8th amendment referendum part 3 - Mod note and FAQ in post #1

antiskeptic

antiskeptic wrote: »

The reason why the holocaust comes into it rests on the fundamentals, not on the specifics.

1. You have someone who wants something for themselves.

2. Another person stands in their way.

3. There is a moral obstacle to overcome getting what you want so the other person is rendered sub human or non human

4. Once the above is achieved, the obstacle non person can be exterminated. You now get what you want.

Since the vast majority of abortions won't be difficult cases but will instead involve a degree of selfishness, holocaust comparisons enter the equation.

You can say life in the womb isnt life worth enough. But folk know that on many cases, selfishness is present. Rendering the choice to diminish life in the womb somewhat self-serving and convenient.

Like, with so much to gain for yourself, a person would say that, wouldn't they?

Its not like that in all cases. It will be a difficult choice for many. Nevertheless, many will end up pregnant due to carelesness. And many will want to escape consequences of that carelessness for the most selfish and puerile reasons.

A.o.d. doesnt distinguish.

In your first few bullets, are you talking about Hitler wanting something, rendering jews sub human and thus exterminating them?

OR

The jews wanting something ( Own state) rendering the locals sub human and thus exterminating them and their culture?

Both are the same thing...

SusieBlue

AnneFrank wrote: »

Except i haven't mentioned miscarriage at all.
So if you can't make it about poor susieblue you just make things up ?

Poor Susieblue? Are you mocking me now?
I won't make any apologies for standing up for my own rights for my own healthcare.
If my confidence in my position and my assertiveness hurts your feelings, you need to get over yourself.

And don't think for a minute you can deny you weren't referring to Hammer Archer in your original comment. You can word salad all you want but its clear you were taking a cheap shot. Again.

I'm scarlet for ya.

Wrongway1985

Discussing if the "debate" last night was any use to people's decisions in a few on newstalk.

joe40

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

antiskeptic wrote: »

Agreed. But some issues really are non starters. Asking a person to self condemn is one them.

Asking somebody if they regret an abortion is not asking them to condemn themselves.

He is bound to understand that, just been deliberately obtuse.

There is no comparison between asking someone to rate their character and a survey trying to understand the effects of abortion on women.

Of course it is a massive decision and some, maybe many, women will regret their decision. That is not grounds for removing the choice for everyone.

I wish the No side would make up their mind, are women regretting their abortions in massive numbers, or are they all just wantonly having abortions without a second thought.

antiskeptic

Esmeralda Inexpensive Balloonist wrote: »

A reasonably good stab can be made though, and not just by self-reporting. Measurable outcomes like the likelihood of presenting to a mental health service in the following years can be taken into account for example.

Not necessarily.

Remember Jaws? Where they shot yellow barrels into the back of the shark but the shark was able to submerge? People making a conscience decision can bury it down deep enough that it doesn't surface. The bigger the conscience issue, the more motivation to bury it down deep out of sight

My wife's a psychologist and is familiar with the way submerged stuff can out. Sometimes never. And if it does, it can be far into the future, and out in ways which seemingly have nothing at all to do with the initial issue.

Suffice to say that on a potentially self-condemning question, you cannot take the results on face value. And abortion, above most other questions, is one involving conscience.

AnneFrank

SusieBlue wrote: »

Poor Susieblue? Are you mocking me now?
I won't make any apologies for standing up for my own rights for my own healthcare.
If my confidence in my position and my assertiveness hurts your feelings, you need to get over yourself.

And don't think for a minute you can deny you weren't referring to Hammer Archer in your original comment. You can word salad all you want but its clear you were taking a cheap shot. Again.

I'm scarlet for ya.

Word salad, lol is this what you say when you've made something up and can't back it up. Nice i must use that.
I have never even written the name you mention, and i was accused of playing the victim, scarlet for you indeed.

circadian

antiskeptic wrote: »

I dont think its to be measured objectively. Youd need God or something. And he doesnt tend to publish scientific papers.



Im merely pointing out a problem. It applies to any situation where you ask folk to effectively self condemn.

It aint going to happen. Dressing it up as science doesnt alter things.

Dya ever see those 'scientific' studies measuring the power of prayer?

A bunch of christians set to praying for healing of the sick or something.

It presupposes God (if he's there) wants to be measured. It presupposes the christians praying are (if there is a God and people who can pray for such things) christians just because they say so.

That some science aint science cant be helped.

What did I just read?

What are you on about?!

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

AnneFrank wrote: »

Except i haven't mentioned miscarriage at all.
So if you can't make it about poor susieblue you just make things up ?

We should really nominate someone or take it in turns to react to poisonous personalised posts like that, otherwise watch the accusations of being ganged up on start.

Absolutely despicable thing to say. The inability to stop yourself from resorting to mean digs when you're presented with the inconvenient truth of how the 8th affects people is very telling, Anne, I'd be genuinely curious to know if you think that comes across well, to ANYONE.

To be fair to no voters, I've been out canvassing, talking to people on social media etc and I have very rarely come across people who'd come out with the vicious little nuggets you regularly lay down, even when they're on the ropes.

I know you think Maria Steen is totes amazeballs, I actually think emulating her would be a good move for you. You've a habit of going full John Mc Guirk.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Hammer Archer

SusieBlue wrote: »

Poor Susieblue? Are you mocking me now?
I won't make any apologies for standing up for my own rights for my own healthcare.
If my confidence in my position and my assertiveness hurts your feelings, you need to get over yourself.

And don't think for a minute you can deny you weren't referring to Hammer Archer in your original comment. You can word salad all you want but its clear you were taking a cheap shot. Again.

I'm scarlet for ya.

That poster's modus operandi is basically to resort to personal attacks and bullying when he knows that he cannot adequately debate a point. His initial attack on my views on our miscarriage stemmed from him trying to equate a 12 week foetus to a 12 week baby. He tried to use miscarriage sufferers as backup to this, trying to make it sound like he cared about them.
The mask didn't take long to slip once I pointed out that my partner suffered a miscarriage shortly before 12 weeks and that we currently had a 12 week old baby and losing a pregnancy at such an early stage was nowhere near comparable to losing an actual baby. That's when he started mocking our miscarriage.

To show how long he's been doing so, our daughter turns 4 months old on Friday.

SusieBlue

AnneFrank wrote: »

Word salad, lol is this what you say when you've made something up and can't back it up. Nice i must use that.
I have never even written the name you mention, and i was accused of playing the victim, scarlet for you indeed.

No hun sorry, I didn't make it up, I can provide links for you again if necessary to jog your memory.

I suppose its grand to be vindictive and insensitive when the 8th hasn't directly impacted your healthcare, we aren't all fortunate enough to be in that position, maybe a bit of consideration and empathy wouldn't go amiss from yourself when using other peoples REAL LIFE circumstances to make cheap shots.

.......

This post has been deleted.

lawred2

circadian wrote: »

What did I just read?

What are you on about?!

It doesn't really matter does it... probably best to just leave them to themselves

Zubeneschamali

reubenreuben wrote: »

Gardai wont touch it, there would be riots on the streets

If the Referendum gives a No, I would not be surprised if Repeal activists were to force the AGs hand and make them prosecutes someone.

We know that a stiff sentence must be attached as long as the 8th is in place, so the electorate would have to either repeal the 8th or see activists convicted and jailed.

If the reaction is like the X case, the 8th would be gone within a year.

antiskeptic

antiskeptic wrote: »

Suffice to say that on a potentially self-condemning question, you cannot take the results on face value. And abortion, above most other questions, is one involving conscience.

But saying you regret something, anything, is not self condemning.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

antiskeptic wrote: »

Not necessarily.

Remember Jaws? Where they shot yellow barrels into the back of the shark but the shark was able to submerge? People making a conscience decision can bury it down deep enough that it doesn't surface. The bigger the conscience issue, the more motivation to bury it down deep out of sight

My wife's a psychologist and is familiar with the way submerged stuff can out. Sometimes never. And if it does, it can be far into the future, and out in ways which seemingly have nothing at all to do with the initial issue.

Suffice to say that on a potentially self-condemning question, you cannot take the results on face value. And abortion, above most other questions, is one involving conscience.

My mother's a psychotherapist who works with survivors of rape and sexual abuse, I'm pretty familiar with the concept. And Jaws rules.

However, by the most reasonable and accurate methods available to us, there's no evidence that abortion has a negative impact on mental health.

There are a lot of assumptions in your post. An awful lot of women would have to have a) seen abortion as an issue of conscience b) had one anyway c) lied, to themselves, for years for any of this to have any significant effect.

To the best of our knowledge, and not just to the best of our "I have a hunch they feel bad", most women don't regret their abortions, and certainly don't suffer from ill mental health or suicide because of them. So that lie has to be countered when it's presented as fact.

erica74

AnneFrank wrote: »

Ah back to the back slapping echo chamber i see, same old hard case arguments, or a child in a womb is not a baby it's the thought of a baby crap. May the no side win. #savethe8th

Are you throwing your toys out of the pram because you can't have a rational intelligent debate on the topic? If your comments get pulled apart by prochoice posters for the absolute nonsense they are, it's not "back slapping" or ganging up, it just means your comments have no basis in actual facts and are easily disproved.

antiskeptic

rusty cole wrote: »

In your first few bullets, are you talking about Hitler wanting something, rendering jews sub human and thus exterminating them?

OR

The jews wanting something ( Own state) rendering the locals sub human and thus exterminating them and their culture?

Both are the same thing...

It's less Hitler than it is Germany. It is the German people who sub humanized Jews, Slavs's etc. It was the German people who would obtain honour, power, lebensraum. Hitler presented the idea, they ran with it.

-

It's not just the Germans though. It could be the colonial settlers in America, or Australia. The rape of Africa, Jews in Palastine. Whatever.

Same mechanism applies:

What I want > someone standing in the way > subhumanize that someone > eradicate that someone > get what you want.

Naturally, it's more nuanced that this. There will be a range from downright selfish right up to the most difficult of cases.

AnneFrank

SusieBlue wrote: »

No hun sorry, I didn't make it up, I can provide links for you again if necessary to jog your memory.

I suppose its grand to be vindictive and insensitive when the 8th hasn't directly impacted your healthcare, we aren't all fortunate enough to be in that position, maybe a bit of consideration and empathy wouldn't go amiss from yourself when using other peoples REAL LIFE circumstances to make cheap shots.

ah thanks Hun
Although, i'm not sure you know what my life healthcare experiences are, as you have no idea who i am. Word salad again eh hun.
Oh, and those links never mentioned anyone by the way. Just silly words from the thread as it went along, which happens in a debate.

antiskeptic

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Asking somebody if they regret an abortion is not asking them to condemn themselves.

In so far as the issue is a conscience based one, it is.

The question then, is this a conscience based issue for everyone. Some will say it isn't. Some will say it is.

Which is in itself a conscience based issue. Rinse and repeat.

Zubeneschamali

AnneFrank wrote: »

Except that of a healthy child, that cannot defend itself.

The Supreme Court has ruled (in March) that the unborn are not children now, even with the 8th in place.

splinter65

....... wrote: »

Oh I see - you are making up definitions now.

What is fully human in your makey uppey definition?

Because lacking in awareness, sentience and consciousness is a great big piece of the puzzle missing for fetuses.

It’s a great big missing piece of a puzzle for people in an induced coma too. Can we kill them too?

AnneFrank

erica74 wrote: »

Are you throwing your toys out of the pram because you can't have a rational intelligent debate on the topic? If your comments get pulled apart by prochoice posters for the absolute nonsense they are, it's not "back slapping" or ganging up, it just means your comments have no basis in actual facts and are easily disproved.

pro abortion posters you mean.
and no i don't play with toys or have a pram, but i guess the yes side wouldn't want either of those as they wouldn't need them.

robarmstrong

splinter65 wrote: »

It’s a great big missing piece of a puzzle for people in an induced coma too. Can we kill them too?

No, as that would be killing a born citizen, rather than aborting a 12 week fetus.

SusieBlue

splinter65 wrote: »

It’s a great big missing piece of a puzzle for people in an induced coma too. Can we kill them too?

No, because they are born living citizens with rights.

ohnonotgmail

splinter65 wrote: »

It’s a great big missing piece of a puzzle for people in an induced coma too. Can we kill them too?

we turn off life support for brain dead people all the time. Do you have an issue with that?

arleitiss

I ended up not registering because both sides are full of **** and I am undecided.
One half of my friends are voting yes and other half are voting no.

For past few weeks I was basically mobbed up by both sides urging me to register and interrogating me about which side I am on and pushing their agenda forward, at this point I am just so sick of this entire thing - I decided not to vote at all.

People need to stop pushing their agenda forward so aggressively.

SusieBlue

AnneFrank wrote: »

ah thanks Hun
Although, i'm not sure you know what my life healthcare experiences are, as you have no idea who i am. Word salad again eh hun.
Oh, and those links never mentioned anyone by the way. Just silly words from the thread as it went along, which happens in a debate.

And you know nothing of mine, yet you are vehemently defending your right to control and restrict my healthcare.

I don't see anyone from the Yes side exploiting other posters personal circumstances to further their own position...None of your buddies on the No side are doing it either, really. Its just you whose doing it.
Almost as if they know its a sh*tty thing to do.

antiskeptic

antiskeptic wrote: »

It's less Hitler than it is Germany. It is the German people who sub humanized Jews, Slavs's etc. It was the German people who would obtain honour, power, lebensraum. Hitler presented the idea, they ran with it.

-

It's not just the Germans though. It could be the colonial settlers in America, or Australia. The rape of Africa, Jews in Palastine. Whatever.

Same mechanism applies:

What I want > someone standing in the way > subhumanize that someone > eradicate that someone > get what you want.

Naturally, it's more nuanced that this. There will be a range from downright selfish right up to the most difficult of cases.

exactly, with all the other examples, why the poster of that one pics the holocaust...one can only guess :rolleyes:

splinter65

robarmstrong wrote: »

No, as that would be killing a born citizen, rather than aborting a 12 week fetus.

But if abscence of sentience and consciousness are the only things that render a 12 week fetus a non person then why can’t that be applied to a person in an induced coma?