Repeal the 8th Bandwagoning

TheDoc · 16-03-2017 10:14am

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No?

I would. Might be looking to "have a few words" with yerman, too.

your talking about a specific situation, I'm just conveying there is many more then one specific scenarios.

So yeah there would be some instances where I'd be on your line of thinking, but not all

Zubeneschamali · 16-03-2017 10:17am

Feisar wrote: »

At what point does an embryo become a person? I'm an atheist so I don't believe is souls or crap like that.

However there must be a point when autonomy over ones body must give way to the killing of another?

Legally, at birth, even here in Ireland right now.

Before birth, there is no one point, it is a continuous process from a single celled being with less independent existence than an amoeba to the person at birth.

Any practical abortion law will have to draw a line. Our current law is impossibly vague: nowhere does it define what exactly an "unborn" is. The only court which has ruled said that fertilized eggs used in IVF are not unborn, and that someone should pass some feckin legislation making it clear. The Dáil has steadfastly ignored this ruling.

Zubeneschamali · 16-03-2017 10:23am

TheDoc wrote: »

So yeah there would be some instances where I'd be on your line of thinking, but not all

So we must both back repealing the 8th.

Zubeneschamali · 16-03-2017 10:33am

Wibbs wrote: »

That tells me all I need to know about what worldview you're coming from.

Not sure what this remark is supposed to mean. You can't possibly have missed the tone police in the SSM referendum: "Run away from Panti! Don't blame the church! You'll alienate ordinary people with all the in-your-face gayness! Tone it down, no leather chaps!"

And they are out in force this time too: Don't be so angry! Don't be so casual! Don't be so flippant! Don't be so serious! Don't blame the church! Don't talk science, the words are too big! Don't talk down to people! Don't point out lies! Don't call people on stupid nonsense! Your tone will cause ordinary people to keep the 8th!

And most of them are concern trolling - they are people who support the 8th lecturing the Repeal side on how best to run the Repeal campaign. Thanks for the advice lads, but no.

nozzferrahhtoo · 16-03-2017 11:26am

Woodhenge wrote: »

I think that is a bit of a generalisation that would not reflect many people's intuitive and emotional reaction to abortion.

And yet somehow every conversation I have with people on the topic of abortion comes inevitably crashing into it. I am happy to admit that my summary of the difference between the two camps comes solely from my own experience directly, and vicariously while watching other people debate abortion............. but the reality that it essentially comes crashing into that divide is pretty much INVARIABLE in my experience. It essentially always comes down to pro-choice people pointing at what the fetus is NOW, and the anti-choice side appealing to what the fetus potentially may be in the future.

It might not reflect peoples intuition or emotional reactions to the debate, but it certainly appears to reflect what they operating on in reality while they speak..... whether they realize it or not at the time.

Woodhenge wrote: »

Dead bodies have neither sentience nor functioning organs, but people would be repulsed by a country where people grind up deceased relatives for compost in the garden, cut their hair off to make dusters, sell their organs on eBay etc.

And why ARE they repulsed by such things? When you dig into it you find that it is unlikely they are showing any real moral or ethical concern for the corpse or the departed consciousness within it........ but for the people alive TODAY who would be affected by such a reality.

When we treat a corpse well, dress it up, honor it, hold ceremonies for it and so forth........... we might posture that as being for the deceased, but in reality I suspect we are doing it solely for the still living.

nozzferrahhtoo · 16-03-2017 11:26am

thee glitz wrote: »

Against my better judgement, I'm asking have you any evidence for either of these claims?

Mostly just observation of the over laps from groups I have observed. When you go looking, in the US and so on for example, for what groups actively campaign against things like sex education in schools....... and what groups actively campaign against abortion........ they quite often overlap.

In the US for example "Sex education in the United States is taught in two main forms: comprehensive sex education and abstinence-only. Comprehensive sex education covers abstinence as a choice option, but also informs adolescents about human sexuality, age of consent and the availability of contraception and techniques to avoid contraction of sexually transmitted diseases. Abstinence-only sex education emphasizes abstinence from sexual activity prior to marriage and rejects methods such as contraception."

When you look at WHO campaigns for this "abstience only education" you find it is a very Conservative/Republican idea and anti abortion think tanks, while in 2010 the democrats under Obama did away with federal funding for such programs. And this certainly correlates with the Republican/Democratic divide on the topic of abortion too.

While such programs were being torpedoed, people like Henry Waxman noted that the programs deny teenagers a lot of important education and facts on sex and sexuality.

Many religions and churches, including the catholic church, are also known to take stances against BOTH abortion AND things that would prevent abortion being needed like Condoms. This is no shock revelation I am offering here.

So yes there is some despair to be felt when one looks around the world, not just our own country, and notes the correlation between being against abortion, and being against things that would reduce the instances of people seeking them.

As Dr Gill Boddy-Greer noted when studying Abortion in countries like the Netherlands "The real success story of the report is the Netherlands which has not only one of the lowest teenage birth rates in Europe, but also one of the lowest teenage abortion rates in the developed world. Studies conclude that it is their open attitudes towards sexuality, contraception and sexuality education along with the inclusiveness of their society that is the key to their success."

"The report says this has paved the way for sexual relationships to be discussed at an early age before barriers of embarrassment can be raised. The Dutch have gone on to reduce teenage births by 72 percent in 30 years."

Another interesting study you might enjoy is "Attitudes Toward and Knowledge of Abortion" and "producing changes in attitudes to abortion" and also "The relationship between abortion attitudes and abortion knowledge among college students"

Lets even look just over the water into the UK. Who is usually against abortion in the UK? And guess who votes against sexual education in the schools? Guess who writes articles on being against it?

Now of course I am not saying that such divides are complete, there are of course large deviations from the narrative I am building here. But overall that there is enough of it going on that people can be moved to despair that the people they are constantly coming up against fighting abortion, are the same people they come up against while fighting for initiatives to reduce the instances of abortion........ is not merely being pulled out of their anal orifices.

And it is a frustrating divide to have because, as I keep saying, more often than not people want less abortions to be happening, whether they are pro or anti choice on abortion itself. And we should be meeting ON that common ground, not fighting across it. Because common ground is precious at the best of times, let alone on issues as divisive and emotive as abortion.

......... wrote: »

CAPS LOCK is his EVIDENCE. That and the big book of 1001 stereotypes and a thump PROOF keyboard his Mammy BOUGHT him for Christmas.

In your head maybe. The response I actually offered the user sorta belies the pure fantasy behind your snide dismissals however. Bully for you I guess. But what can we expect from someone who can offer a reply no more substantive than to comment on how people format their posts?

nozzferrahhtoo · 16-03-2017 11:26am

jameorahiely wrote: »

A WOMAN doing everuthing possible to make sure she doesn't get pregnant is relying on the MAN to wear and use a condom properly There isn't a facepalm big enough for that one

If you say so. I certainly didn't.

The correct use of condoms should be a process engaged in by BOTH parties, not one or the other.

The point I was making, which you clearly want to bypass, is that someone saying abortion should be afforded to people who have made "every effort not to get pregnant" is not......... when confronted with a woman seeking an abortion.......... going to be able to establish whether condoms were used AT ALL, let alone properly. So how is one to establish that "every effort" was made?

jameorahiely wrote: »

What percentage of failed abortions woukd people be willing to accept.

What ARE you talking about? In the medical world we do not "accept" failures in any procedure. We fight to reduce them to the ideal of zero all the time. Failures happen, that is the reality, but we do not accept that..... we fight it.....

But your "comment" is too general? What failed exactly? Why? How? When in the process? There is a HOST of details you simply gloss over not just slightly, but entirely, when you spew out apparent "facts" of this sort.

Feisar wrote: »

Can someone answer me this question? At what point does an embryo become a person?

We are not sure. The analogy I often use is to imagine Red and Orange on a rainbow. We can all pretty much agree what red is, and what orange is. But try and get anyone to agree when the transition point actually occurs and you will get quite a diversity of answers.

I think consciousness and personhood are similar to that. We can all look at things in our world and say "Yes, this is a sentient entity" or "No that is not" but there is always a grey point in between where we have to admit some level of ignorance or uncertainty.

THANKFULLY however the VAST.... near TOTAL in fact....... majority of abortions being sought purely by choice and not medical reasons....... happen LONG before any such grey area arises in the fetal development process. ARound 24 weeks we start to get seriously iffy on our certainty. But the abortions are mostly happening before week 12, and pretty much all of them before week 16. So it is not REALLY a concern.

Feisar wrote: »

However there must be a point when autonomy over ones body must give way to the killing of another?

I wholly agree.

Lady Spangles · 16-03-2017 11:47am

Wibbs wrote: »

That tells me all I need to know about what worldview you're coming from.

If you label people on the basis of a few words then that tells me this is more your problem than mine.

LuckyLloyd · 16-03-2017 11:56am

What the **** is "tone policing"?

infogiver · 16-03-2017 12:02pm

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

What the **** is "tone policing"?

It comes from the same place as "triggered" "safe place" "check your privilege " "patriarchy " etc

Zubeneschamali · 16-03-2017 12:02pm

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

What the **** is "tone policing"?

Don't say ****! Your language will turn people off, and they'll join the other side!

nozzferrahhtoo · 16-03-2017 12:05pm

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

What the **** is "tone policing"?

Not sure. But I presume it is where someone does not respond to WHAT a person says, but instead deflects by responding to HOW, or in what tone, they perceive it to have been said in. Deflationary tactics of this form are common enough.

As an example observe how the user "..........." replies to little I write, but instead makes some snide side comment to someone else about how I use capitals, rather than bold or underline, to emphasize particular words or phrases in my sentences.

In general dodging what a person says and instead attacking HOW they said it is a poor practice somewhere around the "ad hominem" category of maneuvers.

LuckyLloyd · 16-03-2017 12:30pm

I'm familiar with grammar Nazism or ad hominem attacks, and how they represent poor debating practice. But again, what is "tone policing"?

Woodhenge · 16-03-2017 12:41pm

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

I'm familiar with grammar Nazism or ad hominem attacks, and how they represent poor debating practice. But again, what is "tone policing"?

It describes when liberal or progressives agree with the argument but disrespect the doctrine of the 'Infallibility of Liberal Activism, Tactics and Argument'.

retro:electro · 16-03-2017 12:43pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Not sure. But I presume it is where someone does not respond to WHAT a person says, but instead deflects by responding to HOW, or in what tone, they perceive it to have been said in. Deflationary tactics of this form are common enough.

As an example observe how the user "..........." replies to little I write, but instead makes some snide side comment to someone else about how I use capitals, rather than bold or underline, to emphasize particular words or phrases in my sentences.

In general dodging what a person says and instead attacking HOW they said it is a poor practice somewhere around the "ad hominem" category of maneuvers.

Oh please. Another makey uppy term which enables people to cry oppression and claim their being silenced. I actually did respond to what she said, and told her to have some cop on for herself. So now you poor lovies can't even be told to take it down a notch and have some sensitivity for what is a highly emotional topic? The irony when the ones who are "trying to avoid being overly emotionally charged", end up being the ones in hysterics pointing fingers claiming they're being silenced. And you're saying I'm deflecting? I'm not the one crying "I'm being tone policed" as a means of avoiding and deflecting any kind of response.
How do you people navigate day to day life

nozzferrahhtoo · 16-03-2017 12:52pm

anna080 wrote: »

Oh please. Another makey uppy term which enables people to cry oppression and claim their being silenced. I actually did respond to what she said

No thanks, I simply have no interest in getting directly involved in your tiff with her. I was answering IN GENERAL a request about what the term likely means IN GENERAL. Not specific to you, and it is not a quarrel I have any intention of getting involved in at any level. If you have a problem with her, take it up WITH her. Not me.

anna080 wrote: »

So now you poor lovies

Absolutely no idea why you are including me in this at all.

anna080 wrote: »

end up being the ones in hysterics pointing fingers claiming they're being silenced.

Not a claim I am making, again you would be better off taking this up with people who are claiming it.

anna080 wrote: »

And you're saying I'm deflecting?

I did? Where? Quote me. Cite me. Show me. I am agog.

anna080 wrote: »

How do you people navigate day to day life

Firstly by remembering who said what, and not attacking people for saying or doing things they actually did not. I would heartily recommend it to you as a good starting point to make.

retro:electro · 16-03-2017 1:04pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

No thanks, I simply have no interest in getting directly involved in your tiff with her. I was answering IN GENERAL a request about what the term likely means IN GENERAL. Not specific to you, and it is not a quarrel I have any intention of getting involved in at any level. If you have a problem with her, take it up WITH her. Not me.

Absolutely no idea why you are including me in this at all.

Not a claim I am making, again you would be better off taking this up with people who are claiming it.

I did? Where? Quote me. Cite me. Show me. I am agog.

Firstly by remembering who said what, and not attacking people for saying or doing things they actually did not. I would heartily recommend it to you as a good starting point to make.

I was meant to quote the few posts above you as well. My post wasn't solely directed at you.

nozzferrahhtoo · 16-03-2017 1:06pm

Or, it seems from most of it, at all for that matter.

But fair enough. Let's return to normal programming

jameorahiely · 16-03-2017 2:48pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

If you say so. I certainly didn't.

The correct use of condoms should be a process engaged in by BOTH parties, not one or the other.

The point I was making, which you clearly want to bypass, is that someone saying abortion should be afforded to people who have made "every effort not to get pregnant" is not......... when confronted with a woman seeking an abortion.......... going to be able to establish whether condoms were used AT ALL, let alone properly. So how is one to establish that "every effort" was made?

What ARE you talking about? In the medical world we do not "accept" failures in any procedure. We fight to reduce them to the ideal of zero all the time. Failures happen, that is the reality, but we do not accept that..... we fight it.....

But your "comment" is too general? What failed exactly? Why? How? When in the process? There is a HOST of details you simply gloss over not just slightly, but entirely, when you spew out apparent "facts" of this sort.

We are not sure. The analogy I often use is to imagine Red and Orange on a rainbow. We can all pretty much agree what red is, and what orange is. But try and get anyone to agree when the transition point actually occurs and you will get quite a diversity of answers.

I think consciousness and personhood are similar to that. We can all look at things in our world and say "Yes, this is a sentient entity" or "No that is not" but there is always a grey point in between where we have to admit some level of ignorance or uncertainty.

THANKFULLY however the VAST.... near TOTAL in fact....... majority of abortions being sought purely by choice and not medical reasons....... happen LONG before any such grey area arises in the fetal development process. ARound 24 weeks we start to get seriously iffy on our certainty. But the abortions are mostly happening before week 12, and pretty much all of them before week 16. So it is not REALLY a concern.

I wholly agree.

So her body, her choice. But condoms worn by the MALE is doing everythi g possible to not get pregnant. As I said there isn't a facepalm big enough for that one.

Have you ever heard of tolerances and acceptable limits in measurements. If no failures were acceptable, many abortion cli. Ics would have neen shut by now, especially the one with the 64 failed abortions. But no, it's still open and trading.

What's a failed abortion you ask? It's one where a woman is still pregnant after the abortion proceedure.

I linked the report several times already. E eryone who is actually interested in the facts woukd have read it by now?

Lady Spangles · 16-03-2017 3:08pm

anna080 wrote: »

Oh please. Another makey uppy term which enables people to cry oppression and claim their being silenced. I actually did respond to what she said, and told her to have some cop on for herself. So now you poor lovies can't even be told to take it down a notch and have some sensitivity for what is a highly emotional topic?

So, now you're berating us as "poor lovies" even though you also accused me of having no empathy? I can't have no empathy and be over emotional and sensitive. That's not now "no empathy" works.

And it's really weird. On the one hand you're berating me for not showing any empathy, but you're being fabulously rude and aggressive about it. It's like accusing someone of bullying while trying to flush their head down a toilet.

nozzferrahhtoo · 16-03-2017 3:19pm

jameorahiely wrote: »

So her body, her choice. But condoms worn by the MALE is doing everythi g possible to not get pregnant. As I said there isn't a facepalm big enough for that one.

I can see why you are face palming given you keep spouting things I have not EVER said and then acting like they were ridiculous ideas. I never said "condoms worn by the MALE is doing everythi g possible to not get pregnant" I said that if someone having sex is doing everything possible to not get pregnant then that would INCLUDE condoms.

And someone who is evaluating whether someone has done "everything possible" has no way of verifying whether condoms were used correctly, or even AT ALL.

Why is it, do you think, that the best response you can come up to therefore to my points is to mock statements that are VERY different to the ones I actually made?

jameorahiely wrote: »

Have you ever heard of tolerances and acceptable limits in measurements. If no failures were acceptable, many abortion cli. Ics would have neen shut by now, especially the one with the 64 failed abortions. But no, it's still open and trading.

That they happen does not mean they are accepted. We do everything we can do minimize them. And abortion is not the only area in which this is so. Failures happen in dentistry. In cosmetic surgery. In removals of appendix. If we shut down clinics offering procedures, just because sometimes the procedures fail or complicate, we would not have any clinics left at all. For anything.

jameorahiely wrote: »

What's a failed abortion you ask? It's one where a woman is still pregnant after the abortion proceedure.

In fairness (though you do not do fairness, in fairness) that was a mere FRACTION of what I asked. But why is that the definition of a failed abortion? There have been rare cases where a woman died due to an abortion. That sounds like a "failure" to me too. Is this YOUR definition of "failure" or the industry standard one. If the latter, have you any citations?

But as I said I asked much more than that. You dodged the rest. As usual.

jameorahiely wrote: »

I linked the report several times already. E eryone who is actually interested in the facts woukd have read it by now?

Ah same dodge on the other thread where I ask you a question and you ignore it by hiding behind the "Oh the answer is there somewhere already" canard. Nice. Though on that thread you also said you had invested enough attention in me, yet here you are replying to me again. One wonders if ANYTHING you say is true sometimes.

jameorahiely · 16-03-2017 3:21pm

Lady Spangles wrote: »

So, now you're berating us as "poor lovies" even though you also accused me of having no empathy? I can't have no empathy and be over emotional and sensitive. That's not now "no empathy" works.

And it's really weird. On the one hand you're berating me for not showing any empathy, but you're being fabulously rude and aggressive about it. It's like accusing someone of bullying while trying to flush their head down a toilet.

The only peiple that should be flushed down the toilet are the aborted babies

retro:electro · 16-03-2017 3:25pm

Lady Spangles wrote: »

So, now you're berating us as "poor lovies" even though you also accused me of having no empathy? I can't have no empathy and be over emotional and sensitive. That's not now "no empathy" works.

And it's really weird. On the one hand you're berating me for not showing any empathy, but you're being fabulously rude and aggressive about it. It's like accusing someone of bullying while trying to flush their head down a toilet.

Eh no. I'm pointing out the hilarious hypocrisy with which you stated "I'm trying to avoid being overly emotionally charged", but at the same time are rooting in your bag of tricks to try and find a term which best suits how oppressed you're feeling right now. "Tone policing", is your term for today.
And yes, as someone who is meant to be supportive of women who have gone through abortion, you lack empathy and are trivial of difficult decisions in order to force your point across and "win". Your posts are testament to that.

jameorahiely · 16-03-2017 3:32pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I can see why you are face palming given you keep spouting things I have not EVER said and then acting like they were ridiculous ideas. I never said "condoms worn by the MALE is doing everythi g possible to not get pregnant" I said that if someone having sex is doing everything possible to not get pregnant then that would INCLUDE condoms.

And someone who is evaluating whether someone has done "everything possible" has no way of verifying whether condoms were used correctly, or even AT ALL.

Why is it, do you think, that the best response you can come up to therefore to my points is to mock statements that are VERY different to the ones I actually made?

That they happen does not mean they are accepted. We do everything we can do minimize them. And abortion is not the only area in which this is so. Failures happen in dentistry. In cosmetic surgery. In removals of appendix. If we shut down clinics offering procedures, just because sometimes the procedures fail or complicate, we would not have any clinics left at all. For anything.

In fairness (though you do not do fairness, in fairness) that was a mere FRACTION of what I asked. But why is that the definition of a failed abortion? There have been rare cases where a woman died due to an abortion. That sounds like a "failure" to me too. Is this YOUR definition of "failure" or the industry standard one. If the latter, have you any citations?

But as I said I asked much more than that. You dodged the rest. As usual.

Ah same dodge on the other thread where I ask you a question and you ignore it by hiding behind the "Oh the answer is there somewhere already" canard. Nice. Though on that thread you also said you had invested enough attention in me, yet here you are replying to me again. One wonders if ANYTHING you say is true sometimes.

Did you mean female condoms then?

Originally Posted by nozzferrahhtoo View Post
No. They really couldn't. There is no criteria you could construct to establish that a person has done "everything possible to make sure you don't become pregnant". How would you establish that a pregnant women sitting across the table from you used condoms 100% of the time she had sex for example? There is simply no way, short of inventing time traveling and making uninvite

nozzferrahhtoo · 16-03-2017 3:41pm

jameorahiely wrote: »

The only peiple that should be flushed down the toilet are the aborted babies

I can just be thankful that you are not in control of ethical procedures related to the disposal of medical waste.

jameorahiely wrote: »

Did you mean female condoms then?

Nope.

Allow me to explain this again in the smallest words and sentences I can muster.

User suggested people making every effort not to get pregnant, but do, should be allowed abortions.
I said that would be unworkable.
I explained this is because there is no way to establish the criteria.
I then used condoms as one SINGLE example of this. Just to highlight the point.
There is no way to evaluate whether any given abortion applicant has had them used correctly, or even AT ALL.
You are now focusing solely on that example, having been triggered by it.
You are not addressing the point as a whole, just the example for it.

If you can point to which of those 7 points is the one that is not clear to you, I can break it down further.

Cupcake_Crisis · 16-03-2017 3:43pm

Lady Spangles wrote: »

So, now you're berating us as "poor lovies" even though you also accused me of having no empathy? I can't have no empathy and be over emotional and sensitive. That's not now "no empathy" works.

And it's really weird. On the one hand you're berating me for not showing any empathy, but you're being fabulously rude and aggressive about it. It's like accusing someone of bullying while trying to flush their head down a toilet.

This is a prime example of what's wrong with the pro choice side atm, you're literally arguing with people WHO AGREE WITH YOU because they simply don't like how you're trivialising it.

Lady Spangles · 16-03-2017 3:45pm

anna080 wrote: »

Eh no. I'm pointing out the hilarious hypocrisy with which you stated "I'm trying to avoid being overly emotionally charged", but at the same time are rooting in your bag of tricks to try and find a term which best suits how oppressed you're feeling right now. "Tone policing", is your term for today.
And yes, as someone who is meant to be supportive of women who have gone through abortion, you lack empathy and are trivial of difficult decisions in order to force your point across and "win". Your posts are testament to that.

I'm talking about the actual procedure, though. If I was speaking to a woman who had gone through the procedure then my manner would be entirely different. I would have thought that that goes without saying.

But seeing as you're determined to find fault with everything I say now, I'm just leaving this here.

Lady Spangles · 16-03-2017 3:46pm

Cupcake_Crisis wrote: »

This is a prime example of what's wrong with the pro choice side atm, you're literally arguing with people WHO AGREE WITH YOU because they simply don't like how you're trivialising it.

I'm not arguing with someone who agrees with me. I'm arguing with someone because they're being rude to me and accusing me of having no empathy.

retro:electro · 16-03-2017 3:48pm

Lady Spangles wrote: »

I'm talking about the actual procedure, though. If I was speaking to a woman who had gone through the procedure then my manner would be entirely different. I would have thought that that goes without saying.

But seeing as you're determined to find fault with everything I say now, I'm just leaving this here.

So what you're saying is, when talking to women who have had abortions, you'd police your tone? Why?

nozzferrahhtoo · 16-03-2017 3:50pm

Cupcake_Crisis wrote: »

This is a prime example of what's wrong with the pro choice side atm, you're literally arguing with people WHO AGREE WITH YOU because they simply don't like how you're trivialising it.

Abortion is a funny issue in that there is more infighting on both sides than I am used to seeing in other conversations.

Observe above for example, I am pro-choice and I am arguing AGAINST one argument FOR being pro-choice that someone offered. Yet despite the fact I am arguing AGAINST a pro-choice argument jameorahiely...... one of the forums more shrill and loud anti-abortion posters......... is triggered by it and going mad over it.

It is a mad and emotive topic........ a lot of sensibilities appear to break down on the people who get most emotional about it. All we can do really is stay entirely calm and emotionless ourselves in the face of it, and hope to lead by example I guess.

Repeal the 8th Bandwagoning

Comments