ELM327 wrote: » Because it's a common used term on these boards, and you will find I am not the first to use it as it is in common parlance There must be no straw left on the camel's back with all these straw men you are sending.
ELM327 wrote: » I've said the opposite. We should eradicate disorders if possible. No one is talking about euthanasia or anything, but preventing the creation of the life in the first place.
Joeytheparrot wrote: » Slightly different? No. You are promoting a form of genetic supremacism. Eugenics was much more than killing people.
ELM327 wrote: » That's enforced .. I enforce *choice*... slighltly different opinion to yours, and I must be trolling? Riiiiiiight.
Edward M wrote: » Well we agree on something perhaps.:) But why use the derogatory term, can't you have a rational debate, I didn't use any such term to you.
pitifulgod wrote: » Eugenics doesn't require active people and didn't just involve killing them, it included mass sterilisation as well. I support a woman choosing to have an abortion, you're basically saying eradicate possibility of something en masse. That's not what actually happens in Iceland, people who tend to take the test will abort. It's more a scenario that some women don't feel they're able to cope with raising a child with down syndrome etc. I support their choice and understand that it's an extraordinarily complex situation. It is not for the purpose of perfecting the human race as you appear to believe.
Joeytheparrot wrote: » You must be trolling here. No pro choice people want to eradicate Downs Syndrome.
ELM327 wrote: » Different yes... disorder no. Eugenics involves killing of active people, the icelandic method involves prevention. Big difference. PS: This is a discussion forum, if you don't want a reply from random posters I'd suggest sending a PM to whomever it was that you were "referring to".
ELM327 wrote: » Another strawman? Ok.. I'll bite and try to explain it to you. Pro-Birther is a counter derogatory term used for the anti-repeal group, as a retort for them using "pro-abortion" or similar. No one is truly pro abortion, just pro choice.
Edward M wrote: » Of course I'm a pro birther, are you an anti birther?
ELM327 wrote: » How, Can, You, Know, It, Is, True, When, The, Wording, Has, Not, Been, Set, Yet..... Research Schrodinger's cat and you will see why that covers your post. Are you sure you're not a pro birther? Your militant refusal to acknowledge rationality seems to suggest you are.
Joeytheparrot wrote: » Sufferers? Ah here. They are people with Downs Syndrome. Not bloody sufferers. Its very odd. Peoole are saying we shouldnt eradicate downs syndrome. On the other hand the langugage being used about people with down syndrome is dehumanising and archaic. Let me repeat what I said earlier. People with Downs Syndrome can have their own thoughts and opinions.
Joeytheparrot wrote: » I wasnt referring to you. And sorry but no. Eradication of disorders has been tried already with Eugenics. We should accept that human beings are different!
Edward M wrote: » Ah look, that's what we are being told now. My argument as yours is based on current information. Why not tell people the most likely scenario. You called my statement, or at least the portion you highlighted secondly, though that wasn't the full sentence so it took the statement as a whole out of context, false. You haven't provided any evidence it is false or indeed will later be false. All the evidence points to it being true, in fact you even said you wanted it to be true in different words in one of your posts.
ELM327 wrote: » hmmm... can you see the issues here?
Edward M wrote: » But I didn't say at this time. If you are going to accuse others of falseties then perhaps you shouldn't pick portions of a statement to Cherry pick.I assume that what will happen after repeal is passed there is no new article to be inserted into the constitution, that is what we are being told. That we will be given the alternative to allow govt to legislate after repeal and that will give any govt thereafter the right to impose changes in limits and reasons for it. If you're going to inform voters of the truth then you should tell the truth, if the other side lies then call them out on it with truth, not other lies or at least falseties.
ELM327 wrote: » Your statement was false as you made an absolute statement that cannot be known at this time. In terms of absolute.. your statement cannot be true at this time as you nor I know what the method of repeal will be... and as such logically if a statement cannot be true it is false. At best... it is a schrodinger's cat. At best.
Edward M wrote: » I know that adult DS sufferers have a vote, they are one of the exceptions at a ballot box, they can be accompanied by a parent or guardian when voting. Perhaps their vote will mirror the views of the parent or guardian. More than likely I would say, as most are open to suggestive thought.
Edward M wrote: » So your assertion that my previous statement was false was maybe wrong?
Edward M wrote: If the repeal is passed as is proposed, then the foetus at no age will have constitutional protection.
Edward M wrote: » I'm not sure what clause in the constitution, after the eighth is repealed, would stop a future govt giving extension to the twelve week limit. Bear in mind now, I have decided to vote for repeal, but there are many people out there, who like me, think if repeal is passed, that its up to govt to legislate for abortion. Perhaps to ease my mind and others too, you could point out the section of the constitution that would stop future or present govt from inserting a law extending the time limit for abortion in certain or all cases?
ELM327 wrote: » Since it has not been decided whether it will be a "repeal simpliciter" (repeal and no replacement)... or a repeal and replace with a term limit (or even amend the 8th as has been done previously with the 13&14 amendment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland)... or a repeal and replace with a statement allowing the oireachtas to legislate... it is impossible to know. In my opinion the constitution is not the place for this "morality based law" anyway. It is not there in any other western country, except for this religious backwoods swamp. I will be voting repeal, and would prefer a repeal and replace with a statement allowing the oireachtas to legislate. Ideally this proposed legislation would be in place prior to the vote. The 8th is a terrible piece of legislation, it was terrible in 1983 and it's worse now as it's killing our women. When you look at Mary Robinson's interview from 1983 about the 8th it shows how ridiculous it was.
ELM327 wrote: » I have not seen one logical argument from the pro birth side. Is there one? Like the NHS claims in Brexit? No harm lying to people once you get the result you want eh? I'm happy to be on the side of logical rationality. I (and I may be alone in this viewpoint) would not view the eradication of many syndromes as a bad thing. I'd prefer no child than to be lumbered with providing care for the rest of my life. I don't subscribe to the catholic guilt view that "every child is a blessing". In the real world, children are hard work and a disabled child is harder again. False. They will still have constitutional protection, just not the ridiculous situation that we have now.. where an amoeba is given the same protection (in effect, more, due to fear amongst doctors) as a woman.
The Legend Of Kira wrote: » https://www.facebook.com/disabilityvoicesforlife/videos/211989529367440/
Ash.J.Williams wrote: » a "love both" article appeared on my Facebook feed by proxy last night, about an abortion survivor who now leads a happy life,,,, only thing is she wasn't actually aborted, her granny tried to murder her at 8 months, so entirely misleading
Edward M wrote: » Alls fair in love and war. I can see the point in the argument even if its disagreed with.
Edward M wrote: » Once abortion is liberalised and allowed to be legislated for by the oireachtas then exemptions to time limits can and may be pushed for by interested groups for all kinds of defects discovered before birth. DS is just one, but others will emerge I'm sure. Once it becomes legislative law then any group can lobby their TDs and govt for change.
Edward M wrote: » If the repeal is passed as is proposed, then the foetus at no age will have constitutional protection.
Joeytheparrot wrote: » Children and adults with DS are capable of having their own independent thoughts and opinions. I think its interesting this is not considered. Even by legend of kira.
