nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

RobertKK

The citizens assembly voted to replace or amend the 8th amendment.

50% voted to replace or amend
44% voted to repeal
Rest preferred to not state an opinion

Now deciding how it will be replaced or amended
: Let the Dail legislate on the rights of the unborn
: Amend the provision in the constitution.

Meltdown on twitter by Repealthe8th people.

Mod- This thread has descended in to petty name calling. We've tried to let this thread run without too much mod interference but now it's on our radar we will be watching. From here on the name calling stops. If you can't debate civilly we will remove your right to post.

__________________

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

The_Valeyard

Toots wrote: »

On Borg Cubes.....

I'm not an expert on abortions, but I'm pretty sure that "whisking to liquid" isn't a part of the procedure.

Think the Borg incubate, well they did in early TNG, later on they seem to assimilate everything they could get their hands on. Except for 8472.

Cupcake_Crisis

conorhal wrote: »

I do have a problem being labeled anti choice because it's not descriptive of any position. Am I anti all choices? Do I think ice-cream should by law only be available in vanilla? It's a stupid term that tries to conflate choice with abortion, which is not choice, its a specific choice I disagree with.

So it's ok for you to get bent out of shape over being misrepresentated in an argument, but not for someone who is pro choice?

conorhal

Cupcake_Crisis wrote: »

So it's ok for you to get bent out of shape over being misrepresentated in an argument, but not for someone who is pro choice?

Here's the definition of false equivalence for you, so that you better understand what you are clearly (or deliberately) failing to.

False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which two opposing arguments appear to be logically equivalent when in fact they are not. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency.

infogiver

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Neither. Mother chooses at the time.

What does that even mean in this context?
You are pro or anti capital punishment
You are pro or anti water charges
You are pro or anti property tax
I'm too lazy for all the mental gymnastics that pro abortion people have to put themselves through in order to persuade themselves that a baby is not a baby.
You must all be exhausted from it

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

conorhal wrote: »

I'm pro-life, I have no issue with being called anti-abortion though, because I am against abortion (in most cases) so it's a far summation of my position. The 'pro-choice' crowd for some reason get pretty bent out of shape if you refer to then as pro-abortion, the reason being that the prefer to couch ugly things in euphimism because they don't like to present the bald reality of their cause least it loose them sympathy. Saying you favor 'choice' must be a good thing because who doesn't like choice? It's like saying I love freedom, because who doesn't love freedom! In which case who could argue with George W bringing 'freedom' to Iraq?

conorhal wrote: »

I do have a problem being labeled anti choice because it's not descriptive of any position. Am I anti all choices? Do I think ice-cream should by law only be available in vanilla? It's a stupid term that tries to conflate choice with abortion, which is not choice, its a specific choice I disagree with.

Kind of easy to get bent out of shape when you feel the term someone's using to describe you is inaccurate, isn't it.

In relation to the availability of abortion, which is the issue at hand, you are anti choice. That's not an insult, it's a bare fact.

In relation to the same issue, I guess if it makes people happy to call me pro-abortion ('pro-abort' seems to be the preferred term though, not that they mean any insult or disrespect like :rolleyes:) then let them away. I'm more pro-abortion than anti-abortion certainly, but the crux of my position is that I am pro-choice, pro-availability etc. If there was 100% availability of abortion and 0% take up I'd be delighted, it's not like I have some abortion quota in mind, some abortion target to meet. The fewer abortions the better, but not under a prohibitive model like we have now because the amount of harm it's doing is abhorrent.

Sofiztikated

conorhal wrote: »

Here's the definition of false equivalence for you, so that you better understand what you are clearly (or deliberately) failing to.

False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which two opposing arguments appear to be logically equivalent when in fact they are not. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency.

The fact you accused her of false equivalence, when you equated the anti choice to being a choice of icecream is funny.

Cupcake_Crisis

Sofiztikated wrote: »

The fact you accused her of false equivalence, when you equated the anti choice to being a choice of icecream is funny.

Right?

But he used big words so it's ok.

infogiver

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Ask a doctor who does terminations.

Ready to link us to information on your fetus transplant technology yet?

Why can't you use the term abortion instead of termination ? A termination occurs when the train reaches its destination, when you destroy your unborn baby it's an abortion, surely.

padd b1975

Cupcake_Crisis wrote: »

However, my personal beliefs should not dictate the actions of others.

I take it then you won't be voting in any future referendums?

AtomicHorror

infogiver wrote: »

AtomicHorror wrote:

Neither. Mother chooses at the time.

What does that even mean in this context?

That the pregnant woman chooses whether she wants to proceed with the pregnancy. What other context could there be?

infogiver wrote: »

You are pro or anti capital punishment
You are pro or anti water charges
You are pro or anti property tax

All of those are things that are universally mandatory if implemented. If you can find me someone who is in favour of mandatory abortions, you may call them pro-abortion and I'll agree with you.

infogiver wrote: »

I'm too lazy for all the mental gymnastics that pro abortion people have to put themselves through in order to persuade themselves that a baby is not a baby.
You must all be exhausted from it

On this we can agree. You are intellectually lazy.

gctest50

infogiver wrote: »

Why can't you use the term abortion instead of termination ? A termination occurs when the train reaches its destination, when you destroy your unborn baby it's an abortion, surely.

Why can't you use the term fetus

Calhoun

I didn't think it was going to go the way it did, I thought it was going to be a referendum before it got seriously knocked down.

Now to see if the repeal side double down and further alienate the Irish public.

infogiver

Cupcake_Crisis wrote: »

They're pro choice.

So pro abortion then. I mean if they want abortion to be available then that means pro abortion, yeah?

AtomicHorror

infogiver wrote: »

Why can't you use the term abortion instead of termination ? A termination occurs when the train reaches its destination, when you destroy your unborn baby it's an abortion, surely.

I think the word termination sounds a bit harsher, more violent and and more final than abortion, but I guess that's in the ear of the listener. I use it because it's the word I most often hear used by healthcare professionals, but they're synonyms as long as the context is known.

gctest50

infogiver wrote: »

.................... A termination occurs when the

It's termination of a pregnancy - that's what it is

njs030

infogiver wrote: »

Why can't you use the term abortion instead of termination ? A termination occurs when the train reaches its destination, when you destroy your unborn baby it's an abortion, surely.

Why can't you accept you don't have the right to make decisions about every woman in this country and what they do with their body?
Make choices about yours. Not anyone else's.

Having choices is simply that, a choice, no one will be forced into aborting pregnancies but they also won't be forced into pregnancies.

pjohnson

infogiver wrote: »

So pro abortion then. I mean if they want abortion to be available then that means pro abortion, yeah?

Well this seems to be a problem the anti choicers have. I dont think simply allowing people the choice will automatically lead to 100% of fetus being aborted. This seems to be something that is a major fear that is instilled in them. IF abortion does become legal no one will be forced into an abortion. Its ya know a choice they have. Rather than being forced into having a baby they may not be able to raise themselves.

pjohnson

notjustsweet wrote: »

Why can't you accept you don't have the right to make decisions about every woman in this country and what they do with their body?
Make choices about yours. Not anyone else's.

Having choices is simply that, a choice, no one will be forced into aborting pregnancies but they also won't be forced into pregnancies.

Damn you to hell taking my words a few seconds before me

RobertKK

The citizens assembly is caught up in the wording of ballot 3, getting a bit messy.

infogiver

gctest50 wrote: »

Why can't you use the term fetus

Because when I was pregnant I never carried a fetus in my womb I carried a baby.
Several friends of friends are pregnant at the moment and they don't say " oh we went to the scan and the fetus was lying on its side" and they don't say " I've been awake all night with the fetus kicking my ribs". If you ever hear anyone using that expression in that context then please let me know.
I can understand when your advocating for the opportunity to kill unborn babies because your pregnancy is inconvenient that it's far more palatable to refer to a "fetus" but it's just not realistic.

pjohnson

infogiver wrote: »

I'm too lazy for all the mental gymnastics that pro abortion people have to put themselves through in order to persuade themselves that a baby is not a baby.
You must all be exhausted from it

You mean science?

Calhoun

RobertKK wrote: »

The citizens assembly is caught up in the wording of ballot 3, getting a bit messy.

What is ballot 3 ?

pjohnson

infogiver wrote: »

Because when I was pregnant I never carried a fetus in my womb I carried a baby.
Several friends of friends are pregnant at the moment and they don't say " oh we went to the scan and the fetus was lying on its side" and they don't say " I've been awake all night with the fetus kicking my ribs". If you ever hear anyone using that expression in that context then please let me know.
I can understand when your advocating for the opportunity to kill unborn babies because your pregnancy is inconvenient that it's far more palatable to refer to a "fetus" but it's just not realistic.

Well then you are wrong. You could replace the word "baby" with "Jimmy" that doesnt mean that as a rule all fetus must now be referred to as Jimmy....

conorhal

Howard Tasteless Bank wrote: »

Kind of easy to get bent out of shape when you feel the term someone's using to describe you is inaccurate, isn't it.

Well, yes, if it's inaccurate. Anti choice is not an accurate description of any position, it's an attempt to present a reductive general view of somebody, pro choice is not an accurate description of a position either, it's a euphemistic attempt to present a benign view of a very specific act.

Howard Tasteless Bank wrote: »

In relation to the availability of abortion, which is the issue at hand, you are anti choice. That's not an insult, it's a bare fact.

It's a bare fact that I'm anti-a-womans-ability-to-procure-an-abortion-in-most -cases, yes, that is a bare fact.

Howard Tasteless Bank wrote: »

In relation to the same issue, I guess if it makes people happy to call me pro-abortion ('pro-abort' seems to be the preferred term though, not that they mean any insult or disrespect like :rolleyes:) then let them away. I'm more pro-abortion than anti-abortion certainly, but the crux of my position is that I am pro-choice, pro-availability etc.

Well then it is also a bare fact, as you admit, that pro-abortion is a reasonable description of your position.

Howard Tasteless Bank wrote: »

If there was 100% availability of abortion and 0% take up I'd be delighted,

So would I, but it simply wouldn't reflect reality now would it? I'd vote to repeal the 8th tomorrow too if it resulted in no abortions happening.

Howard Tasteless Bank wrote: »

...it's not like I have some abortion quota in mind, some abortion target to meet. The fewer abortions the better, but not under a prohibitive model like we have now because the amount of harm it's doing is abhorrent.

Now that's just strawmanning, who the hell is talking about quota's for abortions? In what bizzaro world is anybody presenting an argument that repealing the 8th will result in a pregnant woman told 'sorry, but you can't continue this pregnancy because we've hit the quota for live births this month'? Is this the alt-universe to the one in which abortion is legal but nobody has one?
(Actually, just typing that hilariously dystopian parody statement I just realised how depressingly it reflects the true state of affairs in abortion liberal China.)

As for the rest, I refuse to condone abortion because of the far greater harm it perpetrates against the fetus and society in general.

Jamiekelly

If you plant a seed in the ground it has the potential to become a tree. If you take said seed out of the ground, you have not cut down a tree.

According to some on this thread you could be accused of burning down a whole forest for digging up a seed.

pjohnson

conorhal wrote: »

Well, yes, if it's inaccurate. Anti choice is not an accurate description of any position, it's an attempt to present a reductive general view of somebody, pro choice is not an accurate description of a position either, it's a euphemistic attempt to present a benign view of a very specific act.

It's a bare fact that I'm anti-a-womans-ability-to-procure-an-abortion-in-most -cases, yes, that is a bare fact.

Well then it is also a bare fact, as you admit, that pro-abortion is a reasonable description of your position.

So would I, but it simply wouldn't reflect reality now would it? I'd vote to repeal the 8th tomorrow too if it resulted in no abortions happening.

Now that's just strawmanning, who the hell is talking about quota's for abortions, is ths a world in which somebody gets pregnant and is told 'sorry, but you can't continue this pregnancy because we've hit the quota this month'?
(Actually, just typing that hilariously dystopian parody statement I just realised how depressingly it reflects the true state of affairs in abortion liberal China.)

As for the rest, I refuse to condone abortion because of the far greater harm it perpetrates against the fetus and society in general.

Hold on you started by saying that you are "anti abortion in most cases". What does that mean?

RobertKK

Complaints by two citizens at the assembly that a lot of lobbying has been going on, and that people were making out people who didn't vote a certain way were somehow hoodwinked.

infogiver

AtomicHorror wrote: »

That the pregnant woman chooses whether she wants to proceed with the pregnancy. What other context could there be?

All of those are things that are universally mandatory if implemented. If you can find me someone who is in favour of mandatory abortions, you may call them pro-abortion and I'll agree with you.

On this we can agree. You are intellectually lazy.

Isn't "chooses not to continue with the pregnancy " just a more palatable politically correct way of saying "chooses to have an abortion "?
If the baby is not a baby but a fetus, bunch of cells, parasite or whatever then why do you have to dress the terminology up like that?
Why are you so reluctant to say "chooses to have an abortion"?
I'm lazy and stupid I think.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

infogiver wrote: »

Because when I was pregnant I never carried a fetus in my womb I carried a baby.
Several friends of friends are pregnant at the moment and they don't say " oh we went to the scan and the fetus was lying on its side" and they don't say " I've been awake all night with the fetus kicking my ribs". If you ever hear anyone using that expression in that context then please let me know.
I can understand when your advocating for the opportunity to kill unborn babies because your pregnancy is inconvenient that it's far more palatable to refer to a "fetus" but it's just not realistic.

Yeah I'm starving right now. Except I'm actually hungry, I've never been starving in my life. I'm freezing! Because it's a wee bit chilly. My feet are killing me. Except they're not, they hurt.

So your actual, real, argument when you're having a discussion that does kind of hinge on scientific and logical accuracy and clear-headedness is 'my friends use this term in informal conversation so f*ck your books and your doctors!'?

It's convenient to say this is the same as this when you don't have much in the way of an argument so you need to make lowest common denominator attempts to emotionally manipulate people.

RobertKK

Calhoun wrote: »

What is ballot 3 ?

Basically give constitutional provisison to allow the Dail legislate
or
Amend the current provision in the constitution.