Did anybody here attend the Rally For Life/repeal the 8th marches in Dublin?

keano_afc wrote: »

So completely decriminalising abortions wont lead to more late terminations.

Right so.

there is nothing to suggest it does. the article you linked to even makes that point.

Removing abortion from the criminal law would not change this. No woman turns up at 30 weeks pregnant requesting abortion because she's a bit weary of it all - and no doctor would perform an abortion on that basis. To suggest otherwise is absurd and offensive to both women, and those who care for them. It is worth recognising that before 1990, Scotland did not have an upper time limit, yet this made no difference to the negligible number of later abortions.

keano_afc wrote: »

BPAS are vocal about ending restrictions on abortion:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/life/the-9-month-abortion-is-a-myth-british-women-must-be-allowed-to/

If they had their way, the likes of Sarah Catt and Natalie Towers would face no recrimination for killing their child.

Natalie Towers case : the cause of death was oxygen starvation

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

don't know why I am bothering with someone who lies on threads

You have not once EVER shown me to have lied anywhere. You just throw out accusations and never once back any up. Sling enough mud and I guess you hope some will stick. So far none has.

So you decide to respond to my CIVIL post on this thread with a starting multi paragraph personal tirade of insulting falsehoods, while comically moaning that *I* fill my posts with "longwinded irrelevant nonsense".

Comedy gold sure, but I shall simply delete your invective from your post and reply to the rest where you managed to be on topic, and not pointlessly personal and haughty.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Evidently not. Did you read the OP and did you see the photo taken

I was not referring to any one photo. I was referring to the GENERAL claim about dismissing views. And I am pointing out it is not possible to dismiss views that are not actually there or being presented.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

you are willing to defend almost anything prochoicers do. Not that that hasn't been quite clear from other threads of course.

Except it is not clear at all as you have simply made that up and it is DEMONSTRABLY false given I HAVE very often attacked pro-choice arguments.

On NUMEROUS threads for example I have explained why I think the pro-choice argument around "rape" is a poor argument that should never be used.

And similarly I also shoot down the arguments based on "viability" too which many pro-choice people use.

And comically for your lie about me here, in THE VERY POST you are replying to even I attacked the pro-choice people who have no term limits on the availability.

But do not let reality get in the way of you making a straw model of me!

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

So, because you took an afternoon out

You do know what an "example" is right? I at NO point even remotely indicated that this was my ONLY attempt or my only interaction with their views. So once again you misrepresent me while moaning that I keep pointing out you misrepresent me. If the shoe fits and all that.

No I have engaged in multiple forums (on and off line) over multiple years with the anti choice crowd and the EXAMPLE I gave is representative of the experiences I have had, not the totality of them.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Prochoicers aren't immune from being incoherent you know

Take that up with someone who claimed they are. Since I have not, it is unclear why you take it up with me. More filler I guess.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Says the chap who is obsessed with a ridiculous sentience argument to a laughable degree...

Here again is your usual MO of flinging a label without actually making it stick. It is so easy to call something "ridiculous" and then simply run away. It is a much harder task to actually show how and why it IS "ridiculous".

You have failed to even make that ATTEMPT, let alone actually achieve it. Which speaks volumes about how weak your position and rhetoric is here.

There is nothing ridiculous about it. Quite the opposite, as it is a line of thought that is cognizant of exactly what rights are, where they come from, what we assign them to, and on what basis.

Simply screaming "ridiculous" and then retreating is not going to rebut the plethora of arguments and points I have made supporting that line of reasoning.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

You're the lad who patronizingly tells us all that it's understandable if we get emotional about fetuses given that they are "baby shaped" and all.

That you CHOOSE to feel (or at least act) patronized or insulted by the statement of a mere biological/neurological fact is your problem, and is certainly not mine.

But a fact it is. In the subject of artificial intelligence for example there is a concept called "The Uncanny Valley" which you would do well to inform yourself about, as many of its attributes are relevant here too.

The simple fact is however that we are biologically conditioned to react in a certain way to our young. So powerfully are we thus conditioned in fact that this attribute is "triggered" in us by the young of OTHER species....... and not just in mammals but punctuated across the animal kingdom.

So it is not a surprising fact that being triggered in this way leads people to allow emotion to overwhelm reason on an already emotive topic. That is not an insult, or a patronizing statement, but a mere biological fact that it behooves us to be aware of, and to mediate for as best we can.

Screaming "nonsense" when you wish to play the victim card and pretend to be insulted or offended or patronized is in no way going to make any of these facts go away.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

No, that's YOU that thinks playing music to fetuses made their tongues move as it's you that claimed the movement was autonomic, remember.

I remember the conversations very clearly indeed so I require no reminders of them, let alone misleading ones. The fact was a study was presented that showed that the mouth and tongue move when music is played intra-vaginally. And despite several attempts to ascertain the relevance of this fact, no relevance was offered.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

But then you do claim that ALL fetal movement you are presented with is autonomic (no surprise there of course.)

Yea and it is no surprise either that I say 2+2=4. Because it actually is 4. Why would anyone be surprised by me presenting facts as.... wait for it..... facts.

Unless there is any evidence (and there is not) that a consciousness is in play then what ELSE would such movement be?

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

You even accused me of making up a quote from one of the researchers and when I linked you to it, you came back and posted a fcuking thesis attempting to excuse the fact that you had incorrectly accused me of lying

Except that is not what happened at all. What happened was that the quote was massively misrepresented in both it's content and meaning by you.

The quote attempted a DESCRIPTIVE model of what the movements LOOK like and you read more into that than was actually there. The type of movements LOOK LIKE the kind of movements made by a person trying to speak.

You trotted this out as if it was somehow showing the fetus IS trying to speak. Which is NOT what the researcher intended AT ALL. But the fact that you were wrong was irrelevant to you. Still not to late to apologize.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Just because you dismiss this as autonomic movement doesn't make it so.

Or, more accurately, just because you want it to be something more than autonomic does not make it so. Until you present something, anything at all, other than your own personal emotional reaction to the oral movements to suggest it is anything other than autonomic..... then I am perfectly warranted in sticking by the suggestion that that is all it is given the lack of ANY other suggestion a consciousness or sentience is in play.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

In any event, as I have pointed out to you many times, even if someone doesn't have scientific research to back up their abortion views, that doesn't make their views inherently incoherent.

Nor did I suggest it does. One then has to look at what ELSE they are presenting too, and consider the whole package. The lack of scientific facts backing up their views tends, however, to be only one facet of the incoherent and inaccurate and misleading nonsense that they present. And THAT is a problem.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

As said: science once couldn't prove that babies up until two and three years old could feel pain.

The thread is not about babies, it is about abortion. And in fact a lot of the people who claim the fetus does feel pain do so at times when they do not in fact feel anything at all. And their basis for thinking that it does feel pain is, you guessed it, once again appealing to and over reacting to autonomic responses. Responses that even an AMEOBA has, let alone a complex multiceullar structure like a 12 week old fetus.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

.......and no doubt one day when it's in incontrovertible that

I do not, and never will, apologize for.... or "make excuses" for.... acting on the information and evidence I had at a given time. If the evidence you IMAGINE here ever comes to pass, I will assimilate it, change my position, and move on. I will feel no retrospective guilt for making what I believed to be the right call at a previous time. Nor.... I hasten to add...... should I.

But I will stick to evidence we DO have thanks, and not follow you down a rabbit hole of whatiffery navel gazing of what evidence you imagine us having in the future. I am not the one with a position so indefensible that my only recourse is to imagine convenient evidence that would support it. I have plenty of ACTUAL evidence to go on.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Again, this shows what you're about.... referring to fetal movement (at 12 to 20 weeks ) that is observed each and everyday on ultrasounds as "silent fish impressions".... all of it indeed..... and yet you claim that your opinions are science based.

I think at this point it is clear you have become so worked up emotionally writing this post that you have stopped even reading mine that closely I was not referring AT ALL to the fetus movements as "silent fish impression". I was referring to the silence of anti choice advocates in backing up the view as "silent fish impressions".

And you wonder, constantly, why I continue to have to correct your misrepresentations of my posts????? Next time you want to moan about me doing that, remember THIS moment where you took something I said and interpreted it so COMPLETELY wrong that you not only missed the meaning of it, you missed what I was actually referring to at the time by a margin so wide it was a CHASM. A literal textual chasm.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Nonsense, many people base their abortion views on the mere fact that a heartbeat is present.

That is not what I am talking about. That is a conclusion, not an argument. The same as the people against abortion because god puts a soul in at conception.

It is when you ask them to unpack why that argument is relevant or meaningful or coherent, in other words, that they give you the silent fish impressions of a gaping confused mouth with no arguments coming out of it.

Why is a heart beat relevant? Why is that important biologically, let alone MORALLY? Why is it only important to them in a fetus and not in, say, all the animals they put on their plate at dinner time every day?

Put another way: You also suggest they have scientific facts to back up the claim that the heart is beating. I think that is a misnomer. There is no scientific facts backing up the claim.... so much as it is ITSELF A scientific fact.

It is not a claim with facts backing it up. It IS a fact, but what claim is it backing up? None that I can see. It is a non-sequitur leap from "The heart is beating" to "Therefore abortion is bad/wrong/immoral".

So really, it is merely begging the question. THAT is why I call it incoherent. Not because I have a mere fetish for the word incoherent. But because it ACTUALLY IS incoherent as an argument.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

See the problem is that you have decided that YOUR unscientific definition

There, yet again, is that MO of yours. Slap out the label, but do not make it stick. You can CALL any one of my claims unscientific, but you have not once taken the time to even attempt to show it actually was. Time, and time, and time, again you simply reach for a label like "unscientific" or "nonsense" and fling it out without ever arguing for, or supporting, it's validity.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

if people can't prove that a fetus meets YOUR criteria in that regard, in your mind that means they're wrong and incoherent.

It is not "my" criteria at all. I am aware of no standard or common definitions or criteria of sentience in the entire scientific community for which there is ANY basis for thinking a fetus at 8, 12, 16 weeks meets in even the smallest way.

It is YOU making this all about me, not me. The criteria I use are not mine, but that of the scientific literature as a whole.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

However, nobody who is not mentally ill and / or deranged, believes a seven, eight month pregnant woman should legally be able take an abortion pills or visit an abortion clinic and have their baby killed.

Again you are simply wrong here to presume to speak for everybody in this regard. There are quite sane and cogent and coherent people who do argue for many things of this type. Take Peter Singer for example who, regardless of your level or lack of agreement with his views, is anything but mentally ill or deranged.

Yet he offers arguments suggesting that there is more reason to protect the life of an adult cow than there is of a 6 month old baby, as he appeals to "Life experience" and real-time levels of sentience and self awareness rather than the basic faculty of sentience and self-awareness in and of itself.

I disagree with his views, but I do not find him to be deranged or ill at all.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

None of the caveats you (or anybody else for that matter) have presented thus far mitigates the essence of what these people say. That is what you don't take on board. 'Her Body, Her Choice' (and all similar slogans) deliberately refer to a pregnancy as if it is only affecting a woman and that her life is all that is at stake. It's a selfish, wrongheaded, hollow and highly inaccurate thing to say.

Except it really isn't and I do take everything on board, including the things you claim I do not and including the things YOU do not take on board. One thing you do not take on board is that the VAST majority (statistically the near totality) of abortions by choice happen in or before week 16.

And at this point there is no other agent in play, so the claim "Her body, her choice" is entirely consistent and not selfish, wrong, inaccurate or misleading at all.

These are all nuances one gets into when one approaches a person with a slogan and enters into discourse with them to unpack that slogan.

People not interested in that however will simply contrive to take a complete literal pedantic reading of a given slogan and then misrepresentation and distortion abounds. Alas you have chosen to be one of those people.

Many of us however know the intent and meaning of the slogan and HAVE unpacked it in conversation with the people who use it.

But you claim they "mean it literally". They do not. And when you actually talk to them you find out they do not because the majority of them, like you and I and most people who have ANY pro choice leaning...... recognize a time in the process beyond which they stop being pro choice and start being against abortion.

If they meant it literally, that would not be true. So you contradict your own falsehoods here openly.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

But sure you argue that consciousness begins at some magical point yourself... more or less.

Again a distortion.

I argue that we do not KNOW when consciousness starts and in fact I have MANY times said there is no "point" where it happens, but it is likely to be an iterative "coming on line" process.

So here again is a wonderful, straight up, black and white, example of how you constantly distort my views while moaning when I point out you distort my views.

But I think the general requirement and demand for abortion by choice happens LONG in the process BEFORE we have any reason to think that iterative process has begun in any sense.

So an accurate portrayal of my views on abortion is not that I rely on a point when consciousness and sentience comes on line, but it relies on points when we can be as sure as are sure about anything that it has NOT done so.

So perhaps you might move to use THAT summary of my views going forward, rather than misleading ones of your own invention?

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

So what makes you so different to those you are sneering at? Your radio analogy is equally as wrongheaded as those who believe that God inserts a soul into a zygote.

That old MO again Merely declare it to be wrong headed but not actually say how or why it is.

The analogy is perfectly sound. We have a list of things we consider to be pre-requisite requirements for consciousness or sentience to be in play. When they are not in play, there is no reason to think the entity conscious or sentient.

So in the analogy sentience = radio waves and those pre-requisites are = the broadcasting tower. The point being that if our moral concern is or should be towards sentient agents (if you disagree that it should, then by all means make that argument for once) then we are worried about the sentience (radio waves) at a point in time when it not only does not exist, but the pre-requisites for it do not either (the radio tower has not even been built, let alone powered on, yet).

So that is the basic argument presented with AND without the analogy. If the analogy bothers you then ignore it and address the argument itself. Remember analogies are NOT arguments and should not (but alas often are) be treated as one. They are tools merely to describe the ACTUAL argument in a different way. If you understand the argument, then you are expected to dismiss the analogy.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Most logical people understand that prenatal development is a continuum and my call would be that religious folk are a hell of a lot closer to truth of just where it is that a human life begins than you are.

In what way? What about the religious argument is true or even credible?

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Yes.

1 in 20 posters who post on abortion threads post prochoice opinions.

1 in 10 people in my office have a hat on. Does that mean 1 in 10 people wear hats? No. You do not appear to know how to safely compile statistics.

You claimed "Boards is well over 95% prochoicers though and so hardly surprising." but all the data you have to make that claim is your own SUBJECTIVE feeling on people who post on abortion threads.

There are 1000s of people registered on boards and the VAST majority of them do not appear to post on abortion threads AT ALL. So extrapolation of a general statistics on the boards population as a whole, based on a subject-specific-motivated sub-group who do post on such threads.......... is remarkably and egregiously poor statistical practice.

I think it is safe and more accurate to say that the majority of people who feel compelled to post on abortion threads on boards are pro-choice. But I think the figure is not near to 95% at all. My own anecdotal subjective feeling on THAT statistic would be closer to the 70% mark.

But self selection bias is another one of those emotional biases that you appear to bring to bear on this subject with some level of impunity. I think you have something of a persecution complex on this issue too, with the idea that your and other posts are being ridiculed more than anyone else's. That would likely be another self selection bias at play too.

Yourself isit wrote: »

The clue is in the name. It's not called life day. Birthday. The celebration of the anniversary of the birth.

And the clue to the question was in the question.
I deliberately said do pro lifers count their age from their birthday or conception. I didn't ask when they celebrate their birthday.

Yourself isit wrote: »

Regardless of how you worded your stupid question it's still the case that people are celebrating the anniversary of their day of birth on their birthday. The clue is in the name.

It's not a celebration of the anniversary of conception. Nobody has ever claimed that - pro life or not.

but if you believe that life starts at conception then surely that is when you should start counting your age?

notjustsweet wrote: »

There's no need to be rude, people celebrate the day of their birth on that day because it's the day their life started isn't it?
It's the day they became a human being, all legal documents relating to them will state that date as the one they came into being, thats the date they will be remembered long after they die.

that is not the position of a number of pro-life people. they believe life starts at conception.

Yourself isit wrote: »

Regardless of how you worded your stupid question it's still the case that people are celebrating the anniversary of their day of birth on their birthday. The clue is in the name.

It's not a celebration of the anniversary of conception. Nobody has ever claimed that - pro life or not.

So why don't they celebrate the date of their conception as a date more significant than their mere birth?

Why doesn't the state issue official documents, certification, SSN etc. for a confirmed embryo or fetus?

Why do the state and pro-lifers both consider the unborn to be unpersons in these respects but fully deserving of protection against "murder"?

That's the subtext to the "stupid" question which I'm certain you understood but seem to be deflecting with semantics. There's some half-good answers to the subtext questions, so not sure why the deflection.

feargale wrote: »

The authorities, while having no problem with either side of a political issue having parades, demonstrations, public protests etc., don't want demonstrations and counter-demonstrations taking place at the same place and at the same time. That is for obvious reasons. One side failed to respect that at the weekend.

there were no public order issues so what is the problem?

feargale wrote: »

The problem is the possibility of public order issues. The authorities don't have a crystal ball. Neither do the protesters of one hue or the other. Each side can have their day. What's wrong with that? Nothing if you are reasonable and responsible and determined to avoid trouble. Everything if you are given to shouting about your rights while ignoring the rights of others. Everything if you want to hog the stage.

the people who marched were reasonable and responsible and there was no trouble. the pro-life crowd are jsut pissed that they didnt get the opportunity to hog the limelight for a day

Yourself isit wrote: »

Regardless of how you worded your stupid question it's still the case that people are celebrating the anniversary of their day of birth on their birthday. The clue is in the name.

It's not a celebration of the anniversary of conception. Nobody has ever claimed that - pro life or not.

I didn't refer to celebrating anything. I said how old do they consider themselves . No need to use years if you don't want to. Use months.

To make thw maths simple. Is someone celebratig their 10th birthday 120 months old or 129 in the opinion of a pro lifer. After all , they've been "alive " for 129 months

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

I didn't refer to celebrating anything. I said how old do they consider themselves . No need to use years if you don't want to. Use months.

To make thw maths simple. Is someone celebratig their 10th birthday 120 months old or 129 in the opinion of a pro lifer. After all , they've been "alive " for 129 months

What age do you consider a baby in the womb to be alive and using your example answer your own question accordingly please.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

well that is the question that has been asked of the pro-life people several times already and they seem reluctant to answer. Its almost like their logic is inconsistent.

Just pointing out the stupidity of the question.

Unless that poster believes a baby is only alive when it comes out of the womb well then they also have the same question to answer.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the people who marched were reasonable and responsible and there was no trouble.

Would you read my post again please. I am trying to convey to you that with the best will in the world nobody can guarantee an absence of trouble in such a situation.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the pro-life crowd are jsut pissed that they didnt get the opportunity to hog the limelight for a day

Thank you. You have made one point better than I could ever make it. One side should do their utmost to deprive the other side of their day regardless of possible disastrous consequences. Like I said, nothing wrong with separate days in the eyes of reasonable, responsible, grown-up people.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Legal recriminations? There is no such thing for Irish women who abort their babies abroad, there should be as after all they are effectively aborting an Irish citizen and robbing the child of their human rights which is enshrined into our constitution, our law.