nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » A nice long post which in NO WAY actually replies to anything I just wrote. I am also not sure how old you THINK I am or what relevance my age actually has. But Wibbs is not the only one around here who remembers Basil Brush I do not care what you lived, or think you lived, through to be honest. The argument from authority fallacy is bad enough without then making that authority yourself. The fact remains you EITHER have arguments, evidence, data or reasoning to offer for a claim...... or you don't. And in this context it appears you don't. Simple as. Moaning about who is "bashing" who (even as now you are only imagining that bashing) is not going to change that fact, or deflect people from noticing it. And I repeat: If you want to build a moral system based on fear of your god.... then the first step is to substantiate that that god even exists in the first place. Until such time as you can do that (as if) then perhaps ...
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » ...we should discuss our moral systems, and more relevant to this thread the ethics and morality of abortion, without aspects of your imagination clouding the discourse? Your imaginary friend is no more relevant to the world of morality than my son's.
volchitsa wrote: » Mmm. Possibly. Thing is though, it's not like the "I'm prochoice but..." hasnt been tried before, in various forms. We had one poster who claimed to be so prochoice he was for a right to abortion up to the moment of birth. Keeping up the pretence gradually became too difficult it seems, and he is now ardently anti-choice. It was kind of obvious long before that though. Because that's what happens after a while, someone's posts begin to speak for themselves. But when somebody rocks up with barely a dozen posts which argue the anti repeal PoV while claiming be pro repeal, well, you can expect people to think you're going to be another one. But we shall see. Maybe you're just exceptionally fair minded and a better person than the rest of us here. Pro or anti.
nice_guy80 wrote: » they ignored the indoctrination?
realitykeeper wrote: » ... but you see that was the purpose of my previous post. Those of us who were brought up with the faith of our fathers, were given the gift of that faith. Those who were brought up not to believe in God, generally don`t. Those without faith, e.g. Communist type people, think they can rely on themselves but as we know, Communists always end up languishing when left to their own devices. Russians learned this lesson in the 20th century which is why they are returning to God. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghmvuzvqd6Y The moral systems you refer to are the same as those of the old USSR and misery will be the consequence.
volchitsa wrote: » Did the Irish declare that Ireland had a unique insight into morality ...
realitykeeper wrote: » Irish liberals, (along with liberals everywhere) seem to be asserting that in a big way in recent times and as I have pointed out, it will end in misery. Trump`s wall will eventually be used to stop American`s from escaping, just as the Berlin wall used to stop those trying to escape east block countries.
realitykeeper wrote: » ... but you see that was the purpose of my previous post. Those of us who were brought up with the faith of our fathers, were given the gift of that faith. Those who were brought up not to believe in God, generally don`t.
volchitsa wrote: » What does this have to do with my question??
kylith wrote: » realitykeeper wrote: » ... but you see that was the purpose of my previous post. Those of us who were brought up with the faith of our fathers, were given the gift of that faith. Those who were brought up not to believe in God, generally don`t.[/url] Actually, you'll find that most atheist were brought up religious, and were often quite religious in our younger days. Doing what you are told is not the same as being religious and listening to Catholic bashing on RTE is called being indoctrinated.
realitykeeper wrote: » ... but you see that was the purpose of my previous post. Those of us who were brought up with the faith of our fathers, were given the gift of that faith. Those who were brought up not to believe in God, generally don`t.[/url] Actually, you'll find that most atheist were brought up religious, and were often quite religious in our younger days.
realitykeeper wrote: » Everything. The "new morality" you seem to favour is an epiphany of hell. The tough love of yesteryear was the right way. Abandoning the old morals will have devastating repercussions.
realitykeeper wrote: » Doing what you are told is not the same as being religious and listening to Catholic bashing on RTE is called being indoctrinated.
tonymontanavu wrote: » I understand the scepticism but I stated in my first post that I registered to post here. I made two points; don't reduce the fetus to nothing to aid the argument and the chance to have a choice to abort a pregnancy is what is wanted (not limited to that but it should be stated openly to remove the stigma) . I can do no more to convince people my motives are genuine than state my support and the fact I feel that the outcome would be fair and reasonable
WhiteRoses wrote: » The Ireland of yesteryear was a terrifying place. Women were treated as second class citizens, children were treated appallingly, ‘promiscuous’ women were sentenced to the laundries where their children were robbed from them and sold to the highest bidder. ‘Illigitimate’ children were treated worse than vermin, many of whom ended up in septic tanks and unmarked graves. Child abuse by the catholic clergy was rampant, poverty was rife, it was still legal to rape your own wife and government assistance for those on the breadline was non existent. Women couldn’t work as soon as they wed, no contraception, no option to divorce an abusive partner or even just a marriage you no longer wanted to be in. People made the best of the circumstances they had but it’s certainly not a time period to look back on with rose tinted glasses, nor should we aspire as a society to ever treat our most vulnerable citizens in such a disgusting way.
ForestFire wrote: » Totally agree I have openly stated before, I am likley to vote repeal, but I will question mostly this side as I still have many questions. I also believe we should vote with all the open information of our choice and it's implications. This means recognizing that we are not merely talking about a clump of cells at 12 weeks. We should not hide or try to hide pictures of 12 week fetus and any other factually information, behind some veil of insensitivity. This is the essence of what we are voting on, it is a sensitive issue to all of us for different reasons, and we are all adults, so let's not hide it, as that's what it looks like, hide and conceals and dimiss the other side of the debate. I have no problem with the arguments on sentience, MAP, current option in the UK, womens autonomy, women's health care and past comications and deaths of some woman. The latest now is we must be shills and trolls for having questions and being openly undecided, which seems like another attempt to say stop posting, or don't listen to them, there must be some hidden agenda. None of this helps. When I vote I want to ensure I know exactly what I am voting for, and be personnel resonsible for the vote whichever way I choose, so If I decide to ask some hard hitting questions you can ignore, or as some have done, respond with factual information, which is appreciated.
ForestFire wrote: » This means recognizing that we are not merely talking about a clump of cells at 12 weeks. We should not hide or try to hide pictures of 12 week fetus and any other factually information, behind some veil of insensitivity.
Bob_Marley wrote: » And religious people could start talking about the penal laws. . .but why does any of this whataboutery make it ok to terminate a human life though ? A person does not have to be religious in any way to respect the equal right to human life. Or are you claiming that they do ?
WhiteRoses wrote: » If you had read the post I was actually responding to and quoting, I was replying to the notion that the Ireland of yesterday was a more moral and better place to live. I was responding directly to that point that in my opinion, the Ireland of yesteryear treated its vulnerable citizens extremely poorly and I’m glad that as a society we no longer do that. In no part of my post did I mention equal rights to human life, or my opinion abortion at all, so I have no idea where you pulled that from. I was speaking specifically of the past of our country.
Bob_Marley wrote: » Sorry, my mistake, thought it was a thread about the 8th amendment and abortion . . carry on.
kylith wrote: » I understand your feelings, but to some people it is a clump of cells; some for reasons of self preservation. I know one or two people who had multiple miscarriages before 12 weeks, and for them thinking of it as a baby would have made the repeated losses unbearable.
Bannasidhe wrote: » Perhaps your sarcasm would be better directed that the person extolling the past as some moral nirvana or does the fact that they share your views prevent that so instead you have a go at the person who responded to their nonsense?
Edward M wrote: » .... I would just wish that the potential value of the life to be aborted would be given its true consideration before that abortion happens, not just thinking on it as having as little value as swatting a fly for instance..
Call me Al wrote: » What do you mean by this? How do you envision thus works? What does this "giving consideration" consist if? Who are you asking to do make these considerations, in light if the fact that you go on to say you respect women to make their own decisions?
Edward M wrote: » I would just wish that the potential value of the life to be aborted would be given its true consideration before that abortion happens, not just thinking on it as having as little value as swatting a fly for instance.
I do trust women to make their decisions based on necessity rather than convenience and do trust govts to be sensible how far they go on time allowed to abort.
Edward M wrote: » Very valid post FF. The eighth is a dangerous part of the constitution and voting against repeal is endangering women's health and lives. Because of the thirteenth amendment abortions are going to happen anyway, voting against repeal won't stop that and with pills available online it is happening here too as well. I would just wish that the potential value of the life to be aborted would be given its true consideration before that abortion happens, not just thinking on it as having as little value as swatting a fly for instance. I do trust women to make their decisions based on necessity rather than convenience and do trust govts to be sensible how far they go on time allowed to abort. In general I would be pro life, I suspect most people are really, in the sense that abortion is a last resort for most having taken everything in to consideration. While in a ideal world there shouldn't be a need for it, that isn't always the case and forcing the necessary abroad is a joke really.
