Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

King Mob

end of the road wrote: »

i'm not, however i believe that there are only a certain amount of circumstances where laws would be needed on such issues, and they already exist for the issues that would require it. where there are no laws, then there are guidelines where required.

But you agree that telling a lie such as this is a wrong thing to do?

end of the road wrote: »

yes . i believe the vast majority of the no side did try and get the truth out there to the people.

But here is an another example your side blatantly and directly lying to scaremonger. And it's your side allowing people to lie and scaremonger.
And it's you justifying lying by saying "aw sure, it's not illegal."

Why, if the majority of your side are "trying to get the truth out there" does this leaflet exist?

It's because you and your side don't care about truth.
The No side lied and lies all the time. You are denying reality when it's staring you in the face.

aloyisious

end of the road wrote: »

i'm not, however i believe that there are only a certain amount of circumstances where laws would be needed on such issues, and they already exist for the issues that would require it. where there are no laws, then there are guidelines where required.

As we know, guidelines do not have the power or competency that law has, even though they might have an effect on the decisions of doctors. Guidelines come from the professional body committees governing the various medical professions and not from the state's law books. The competency and ability of guidelines issued by the various professional medical bodies to assist their members here is very weak.

An_Toirpin

King Mob wrote: »

But you agree that telling a lie such as this is a wrong thing to do?


But here is an another example your side blatantly and directly lying to scaremonger. And it's your side allowing people to lie and scaremonger.
And it's you justifying lying by saying "aw sure, it's not illegal."

Why, if the majority of your side are "trying to get the truth out there" does this leaflet exist?

It's because you and your side don't care about truth.
The No side lied and lies all the time. You are denying reality when it's staring you in the face.

If you take into account age profiles of the fetus there could well be a link between late abortion (and possible late miscarriages) and cancer. A lot of people like to content this but sadly there is very little up to date data on the topic so it only a lie if they say it is a clear link.



Actual lies from the no side did occur, naturally, it is human nature! At least no lies were on the periphery while we got outright yes lies from the minister of health such as "Irish women won't desire to seek abortions for Downs" But they already do. Or the classic "abortion is rare in the Netherlands, or abortion is rare where it is legal" which on any statistical measure is incorrect.

King Mob

An_Toirpin wrote: »

so it only a lie if they say it is a clear link.

Ah the "we're only asking questions" defense.

Who do you think actually buys that?

An_Toirpin

King Mob wrote: »

Ah the "we're only asking questions" defense.

Who do you think actually buys that?

The evidence of the link is not so tenuous actually but personally, raising this association is a terrible pro-life strategy. Cancer is a normal part of life. Hot coffee probably causes cancer. The good argument against abortion is that is it is a barbaric and avoidable taking of life.

King Mob

An_Toirpin wrote: »

]
The evidence of the link is not so tenuous actually but personally, raising this association is a terrible pro-life strategy. .

Yes it is. It's lies and propaganda.
It's what they need to resort to when their other argument fail and are unconvincing.

Yet, we are told by folks like end of the road that they do not lie.
And we have folks like you who justify the lying.

Mark Hamill

An_Toirpin wrote: »

it only a lie if they say it is a clear link.

No, it is also a lie to imply something even when you have no evidence of it at all. Pretending you are just asking questions is pure sophistry.

An_Toirpin wrote: »

Actual lies from the no side did occur, naturally, it is human nature! At least no lies were on the periphery while we got outright yes lies from the minister of health such as "Irish women won't desire to seek abortions for Downs" But they already do. Or the classic "abortion is rare in the Netherlands, or abortion is rare where it is legal" which on any statistical measure is incorrect.

I'm sure you have evidence for all this? Links to quotes from the minister, links to sources making the claims about the rarity of abortions and statistics backing your contradictions. Because I don't remember the minister saying that and the statistics I've seen clearly support the claim that abortion is rare in the Netherlands. So I'm wondering what contexts you might have missed, what qualifiers you might not have heard. You make a lot of claims without presenting any evidence but it's important, you see, to present your sources in case you're accidentally misrepresenting claims. You wouldn't want to be an accidental liar, would you?

An_Toirpin wrote: »

The evidence of the link is not so tenuous actually but personally, raising this association is a terrible pro-life strategy. Cancer is a normal part of life. Hot coffee probably causes cancer. The good argument against abortion is that is it is a barbaric and avoidable taking of life.

Why make a claim if you are not going to defend it? You can't have it both ways, you can't repeatedly make this claim, which you have no evidence and argument for, but then try to hide behind another claim which you are more comfortable to argue for. It is childishly dishonest to do so.

Also, you argue that cancer is less important than the death involved in abortion, because cancer is a normal part of life, but so is death. In fact, death is a more normal part of life than cancer. You have less than a 40% chance of getting cancer during your life, but you have a 100% chance of dying.

Mark Hamill

King Mob wrote: »

Ah the "we're only asking questions" defense.

Who do you think actually buys that?

I was trying to find out if there is a name for the "Just Asking Questons" fallacy (like "argumentum ad loaded question" or something) and apparently it is called JAQing off .
At least, that's the name I'll be using from now on .

Loafing Oaf

An_Toirpin wrote: »

outright yes lies from the minister of health such as "Irish women won't desire to seek abortions for Downs"

robindch

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I was trying to find out if there is a name for the "Just Asking Questons" fallacy (like "argumentum ad loaded question" or something) and apparently it is called JAQing off .
At least, that's the name I'll be using from now on .

Yes, JAQ'ing off was a big part of the A+/elevatorgate debacle. Sea-lioning referred to much the same thing.

The issue of whether a question is honorable or dishonorable always seemed to reside, though, with the askee and never with the asker who was the one person in a position to know.

alaimacerc

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I was trying to find out if there is a name for the "Just Asking Questons" fallacy (like "argumentum ad loaded question" or something) and apparently it is called JAQing off .
At least, that's the name I'll be using from now on .

Yeah, RW is apt to give it both barrels (as it were) when it comes to the woo-ists. Or anyone else that puts them in a bad humour, really. I'm sure there's a plausibly deniable translation available it you need to smuggle the same basic idea past the primmer mods someplace. (Argumentum ab praemissa falsus? Quaestionem in tenent masturbationem? Using my secondary-school Latin here to... type it into Google Translate.)

alaimacerc

An_Toirpin wrote: »

Actual lies from the no side did occur, naturally, it is human nature! At least no lies were on the periphery [...]

Apparently your notion of "the periphery" is "every other lamppost".

aloyisious

An_Toirpin wrote: »

Actual lies from the no side did occur, naturally, it is human nature! At least no lies were on the periphery while we got outright yes lies from the minister of health.

You do know that periphery means the outer edges or circumference? If you mean the No Campaign lies were NOT on the periphery that would logically mean the lies came from elsewhere in the NO campaign, like the centre.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/periphery.

An_Toirpin

alaimacerc wrote: »

Apparently your notion of "the periphery" is "every other lamppost".

I can't speak for smaller camapign but all of the big No campagns had accurate posters. Are you referring to the 1 in 5 are aborted poster? That poster used a metric used in medical stats reporting. It is totally accurate.

An_Toirpin

King Mob wrote: »

Yes it is. It's lies and propaganda.
It's what they need to resort to when their other argument fail and are unconvincing.

Yet, we are told by folks like end of the road that they do not lie.
And we have folks like you who justify the lying.

Lying is wrong. You are mis reading my writing if you claim I justify lying.

An_Toirpin

Mark Hamill wrote: »

No, it is also a lie to imply something even when you have no evidence of it at all. Pretending you are just asking questions is pure sophistry.


I'm sure you have evidence for all this? Links to quotes from the minister, links to sources making the claims about the rarity of abortions and statistics backing your contradictions. Because I don't remember the minister saying that and the statistics I've seen clearly support the claim that abortion is rare in the Netherlands. So I'm wondering what contexts you might have missed, what qualifiers you might not have heard. You make a lot of claims without presenting any evidence but it's important, you see, to present your sources in case you're accidentally misrepresenting claims. You wouldn't want to be an accidental liar, would you?


Why make a claim if you are not going to defend it? You can't have it both ways, you can't repeatedly make this claim, which you have no evidence and argument for, but then try to hide behind another claim which you are more comfortable to argue for. It is childishly dishonest to do so.

Also, you argue that cancer is less important than the death involved in abortion because cancer is a normal part of life, but so is death. In fact, death is a more normal part of life than cancer. You have less than a 40% chance of getting cancer during your life, but you have a 100% chance of dying.

Lying is always wrong. The minister did state that.

It is offensive to suggest women in Ireland are seeking abortions" on the grounds their babies will be born with disabilities like Down syndrome."

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/abortion-referendum/83-irish-women-ended-pregnancy-over-down-syndrome-36554914.html
Rosa, the anti-women group reported abortion is rare in the Netherlands. but if you look at the stats it is actually a middle of the road rate. An RTE documentary also reported abortion was rare in Norway but that is not true. They look rare compared to Russia yes but for western European standards rare. In western Europe, countries with rare abortion are nations with long histories of banning abortion (e.g. Switzerland) which was not a very convenient reality for the pro-abortion person.


I am not making the claim that cancer can be linked to abortion. It is such an observation. I am not very bothered about cancer so I rarely bring it up, but I am happy to discuss it. As I mentioned before, I don't know if it is a real link but it is possible. The real problem is it is so controversial that too few teams will even touch it to reliably test it.


You are making a bizarre point about cancer being common. Yes, cancer is common but it is getting a lot more treatable very rapidly and the type of cancer is treatable. My point it is that as an argument it is like saying, don't knife black people, because you might get hurt.

Hotblack Desiato

Abortion is not rare in Ireland. Despite the fact that it can only be obtained abroad or via illegally imported pills the abortion rate in Ireland is similar to other European countries.

The vote to repeal was not to make abortion more common, it was to reduce the suffering of women who need to terminate their pregnancies.

Igotadose

An_Toirpin wrote: »

I am not making the claim that cancer can be linked to abortion. It is such an observation. I am not very bothered about cancer so I rarely bring it up, but I am happy to discuss it. As I mentioned before, I don't know if it is a real link but it is possible. The real problem is it is so controversial that too few teams will even touch it to reliably test it.

There are things called facts. They're proven.

There are opinions. They're conjured from the air. They're not facts.

The fact is, abortion does NOT lead to breast cancer. Saying 'it's so controversial' is NOT a fact. It's an opinion, like the world is flat or moon made from green cheese. These latter are not FACTS. They're opinions, farcical as they fly in the face of fact, but whatever.

There's no 'controversy' about the FACT it does not. There's no conspiracy. There's just fact.

alaimacerc

An_Toirpin wrote: »

Rosa, the anti-women group [...]

Oh dear. Oh very much dear.

.......

An_Toirpin wrote: »

I can't speak for smaller camapign but all of the big No campagns had accurate posters. Are you referring to the 1 in 5 are aborted poster? That poster used a metric used in medical stats reporting. It is totally accurate.

All of the lies on the No posters were exposed over and over again, here on boards.ie, by various investigative journalists in the national media, etc...

The 1 in 5 was laughably inaccurate. It didnt account for miscarriages or still births. The true figure would be more like 1 in 7.

Calina

Meanwhile Joanna Jordan has lost her case at the Court of Appeal. Has until Friday to lodge papers for a possible Supreme Court challenge.

seamus

And she's been ordered to pay all of the legal costs for everyone.

Which hasn't deterred her in the past, as we know from the children's referendum her goal is nothing to do with democracy or legal process, but to simply delay decisions that she personally doesn't like.

But will she find any solicitor willing to assist her file a dead duck appeal when they're unlikely to get paid?

Cabaal

An_Toirpin wrote: »

I can't speak for smaller camapign but all of the big No campagns had accurate posters. Are you referring to the 1 in 5 are aborted poster? That poster used a metric used in medical stats reporting. It is totally accurate.

Except it wasn't a accurate claim as it could not be proven as accurate

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=107892552

Answer
It is unclear if one in five pregnancies, in either England or the UK as a whole, ends in an abortion.

So it was misleading to make the claim on the poster when it simply could not be proven by them.

aloyisious

****ing hell, Judge's comments. Mr Justice Birmingham said the Court of Appeal would go further to say Ms Jordan’s assertions were “so entirely devoid of substance that we can only conclude they were made with reckless and irresponsible abandon”. He was referring to the original wording by Mr Justice Kelly in refusing to entertain Ms Jordan's application reference the abortion referendum.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/reckless-attempt-to-appeal-abortion-referendum-result-dismissed-1.3608991

pauldla

aloyisious wrote: »

****ing hell, Judge's comments. Mr Justice Birmingham said the Court of Appeal would go further to say Ms Jordan’s assertions were “so entirely devoid of substance that we can only conclude they were made with reckless and irresponsible abandon”. He was referring to the original wording by Mr Justice Kelly in refusing to entertain Ms Jordan's application reference the abortion referendum.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/reckless-attempt-to-appeal-abortion-referendum-result-dismissed-1.3608991

And she's paying costs too. I wonder how much that might come to?

Under His Eye

These guys never pay costs.

.......

seamus wrote: »

And she's been ordered to pay all of the legal costs for everyone.

Which hasn't deterred her in the past, as we know from the children's referendum her goal is nothing to do with democracy or legal process, but to simply delay decisions that she personally doesn't like.

But will she find any solicitor willing to assist her file a dead duck appeal when they're unlikely to get paid?

Just to expand on this. SHE wont pay anything personally. Whoever is funding her will pay.

And its not decisions that SHE doesnt personally like. She is a puppet. Whoever is paying is the one deciding what to delay.

Igotadose

....... wrote: »

Just to expand on this. SHE wont pay anything personally. Whoever is funding her will pay.

And its not decisions that SHE doesnt personally like. She is a puppet. Whoever is paying is the one deciding what to delay.

Can't she be audited, though? If in fact her backers pay up once this is over with, that's income (payment on her behalf.) She needs to pay tax on that I would suspect.

If there's some surreptitious way she gets the money, that's money laundering. Worth pursuing in my view, it'd put the crimp in the muppetry that goes on with these appeals.

Full disclosure, expat US citizen here, not sure how this game's played in Ireland.

Mark Hamill

An_Toirpin wrote: »

Lying is always wrong. The minister did state that.
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/abortion-referendum/83-irish-women-ended-pregnancy-over-down-syndrome-36554914.html

This is why you need to give sources for your claims when you make them. You claim that the minister said "Irish women won't desire to seek abortions for Downs" but then you quote the minister saying "I do not believe women in this country adopt that approach when they have a diagnosis of a child with a disability." Can you not see the difference?

An_Toirpin wrote: »

Rosa, the anti-women group reported abortion is rare in the Netherlands. but if you look at the stats it is actually a middle of the road rate. An RTE documentary also reported abortion was rare in Norway but that is not true. They look rare compared to Russia yes but for western European standards rare. In western Europe, countries with rare abortion are nations with long histories of banning abortion (e.g. Switzerland) which was not a very convenient reality for the pro-abortion person.

Still making claims without giving sources. I have given statistics showing they are rare in Netherlands (152/1000 vs average of 203/1000 for EU) and that Norway (237/1000) has less abortions that the UK (255/1000) (relevant given the constant claim during the referendum that Ireland would have the same rate as the UK).
I don't know why you bring up Switzerland. It has a similar abortion law to Ireland's incoming law (legal in first trimester) and it had until recently a long history of banning abortion. So it's very low rate of 118/1000 is surely going to imply that Ireland is going to have a very low rate too.

An_Toirpin wrote: »

I am not making the claim that cancer can be linked to abortion. It is such an observation.

Again, with the no sources. Pointing out an observation is making a claim, so what observation are you making? Forget the sophistry and JAQing off, just support your claims with some sources.

An_Toirpin wrote: »

You are making a bizarre point about cancer being common. Yes, cancer is common but it is getting a lot more treatable very rapidly and the type of cancer is treatable. My point it is that as an argument it is like saying, don't knife black people, because you might get hurt.

I'm making bizarre points?

alaimacerc

aloyisious wrote: »

****ing hell, Judge's comments. Mr Justice Birmingham said the Court of Appeal would go further to say Ms Jordan’s assertions were “so entirely devoid of substance that we can only conclude they were made with reckless and irresponsible abandon”. He was referring to the original wording by Mr Justice Kelly in refusing to entertain Ms Jordan's application reference the abortion referendum.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/reckless-attempt-to-appeal-abortion-referendum-result-dismissed-1.3608991

Just looked at the Herald article. https://www.herald.ie/news/courts/devoid-of-substance-court-dismisses-appeal-against-abortion-result-37258746.html Pretty strong stuff. Almost as strong as she deserves!

Of course, having essentially just been called a vexatious litigant, her plan... to litigate it some more. Going to the SC. It's the "economically rational" thing to do, of course. Having already pleaded poverty after she lost her case on the previous referendum, obviously she won't be meeting the costs that will be awarded against her. So why not double down and wrack up still more?

Morally bankrupt, whether or not fiscally so.