The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

Oldtree

Bishop Kevin Duran, a "church heavy hitter" is still wading in with his heavy hitting viewpoint

Liberalising abortion 'will lead to killing of elderly and those with disabilities', senior bishop warns

Talk about moving the goalposts to encompass all that is "Evil" with the saintly bishop hitting the sheep to the moral rectitudes of the 1930's.

What's next from the good bishop? The removal of the eighth to lead to the sterilisation and genocide of the travelling community, or anybody with a squint?

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/abortion-referendum/liberalising-abortion-will-lead-to-killing-of-elderly-and-those-with-disabilities-senior-bishop-warns-36558197.html

applehunter

Oldtree wrote: »

Bishop Kevin Duran, a "church heavy hitter" is still wading in with his heavy hitting viewpoint



Talk about moving the goalposts to encompass all that is "Evil" with the saintly bishop hitting the sheep to the moral rectitudes of the 1930's.

What's next from the good bishop? The removal of the eighth to lead to the sterilisation and genocide of the travelling community, or anybody with a squint?

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/abortion-referendum/liberalising-abortion-will-lead-to-killing-of-elderly-and-those-with-disabilities-senior-bishop-warns-36558197.html

Why scoff?

A cursory glance at the last 100 years would show you that anything is possible in the name of progress.

Oldtree

applehunter wrote: »

Why scoff?

A cursory glance at the last 100 years would show you that anything is possible in the name of progress.

Why accept this rhetoric without responding with the contempt it deserves, it's not the 1950's where we sit and listen avidly to the words spoken by childless power hungry men in frocks, and thank them for their inciteful words.

This bishop had suggested that gay couples who had children were not really parents at all. How would he know anything of parenting?

There is no voice of reason in his above grasping at straws argument against the repeal of the 8th, thus very deserving of a scoff imo.

January

applehunter wrote: »

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

The whole thing is a lie

1 How can 90% of babies be aborted? A baby is born human being
2 Its complete irrelevant nonsense given that the oireachtas is proposing legislation for 12 weeks.

Dehumanize

Then kill.

Ah I see you're back... Brilliant...

baylah17

applehunter wrote: »

Dehumanize

Then kill.

You cannot Dehumanize that which is not yet a human being

nozzferrahhtoo

Edward M wrote: »

So if a foetus isn't human until its born then its just a bug like entity, entitled to be squished or trampled on without fear of repercussion.

I can not think of many (any?) who are claiming it is not human until it is born however. There was one person I can think of who USED to say the child has no rights until the moment it is born. But he has since switched to the opposite extreme and is against abortion across the board.

What most pro choice people I discuss with, myself included, believe is that "Human" in biology and "Human" as in person-hood are different things. It is ALWAYS Human in the former sense. But the latter sense is linked to things like consciousness and sentience. Faculties that are not slightly but ENTIRELY missing in the fetus at 12, 16, 20 weeks gestation.

Edward M wrote: »

Not much made of it indeed laughs from the crowd as it happened. Abortion can be viewed as similar in some respects.
Imagine the horror if a dog had strayed in and been given a boot in the hole to get him out. Its hard to gauge human indignation at what is happening sometimes.

I can gauge it perfectly and make perfect sense of it. Human moral and ethical concern is mediated proportionately by an intuitive sense of an entities capacity for sentience.

The fly people laughed at getting squashed is barely, if at all, a sentience agent. The capacity for sentience in the average dog is MUCH higher. So our moral and ethical concern scales with that. And if you brought a monkey into the picture most people, if they had to choose one, would prefer you kick the dog than the monkey.

When you view all of this through the lens of sentience as a faculty it parses very coherently and you can gauge human responses very quickly. And you can understand why people like myself have ZERO moral and ethical concern towards the "rights" of a fetus at 12/16/20 weeks gestation.

applehunter wrote: »

Dehumanize Then kill.

Or more accurately than "Dehumanize" is "do not pre-humanize". The problem here is not that people dehumanize the fetus. The problem is that people humanize it before it's due.

Quite the difference, and worth learning.

Hannibal_Smith

Edward M wrote: »

That's not it though, dehumanise and then it doesn't matter.
So if a foetus isn't human until its born then its just a bug like entity, entitled to be squished or trampled on without fear of repercussion.
It was funny watching the snooker there lately, the UK championship, they had a few bugs and wasps annoying the players.
Players and referees made big arm swings at them and a few were squished by hand on the table or trampled on the floor after being swatted down. Not much made of it indeed laughs from the crowd as it happened.
Abortion can be viewed as similar in some respects.
Imagine the horror if a dog had strayed in and been given a boot in the hole to get him out.
Its hard to gauge human indignation at what is happening sometimes.

Trivializing abortion is crass. A friend of mine had an abortion, I'd love you to tell her how trivial it is.

Zubeneschamali

applehunter wrote: »

Why scoff?

I encourage the Bishops to wade in belting people with their croziers left and right.

No-one, absolutely no-one who would be tempted to listen to a Catholic Bishop for advice was ever going to vote for repeal. But there are lots of relatively unengaged people who have no strong views on the 8th who will get up off the sofa to vote against the bishops.

volchitsa

Which is exactly why all but the most insane/least tuned-in of them (yes I'm looking at you, Bishop Kevin Doran) much prefer to operate through their non clerical mouth pieces like Breda O' Brien and David Quinn.

I'm sure there's much tearing of hair and rending of garments among the anti-choice movement whenever Bishop Kevin decides to continue speaking his mind the way priests have always done in Ireland. aka instructing the flock.

I see Bishop Eamon Martin had a little foray into the same field a few weeks back, but he seems to be more biddable, and hasn't been heard from on the issue since.

ohnonotgmail

volchitsa wrote: »

Which is exactly why all but the most insane/least tuned-in of them (yes I'm looking at you, Bishop Kevin Doran) much prefer to operate through their non clerical mouth pieces like Breda O' Brien and David Quinn.

I'm sure there's much tearing of hair and rending of garments among the anti-choice movement whenever Bishop Kevin decides to continue speaking his mind the way priests have always done in Ireland. aka instructing the flock.

I see Bishop Eamon Martin had a little foray into the same field a few weeks back, but he seems to be more biddable, and hasn't been heard from on the issue since.

I doubt there is much insanity when it comes to Bishop Doran. The man is keen for advancement and being the attack dog for the church is a way to do that.

Zubeneschamali

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I doubt there is much insanity when it comes to Bishop Doran. The man is keen for advancement and being the attack dog for the church is a way to do that.

So you think he is keen to get publicity as an attack dog even if it helps the Repeal movement? I say let him go for it.

ohnonotgmail

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

So you think he is keen to get publicity as an attack dog even if it helps the Repeal movement? I say let him go for it.

No such thing as bad publicity for him. He is getting his name in the papers for what he believes are the right reasons.

Loafing Oaf

[QUOTE=volchitsa;106059532

I see Bishop Eamon Martin had a little foray into the same field a few weeks back, [/QUOTE]

Kind of going through the motions. Whenever I see a headline about a bishop pronouncing on social issues these days, I assume it's Bishop Kevin or Bishop Fonzie

volchitsa

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I doubt there is much insanity when it comes to Bishop Doran. The man is keen for advancement and being the attack dog for the church is a way to do that.

Good point. Winning the referendum is one thing, but being a team player isn't the way to catch the eye of the Vatican. I suppose he has to choose.

Terrible dilemma for the others. Do they let him make his name among their bosses while they all sit obediently by, no fire and brimstone preaching at all?
Where's their sense of moral duty? There's strategy and then there's complete absence from the debate. (I do hope they all join in. )

Zubeneschamali

volchitsa wrote: »

There's strategy and then there's complete absence from the debate.

Under Ratzinger, I thought that there was a suggestion that the vatican were OK with pushing a hard line, losing waverers and marshalling a smaller core of more dedicated Catholics. Let the a la carte crew feck off.

Francis seems more inclusive.

markodaly

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Neither the 8th or time limits in the constitution are acceptable in my opinion.

Can you imagine the court cases on whether a woman is 10 or 13 weeks pregnant.

This is much more complex than having a divorce 4 year separation in the constitution.

The X case was in 92. The judgement wasnt legislated for till well over 20 years later. This idea that every general election will turm into fighting over abortion is just a red herring.

Replacing the 8th with time limits is a really really bad way of doing this.

Yet you are then comfortable to give no constitutional rights at all to the unborn.
That is fine by the way but many and I think the majority are not comfortable with that. Thus the whole thing could fail.

markodaly

volchitsa wrote: »

Good point. Winning the referendum is one thing, but being a team player isn't the way to catch the eye of the Vatican. I suppose he has to choose.

Terrible dilemma for the others. Do they let him make his name among their bosses while they all sit obediently by, no fire and brimstone preaching at all?
Where's their sense of moral duty? There's strategy and then there's complete absence from the debate. (I do hope they all join in. )

The fact you want to frame the debate this way is kinda pathetic. If you need a boogeyman to get your point of view across then your just like Trump and the rest of them, despite your own perception on your heightened enlightened position.

Bannasidhe

markodaly wrote: »

Yet you are then comfortable to give no constitutional rights at all to the unborn.
That is fine by the way but many and I think the majority are not comfortable with that. Thus the whole thing could fail.

Can you explain how it is possible to give 'rights' to what the State itself does not consider a person without stripping the rights of an actual living, breathing, citizen?

.......

This post has been deleted.

markodaly

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Can you explain how it is possible to give 'rights' to what the State itself does not consider a person without stripping the rights of an actual living, breathing, citizen?

That binary outlook means that all unborn up to the last few minutes before they are born have no rights what so ever.

If you are comfortable with that, fine. Many would not be and indeed many would view the abortion of an unborn person of say 38 weeks be the same as killing someone who was born at 40 weeks.

.......

This post has been deleted.

nozzferrahhtoo

markodaly wrote: »

That binary outlook means that all unborn up to the last few minutes before they are born have no rights what so ever.

But the user did not offer ANY outlook, let alone a binary one. The user asked you a question. One you have not answered here. Even a little.

markodaly wrote: »

If you are comfortable with that, fine. Many would not be and indeed many would view the abortion of an unborn person of say 38 weeks be the same as killing someone who was born at 40 weeks.

Who exactly is doing that though? PREGNANCIES have been terminated at 38 weeks, but generally the fetus is not. Who is EITHER seeking that OR doing it exactly?

I am pro-choice. Very staunchly so at this point given the lack of anti-abortion arguments coming from that camp. But even I see killing a 38 week old gestated baby as "the same as killing someone who was born at 40 weeks."

So who exactly or what exactly is it you feel you are addressing here?

patmac

This has probably been said before and this is my only contribution in any abortion debate. But can we get on with it.
Put out a leaflet, highlighting the main points, everybody votes, move on.
Christ this whole process is so tedious. I'm sure every point of view has been aired at this stage several times over.

markodaly

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I am talking about constitutional protections here for those past the 12 weeks, where there will be none.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Billy86

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I'm losing count of how many times this has been pointed out, and am good as sure it will need to be again at least once before the weekend.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Nettle Soup

applehunter wrote: »

Why scoff?

A cursory glance at the last 100 years would show you that anything is possible in the name of progress.

What??

Those blinkers are fitting you well

NuMarvel

markodaly wrote: »

I am talking about constitutional protections here for those past the 12 weeks, where there will be none.

It has been explained numerous times the difficulties that putting the grounds for abortion into the constitution would cause. Do you have a response to those posts?

NuMarvel

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Don't forget all the surrogacy. Sure you can't swing a cat in Ireland now for all the surrogate mothers.