The 8th amendment referendum - part 4

Cantona's Collars

Billy86 wrote: »

I thought that was quite a delightfully unintentional snapshot of how many on the no side view women actually.

Would she not look better being pregnant?

.......

This post has been deleted.

c68zapdsm5i1ru

BoatMad wrote: »

Yes, because you have failed to grasp the essence of the debate , removing the 8th amendment simply allows the legislature to deal with the thorny issue , its does not mean that abortion one demand is available

all it does is return us to the position that was the situation here prior to the 8th amendment . A situation then where abortion on demand was illegal

But the government has said that, upon removal of the eighth, they will begin to legislate for unrestricted abortion up to twelve weeks.

Stonedpilot

Billy86 wrote: »

I thought that was quite a delightfully unintentional snapshot of how many on the no side view women actually.

Whats wrong with saying a woman is beautiful and intelligent?.

Is that not allowed anymore in your "Ministry of
Truth" politically correct sanitized culture.

Also never said I was a No voter there!.

Nettle Soup

Malaya Red Sandlot wrote: »

I think some people saw what they wanted to see. The Irish Times reckon neither side won, and I have seen discussions on line dismissing Harris as pretty woeful. I certainly wasn't impressed with him. He constantly fell back on emotive language and finger wagging.

Ah will you give up your oul sins.

Any neutral would acknowledge that Harris wiped the floor of Toibin yesterday. It's beyond doubt. He had all his facts and was polished in his approach.

I doubt anyone on the No side thought Toibin did well.

tigger123

Stonedpilot wrote: »

Shame Maria Steen not on the box doing the debates.

A highly educated beautiful well dressed woman = brings joy to the soul.

If only the No side would come out, eh?

Cantona's Collars

https://twitter.com/ReelingInThe8th/status/999240971056447488

tigger123

Stonedpilot wrote: »

Shame Maria Steen not on the box doing the debates.

A highly educated beautiful well dressed woman = brings joy to the soul.

If only the No side would come out, eh?

Water John

Whilst I will be voting Yes, I am putting that to oneside in judging the debate. Harris was excellent and easily outshone Tobin.

Zubeneschamali

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

The so-called "pro-life" movement in Ireland is all led by a handful of families, most of whom are related to each other by blood or marriage.

For anyone wondering where that fresh faced Katie Ascough came from, her parents are Tom and Jackie Ascough who run Spirit Radio: The station is a registered charity and survives on donations from businesses and listeners along with the work of volunteers. Yeah, I bet.

Brother Andrew Ascough is connected to pureinheart.ie : Pure in Heart has a mission to promote the meaning of human sexuality and the value of life, through the virtue of chastity, to young people throughout Ireland and further afield.

Dad Tom and uncle Sean have both been directors of the Iona Institute. They also run Clonmacnoise Publishing

Other names that crop up in a search for the Ascoughs are The Nurture Institute (psychosexual lecturing?), Youth 2000, Libertas (via Seans sister Deirdre Ascough Schonborn), The New Evangelisation Trust (Sean and Tom again), Human Life International, Alive! magazine, and on and on.

It is all connected.

Malaya Red Sandlot

Malaya Red Sandlot wrote: »

But many couples would happily adopt two or three children over a number of years. Also many couples at the moment don't even apply to adopt because there's so little chance of adopting at home and the process of adopting abroad is daunting and incredibly expensive.

It does seem ironic that, on the one hand we're making all kinds of efforts to enable different methods of having a baby e.g. surrogacy and on the other trying to increase the availability of abortion.

Do you think fertile women should be forced to carry offspring for infertile couples?

Just her

....... wrote: »

We cant say the exact time and day but what we CAN say is that is DEFINITELY isnt present up to week 12. And possibly not up to week 16.

Im not concerned about what may come or what will potentially develop. I am interested in what is actually the case - up to 12 weeks.

Honest question, to you and others. Is that the true basis of your argument. I.e. If it was proven that the baby had sentience from the start, would you be against abortion?

Zubeneschamali

Stonedpilot wrote: »

A highly educated beautiful well dressed woman = brings joy to the soul.

I get more of a wicked stepmother vibe.

BoatMad

Malaya Red Sandlot wrote: »

But the government has said that, upon removal of the eighth, they will begin to legislate for unrestricted abortion up to twelve weeks.

yes and legislation requires the support of the Dail , and can be changed as social mores and practical situation determine. The Gov may not even be in power and you can lobby your TDs etc

Or do you not trust the basis of laws in this country !

Cantona's Collars

https://twitter.com/ReelingInThe8th/status/999240971056447488

iguana

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I get more of a wicked stepmother vibe.

She makes me think of the tv version of Serena Joy.

Billy86

Cantona's Collars wrote: »

Would she not look better being pregnant?

You need to get on the whole female empowerment muscle gain movement that's been going on. Lift weights, take up crossfit, learn to pop a watermelon between your thighs. Then you might finally have the willpower to stop your legs from being forcibly opened during a sexual assault.

And a nice bum. That's important, how else will you ever get noticed in life?

Cupcake_Crisis

Just her wrote: »

Honest question, to you and others. Is that the true basis of your argument. I.e. If it was proven that the baby had sentience from the start, would you be against abortion?

But that’s not relevant because it’s not the case.

Nettle Soup

Is it true Maria Steen and Declan Ganley on the Tonight Show debate today?

circadian

jjmcclure wrote: »

An here come the raging feminazis who will do what ever they want just because I wont have any man tell me what to do. Grow up and look at the reality of the situation, abortion for lifestyle reasons is wrong, you can call it morality but I would also attach a little bit of scientific fact about what abortion is destroying.

This is part of it yes.

Why should anyone do what someone tells them to, against their wishes? (regardless of gender).

This sums up your position for me. It's all about control. You don't agree with abortion therefore you are more than happy to tell others what to do, even when it has absolutely no effect on your day to day life.

circadian

Nettle Soup wrote: »

Is it true Maria Steen and Declan Ganley on the Tonight Show debate today?

Please be Ganley.

iguana

Just her wrote: »

Honest question, to you and others. Is that the true basis of your argument. I.e. If it was proven that the baby had sentience from the start, would you be against abortion?

And if it was proven that the moon was made of cheese should we go eat it? An equally pointless question. It has been proven that an embryo does not have sentience. It has not developed the necessary parts of the brain. We know this so we don't have to imagine that it does. It's not Schrödinger's cat, in that it both does and doesn't have sentience. We know it doesn't, so we can decide on our stance based on the known reality.

Cantona's Collars

Sorry if people see duplicate posts,for some reason I was getting error messages when trying to post but for some reason the posts went up.

jjmcclure

circadian wrote: »

This is part of it yes.

Why should anyone do what someone tells them to, against their wishes? (regardless of gender).

This sums up your position for me. It's all about control. You don't agree with abortion therefore you are more than happy to tell others what to do, even when it has absolutely no effect on your day to day life.

I also disagree with rape, murder, theft, bullying etc. But I guess I'm not impacted by any of those so screw it, why should I care.

Sebastian Dangerfield

Just her wrote: »

Honest question, to you and others. Is that the true basis of your argument. I.e. If it was proven that the baby had sentience from the start, would you be against abortion?

I'll answer. If i found out that my wifes health was at risk as a result of carrying a foetus, I would try to convince her and others to end the pregnancy as soon as possible, sentient or not. Its not even a grey area in my mind.

What Im also sure of is that she would risk her own life to try to see the pregnancy through. Yet shes a staunch yes supporter, because she believes in choice

iguana

Cantona's Collars wrote: »

Sorry if people see duplicate posts,for some reason I was getting error messages when trying to post but for some reason the posts went up.

Boards went funny for about 17 minutes with no new posts showing up then they all appeared at once.

nozzferrahhtoo

Just her wrote: »

Honest question, to you and others. Is that the true basis of your argument. I.e. If it was proven that the baby had sentience from the start, would you be against abortion?

I have the courage of my convictions yes, given that is essentially what you are asking here.

I believe the moment there is cause to suspect a human biological entity is an instance of human sentience, then it should be afforded all the rights and implications of that status. So I would be entirely against choice based abortion in the face of such data.

The courage of my convictions goes in the other direction too. If it could actually be shown that a new born baby was in no way at all an instance of human sentience at any level, I would similarly have no moral or ethical concerns for it.

The reality, rather than the whataboutery, lies in between those two extremes at this time. But thankfully not at all near where the near totality of choice based abortion actually occurs.

HandsomeBob

Letting Simon Harris go it alone against Peadar was quite calculating. He did well but still, letting the Minister for Health of a government under pressure from a untrusting public debate on his own was slyly done.

BoatMad

Originally Posted by jjmcclure View Post
An here come the raging feminazis who will do what ever they want just because I wont have any man tell me what to do. Grow up and look at the reality of the situation, abortion for lifestyle reasons is wrong, you can call it morality but I would also attach a little bit of scientific fact about what abortion is destroying.

Im not in favour of abortion on demand, and neather is my wife, yet both of us are voting Yes, What we recognise is its a very complex issue, but we accept that very few women treat abortion as trivial . Hence in my case , I am happy to let the legislature set the limits and happy that such limits may be changed over time as social mores and practicalities determine . What I am not happy is the current situation where we avoid the issue and in effect have a blanket restriction in all cases.

BoatMad

The courage of my convictions goes in the other direction too. If it could actually be shown that a new born baby was in no way at all an instance of human sentience at any level, I would similarly have no moral or ethical concerns for it.

err, of course a new born baby is sentient !

to suggest that at one or two days after conception it is is ridiculous