Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

aloyisious

Absolam wrote: »

Misleading and delusional? Certainly a difficult trick to pull off. But if misreading is an issue for you, I suggest you start here, and work your way forward. As I said, I think you may have been rushing to reply just a little too quickly.

In the meantime, perhaps you'd like to say; given that you agree there's no doubt that both sides have someone's best interests at heart, how do you think the position of 'the Pro-Life group' demonstrates they have someones best interests at heart?

Misleading and delusional - Certainly a difficult trick to pull off. I don't know about that, the Pro-Life side keep trying to pull it off with their propaganda. Re misreading, that's a reference to your line about "me marginally moving my view of the Pro-Life group" - by a WE.

Re your "they have someones best interests", I think the use of the word "some-one" is misleading, using it instead of the word "feotus" is an attempt to get the O/P to think like a Pro-Life group member.

Re your entire question, do you think the position of 'the Pro-Life group' demonstrates they have someones best interests at heart?[/QUOTE] - having thought it through, I can honestly reply that if that is the actual position of the Pro-Life group, NO.

My initial thought of a reply to your question was "ah, come on, will you get away out of that, I'm not falling for that one" but, in line with your thoughts about my fast replies - I decided to take my time (approx 20 minutes of writing, proof-reading and editing/deleting) responding. Hopefully that might meet with your approval?????

recedite

I see the Halappanar case has finally been settled as a case of medical negligence. The inactions of the hospital were not due to any constraints they were under due to Irish law, as they claimed at the time.
Here's the list of negligent deficiencies in care, as described in the earlier Hiqua inquiry.

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

Misleading and delusional - Certainly a difficult trick to pull off. I don't know about that, the Pro-Life side keep trying to pull it off with their propaganda.

I think you'll need to back up the assertion the 'the Pro-Life side keep trying to pull off misleading and delusional with their propaganda' with some evidence before I accept that particular proposition; I bet you won't find anything showing they're trying to be delusional. And if they're not, as you imply by 'keep trying', being successful, that would seem to back up my idea that it's a difficulty trick to pull off. Though it hardly seems relevant to what you were commenting on, so perhaps this is evidence of Kyng Curved Harmonicas famous gish gallop in action?

aloyisious wrote: »

Re misreading, that's a reference to your line about "me marginally moving my view of the Pro-Life group" - by a WE.

Oh, I know what you were referring to (specifically "To use your quote: Sure, everyone thinks they're right in this discussion, both sides have someone's best interests at heart, no doubt."), though to be fair I've no idea what you're referring to when you say 'by a WE', unless it's some sort of a reference to the fact that you just inserted the word 'me' into your quote, when it wasn't in the line you're quoting originally? Though even that doesn't make a great deal of sense.....

aloyisious wrote: »

Re your "they have someones best interests", I think the use of the word "some-one" is misleading, using it instead of the word "feotus" is an attempt to get the O/P to think like a Pro-Life group member.

Well, I'm not sure who you think 'the O/P' is, or how using the word would get them to think like a Pro-Life group member (some sort of subliminal brainwashing?) but I'd agree that those who hold a pro life position are inclined to include a foetus in the group of those who can be referred to as 'someone'; it's not misleading, you simply disagree with who's allowed to be included in the group.

aloyisious wrote: »

Re your entire question, do you think the position of 'the Pro-Life group' demonstrates they have someones best interests at heart? - having thought it through, I can honestly reply that if that is the actual position of the Pro-Life group, NO.

That wasn't actually my question, I asked "given that you agree there's no doubt that both sides have someone's best interests at heart, how do you think the position of 'the Pro-Life group' demonstrates they have someones best interests at heart?", which you can see is somewhat different; you already agreed there's no doubt they have someones best interests at heart. Still, if you want to recant your previous post, fair enough there's nothing wrong with people changing their minds.

aloyisious wrote: »

My initial thought of a reply to your question was "ah, come on, will you get away out of that, I'm not falling for that one" but, in line with your thoughts about my fast replies - I decided to take my time (approx 20 minutes of writing, proof-reading and editing/deleting) responding. Hopefully that might meet with your approval?????

I can't honestly say I approve of any of your posts, but they are entertaining.

Absolam

Shrap wrote: »

Ok, I'll bite (except the first paragraph - no need to go down every rabbit hole Absolam :P ).
I think the position of "the Pro-Life group" has the best interests of two humans at heart, because they believe (wrongly, in my view) that once a human life has started, it's position in the world is so sacred that it is a sin (also a crime in this country) to stop it's life. They only believe this about human life though, which signifies an irrational regard for humans, probably religious based. My view is far more pragmatic. There - how generous was that?

Not much use in terms of assessing aloyisious's somewhat contradictory opinions to be fair, but I think you're predicating your own opinion on the assumption of a religious position; there are also those who are pro life but not religious, so no need for concepts like sacred, or sin. Nevertheless, I agree that the notion of saving the lives of two people is where the pro life position demonstrates they have someones best interests at heart, just as the notion of maximising a right to bodily integrity is where the pro choice position demonstrates they have someones best interests at heart.
Still, why do you think having a greater regard for human life than other life (if I take you up correctly) is irrational?
I doubt your pragmatism extends as far as affording the same consideration to all life as you give to humans at other points in their development... or are you part of an underground movement to confer property rights on ferrets?

aloyisious

Absolam wrote: »

I think you'll need to back up the assertion the 'the Pro-Life side keep trying to pull off misleading and delusional with their propaganda' with some evidence before I accept that particular proposition; I bet you won't find anything showing they're trying to be delusional. And if they're not, as you imply by 'keep trying', being successful, that would seem to back up my idea that it's a difficulty trick to pull off. Though it hardly seems relevant to what you were commenting on, so perhaps this is evidence of Kyng Curved Harmonicas famous gish gallop in action?

Oh, I know what you were referring to (specifically "To use your quote: Sure, everyone thinks they're right in this discussion, both sides have someone's best interests at heart, no doubt."), though to be fair I've no idea what you're referring to when you say 'by a WE', unless it's some sort of a reference to the fact that you just inserted the word 'me' into your quote, when it wasn't in the line you're quoting originally? Though even that doesn't make a great deal of sense.....
Well, I'm not sure who you think 'the O/P' is, or how using the word would get them to think like a Pro-Life group member (some sort of subliminal brainwashing?) but I'd agree that those who hold a pro life position are inclined to include a foetus in the group of those who can be referred to as 'someone'; it's not misleading, you simply disagree with who's allowed to be included in the group.
That wasn't actually my question, I asked "given that you agree there's no doubt that both sides have someone's best interests at heart, how do you think the position of 'the Pro-Life group' demonstrates they have someones best interests at heart?", which you can see is somewhat different; you already agreed there's no doubt they have someones best interests at heart. Still, if you want to recant your previous post, fair enough there's nothing wrong with people changing their minds.

I can't honestly say I approve of any of your posts, but they are entertaining.

Following on from my use of your original statement and attached question to me "given that you agree there's no doubt that both sides have someone's best interests at heart, how do you think the position of 'the Pro-Life group' demonstrates they have someones best interests at heart?", again I state I DO NOT think the Pro-Life group have anyone's interest at heart. Whatever you think I want to recant from, I haven't a clue. I'm sad that you read something into what I wrote that lead you to conclude I had any sort of agreement with what the "Pro-Life" group thoughts are on abortion. I have nothing to recant from in that regard.

Re the use of the words ME and WE, I'm unsure as to what you are on about, unless it's about diction, something this thread is not about. I'm equally unsure as to what you mean by "fair enough there's nothing wrong with people changing their minds", but I assume you will try to enlighten me in your usual manner. It'd be only polite of me to let you know I might not reply though.

Cabaal

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/09/ireland-election-abortion-rights-campaign?CMP=share_btn_tw

According to the whichcandidate.ie election site, of the 44 elected Fianna Fáil TDs, only two – Lisa Chambers and Jim O’Callaghan – favour expanding access to abortion; of 50 Fine Gael TDs, only Kate O’Connell and Paschal Donohoe favour more liberal laws.

To put those figures in context: while 87% of the general population favour expanding access to abortion, only 4.5% of Fianna Fáil TDs and 4% of Fine Gael TDs do.

… I agree that the campaign to Repeal the Eighth Amendment isn’t going to lie down under a conservative coalition. I too believe that we can put a referendum on this government’s agenda.

But if our referendum is begrudged to us by overwhelmingly anti-choice politicians, are these really the people we want to preside over it?

Leo Varadkar, minister for health under the outgoing government, regarded by many as a future Fine Gael leader, has publicly stated that while the current legislation may be too restrictive, he wants to keep a “pro-life” amendment in the constitution.

After all our work, can Ireland’s feminist movement risk letting Fine Fáil scheme to replace the eighth with another constitutional amendment? To offer – masquerading as middle ground – not the opportunity to repeal the eighth but to amend it?

Government ignoring the will of the people. If they had done the same with marriage equality we'd be a poorer country for it.

frostyjacks

Cabaal wrote: »

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/09/ireland-election-abortion-rights-campaign?CMP=share_btn_tw



Government ignoring the will of the people. If they had done the same with marriage equality we'd be a poorer country for it.

The will of the people? I remember the gay marriage referendum getting passed, but I'm struggling to remember an abortion referendum being passed. When did that happen?

lazygal

frostyjacks wrote: »

The will of the people? I remember the gay marriage referendum getting passed, but I'm struggling to remember an abortion referendum being passed. When did that happen?

The one where we voted to allow women to have abortions if they're suicidal and the one where they can have them if they have them abroad?
The Government ignored the will of the people for 20 years in the first case.

Cabaal

frostyjacks wrote: »

The will of the people? I remember the gay marriage referendum getting passed, but I'm struggling to remember an abortion referendum being passed. When did that happen?

Sorry, but what exactly is "gay marriage"? I think you'll find its just marriage.

Would you refer to two black people getting married as "Negro Marriage"?
No of course not, only a racist bigot would do such a thing. So why try and label gay people any different here?

The will of the people is that there is demand for the situation to change and that one way or another there should be a referendum on the matter.

Denying a referendum denies democracy and only a fool or an idiot does this when there is adequate demand to have a referendum.

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

Following on from my use of your original statement and attached question to me "given that you agree there's no doubt that both sides have someone's best interests at heart, how do you think the position of 'the Pro-Life group' demonstrates they have someones best interests at heart?", again I state I DO NOT think the Pro-Life group have anyone's interest at heart. Whatever you think I want to recant from, I haven't a clue.

In short this statement here, where you say "To use your quote: Sure, everyone thinks they're right in this discussion, both sides have someone's best interests at heart, no doubt."

aloyisious wrote: »

I'm sad that you read something into what I wrote that lead you to conclude I had any sort of agreement with what the "Pro-Life" group thoughts are on abortion. I have nothing to recant from in that regard.

Well, I'm sad you're sad. And sad that you came close to finding some common ground but fell at the last hurdle.

aloyisious wrote: »

Re the use of the words ME and WE, I'm unsure as to what you are on about, unless it's about diction, something this thread is not about.

I was trying to make sense of your post "Re misreading, that's a reference to your line about "me marginally moving my view of the Pro-Life group" - by a WE.". I offered the most sensible attempt at comprehension I could come up with, but if it's inaccurate I'd certainly be obliged if you could explain what you intended the sentence to convey.

aloyisious wrote: »

I'm equally unsure as to what you mean by "fair enough there's nothing wrong with people changing their minds", but I assume you will try to enlighten me in your usual manner. It'd be only polite of me to let you know I might not reply though.

I meant that whilst some people seem to think it's wrong to change one's opinion in the course of a discussion, I'm not one of them. If, as you previously said, you held the opinion that there is no doubt that both sides have someone's best interests at heart, and you then changed your mind to that you DO NOT think the Pro-Life group have anyone's interest at heart, personally I feel you're quite entitled to do so.

frostyjacks

Cabaal wrote: »

Sorry, but what exactly is "gay marriage"? I think you'll find its just marriage.

Would you refer to two black people getting married as "Negro Marriage"?
No of course not, only a racist bigot would do such a thing. So why try and label gay people any different here?

The will of the people is that there is demand for the situation to change and that one way or another there should be a referendum on the matter.

Denying a referendum denies democracy and only a fool or an idiot does this when there is adequate demand to have a referendum.

Gay marriage is when two people of the same sex marry each other. It's pretty self explanatory. Many countries in the world don't recognise it, which is why it's differentiated from marriage, which is recognised. But that's another topic.

Where's this demand for change? I didn't see it come up in the election. The usual shouty people giving the same emotional blackmail stories, but on the posters and the pamphlets it hardly featured.

robdonn

frostyjacks wrote: »

Where's this demand for change? I didn't see it come up in the election. The usual shouty people giving the same emotional blackmail stories, but on the posters and the pamphlets it hardly featured.

Hence, "Government ignoring the will of the people."

Cabaal

frostyjacks wrote: »

Where's this demand for change? I didn't see it come up in the election. The usual shouty people giving the same emotional blackmail stories, but on the posters and the pamphlets it hardly featured.

Yes, thats because they are dancing around the issue and kicking the can down the road.
Now even if we take what you've said as true then I don't remember marriage equality being an issue in the 2011 election, so by your logic we shouldn't have had a referendum on that either.

Polls have shown there is demand for change, in the exact same manner as marriage equality polls have showed demand for change back in 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015....despite what Lolek Ltd and Co would make you believe.

Gay marriage is when two people of the same sex marry each other. It's pretty self explanatory. Many countries in the world don't recognise it, which is why it's differentiated from marriage, which is recognised. But that's another topic.

But Ireland does, so in Ireland it is just "marriage". The fact that you feel any need to define it differently is a very sad reflection on you as a person.

Our constitution does not state "gay marriage", it states just marriage. There is no need to define a marriage any differently in Ireland.

frostyjacks

Cabaal wrote: »

Yes, thats because they are dancing around the issue and kicking the can down the road.
Now even if we take what you've said as true then I don't remember marriage equality being an issue in the 2011 election, so by your logic we shouldn't have had a referendum on that either.

Polls have shown there is demand for change, in the exact same manner as marriage equality polls have showed demand for change back in 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015....despite what Lolek Ltd and Co would make you believe.



But Ireland does, so in Ireland it is just "marriage". The fact that you feel any need to define it differently is a very sad reflection on you as a person.

Our constitution does not state "gay marriage", it states just marriage. There is no need to define a marriage any differently in Ireland.

But one of those is universally recognised as marriage, the other not so. But like I said, another conversation for another thread.

It's a little naïve to see abortion riding the tide of the gay marriage vote. I know many homosexuals who would be staunchly pro-life. Who is funding this abortion lobby anyway? Somebody stands to make a lot of money if the 8th is ever repealed.

lazygal

frostyjacks wrote: »

But one of those is universally recognised as marriage, the other not so. But like I said, another conversation for another thread.

It's a little naïve to see abortion riding the tide of the gay marriage vote. I know many homosexuals who would be staunchly pro-life. Who is funding this abortion lobby anyway? Somebody stands to make a lot of money if the 8th is ever repealed.

Gosh, it is simply remarkable how the marriage is for straight people only lobby manage to be friends with or know so many homosexuals who not only don't want marriage equality but also don't want access to abortion for women and girls. Either that or Paddy Manning and Keith Mills get around a HELL of a lot.
How much money is made from abortion? I'd like to get in there early if I can make a mint. :rolleyes:

Cabaal

frostyjacks wrote: »

It's a little naïve to see abortion riding the tide of the gay marriage vote. I know many homosexuals who would be staunchly pro-life.

Funny, even Lolek Ltd and David Quinn have admitted that they very much see the marriage equality ref passing as a threat to their "pro-life' views and the 8th. Perhaps they are just naïve and stupid?

So I'm sorry but the "pro-life" lobby groups very much disagree with you on this one.

robdonn

frostyjacks wrote: »

It's a little naïve to see abortion riding the tide of the gay marriage vote. I know many homosexuals who would be staunchly pro-life.

You're misunderstanding the relationship between the two issues, they are both huge shifts in the social outlook of the Irish people in contrast to previous generations. All of the polls, so far, have shown that the majority of Irish people would like more access to abortion services. This does not mean that most people want "abortion-on-demand" (although the latest Red C poll suggests that 38% of people do) but that they want it available for more situations. Gay or straight, if you disagree then you are in the minority.

frostyjacks wrote: »

Who is funding this abortion lobby anyway? Somebody stands to make a lot of money if the 8th is ever repealed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8P80A8vy9I

Loafing Oaf

frostyjacks wrote: »

Who is funding this abortion lobby anyway? Somebody stands to make a lot of money if the 8th is ever repealed.

Yeah and the dogs in the street know confetti manufacturers were the prime movers behind the same sex marriage referendum...

aloyisious

Absolam wrote: »

In short this statement here, where you say "To use your quote: Sure, everyone thinks they're right in this discussion, both sides have someone's best interests at heart, no doubt."
Well, I'm sad you're sad. And sad that you came close to finding some common ground but fell at the last hurdle.
I was trying to make sense of your post "Re misreading, that's a reference to your line about "me marginally moving my view of the Pro-Life group" - by a WE.". I offered the most sensible attempt at comprehension I could come up with, but if it's inaccurate I'd certainly be obliged if you could explain what you intended the sentence to convey.

I meant that whilst some people seem to think it's wrong to change one's opinion in the course of a discussion, I'm not one of them. If, as you previously said, you held the opinion that there is no doubt that both sides have someone's best interests at heart, and you then changed your mind to that you DO NOT think the Pro-Life group have anyone's interest at heart, personally I feel you're quite entitled to do so.

You know full well that my use of the above "there is no doubt that both sides have someone's best interests at heart" was a verbatim re-use of it after your initial use of it, and you know full well the context in which I used it. I find it'd be best for me NOT to respond any further to any of your posts which continually deliberately keep mis-stating my position on this issue. I believe you have no actual interest in the debate proper and are merely time-wasting here, posting up questions for distraction purposes. I can assure you that you will NOT succeed in what are plainly attempts to irritate and distract other posters and drive them away from the thread and debate proper.

Cabaal

Cabaal wrote: »

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/09/ireland-election-abortion-rights-campaign?CMP=share_btn_tw



Government ignoring the will of the people. If they had done the same with marriage equality we'd be a poorer country for it.

It's using the 'whichcandidate' info as opposed to the actual direct information though.

Now that they are elected, the answers might be different :rolleyes:.

Many of the answers on that whichcandidate site will have simply been 'party lines' as the individual candidates would have shyed away or simply left stuff blank. 'Pre-election' lines are certainly moveable.

Certainly worth someone firing off a few e-mails and trying to get some direct answers now.

Loafing Oaf

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Yeah and the dogs in the street know confetti manufacturers were the prime movers behind the same sex marriage referendum...

We shouldn't forget the bakers either!

aloyisious

frostyjacks wrote: »

Who is funding this abortion lobby anyway? Somebody stands to make a lot of money if the 8th is ever repealed.

Have you asked your TD to raise the question in the Dail? I can see Michael Noonan's Dept doing well if the 8th is repealed, though it'd be interesting to see what tax label and rate would be used.

Loafing Oaf

of 50 Fine Gael TDs, only Kate O’Connell and Paschal Donohoe favour more liberal laws

Is this right?

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/fg-split-on-whether-to-liberalise-abortion-law-34351386.html
On the 'yes' side, several of those in favour of a change in the law said they believe it is wrong for a woman to be forced to see out her pregnancy in cases where the child will not survive.
These TDs include Dublin South Central TD Catherine Byrne, Meath East TD Regina Doherty and Louth TD Fergus O'Dowd.

Cabaal

Ronan Mullen is busy sending people letters

https://twitter.com/DeirdreConroyIE/status/707866296705290240

Deirdre is the D in the D versus Ireland case http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/deirdre-conroy-i-dont-want-any-other-woman-to-go-through-the-ordeal-i-endured-29412093.html

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

You know full well that my use of the above "there is no doubt that both sides have someone's best interests at heart" was a verbatim re-use of it after your initial use of it, and you know full well the context in which I used it.

Yes, it was indeed a verbatim statement. I thought it odd you'd offer it so without any qualification whatsoever, but there you go; you did.

aloyisious wrote: »

I find it'd be best for me NOT to respond any further to any of your posts which continually deliberately keep mis-stating my position on this issue..

Please.. if you feel I've mis-stated your position in any regard I'll be happy to alter my statement if you'll only point out where I did it; pointing out that I repeated precisely what you said, however, may not elicit the response you'd like.

aloyisious wrote: »

I believe you have no actual interest in the debate proper and are merely time-wasting here, posting up questions for distraction purposes. I can assure you that you will NOT succeed in what are plainly attempts to irritate and distract other posters and drive them away from the thread and debate proper.

I'm sure you do, though the sentiment sounds a tad echoey..... Still, let me say for the record that I'm all for discussing the key issues and debate proper. If you find questions distracting, well, perhaps less questionable posts might be the answer.

robdonn

Fine Gael wants ‘random citizens’ reviewing issues like abortion

The Randy Riverbeast

robdonn wrote: »

Fine Gael wants ‘random citizens’ reviewing issues like abortion

They are really trying to wash their hands of it. Create a random group to decide something, put it to vote, can't have an article every week with David Quinn moaning and waking up with a novena outside your house.

Hotblack Desiato

frostyjacks wrote: »

Who is funding this abortion lobby anyway? Somebody stands to make a lot of money if the 8th is ever repealed.

Ryanair stand to lose a lot of money, maybe they're throwing a few quid at Iona?

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Is this right?

Not according to Life Site News anyway...

http://www.lifenews.com/2014/08/06/irish-minister-for-justice-frances-fitzgerald-is-determined-to-push-abortion/

aloyisious

robdonn wrote: »

Fine Gael wants ‘random citizens’ reviewing issues like abortion

A long gestation then, committees deciding on sub-committee members to look at the idea, with reports, legal opinion and costing papers on it's set-up to Govt, followed by full Oireachtas debate & vote before approval by cabinet. Legal approval of selection rules. Approval, after vetting, of public randomly selected. Debate & approval of items to be referred to the Assembly. Oireachtas debates on committee report/s of the Assembly members recommendations, followed by Govt Ministers and AG's fine-tuning. Green and White papers fine-tuning before publication. All this after we get a full-time Govt, with a probable change in Justice Minister from the present one who's stated she want's a change in the abortion law here in favour of pregnant women.

Cabaal

robdonn wrote: »

Fine Gael wants ‘random citizens’ reviewing issues like abortion

Atleast one of them will be "randomly" selected from Lolek Ltd,