Strike For Repeal?

kylith · 09-03-2017 05:01PM

MightyMandarin wrote: »

But how is that placing them below their rights? I would argue that it's merely applying the same value to them, in which case, it is perfectly rationaland reasonable.

Lets say I was pregnant.

I don't want to be pregnant; maybe I live in poverty, maybe I already have 6 children, maybe my partner is abusive, maybe I'm 16 years old, maybe I was raped. I do not have the right to bodily autonomy while I am pregnant. I have lost that right simply because I am pregnant.

I cannot terminate the pregnancy even if I require medical treatment, in fact, I cannot even receive medical treatment if it would harm the fetus unless my life is in immediate danger (i.e. I have to be in the process of dying).

Some of my human rights are suspended because I am pregnant, whether or not I want to be.

Grayson · 09-03-2017 05:02PM

MightyMandarin wrote: »

But how is that placing them below their rights? I would argue that it's merely applying the same value to them, in which case, it is perfectly rationaland reasonable.

You're doing it without a rational justification. Do you think that terminations should be allowed at an earlier stage? How about 6 or 8 weeks? If not why?

And please don't start with the assumption that the embryo has the same rights. Demonstrate that it should.

kylith · 09-03-2017 05:03PM

MightyMandarin wrote: »

But how is that placing them below their rights? I would argue that it's merely applying the same value to them, in which case, it is perfectly rationaland reasonable.

Lets say I was pregnant.

I don't want to be pregnant; maybe I live in poverty, maybe I already have 6 children, maybe my partner is abusive, maybe I'm 16 years old, maybe I was raped. I do not have the right to bodily autonomy while I am pregnant. I have lost that right simply because I am pregnant.

I cannot terminate the pregnancy even if I require medical treatment, in fact, I cannot even receive medical treatment if it would harm the fetus unless my life is in immediate danger (i.e. I have to be in the process of dying).

Some of my human rights are suspended because I am pregnant, whether or not I want to be.

Now, even if that's the fetus having equal rights rather than more, how is it fair that I lose some of my human rights in favour of a 2-inch fetus that is not sentient and lacks the means to be so?

Noveight · 09-03-2017 05:04PM

A few of my friends attended the march in Galway, so I got a glimpse of it through Facebook/Snapchat et al.

I don't think the militant vibe adds anything to the whole thing.

MightyMandarin · 09-03-2017 05:17PM

kylith wrote: »

Lets say I was pregnant.

I don't want to be pregnant; maybe I live in poverty, maybe I already have 6 children, maybe my partner is abusive, maybe I'm 16 years old, maybe I was raped. I do not have the right to bodily autonomy while I am pregnant. I have lost that right simply because I am pregnant.

I cannot terminate the pregnancy even if I require medical treatment, in fact, I cannot even receive medical treatment if it would harm the fetus unless my life is in immediate danger (i.e. I have to be in the process of dying).

Some of my human rights are suspended because I am pregnant, whether or not I want to be.

Those arguments are compelling, but they still do not provide justification for taking the life of an unborn person imo.

You, and others, may believe that a woman's choice is superior to the unborn's right to live, but I simply do not. Unless we're talking about specific circumstances which I've already mentioned, I just cannot justify it ethically.

MightyMandarin · 09-03-2017 05:22PM

Grayson wrote: »

You're doing it without a rational justification. Do you think that terminations should be allowed at an earlier stage? How about 6 or 8 weeks? If not why?

And please don't start with the assumption that the embryo has the same rights. Demonstrate that it should.

How is it irrational? To me, if there's nothing to say that an embryo won't develop into a living, breathing human, then what justification is there for saying that they should not live? How early we terminate a pregnancy makes no difference to me; it's still morally repugnant to the ethics of a just society.

Obviously contraception is legal, yet effectively does the same thing, but I think compromise at some point must be achieved between both sides, and I accept its legality. After it's effects are made redundant however, I see no reason why a pregnancy should be terminated in ordinary circumstances.

kylith · 09-03-2017 05:24PM

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Those arguments are compelling, but they still do not provide justification for taking the life of an unborn person imo.

You, and others, may believe that a woman's choice is superior to the unborn's right to live, but I simply do not. Unless we're talking about specific circumstances which I've already mentioned, I just cannot justify it ethically.

I do not view the fetus as being alive until it has a functioning brain, and until that point I do not see that it can have a right to a life that (IMO) does not exist.

You can disagree, of course, and I have no problem with you doing so. If you see a fetus as alive I wold obviously support your right NOT to have an abortion. However in insisting that the fetus is alive and a person you are denying my right to my beliefs and imposing on me a law which I see is unjust and unfair.

MightyMandarin · 09-03-2017 05:28PM

kylith wrote: »

I do not view the fetus as being alive until it has a functioning brain, and until that point I do not see that it can have a right to a life that (IMO) does not exist.

You can disagree, of course, and I have no problem with you doing so. If you see a fetus as alive I wold obviously support your right NOT to have an abortion. However in insisting that the fetus is alive and a person you are denying my right to my beliefs and imposing on me a law which I see is unjust and unfair.

The problem is that while that's a valid argument, I'm advocating on behalf of the unborn child, who would have their right to life denied and a law imposed on them which is unjust and unfair.

I've said before, the debate is about rights and interests; some might view the mother's choice as more important, while others believe the right to live must be protected at all costs.

kylith · 09-03-2017 05:32PM

MightyMandarin wrote: »

How is it irrational? To me, if there's nothing to say that an embryo won't develop into a living, breathing human, then what justification is there for saying that they should not live? How early we terminate a pregnancy makes no difference to me; it's still morally repugnant to the ethics of a just society.

Obviously contraception is legal, yet effectively does the same thing, but I think compromise at some point must be achieved between both sides, and I accept its legality. After it's effects are made redundant however, I see no reason why a pregnancy should be terminated in ordinary circumstances.

But the woman is already a living, breathing human with a life and hopes, dreams, and aspirations. All of which may be destroyed by a pregnancy which she never wanted.

As I said above: I don't believe that the fetus is alive, and support abortion, but not without limits. This belief does not impact the rights of those who disagree with me not have an abortion. However the belief, with no greater foundation, that it is alive does impact the rights of people who disagree to access abortion if they don't wish to be pregnant.

pilly · 09-03-2017 05:33PM

MightyMandarin wrote: »

How is it irrational? To me, if there's nothing to say that an embryo won't develop into a living, breathing human, then what justification is there for saying that they should not live? How early we terminate a pregnancy makes no difference to me; it's still morally repugnant to the ethics of a just society.

Obviously contraception is legal, yet effectively does the same thing, but I think compromise at some point must be achieved between both sides, and I accept its legality. After it's effects are made redundant however, I see no reason why a pregnancy should be terminated in ordinary circumstances.

So let me as you this question Mighty.

If you accept that contraception is legal, will you accept it if abortion becomes legal?

And in your own life (if it's not to personal a question), do you not believe in contraception either?

Shenshen · 09-03-2017 05:34PM

MightyMandarin wrote: »

The problem is that while that's a valid argument, I'm advocating on behalf of the unborn child, who would have their right to life denied and a law imposed on them which is unjust and unfair.

I've said before, the debate is about rights and interests; some might view the mother's choice as more important, while others believe the right to live must be protected at all costs.

It's a bit of an old hat in these abortion debates, but I think it might be worth considering nevertheless :

Imagine a fertility clinic went on fire. Imagine that, by some weird coincidence, you find yourself as the only person inside and you suddenly face a choice : in the room to your right, there's a baby crying. in the room to your left, there are the freezers with hundreds of frozen embryos.
You can either grab the baby, or get 200 embryos out of the building and safe them from distraction.

Would you honestly go for the embryos?

Grayson · 09-03-2017 05:35PM

MightyMandarin wrote: »

How is it irrational? To me, if there's nothing to say that an embryo won't develop into a living, breathing human, then what justification is there for saying that they should not live? How early we terminate a pregnancy makes no difference to me; it's still morally repugnant to the ethics of a just society.

Obviously contraception is legal, yet effectively does the same thing, but I think compromise at some point must be achieved between both sides, and I accept its legality. After it's effects are made redundant however, I see no reason why a pregnancy should be terminated in ordinary circumstances.

There's two things wrong there.

Firstly you're saying that something that possibly will happen is the same as something actually happening. It's like saying that once you have placed a bet on a horse you have won the money.
Alternatively you can look backwards and say that each step beforehand is just as necessary. So stopping someone from having sex is the same as an abortion since you are removing one stage of what is technically an infinite regress. That sort of reasoning gets messy. None of these are actually real, they're just hypothetical and so you're saying that a potential hypothetical child in the future has the same rights as someone who exists right now.

Secondly, you mentioned compromise. You actually said that contraception is technically the same thing but you're willing to compromise. How, if you believe abortion is murder, and you believe that contraception is the same as abortion, can you think contraception should be legal?

The problem with potentiality is that it doesn't exist right now. If you want to believe that potentiality should have the same legal status as actuality then you're going down a slippery slope. Should people charged with murder be charged with the murder of all the potential offspring the victim could have had. And their offspring's children and so on?

As you see, it's messy. It's a convoluted argument with loads of holes in it.

You're best sticking with an argument that involves actuality. Why the actual embryo has the same rights. Do you have any argument/reasons for use to believe that.

One eyed Jack · 09-03-2017 05:36PM

Grayson wrote: »

You're doing it without a rational justification. Do you think that terminations should be allowed at an earlier stage? How about 6 or 8 weeks? If not why?

And please don't start with the assumption that the embryo has the same rights. Demonstrate that it should.

Yeah, because that would be ignoring the current reality that an implanted embryo has an equal right to life as the woman under current Irish law.

Isn't that the whole point of the 8th amendment? The onus is on you then, to demonstrate why it shouldn't, if you actually hope to have the 8th amendment repealed.

Grayson · 09-03-2017 05:43PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yeah, because that would be ignoring the current reality that an implanted embryo has an equal right to life as the woman under current Irish law.

Isn't that the whole point of the 8th amendment? The onus is on you then, to demonstrate why it shouldn't, if you actually hope to have the 8th amendment repealed.

Err. No. This is a discussion about whether or not the law should be there. The poster I was replying to said that it should, I asked why.

This isn't a court of law. I'm not challenging a legal case. I'm not challenging the state in a legal case. This is boards.ie. I'm challenging the beliefs of another person who stated those beliefs.

Wibbs · 09-03-2017 05:44PM

Shenshen wrote: »

Imagine a fertility clinic went on fire. Imagine that, by some weird coincidence, you find yourself as the only person inside and you suddenly face a choice : in the room to your right, there's a baby crying. in the room to your left, there are the freezers with hundreds of frozen embryos.
You can either grab the baby, or get 200 embryos out of the building and safe them from distraction.

Would you honestly go for the embryos?

Swap out frozen embryos for 200 extremely premature babies in incubators and run the morality sim again.

MightyMandarin · 09-03-2017 05:45PM

Shenshen wrote: »

It's a bit of an old hat in these abortion debates, but I think it might be worth considering nevertheless :

Imagine a fertility clinic went on fire. Imagine that, by some weird coincidence, you find yourself as the only person inside and you suddenly face a choice : in the room to your right, there's a baby crying. in the room to your left, there are the freezers with hundreds of frozen embryos.
You can either grab the baby, or get 200 embryos out of the building and safe them from distraction.

Would you honestly go for the embryos?

It's a good analogy, but I'd save the baby without doubt. I think the area of frozen embryos is a big grey area anyway but I can't honestly say I'd choose them.

MightyMandarin · 09-03-2017 05:53PM

Grayson wrote: »

There's two things wrong there.

Firstly you're saying that something that possibly will happen is the same as something actually happening. It's like saying that once you have placed a bet on a horse you have won the money.
Alternatively you can look backwards and say that each step beforehand is just as necessary. So stopping someone from having sex is the same as an abortion since you are removing one stage of what is technically an infinite regress. That sort of reasoning gets messy. None of these are actually real, they're just hypothetical and so you're saying that a potential hypothetical child in the future has the same rights as someone who exists right now.

Secondly, you mentioned compromise. You actually said that contraception is technically the same thing but you're willing to compromise. How, if you believe abortion is murder, and you believe that contraception is the same as abortion, can you think contraception should be legal?

The problem with potentiality is that it doesn't exist right now. If you want to believe that potentiality should have the same legal status as actuality then you're going down a slippery slope. Should people charged with murder be charged with the murder of all the potential offspring the victim could have had. And their offspring's children and so on?

As you see, it's messy. It's a convoluted argument with loads of holes in it.

You're best sticking with an argument that involves actuality. Why the actual embryo has the same rights. Do you have any argument/reasons for use to believe that.

It depends what rights you're referring to though. The only right I'm referring to is the right to life, which is the most basic right there is, and imo an unborn person has that right. I'm repeating myself here, but I just don't see any acceptable moral justification to prove the opposite.

I don't think abortion is technically murder, as if women who go through with them should be guilty of the charge and certainly our law doesn't view it that way, but I think it's something immoral and wrong. Having said that, I think we must always accept that the world is changing around us and opinions are aswell. Therefore, I think contraception provides a "less immoral" solution for those who want to have sex without running a heightened risk of pregnancy and I have little issue with it.

I'm sorry, but potentiality is just as valid here imo. What you might see as a 'clump of cells' or whatever, I see as a thing which has a serious potential to become a person, given time.

One eyed Jack · 09-03-2017 05:54PM

Grayson wrote: »

Err. No. This is a discussion about whether or not the law should be there. The poster I was replying to said that it should, I asked why.

This isn't a court of law. I'm not challenging a legal case. I'm not challenging the state in a legal case. This is boards.ie. I'm challenging the beliefs of another person who stated those beliefs.

So... ignore reality and work from a scenario that suits your own argument.

Well, I must say, that sounds all sorts of rational, reasonable, and incredibly convenient.

D0NNELLY · 09-03-2017 05:58PM

Shenshen wrote: »

It's a bit of an old hat in these abortion debates, but I think it might be worth considering nevertheless :

Imagine a fertility clinic went on fire. Imagine that, by some weird coincidence, you find yourself as the only person inside and you suddenly face a choice : in the room to your right, there's a baby crying. in the room to your left, there are the freezers with hundreds of frozen embryos.
You can either grab the baby, or get 200 embryos out of the building and safe them from distraction.

Would you honestly go for the embryos?

I'd save the baby. But you're missing option three. What about the women who didn't ask to be in the fire, and can only see as far as their own health requirements who run out hands hanging?

farmchoice · 09-03-2017 06:07PM

Grayson wrote: »

Err. No. This is a discussion about whether or not the law should be there. The poster I was replying to said that it should, I asked why.

This isn't a court of law. I'm not challenging a legal case. I'm not challenging the state in a legal case. This is boards.ie. I'm challenging the beliefs of another person who stated those beliefs.

in fairness this thread is about repealing the 8th so one eyed jacks position is a very reasonable one.

the repeal movement are the one looking to change the status quo, so they have to provide the compelling case for change

im pro choice and i agree with them and i agree with their arguments but they have to be clever and careful about how they present them.

at present they are in danger of losing the battle ( and that is what i will be) before it has even started by seeming far to aggressive and uncompromising and most of all failing to understand the concerns of the opposition to change.

when the campaign proper gets up and running i expect to see more level heads emerge on the repeal side who understand the the Irish electorate and the history of this issue.

at present the space is being filled by a lot of people who dont know their history in relation to this and it might cost them votes if they dont start to learn.

for a huge section of the Irish electorate the journey to a more liberal position on abortion has been a very long and very painful one full of divisive campaigns and debates over the course of decades. these people, the very ones who will decide the outcome do not need to be talked down to, lectured or hectored or they could very quickly revert to their default position which is ''against abortion''

Grayson · 09-03-2017 06:19PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

So... ignore reality and work from a scenario that suits your own argument.

Well, I must say, that sounds all sorts of rational, reasonable, and incredibly convenient.

So according to you, if someone says I think X is morally right, the correct response is always to build an argument as to why they are wrong. It's not acceptable to say "Why?". In fact asking why is ignoring reality.

And if X happens to be the law, then it has to accepted and not defended?

You're the one making up rules.

Grayson · 09-03-2017 06:25PM

farmchoice wrote: »

in fairness this thread is about repealing the 8th so one eyed jacks position is a very reasonable one.

the repeal movement are the one looking to change the status quo, so they have to provide the compelling case for change

But likewise, if there's no case for keeping it rather than maintaining the status quo, it should be gotten rid of.

pumpkin4life · 09-03-2017 06:40PM

The strike has been a resounding failure by the looks of things.

Remember most lads will vote based on how a topic makes them feel, rather than the actual outcome itself. Persuasion lads.

I was passing through Dublin last night during the worst of it. What I saw was a bunch of angry looking wans dressed in black with weird shìte in their hair; shouting and pushing their way aggressively through crowds of people.

They don't know it yet, but they just shot themselves in the foot with this whole march in March. One of the reasons people voted for the gay lads to get married was because the marketing/persuasion was all bright colors and happy feelings about love and equality and virtue signalling to your best buddy cùnts. People felt happy/good talking about it.

Now, when people think about abortion, they're more likely to think of some arrogant, fat, short haired, fascist yelling, one dressed in black shouting MY BODY MY RULES YOU SEXIST at you, when all you wanted was to ask directions to the nearest bar. That's going to be a confirmation bias that will be hard to shake off. Normal people don't want that association; it makes them feel down and depressed. They're getting tired of this crap; this minority of people ruining the party for everyone cause feelings. This might be part of the backlash, which seems to already be starting.

Congratulations. You just knocked 5% at the least off the pro choice vote.

Outlaw Pete · 09-03-2017 06:43PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And as usual a distortion of my position. What I actually say is that the arguments I offer become grayer and LESS safe as time goes on and certainly around the area of 24 weeks.

Come on, Nozz. You have said many many times now that we are "safe" to abort at 24 weeks but if you really feel 24 weeks is a grey area then you need to stop saying that we are safe to about at that time and it's grossly irresponsible. If am a going to crush a car in a breaker's yard and I am unsure as to whether or not a kid has climbed into the back seat, then I am not going to say we are safe to crush that car and that is effectively what you're doing here, as out of one side of your mouth you are saying it's okay to abort at 24 weeks and then out of the other you are saying there is grey area.

What I MOST often say is that the VAST majority of abortions...

Yes, the "vast majority of abortions" occur earlier but doesn't make a hill of beans of difference to the point I was making. That is something that the pro-choice side of the argument do all the damn time and it usually has no relevance to the point they are attempting to retort. Even a small percentage of abortions over 16-weeks is a huge amount of unjust killing given the overall number of abortions carried out in the world each and every year. Might I remind you also that I would have no issue with abortion being made legal here up until 10-12 weeks given that it would most likely reduce the number of Irish women having late term abortions in the UK.

We can never be 100% certain at ANY point. So it is incumbent upon us to scale higher cut offs coherently and justifiably with reducing certainty.

I agree.

I genuinely do not argue for 24 weeks or see it as a good target.

Ah come on, Nozz, ffs. You have regularly suggested that abortions at 24 weeks are not only justifiable, but morally sound. Here's just a selection:

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And I find that what we DO know keeps us very safe indeed up to 24 weeks...

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

...even at the UKs 24 weeks there are genuine reasons to be sure enough we are still on safe ground....

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

...if Ireland came in with a 24 week law tomorrow I would likely not argue against it.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I therefore have absolutely no humanism moral or ethical qualms about abortion up to 24 weeks...

And yet here you are now claiming that you don't argue for 24 weeks.

Give it a bloody rest. Your posts are constantly suggesting, if nor outright stating, that there is nothing ethically or morally wrong with aborting at up to 24 weeks.

I understand that seeing something with little fingers and toes lights up every emotional area of your brain. It does for me too.

How patronizing and condescending can you get. You speak to people like they are dumb. We are not taking about flesh that LOOKS like human beings, we are talking about ACTUAL human beings.

I just have the additional ability to push further and deeper than that and realize that no matter what an entity LOOKS like......... my moral and ethical concern for it is mediated SOLELY by it's capacity for consciousness, sentience and subjective awareness. And if a little baby shaped thing lacks it, then I have no moral or ethical concern for it......... whereas if something was installed into a toaster that DID have this faculty...... I would.

A "BABY SHAPED THING"

I get that that does not parse for you. I get that when music illicits a response in a fetus and a researcher describing the motions it causes as looking LIKE "something trying to speak" you get triggered. I do not, and I have explained in a calm, measured, and considered way why I do not. You just personally do not LIKE the explanation. Which is hardly my problem really, now is it?

It has nothing to do with 'liking' what you say. It's about the inaccuracy of it. You label almost all fetal movement as autonomic and then call yourself reasoned and rational. There is nothing reasoned and rational about what you are doing. Yes, lots of fetal movement is autonomic, but that doesn't mean it all is. Anyone that believes that all fetal movement is autonomic is no better than the numbskull medics who once believed infants couldn't feel pain until they were at least three years old. Lack of science doesn't excuse ignorant beliefs.

Babies Don't Feel Pain: A Century of Denial in Medicine

During the 20th Century, when medicine rose to dominate childbirth in developed countries, it brought with it a denial of infant pain based on ancient prejudices and 'scientific' dogmas that can no longer be supported.

Babies have had a difficult time getting us to accept them as real people with real feelings having real experiences. Deep prejudices have shadowed them for centuries: babies were sub-human, prehuman, or as Luis de Granada, a 16th- century authority put it, "a lower animal in human form."

In the Age of Science, babies have not necessarily fared better. It may shock you to consider how many ways they have fared worse. In the last hundred years, scientific authorities robbed babies of their cries by calling them "random sound;" robbed them of their smiles by calling them "muscle spasms" or "gas;" robbed them of their memories by calling them "fantasies" and robbed them of their pain by calling it a "reflex."

Against a back of general (scientific) ignorance of infant behavior, experiments were undertaken as early as 1917 at Johns Hopkins University to observe newborn tears, smiles, reactions to having blood drawn, infections lanced, and to a series of pin-pricks on the wrist during sleep. In these experiments (the first of many), infants reacted defensively. When blood was taken from the big toe, the opposite foot would go up at once with a pushing motion against the other ankle. Lancing produced exaggerated crying, and pin-pricks during sleep roused half the babies to move the hand and forearm.

This line of investigation continued in a series of experiments at Northwestern University and Chicago's Lying-In Hospital in which newborns were stuck with needles on the cheeks, thighs, and calves. Virtually all infants reacted during the first hours and first day after birth, but the trend, the researchers noted, was toward more reaction to less stimulation from day one through day twelve. As a physiologic finding, this suggested that, at birth, newborns were not very sensitive, but became so gradually. However, they failed to tell us (and apparently overlooked the possible consequences) that all the mothers had received anesthetic drugs during labor and delivery!

The Shermans discovered infants would cry in reaction to hunger, to being dropped two to three feet (and caught), to having their heads restrained with firm pressure, or to someone pressing on their chins for 30 seconds. Babies tried to escape and made defensive movements of the arms and legs, including striking at the object to push it away. Today, we would see these behaviors as "self-management," an example of "kinesthetic intelligence," but in those days, experts were arguing about whether the head or tail end of a human baby was more sensitive.

To physicians, McGraw's work seemed thoroughly scientific and justified the continuation of painful encounters between physicians and newborns. In retrospect, the conclusion that infants were somehow not yet sensitive to pain was a prejudiced interpretation, which fit comfortably into the traditional view expressed in medical journals reaching back into the 19th Century. It seems perfectly obvious now, but for a long time, experts were informing the public that infants cries were only "random" sounds, not genuine communications. It took a quarter century of cry research to prove otherwise.

What we are seeing today with babies in the womb being referred to as merely being "baby shaped" and their in utero movements being said to be just autonomic, is really just more of the same willful ignorance as the above and which will one day be looked back on with the incredulity it deserves and the sooner that day comes, the better, as it really is a matter of life and death.

retro:electro · 09-03-2017 06:46PM

I just feel for the women who wanted more than anything to carry a child and whose pregnancies were not viable, for whatever reason, having to watch clips of young ones running around with fanny hats on their heads and crass banners and face paint.
Those women surely cannot identify with that?
The Repeal approach is so alienating- they really have no idea how to go about this with logic, reason and respect.

jameorahiely · 09-03-2017 06:46PM

mahamageehad wrote: »

Ah except we also have abortion on demand here.... Abortion on demand in the first trimester with mandatory counseling and later for medical emergencies.

Yes, but it is false to say no other country has an equilivant of the 8th. I wish the repeal crowd would get their facts straight.

We are not the only country with the right to life enshrined in their constitution.
Abortion is not illegal here.

If they can manage to learn those 2 facts it would be a start.

One eyed Jack · 09-03-2017 06:48PM

Grayson wrote: »

So according to you, if someone says I think X is morally right, the correct response is always to build an argument as to why they are wrong. It's not acceptable to say "Why?". In fact asking why is ignoring reality.

I never said it wasn't acceptable to ask why, I even highlighted the part I commented on, the special conditions you attached which ignored the reality of the situation as it currently stands.

I get a pain in my face every time this "reasonable and rational" stuff is trotted out as if that's supposed to lend any weight to anyone's opinion on an issue like repealing the 8th amendment in the first place, and legislating to broaden our abortion laws second.

I can understand why MightyMandarin's position is rational and reasonable from his perspective, and the arguments that it is rational and reasonable have already been made, hence the existence of the 8th amendment.

Grayson wrote: »

And if X happens to be the law, then it has to accepted and not defended?

You're the one making up rules.

Challenge it then, and present a coherent argument that you think should be convincing enough to give people the impression that you actually have a valid point. Because right now, MightyMandarin has put forward their position, all you've done is asked why and laid down conditions within which MightyMandarin has to frame their argument.

I'm not making up the rules here at all, I just don't see why others should be restricted to discussing the issue of abortion in a framework that suits your argument which ignores the current reality that the 8th amendment holds that the right to life of the unborn is equal to that of the mother.

Grayson · 09-03-2017 06:56PM

pumpkin4life wrote: »

The strike has been a resounding failure by the looks of things.

Remember most lads will vote based on how a topic makes them feel, rather than the actual outcome itself. Persuasion lads.

I was passing through Dublin last night during the worst of it. What I saw was a bunch of angry looking wans dressed in black with weird shìte in their hair; shouting and pushing their way aggressively through crowds of people.

They don't know it yet, but they just shot themselves in the foot with this whole march in March. One of the reasons people voted for the gay lads to get married was because the marketing/persuasion was all bright colors and happy feelings about love and equality and virtue signalling to your best buddy cùnts. People felt happy/good talking about it.

Now, when people think about abortion, they're more likely to think of some arrogant, fat, short haired, fascist yelling, one dressed in black shouting MY BODY MY RULES YOU SEXIST at you, when all you wanted was to ask directions to the nearest bar. That's going to be a confirmation bias that will be hard to shake off. Normal people don't want that association; it makes them feel down and depressed. They're getting tired of this crap; this minority of people ruining the party for everyone cause feelings. This might be part of the backlash, which seems to already be starting.

Congratulations. You just knocked 5% at the least off the pro choice vote.

You are so incredibly sensitive. Can't wait till the prolifers come up to you with photo's of aborted fetuses. If black make up offends you, you'll break down crying when you see those posters.

Here we go · 09-03-2017 07:09PM

kylith wrote: »

Yes, that is how democracy works, and now a lot of the women who did not get the chance to democratically vote in 1983 (i.e. every single one of childbearing age), would like the opportunity to vote on the issue. Why should they be denied that?

Repealing the 8th just opens the issue to a vote, it does not bring in abortion overnight. We would all get the opportunity to have our say. Hopefully the ballot paper would give options to vote on rather than a yes/no question.

Could you share those arguments with us? I'd be interested to hear them.

Just on the opinion part as some one pro life it is uneasy to hear people pro choice feel like there being targeted and I get the argument can I just say it's not that I belive I should have any say on you your body but that your right to free choice and control of your body shouldn't trump that of another living person same way you wouldn't let some one effect the life of anyone posting today sorry iv worded it very badly

Here we go · 09-03-2017 07:16PM

bubblypop wrote: »

It's not reasonable to me, that a few weeks old embryo is equal to me, in the states eyes. That very embryo could stop me receiving medical treatment.

Not 100% on this but what medical treatment would it stop you from having as far as I know abortion is legal when a mothers life is in danger so doctor makes a call after taking into account if he can save you with out putting your child's life at risk if not and your life's in danger and he can't perform surgery if nessesery with out danger to the child doctor calls it and performs sugery again sorry if that's not how the law is supposed to work but as far as I understand it

Strike For Repeal?

Comments