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

uptherebels

realitykeeper wrote: »

May God have mercy on your soul.

Well that explains alot

nozzferrahhtoo

realitykeeper wrote: »

May God have mercy on your soul.

There is probably enough minds posting on this thread without you inventing non-existent ones and trotting them into the discussion too.

We doing what we believe is right, for arguments and ideas we believe are sound. I sleep easy with a clean "soul". I wonder who else can or cannot do that.

realitykeeper

realitykeeper wrote: »

May God have mercy on your soul.

So God doesn't like the Irish thinking for themselves?

SimpleDimples

I really hope this is a yes vote but i think it's going to be possibly very tight or even a no victory.

A lot of people I know voting no but cannot seem to articulate reasons why or discuss the issue to any great extent.

It wasnt me123

realitykeeper wrote: »

May God have mercy on your soul.

Is that the same God that let Savita die?
Is that the same God that let the nuns throw 800 babies into a septic tank?
Is that the same God that allowed Michelle Harte to die?
Is that the same God that allowed thousands of children to be abused by the clergy?
Is that the same God that allowed thousands to die in the Twin Towers.

Your God isn't very kind is he. Doesn't show compassion, kindness, empathy, just like the RCC

chalkitdown1

Close to Penney's on Patrick's Street in Cork yesterday there was a No campaigner (man in is mid 30s or thereabouts) stood next to a bunch of Yes campaigners with their stand and he was shouting things like "murderer" and "baby killer" into the faces of anyone who stopped to listen or chat to the Yes campaigners. It looked like that was his one job for the day as he was there when I passed and again on the way back 30 minutes later still abusing people.

Nice bunch, these pro-lifers. I almost wanted to clock him on the jaw.

realitykeeper

DubInMeath wrote: »

So God doesn't like the Irish thinking for themselves?

It wasnt me123 wrote: »

Is that the same God that let Savita die?
Is that the same God that let the nuns throw 800 babies into a septic tank?
Is that the same God that allowed Michelle Harte to die?
Is that the same God that allowed thousands of children to be abused by the clergy?
Is that the same God that allowed thousands to die in the Twin Towers.

Your God isn't very kind is he. Doesn't show compassion, kindness, empathy, just like the RCC

Save it for judgement day.

ohnonotgmail

realitykeeper wrote: »

Save it for judgement day.

Save the religious **** for a different thread.

DOS

freshpopcorn wrote: »

I haven't posted about this on social media. I see a few people into into it but it's more the young one's.(I'm late twenties)
I however logged into facebook with an old email addresses and followed online discussion on the matter/etc.
Yes say Maria steen converts don't know's to Yes.
No's say she converts them to No.
Yes say Peter Boylan converts people to Yes.
No's say he converts people to No.
Then they write about a relative who switched to suit their side.
Yes's hated the Prime Time debate. No's Loved it.
The TV3 one was a lot quiter Yes liked the fact check No's didn't and said it was fixed with a pro=repeal person.
It's the same with what you consider a baby and what you consider a fetus.
I have followed it it various places and it seems to be the same people posting constantly on both sides. I almost feel like I know these people.

Excellent post from the most reasoned poster on the thread who sees both sides clearly.

Nettle Soup

realitykeeper wrote: »

Save it for judgement day.

You church is still taking care of children so well. This happened this week...

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/chilean-bishops-offer-mass-resignation-over-abuse-scandal-1.3500372

Chilean bishops offer mass resignation over abuse scandal
Total of 34 prelates tell Pope Francis they are willing to stand down due to alleged cover-up

However, a Vatican source confirmed on Friday a report by Chile’s T13 television that the pope had handed the bishops a document accusing them of destroying evidence of sex crimes and of failing to protect children from predator priests.
The document said the church hierarchy was collectively to blame for serious lapses in handling the abuse cases.

Friday’s sombre statement came just four months after the pope had visited Chile in a trip that raised questions over his response to abuse scandals that have repeatedly rocked the church over the past 17 years.
During the visit, Pope Francis had staunchly defended Bishop Barros, denouncing accusations against him as “slander” until proven otherwise.

Disgusting organisation still trying to tell the sheep of Ireland what to vote.

realitykeeper

chalkitdown1 wrote: »

Close to Penney's on Patrick's Street in Cork yesterday there was a No campaigner (man in is mid 30s or thereabouts) stood next to a bunch of Yes campaigners with their stand and he was shouting things like "murderer" and "baby killer" into the faces of anyone who stopped to listen or chat to the Yes campaigners. It looked like that was his one job for the day as he was there when I passed and again on the way back 30 minutes later still abusing people.

Nice bunch, these pro-lifers. I almost wanted to clock him on the jaw.

If you had been aborted, you could never have told this tale. Lets extend the same privilege to the unborn.

SusieBlue

realitykeeper wrote: »

If you had been aborted, you could never have told this tale. Lets extend the same privilege to the unborn.

The biggest strawman I ever did see.

amcalester

realitykeeper wrote: »

If you had been aborted, you could never have told this tale. Lets extend the same privilege to the unborn.

Imagine all the tales that wouldn’t have to be told if the 8th never existed.

Savita’s being one such well known tale.

spookwoman

realitykeeper wrote: »

If you had been aborted, you could never have told this tale. Lets extend the same privilege to the unborn.

You did not just say that? That's a bad as "as a former foetus" and "how would you feel if you were aborted"

freshpopcorn

Mod Noterealitykeeper behave yourself!

realitykeeper

realitykeeper wrote: »

Save it for judgement day.

Ah so what you mean by the Irish thinking for themselves is, they should be thinking what ever their church tells them.

Well apart from the catholic church, leaders of both the Church of Ireland and the Muslim faith have come out in support of repeal. Sorry to break it to you it's the 21st century Ireland your living/preaching to, so this means more than one faith and many with none due to what the Catholic church did to the women and children of the country.

Also your reply should have been that you would pray for us, it's the standard.

realitykeeper

Nettle Soup wrote: »

Disgusting organisation still trying to tell the sheep of Ireland what to vote.

You sound angry and perhaps with reason but people make bad choices when they are angry.

spookwoman

Just an observation but is the phrase "you sound angry" a new spiel from the No campaign handbook?

Just her

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You can say it, but that does not make it true. You not liking an answer, or not understanding it, would certainly not mean no answer was given for example.

Especially given by answering my own post with nothing but a questions you particularly did not address any of mine. But as I said in my post it is not at all clear to me what you were asking.



Now hold up there just a moment..... it was YOU not me that brought up "examples of these life forms" and "grass, trees, plants etc" and so forth. So do not presume to admonish me for bring in an analogy to address all of them. You broadened the conversation and I merely followed you where you brought it. If you have any issue with a discussion of creatures where "none of them will develop sentience of a born baby" then ask yourself why YOU brought them up, not me.



Which for me is not an issue. Because what you describe is the CHOICE of a fully sentient being that is being made over a completely not at all sentient entity.

What I am trying to get across, so concentrate for a moment please, is that my entire moral and ethical outlook is that right, morality, and ethics are in the business of mediating the actions, and well being, of sentient agents.

So I believe for that reason if we are to curtail or preclude the freedoms, choices and well being of sentient agents....... like a pregnant woman..... in deference to an entity that is not sentient, never has been sentient, is awhile away from being sentient, and for all we know may never be sentient........... we had better have a damn good, coherent, logical, and justifiable reason for doing so.



Frankly no, I would not. I can not speak for anyone else. An entity that is not sentient is an entity that is not sentient. It really is that simple. Regardless of whether it is a dandelion, or a 10 week old fetus, or a rock.

Let me offer a thought experiment to highlight what I mean here. Though I offer it with some trepidation as I have offered it 4 times before and 2 people ignored it, one screech "irrelevant" over and over again at me before running away and.... I am led to believe..... one even reported me for trolling.

But imagine I built an Artificial Intelligence. Everything was at the ready. I was about to turn it on, the first consciousness ever what would rival and even excel our own. It would be fully self aware. Fully conscious. Fully sentient. Fully as capable of joy and suffering as you and I.

I just have to hit the "on" button and it will be so.

Instead I dismantle it and make toasters out of it for all my mates.

Have I committed some moral wrong? Did this non-sentience have a right to become sentient? If so WHY did it. What logical or philosophical arguments exist to suggest there was some moral onus on me to take this non-sentient entity..... and allow it to attain that potential?

I'll not rise to the bait of ' now concentrate for a moment' as I'd like to keep posting here :-)


Well your giving out that I brought up plants etc to see if that is what you were talking about in an earlier post when you were talking of how you attach value to life, I was just trying to get an idea of what you were equating the foetus / baby to when you talk of non sentience and therefore valueless. But I see you've answered me further down when you equate the foetus to a dandelion or a rock.

Now concentrate for a moment :-) a rock will never achieve sentience and can never be equated to a foetus/baby. I don't have to explain that any further. I would be insulting the intelligence of all reading if I did. I feel like I'm insulting peoples intelligence by just pointing that out so apologies to all, but I am trying to answer this post as best I can.

As for why I brought up plants , trees etc, it was because of your previous posting on how you arrived at agreeing with abortion, you'll probably tell me you don't and word it differently but in essence it's the same. I'll have to dig out your posts to show you what I'm referring to in e context of how you arrived at putting a value in life. I don't know if I'll get time tonight.

I follow the whole sentient argument, I just don't agree with it at all, but more than that I don't think it holds water anyway when the being whose existence you are ending is going to become sentient, and you rush to end their existence within that window in which you judge them to be non sentient, and just when they are on the brink of sentience, so that you can say ' hey, they weren't sentient, so that's ok' . And completely ignore the fact that they were becoming sentient. As for ' maybe they were never going to become sentient' as in what, a miscarriage? That's a red herring. Why even say that if you really believe it doesn't matter if they do or don't become sentient later.


As for your AI analogy. If you pushed the on button and I then pushed the robot off a cliff, would I be done for murder? It was sentient. Just like you and I after all.

Is that like one of my answers where you say I don't answer you and I just throw out another question? If so it's because I took that by my question that my answer was obvious.

I.e. my answer is the A.I. did not have a right to life. By my saying if I pushed it off a cliff would I be done for murder, the obvious answer is no, I wouldn't. But I would get done for murder for pushing a man off a cliff. Therefore it obvious I didn't think you're A.I. had a right to life without me actually saying it.

You've berated me in 2 if not 3 posts now for not answering your questions. If there really is something I haven't answered that you want answered then by all means ask me, preferably in short bullet points so I can keep up :-)

astrofool

DOS wrote: »

I sincerely hope that when (I can't see a No vote over 45%) Yes win there will be respect all around.

It's a sensitive, personal topic and any gloating would be regrettable. Likewise if No get a surge, but I don't see it.

This is just one of the phases of the No side, up till the referendum being called, it was all about frustration and filibustering of the process, ignoring citizens assembly, and both holding up the process while complaining about others being unfair at the same time.

This week will see all the tricks being played, FUD being spread as much as possible, some dramatic big stunt, then complaining about it being unfair when stunt is shown to be against the law etc.

If it is a yes vote, it just moves to the next phase, hold any legislation up for years in the Dáil, demand another vote on the "final plan", legal challenges a plenty, go after pregnant women directly, offering them "free advice", along with a bunch of outright lies, all this support gets dropped as soon as the baby pops out (or passes the 12 week timeframe).

Overheal

realitykeeper wrote: »

You sound angry and perhaps with reason but people make bad choices when they are angry.

Like the lad yelling "baby murderer" etc. at pedestrians talking to one another that he didn't like? The one you sought to defend by pontificating the non-existence of the poster who shared the story?

Please, extol some more of your virtues on us. It is fascinating.

fxotoole

realitykeeper wrote: »

May God have mercy on your soul.

God has no place in how the State is run

realitykeeper

DubInMeath wrote: »

Ah so what you mean by the Irish thinking for themselves is, they should be thinking what ever their church tells them.

Well apart from the catholic church, leaders of both the Church of Ireland and the Muslim faith have come out in support of repeal. Sorry to break it to you it's the 21st century Ireland your living/preaching to, so this means more than one faith and many with none due to what the Catholic church did to the women and children of the country.

Also your reply should have been that you would pray for us, it's the standard.

The troll in Frozen observed: People make bad choices when they are mad ...She was right about that.

It wasnt me123

The Sunday Show on TV3 is discussing the Referendum now

astrofool

astrofool wrote: »

This is just one of the phases of the No side, up till the referendum being called, it was all about frustration and filibustering of the process, ignoring citizens assembly, and both holding up the process while complaining about others being unfair at the same time.

This week will see all the tricks being played, FUD being spread as much as possible, some dramatic big stunt, then complaining about it being unfair when stunt is shown to be against the law etc.

If it is a yes vote, it just moves to the next phase, hold any legislation up for years in the Dáil, demand another vote on the "final plan", legal challenges a plenty, go after pregnant women directly, offering them "free advice", along with a bunch of outright lies, all this support gets dropped as soon as the baby pops out (or passes the 12 week timeframe).

After that the likes of youth defence attacking GPs and hospitals, while verbally abusing their patients.

Hopfully won't go as bad as the US where in a few cases murdering them and their patients in the name of God's judgement.

realitykeeper

realitykeeper wrote: »

The troll in Frozen observed: People make bad choices when they are mad ...She was right about that.

Who is angry apart from yourself?

nozzferrahhtoo

Just her wrote: »

I'll not rise to the bait of ' now concentrate for a moment' as I'd like to keep posting here

Was no bait, I merely mirrored what you said in your own post. You do not throw it at me, I will not throw it back at you. But you will not find me doing it first.

Just her wrote: »

Well your giving out that I brought up plants etc to see if that is what you were talking about in an earlier post when you were talking of how you attach value to life, I was just trying to get an idea of what you were equating the foetus / baby to when you talk of non sentience and therefore valueless. But I see you've answered me further down when you equate the foetus to a dandelion or a rock.

It is not that I "equate" these things so much as I see past them. Which is the point I am trying to get across to you piece by piece rather than in one big block. When it comes to morality and philosophy I do not even see a fetus or a rock or a plant or a human or an ape. I see vary degrees of sentience. And I see that as being the only thing doing any valuing, and being of any actual value, in our universe.

Just her wrote: »

I follow the whole sentient argument, I just don't agree with it at all, but more than that I don't think it holds water anyway when the being whose existence you are ending is going to become sentient, and you rush to end their existence within that window in which you judge them to be non sentient, and just when they are on the brink of sentience, so that you can say ' hey, they weren't sentient, so that's ok' . And completely ignore the fact that they were becoming sentient.

No one is "ignoring" anything here though, so you are making that up while presuming to admonish others falsely for "bait". You could not be more disingenuous if you tried here I suspect. I have done the exact opposite of ignore it. I have considered it quite deeply, and even addressed it directly in many of my posts. And I simply see no reason for it to be considered interesting, informative, or morally relevant. There is no onus from any philosophical to cater morally or ethically to something that is not sentient, even if it might one day become such.

Just her wrote: »

As for your AI analogy. If you pushed the on button and I then pushed the robot off a cliff, would I be done for murder? It was sentient. Just like you and I after all.

EXACTLY. Now you are getting there. I think you very much should be done for murder in such a case. There is every philosophical reason to hand to suggest you should and none to suggest not. And I fear the future of our species will be to test such cases in the real world eventually.

And if you did NOT push the on button and you pushed it off the cliff...... there would be no reason to do you for murder. Even though it could potentially have been sentient later on. There is no moral or ethical reason (other than the fact it is not your property, but mine, of course) for you not to shove it off the cliff. You are making my point quite well for me here, so build on that. Do not lose this thread.

Further thought experiment. One of the things our science is working towards is the possibility of transferring human consciousness onto machine. There is nothing in science at this time telling us we can not achieve this. We may do it some day. But imagine for a moment I could do it tomorrow. And I split your consciousness out into a computer terminal with a keyboard and screen to communicate with you.

And using life support I kept your body going. Which one of those two things, if they could keep one and destroy the other, do you feel your loved ones would take home and cherish? And why.

gmisk

realitykeeper wrote: »

The troll in Frozen observed: People make bad choices when they are mad ...She was right about that.

let it go

DarkScar

Dysonpure wrote: »

It is subjective which is worse. On balance I think abortion up to 12 weeks is a good middle ground so I'll be voting yes. Many on the yes said did their absolute best however to convince me to vote no with their nonsense arguments such as the toddler argument "my body my choice", completely missing the point that there is a another body involved with no choice. Then there are the ones who won't give a time limit continually evading the question.

Agree totally, but I'd prefer to vote that into the constitution rather than have it as legislation. Something as fundamental as "what is human life" really should be in a constitution, not changed at a whim but the government of the day surely.

freshpopcorn

It wasnt me123 wrote: »

The Sunday Show on TV3 is discussing the Referendum now

Who's on?