Abortion Discussion, Part the Fourth

robindch

Thread re-opened following review, discussion and agreement amongst forum moderators and catmods regarding the content of this thread and the activities of posters here and what needs to happen to improve the standard of discussion.

An update has been posted here which describes the changes which have been made, and the changes which will be coming down the line shortly.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=110052903&postcount=1548

ohnonotgmail

recedite wrote: »

The above is a good example of soapboxing; repeating the same opinion ad nauseum.

As for the point you were making, an amendment whose primary effect is to remove entirely the constitutional right to life of a group which formerly enjoyed it, leads to an "open season" on that group. That could be called "abortion on demand". Then suggesting ”Provision may be made by law for the regulation of termination of pregnancies...” means that the abortion may be limited at some subsequent stage, but in the intervening period there are no actual constitutional restrictions at all.
Its all a bit pedantic, and its a moot point at this stage anyway because the subsequent legislation setting the limits has been enacted.

Only if you are attempting to continue the scaremongering that took place before the vote.

Cabaal

https://www.broadsheet.ie/2019/04/30/eamonn-for-brussels/

Just because the 8th has been repealed, doesn't stop the lies



I find it fitting he uses a picture of Mother Theresa, she was a cruel bitch of a women who wanted people to suffer for their god and who also lied.

amcalester

He really should have gotten someone to proof read his leaflet, he inadvertently claims that abortion destroys breast cancer.

Surely that's a good thing, if true.

nozzferrahhtoo

Worse than that. Apparently they found higher rates of breast cancer in "Aborted women". Which seems a great trick.

eviltwin

This is the same Eamonn Murphy who ran that bogus HSE type website?

Igotadose

eviltwin wrote: »

This is the same Eamonn Murphy who ran that bogus HSE type website?

Yep, one and the same. The loony is strong in that one.

recedite

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Describing abortion as murder is not just using your own language. Murder has a well defined meaning. Abortion does not meet that definition.

Well that's a start. The next bit is where you (or the person who uses the term) cites bits of legislation or dictionary definitions or whatever, to explain why. Otherwise you (or they) could be construed as just "soapboxing".

robarmstrong

recedite wrote: »

Well that's a start. The next bit is where you (or the person who uses the term) cites bits of legislation or dictionary definitions or whatever, to explain why. Otherwise you (or they) could be construed as just "soapboxing".

Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of a human being.

For abortion to be murder, it has to be the the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

Seeing as abortion is legal in Ireland, it is not the unlawful killing of one human being by another, it is not unlawful.

Also, seeing as the unborn have had the "right to life" removed from them, it further pushes them (in my opinion) from the remit of "human being", at least in the eyes of the law in Ireland.

Next please.

recedite

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I tell you what. I can provide you with any number of definitions that show that abortion does not meet the definition of murder. Show me one from a recognised source that does the opposite and then i will engage with you. If a mod asks me to show my definitions i will be happy to do so but until then i will not engage with somebody attempting to bog discussion down in well understood terms.

That's not how you would resolve this kind of thing.
FWIW I dont believe abortion is technically murder, but I was posting this as an example in the feedback thread to show how to fix things.


Your reply is an example of why things are so fooked up.
And now look what you've done, you've got both of us thrown out of the feedback thread into this zombieland thread

I'm outa here...

robindch

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

[...] There are words used that have well understood meanings but one side continues as if there is still debate about their meaning.

Whether or not abortion amounts to "murder" is the very core of the discussion concerning abortion. One side says it's not murder, and sometimes provides some reasoning to support this opinion. The other side says it is, and sometimes provides some reasoning to support this opinion.

Forum moderators are not going to adjudicate on whether it is or not - that is for people involved in the discussion to debate.

It would certainly help the discussion move forward, instead of in circles, if pro-choice and anti-abortion posters made a genuine effort to find common ground instead of sniping at each other and using words which have no agreed meaning or context.

robarmstrong

robindch wrote: »

Whether or not abortion amounts to "murder" is the very core of the discussion concerning abortion. One side says it's not murder, and sometimes provides some reasoning to support this opinion. The other side says it is, and sometimes provides some reasoning to support this opinion.

Forum moderators are not going to adjudicate on whether it is or not - that is for people involved in the discussion to debate.

It would certainly help the discussion move forward, instead of in circles, if pro-choice and anti-abortion posters made a genuine effort to find common ground instead of sniping at each other and using words which have no agreed meaning or context.

Although it is at the very core of the discussion concerning abortion, murder is defined as the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

In countries where abortion is legal, this removes the "unlawful" aspect. It removes the unborn's right to life also, leaving their status as a human being in the eyes of the law quite vague.

It is not, however, murder. At least in the eyes of the countries (including this one) laws to reflect as such. It's simply become an emotive baton to hit people with in the debate that is generally thrown out when there can be no coherent argument to follow.

robindch

Mod:

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the meaning of murder is plain.

Since pro-choice and anti-abortion posters obviously disagree on the meaning of the word "murder", why not try to seek out an agreed definition, then see if abortion - however that is defined - meets that definition?

.

robindch

recedite wrote: »

[...] this zombieland thread [...]

The thread wasn't dead - just resting.

robarmstrong

robindch wrote: »

Since pro-abortion and anti-abortion posters obviously disagree on the meaning of the word "murder", why not try to seek out an agreed definition, then see if abortion - however that is defined - meets that definition?

To clarify, the sides are pro-choice & pro-life.

I am anti-abortion but pro-choice due to personal reasons involving my partner & any female members of my family.

Both sides "disagree" on the meaning of the word murder because one side in particular distorts it to suit their agenda. Which is fine, but does not make it true.

Again, it falls under the remit of the interpretation of a term. However because "murder" is lawfully defined and has a clear definition in the eyes of the law as the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another, removing the unborn's right to life and legalizing abortion essentially removes the unlawful killing aspect of the argument.

robindch

robarmstrong wrote: »

Again, it falls under the remit of the interpretation of a term.

Indeed. That is exactly my point. The two sides don't agree, therefore both sides continue to speak past each other.

robarmstrong wrote: »

However because "murder" is lawfully defined and has a clear definition in the eyes of the law as the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another, removing the unborn's right to life and legalizing abortion essentially removes the unlawful killing aspect of the argument.

Which would all be fine, if the pro-choice and anti-abortion sides both agreed when human life begins, and obviously they don't and neither side has demonstrated much interest in the 30,000-odd posts in this thread in coming to a common understanding.

For the avoidance of doubt, here's the anti-abortion view of when life begins (see here):

Pro Life Campaign wrote:

Do you believe that life beings at conception?

Yes

Therefore, the anti-abortion side holds that since life begins at birth, and that a pregnant woman therefore holds a full and complete human life within her, any premeditated act which terminates that pregnancy amounts to "murder" - though "murder" in a moral sense, not a legal sense.

Legally, in Ireland, abortion is not murder since - by implication, though not by definition - human life begins at birth. Anti-abortionists believe that the moral assertion that human life begins at conception outweighs the legal position which implies otherwise, hence they refer to abortion as murder. Whether you believe that's right or not comes down to whether you believe that moral considerations outweigh legal ones, or legal outweighs moral. Pro-choice appear, at least now, to believe now that legal outweighs moral, while anti-abortion, at least now, seem to believe that moral outweighs legal.

I'm not taking sides in any of this, all I'm doing is pointing out that neither side is agreeing terms of reference or definitions - hence all the fire, heat and smoke in the abortion debate as people try to bludgeon each other to death with their own preferred, but splendidly undefined and disjunctive, terms.

robindch

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Nonsense. Just pure nonsense. Murder is illegal killing. Abortion is legal now in this country so abortion cannot be murder. To suggest otherwise is just rubbish.

The post just above this one explains in precise, exacting detail why other people might disagree with you.

I suggest you take up this disagreement with people who hold anti-abortion views.

robarmstrong

robindch wrote: »

Indeed. That is exactly my point. The two sides don't agree, therefore both sides continue to speak past each other.Which would all be fine, if the pro-choice and anti-abortion sides both agreed when human life begins, and obviously they don't and neither side has demonstrated much interest in the 30,000-odd posts in this thread in coming to a common understanding.

For the avoidance of doubt, here's the anti-abortion view of when life begins:

https://prolifecampaign.ie/main/portfolio/detail/when-does-life-begin/

Therefore, since life begins at birth, and that a pregnant woman therefore holds a full and complete human life within her, any premeditated act which terminates that pregnancy amounts to murder.

Legally, in Ireland, abortion is not murder since - by implication, though not by definition - human life begins at birth. Anti-abortionists believe that the moral assertion that human life begins at conception outweighs the legal position which implies otherwise, hence they refer to abortion as murder. Whether you believe that's right or not comes down to whether you believe that moral considerations outweigh legal ones, or legal outweighs moral.

I'm not taking sides in any of this, all I'm doing is pointing out that neither side is agreeing terms of reference or definitions - hence all the fire, heat and smoke in the abortion debate as people try to bludgeon each other to death with their own preferred, but splendidly undefined and disjunctive, terms.

Robin, with respect you are still failing to get the discussion and the points mentioned, even above you manage to contradict yourself and you’re not really contributing anything in relation to the “murder” angle either.

Legality is factual, it is factual to state that abortion is not the unlawful premeditated killing of a human being. (In countries that have legalized abortion anyways!)

A moral viewpoint simply cannot outweigh a legal standpoint or fact. I’m sorry but it can’t it absolutely cannot, it is farcical to suggest otherwise. A belief does not overrule a fact, an interpretation of a term does not change the definition of a term. If you think murder is abortion you are factually incorrect to assume that. If you tell me that you feel, morally, abortion is murder, I’d be more inclined to discuss it with you as I know you are coming towards me with an opinion, a view. You are not presenting it as a fact as it is not a fact (at least not in the eyes of the law).

I asked you a question in relation to this earlier in the thread and you didn’t respond, though with the posts being moved it may have ended up in the Feedback thread.

robindch

robarmstrong wrote: »

you’re not really contributing anything in relation to the “murder” angle either.

I beg to differ. I am pointing out in exacting detail one major disagreement in the two sides of the abortion debate. There are many other disagreements.

robarmstrong wrote: »

A moral viewpoint simply cannot outweigh a legal standpoint or fact. I’m sorry but it can’t it absolutely cannot, it is farcical to suggest otherwise.

I suggest that you take up the issue with anti-abortioninsts who believe otherwise.

robarmstrong

Robin this is getting beyond a joke now. You attempted to outline a position and explain it so and I have stated why your statement does not help either side in discussion.

robindch

robarmstrong wrote: »

You attempted to outline a position and explain it so and I have stated why your statement does not help either side in discussion.

I have outlined not one position, but two positions. I have clarified why the two sides disagree. The post is not intended to "help either side", but to point out where disagreement arises.

It's up to posters taking part in this discussion to tease this disagreement out.

robarmstrong

robindch wrote: »

I have outlined not one position, but two positions. I have clarified why the two sides disagree. The post is not intended to "help either side", but to point out where disagreement arises.

It's up to posters taking part in this discussion to tease this disagreement out.

The disagreement arises because the pro-life proclaim that their moral view of the definition of what qualifies as murder is fact when it is not fact.

When abortion is legal, it removes the “unlawful premeditated killing of a human being”. That is law, that is legal definition.

A moral definition does not become factual as morals go hand-in-hand with beliefs, which are opinions and viewpoints.

I believe abortion is taking a human life as I’ve outlined in previous incarnations of abortion discussion threads, but I voted to legalize it for personal issues concerning my partner. Whilst I do believe abortion is taking a life, my opinion or my moral view does not give me the right to contradict what is written down in law. The unborn unfortunately do not have the right to life, so as it is, the act of abortion in Ireland does not qualify as murder, or killing, or any other deviation of the above.

robindch

robarmstrong wrote: »

The disagreement arises because the pro-life proclaim that their moral view of the definition of what qualifies as murder is fact when it is not fact.

If, as I have pointed out already, you believe that legal frameworks outweigh moral ones, then yes, you'll believe that's true.

If, as many (most, all?) anti-abortionists believe, moral frameworks outweigh legal ones, then you won't believe that's true.

I can't really say it more simply than that and suggest - again - that you take up the point with an anti-abortionist.

robarmstrong

I give up at this stage, utterly pointless.

Hotblack Desiato

Does fantasy equate reality, if one really really believes it does?

We're way off into Never-Never Land at this stage.

Hotblack Desiato

recedite wrote: »

As for the point you were making, an amendment whose primary effect is to remove entirely the constitutional right to life of a group which formerly enjoyed it, leads to an "open season" on that group. That could be called "abortion on demand".

Strangely enough, there was no 'abortion on demand' or 'open season on the foetus' prior to 1983, how do you explain that in the light of your above post in the feedback thread?

amcalester

robindch wrote: »

If, as I have pointed out already, you believe that legal frameworks outweigh moral ones, then yes, you'll believe that's true.

If, as many (most, all?) anti-abortionists believe, moral frameworks outweigh legal ones, then you won't believe that's true.

I can't really say it more simply than that and suggest - again - that you take up the point with an anti-abortionist.

But the legal framework does outweigh the moral one, that shouldn't even be up for discussion. We're not in Saudi Arabia, where they are one and the same, murder has a very clear definition in Irish law and abortion does not meet the criteria.

Allowing people use that phrase because they may believe it is murder is exactly what's wrong with this thread, a belief (particularly one that has been shown to be wrong) can't have the same weight of argument as a fact.

Post have been shown to be untrue (at best, dishonest at worst) and you are bending over backwards to avoid actually moderating the discussion.

Cabaal

recedite wrote: »

an amendment whose primary effect is to remove entirely the constitutional right to life of a group which formerly enjoyed it, leads to an "open season" on that group. That could be called "abortion on demand".

Despite what pro-life groups like to think the 8th amendment never actually made a fetus = to for example a 1 month old baby in law by any stretch.

If a women had an abortion she "might" have gotten some time in jail (no women ever did), it didn't matter if she pre-planned the abortion to the very last detail. Time and time again we heard the extremely well funded NO side in the 2018 referendum say they didn't want any women jailed.

So its murder, but you don't want anyone jailed??, thats a strange sort of murder.
:rolleyes:

By comparison if a women pre-planned the murder of a 1 month old baby she would very likely be tried for murder. At the very she would be arrested and charged.

Additionally, abortion pill providers were not in anyway jailed or even fined under law. These people were well known and documented and yet nobody wanted them prosecuted...including the side that wanted the 8th to remain.

During the ref Channel 4 did a documentary where they followed one such provider in Waterford, from the documentary it was easy to work out what estate and house she lived in. Yet the very active pro-life groups in Waterford never once called for her to be arrested or charged with anything.

Its evident pro-life groups and people are using the term murder in a meaningless manner and always have, its only been used as a emotive word and nothing more.
:rolleyes:

smacl

robindch wrote: »

However, the anti-abortion side disagree about when life begins, and in so doing, make the case that it is murder.

But murder is explicitly defined as unlawful premeditated killing, so abortion clearly does not meet this definition, any more than a militant vegan stating meat is murder. On the one hand you're not willing to allow a post to be referred to as bigoted yet on the other you entertain a clear misuse of an another emotive term. So women who have had an abortion may be called murderers yet we cannot refer to that assertion as bigoted?

robindch

smacl wrote: »

But murder is explicitly defined as unlawful premeditated killing, so abortion clearly does not meet this definition, any more than a militant vegan stating meat is murder.

And as above, the anti-abortion side will refer to the law of god, they will disagree about the point at which life starts, and you're back again at their own square one - that abortion is murder (in a religious context, where there is such thing as "god's law", and where life is held to begin at conception).

Again, this isn't my point of view, but it is the point of view of the anti-abortion side and that's how it's argued.

And that's why I think the use of the term "murder" in abortion debates is useless if not downright unacceptable as there is no common agreement amongst the sides taking part in the discussion as to what it is, and how it arises, and how dependent it is upon context - a point I made nine months ago:

robindch wrote: »

I would suggest that both sides could do better than to concern themselves with the use of a single emotive term "murder", since it does not make for a peaceful or worthwhile discussion.

smacl wrote: »

On the one hand you're not willing to allow a post to be referred to as bigoted yet on the other you entertain a clear misuse of an another emotive term.

Referring to another poster as "bigoted" impugns the character of the other poster, so it violates the "civil discussion" rule. It's not all that different from an anti-abortion poster calling a pro-choice poster "a murderer" - yes, it might make sense in an anti-abortion context, but it also impugns their character.

smacl wrote: »

So women who have had an abortion may be called murderers

No, they cannot be - it's not civil discourse.

smacl wrote: »

yet we cannot refer to that assertion as bigoted?

At that point, the levels of context and implication are hard to trace unambiguously, so I would imply avoid any use of the term "bigot" and related terms, as the charter suggests.