratic process by letting-go & retiring?

If you don't think that the consequences of Judge Kennedy action will be assisting the democratic process, giving Don the chance of putting an anti-abortionist on a USSC seat, please explain how you see Judge Kennedy action as being against the democratic process?

antiskeptic

King Mob wrote: »

Was there anything untrue about my description of a root canal?

Your fanficition was silly, hyperbolic propaganda.

It was no more fiction than taking a stroll through an abattoir. Now, you might choose not to inform yourself as to what is involved in bringing meat to your table. Your perogative. But it's hardly hyperbolic to show the reality of what's involved.

antiskeptic

aloyisious wrote: »

@antiskeptic: Re your line [How can the democratic process only work when liberalists hold the reins?] would you agree that that "liberalist" judge [Judge Kennedy] holding the reins is assisting what you see as the democratic process by letting-go & retiring?

My point was that "democracy" results from whoever holds the reins. If liberal then abortion, if conservative the no/less abortion.

It was the same with our recent referendum. A liberal agenda constructed the Citizens Assembly and sold it as representative when it wasn't. And loaded the Joint Oireachtas Committee with pro-choice members. No foul - it's permitted under our constitution.

Thereafter the narrative: great day for human rights, a great day for democracy. But if the opposite happens - a loading to produce a conservative result, then it's not a great day for human rights and not a great day for democracy?

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean by a "liberalist", but I'm sure you can accept that democracy works less well than it might when a nominally democratic state is taken over by people who gerrymander electoral boundaries, who refuse to confirm that they will accept the outcome of a democratic election, who engage in voter suppression, who do not accept the value of either evidence or reason, who attempt to subvert the freedom of the press, who attempt to subvert the independence of the judiciary, who prefer white over black, who prefer christian over islamic.

And so on.

I'm not sure which particular items you're referring to but to be sure, a list of democracy bending activities can be produced for US "Democrats".

I didn't notice you complaining at the tactics of our own Government in the recent referendum: promoting the non-representative Citizens Assembly as a paragon of the national view. Or stacking the Joint Oireachtas Committee with pro-choice personnel. Perfectly legal, but not serving democracy.

From whence your info anyway? Isn't one of our troubles obtaining unbiased information in the first place.

alaimacerc

antiskeptic wrote: »

It was the same with our recent referendum. A liberal agenda constructed the Citizens Assembly and sold it as representative when it wasn't. And loaded the Joint Oireachtas Committee with pro-choice members. No foul - it's permitted under our constitution.

A selection of the general public by a polling organisation, a number of politicians selected by their parties (after being chosen by the public in the first instance), and two-thirds of the electorate that trouble to vote on the matter as such, all produce a result broadly in line with almost every developed Western democracy.

Obviously all just evidence of the Vastness of the Liberal Conspiracy involved, as none of these, highly anomalously, correspond with your own view.

antiskeptic

uptherebels wrote: »

So you consider deliberately picking people to a decision making position because they will agree with your agenda as some form of "democracy".

My point is that both sides do it. I mean, you think Obama appointed neutral agents?

Or that the Irish government appointed a neutral chair to the abortion referendum's Joint Oireachtas Committee (even the Irish Times recognized her as a pro-choicer and there she was photographed in the middle of Varadkar and Harris on VE day)?

Or that the Chair of the Citizens Assembly (a body promoted as representative, but which couldn't possibily be) was left to chance by a Government wanting a particular result?

So, how is it democratic when one side (your side) bend things their way. And not, when the other side do the same thing?

alaimacerc

antiskeptic wrote: »

Or that the Chair of the Citizens Assembly (a body promoted as representative, but which couldn't possibily be) was left to chance by a Government wanting a particular result?

To quote that sage, um, website of record:

joe.ie wrote:

Upon her appointment to the position, Noone was described in headlines as a "pro-choice Senator." What was meant is that Noone holds a similar position as the majority of the Irish electorate, who have repeatedly turned in the same answers to poll after poll on the subject for the past several years: Irish voters do not support Ireland's current wide-ranging ban on abortion. They do not want the Eighth Amendment to remain.

It's an injustice, isn't it, that the committee didn't consist entirely of anti-abortion types, who unlike for example some of the FF and SF numbers, weren't so weak-minded in their previously declared such view as to be swayed by such paltry considerations as the evidence heard.

Bredabe

I heard that a lot of RCC churches are having 'healing and prayer' services who are still distressed/annoyed by the results of the 8th ref. I've been upset by political decisions and laws enforced by public vote and no one cares, so why is there a need for this a month after the decision was made?

alaimacerc

Bredabe wrote: »

I heard that a lot of RCC churches are having 'healing and prayer' services who are still distressed/annoyed by the results of the 8th ref. I've been upset by political decisions and laws enforced by public vote and no one cares, so why is there a need for this a month after the decision was made?

Ah, but these are the hurt feels of the infallible teaching magisterium of the universal church! When it and democracy disagree, to paraphrase The Producers, it very much outranks it.

Bredabe

alaimacerc wrote: »

Ah, but these are the hurt feels of the infallible teaching magisterium of the universal church! When it and democracy disagree, to paraphrase The Producers, it very much outranks it.

So what you are saying as I understand it is..... even if ppl vote for a decision that's against the church, the church still thinks it has a right to feel aggrieved?
Even if the teaching of the church or decisions of a govt would force me to suicide, this still applies?

Nick Park

Bredabe wrote: »

So what you are saying as I understand it is..... even if ppl vote for a decision that's against the church, the church still thinks it has a right to feel aggrieved?
Even if the teaching of the church or decisions of a govt would force me to suicide, this still applies?

I'm not a Catholic, and I've not attended any of the kind of services you've mentioned, but I know a few of the people involved, and for them it's nothing to do with problems with democracy or the magisterium of the Church.

They genuinely believe that an unborn child is a human being. And they are struggling to come to terms with living in a society that, from their perspective, chooses to kill human beings and thus violate human rights.

It would be similar to how you might feel (assuming you are a decent human being) if the country where you lived chose to execute homosexuals, or to introduce apartheid, or to legalise slavery. You wouldn't just shrug your shoulders and say, "Ah well, I didn't get my way politically, but sure it'll be grand." You'd probably be wondering where the hell the country was going and feeling like you don't really belong any more.

Now, you obviously disagree with their beliefs and perspectives - which is obviously part of the diversity that makes up humanity - but it's not really helpful to make fun of them or demand that they just get over it.

end of the road

alaimacerc wrote: »

A selection of the general public by a polling organisation, a number of politicians selected by their parties (after being chosen by the public in the first instance), and two-thirds of the electorate that trouble to vote on the matter as such, all produce a result broadly in line with almost every developed Western democracy.

not quite. most other western democracies introduced abortion for 2 reasons. 1. try and eradicate back street abortions. 2. to prevent those cases where death occured due to the non-provision of abortion. it's only ireland who used "human rights" "compassion" and other sanitized guff and irrelevantsies as a reason to implement it.

ohnonotgmail

end of the road wrote: »

not quite. most other western democracies introduced abortion for 2 reasons. 1. try and eradicate back street abortions. 2. to prevent those cases where death occured due to the non-provision of abortion. it's only ireland who used "human rights" "compassion" and other sanitized guff and irrelevantsies as a reason to implement it.

yeah, you are right as per usual. "human rights" and "compassion" were completely irrelevant to the No side.

.......

This post has been deleted.

ohnonotgmail

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I think that is what the young people call a "self own".

end of the road

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I think that is what the young people call a "self own".

the term is correct, however it does not apply to what i stated. many on the no side genuinely cared about people dying hence we didn't oppose abortion full stop, just abortion on demand.

King Mob

antiskeptic wrote: »

It was no more fiction than taking a stroll through an abattoir. Now, you might choose not to inform yourself as to what is involved in bringing meat to your table. Your perogative. But it's hardly hyperbolic to show the reality of what's involved.

You've dodged my question. I think that's the only tactic you guys have left.
It's a bit pathetic.

My description of a root canal is just as accurate. But it's hardly an unbiased one.

Your passage is just using deceptive emotive language to colour the description of the procedure of abortion.
You can do this for ANY procedure.

However the point remains that no matter how horrifying you'd like to make it, using such language has no baring on the actual reality of the procedure.

I think that the idea of a root canal sounds disgusting and horrifying.
But I don't think they should be banned.

Further, it has been shown that you are being a giant hypocrite.
You and your buddies are arguing that the unborn are completely humans.
Yet here you are, describing the mutilation of what you think is a baby, to people who have gone through such procedures.
You are doing it to scare people into changing their minds.

So either, you don't believe these are babies you are talking about.
Or you need to take a good hard look at your actions.

King Mob

end of the road wrote: »

the term is correct, however it does not apply to what i stated. many on the no side genuinely cared about people dying hence we didn't oppose abortion full stop, just abortion on demand.

But you said that abortion wasn't murder...

Bredabe

Nick Park wrote: »

I'm not a Catholic, and I've not attended any of the kind of services you've mentioned, but I know a few of the people involved, and for them it's nothing to do with problems with democracy or the magisterium of the Church.

They genuinely believe that an unborn child is a human being. And they are struggling to come to terms with living in a society that, from their perspective, chooses to kill human beings and thus violate human rights.

It would be similar to how you might feel (assuming you are a decent human being) if the country where you lived chose to execute homosexuals, or to introduce apartheid, or to legalise slavery. You wouldn't just shrug your shoulders and say, "Ah well, I didn't get my way politically, but sure it'll be grand." You'd probably be wondering where the hell the country was going and feeling like you don't really belong any more.

Now, you obviously disagree with their beliefs and perspectives - which is obviously part of the diversity that makes up humanity - but it's not really helpful to make fun of them or demand that they just get over it.

I was brought up Catholic and in the form so much less liberal than is being practised now. I have suffered at the hands of church rule and not once has the church apologised to me for this. I am also part of several minorities which exclude me from even the basics of life, based on both cannon and federal law and have been told 'get over it' and 'god bless'.

This is where my lack of understanding comes from and as someone who does better than their best to have a balanced outlook, I find your accusation of 'making fun' of ppl who feel this way or attend such services truely truely offensive. Would you point out to me where EXACTLY I made fun of these ppl, please?

Nick Park

Bredabe wrote: »

I was brought up Catholic and in the form so much less liberal than is being practised now. I have suffered at the hands of church rule and not once has the church apologised to me for this. I am also part of several minorities which exclude me from even the basics of life, based on both cannon and federal law and have been told 'get over it' and 'god bless'.

This is where my lack of understanding comes from and as someone who does better than their best to have a balanced outlook, I find your accusation of 'making fun' of ppl who feel this way or attend such services truely truely offensive. Would you point out to me where EXACTLY I made fun of these ppl, please?

So, what you're saying is that because you suffered discrimination, then nobody else is permitted to feel aggrieved or upset because, from their perspective, human beings will be killed?

Btw, I didn't say you were making fun of them. That was directed at alaimacerc's trollishly pretending to speak for other people. (A comment that you then responded to.)

But I'm not sure we're going to get anywhere trying to have a rational discussion if you get so offended over a fairly innocuous comment.

end of the road

King Mob wrote: »

You've dodged my question. I think that's the only tactic you guys have left.
It's a bit pathetic.

your question hasn't been dodged. it has been answered. an answer that doesn't fit your agenda isn't dodging.

King Mob wrote: »

My description of a root canal is just as accurate. But it's hardly an unbiased one.

it's nothing in comparison to killing human beings via abortion on demand or killing animals for meat production.

King Mob wrote: »

Your passage is just using deceptive emotive language to colour the description of the procedure of abortion.
You can do this for ANY procedure.

no he's giving the reality of abortion on demand. and the reality of meat production.

King Mob wrote: »

However the point remains that no matter how horrifying you'd like to make it, using such language has no baring on the actual reality of the procedure.

it does as it is the brutal truth and reality of abortion on demand.

King Mob wrote: »

I think that the idea of a root canal sounds disgusting and horrifying.
But I don't think they should be banned.

Further, it has been shown that you are being a giant hypocrite.
You and your buddies are arguing that the unborn are completely humans.
Yet here you are, describing the mutilation of what you think is a baby, to people who have gone through such procedures.
You are doing it to scare people into changing their minds.

yes again he is giving the reality of what happens to unborn babies during an abortion. something the yes side try to wipe from reality.

King Mob wrote: »

So either, you don't believe these are babies you are talking about.
Or you need to take a good hard look at your actions.

it's neither.

alaimacerc

Nick Park wrote: »

Btw, I didn't say you were making fun of them. That was directed at alaimacerc's trollishly pretending to speak for other people. (A comment that you then responded to.)

But I'm not sure we're going to get anywhere trying to have a rational discussion if you get so offended over a fairly innocuous comment.

We could be here all day just trying to peel back the layers of irony here...

Bredabe

Nick Park wrote: »

So, what you're saying is that because you suffered discrimination, then nobody else is permitted to feel aggrieved or upset because, from their perspective, human beings will be killed?

Btw, I didn't say you were making fun of them. That was directed at alaimacerc's trollishly pretending to speak for other people. (A comment that you then responded to.)

But I'm not sure we're going to get anywhere trying to have a rational discussion if you get so offended over a fairly innocuous comment.

No im not saying that, but if they are going to be supportive, surely they should be supportive to all who are hurt by the church and not just the ones its convenient or cool to supportive? after all its supposed to be a church of love.

Neither did you make it clear that the making fun comment was NOT aimed at me as all the rest as I read them were responses to what I had written.

Here is the kicker, knowing my background and having asked me to put myself in the shoes of ppl who are hurt by the vote, but proceed to try to be derogatory about my heartfelt reaction. No sign of an apology for the 'confusion' your comment caused.

I only posted to get clarity from ppl who are interested in the workings of religion and was and still not interested in what you call a rational conversation on this topic as I see this forum is not as impartial as I hoped.

.......

This post has been deleted.

alaimacerc

end of the road wrote: »

it's nothing in comparison to killing human beings via abortion on demand or killing animals for meat production.

no he's giving the reality of abortion on demand. and the reality of meat production.

it does as it is the brutal truth and reality of abortion on demand.

[emph mine]

The desperation to squeeze "on demand" in at every turn is startling. If you're making an appeal to squeamishness, what possible relevance does the restrictiveness per se have? An abortion for a "very very good" reason has the same physical appearance as one you deem insufficient, and wish the state to police.

What would be relevant, of course, is the stage of pregnancy. But that would be inconvenient to your line of... discourse, let's say -- it plainly doesn't rise to the level of argument. Human personage begins at conception, government wants to broadly decriminalise early medical abortion, so... let's talk about late-term abortion in as melodramatic terms as possible.

alaimacerc

end of the road wrote: »

not quite. most other western democracies introduced abortion for 2 reasons. 1. try and eradicate back street abortions. 2. to prevent those cases where death occured due to the non-provision of abortion. it's only ireland who used "human rights" "compassion" and other sanitized guff and irrelevantsies as a reason to implement it.

This makes no sense at all. The "human rights" involved relate to precisely the same circumstances as motivated decriminalisation elsewhere. You're simply attempting to Tone Troll the entire debate, en masse.

By the same token, the No side are more than eager to appropriate the same language.

PLC wrote:

The Pro Life Campaign is a non-denominational human rights organisation[...]

Never mind upping the ante from "compassion" to "love". Of someone else's embryo, no less.

The fact that they were content to previously present it more bluntly in terms of authoritarian pronouncements hasn't affected the essential similarity of their case, either.