Nick Park wrote: » I'm being honest. I don't agree with preventing people from travelling, even if we think they will commit acts overseas that are illegal in Ireland but not in their destination country. This is consistent with how we look at Irish men and women who join up in foreign armies and, yes, even kill children as part of their military duties. You might not agree with my viewpoint, but your attempts to portray pro-lifers as hypocrites because they don't oppose the right to travel is bogus. You only resort to it out of desperation because your other arguments are frequently unconvincing or, as we established a few days ago, rely on making false statements.
Bredabe wrote: » Who decides when its "Self defense and only alternative"? how can we be sure that those decisions aren't based on selfish motives? You say that an unborn baby is "innocent" how do we know that, especially where some forms of psychiatric illness(speaking of the serial killer type conditions) are inherited? additionally, how it is decided that say, child soldiers are or not "innocent"?women who are being denied best practice in continuing pregnancies because of the 8th, are they not "innocents" in this too?
volchitsa wrote: » You can keep repeating that the right to travel is more important than that again, but since you haven't made any attempt to explain why, nor explain inconsistences such as Ms O'Rorke who was in fact stopped from travelling to Switzerland with her friend, I think at some point we just have to apply the saying that a claim which is advanced without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
volchitsa wrote: » This is just one of the signs that "Support the 8th" is fundamentally a religious stance.
"Innocent" actually seems to mean "hasn't had sex"
females in general, at least once they reach puberty, are to be distrusted.
Nick Park wrote: » So I'm a hypocrite because I believe a pregnant woman should have the freedom to travel and because I also believe that Ms O'Rorke should have been allowed to travel? Please do explain how that makes me a hypocrite. I'm all ears.
Nick Park wrote: » Are you trying to set a record for the maximum number of untruthful statements in one day? I know quite a few people who are non-religious and support the Eight Amendment. I also know religious people who are for Repeal.
There's another lie. I've never met any pro-lifer who believed such a thing.
Wow! Three flat-out lies in one post. You're really going for it. Again, I have never met a single pro-lifer who thought women should be trusted less than men.
volchitsa wrote: » No, that's not what I said.
volchitsa wrote: You can keep repeating that the right to travel is more important than that again, but since you haven't made any attempt to explain why, nor explain inconsistences such as Ms O'Rorke who was in fact stopped from travelling to Switzerland with her friend, I think at some point we just have to apply the saying that a claim which is advanced without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Even though you've actually been given quite a lot of evidence. Which is why the accusation of hypocrisy is perfectly fair at this stage, IMO.
volchitsa wrote: » The evidence shows that a ban on abortion has little to no effect on numbers of women having abortions, and instead merely causes women to be harmed by unsafe abortions.
volchitsa wrote: » Why are these better comparisons? Because they don't show up the hypocrisy quite so completely? You have a crime which is so serious that we have put it in our constitution, and have given it a possible FOURTEEN YEAR prison sentence - but it isn't reasonable to compare it to other serious crimes like child sex abuse or FGM, or even assisted suicide, whereas it is comparable to bull fighting and military service abroad? That doesn't make sense. Except as a way of refusing to acknowledge the deliberate hypocrisy of our laws. Yes we could make travel to terminate a pregnancy illegal if we wanted to, but instead we amended the constitution so that the X case could never happen again, ie, so that women and children could travel to terminate their pregnancies. Let's at least be honest about this.
volchitsa wrote: » This is just one of the signs that "Support the 8th" is fundamentally a religious stance. "Innocent" actually seems to mean "hasn't had sex", as even a child who is pregnant through rape is no longer automatically "innocent" by prolife logic. Or it may be descibed as the Eve syndrome : females in general, at least once they reach puberty, are to be distrusted. I think the two notions are closely related, if not fundamentally the same.
....... wrote: » This post has been deleted.
Bredabe wrote: » Who decides when its "Self defense and only alternative"? how can we be sure that those decisions aren't based on selfish motives?
Bredabe wrote: » You say that an unborn baby is "innocent" how do we know that, especially where some forms of psychiatric illness(speaking of the serial killer type conditions) are inherited? additionally, how it is decided that say, child soldiers are or not "innocent"?
Bredabe wrote: » women who are being denied best practice in continuing pregnancies because of the 8th, are they not "innocents" in this too?
Nick Park wrote: » It is indeed what you said. Why would you deny what you've said when we can all read exactly what you said?
david75 wrote: » This thread is worth a read. When the hysteria and outright lying are faced with facts from a medical practiotner. A snapshot of the micorcosm of this debate.https://twitter.com/ericadvm/status/969912613143568384?s=21
end of the road wrote: » nope, just another one of the old slogan types denying actual facts.
david75 wrote: » What colour is the sky in lala land? Do you enjoy living there?
end of the road wrote: » what i stated is correct. if we follow the logic "if you don't like murder then don't commit a murder, we don't need laws against murder to protect the people"
Sir, – Fr John Joyce (“Abortion is barbaric whether carried out legally or not”, Rite & Reason, February 27th) rests his argument that abortion is always barbaric on the moral status of the foetus, which he considers a human being from conception. What he does not concede, however, is that this very question is contested; indeed, that is at the heart of the long-standing ethical dilemma about abortion. When one concedes this moral disagreement, then the nature of the question about the legal regulation of abortion must change from “How can law prevent moral injury to the foetus” to “How can the law best support ethical decision-making by pregnant people as moral agents?” Rather than starting from the foetus, the moral status of which is contested, one might more usefully start with the pregnant person. Nobody would disagree that a woman (or girl) is a human being; that she has a clear moral status; and that she holds the full range of human rights that flow from her humanity and are protected by law. Nor would anyone reasonably claim that a woman or girl becomes less human when she becomes pregnant. If this is so, then any proposition that, as a matter of constitutional law, a woman’s human rights should be diminished upon pregnancy (as is the case under the Eighth Amendment) becomes difficult to sustain. This becomes even more troubling if one recognises that by drastically restricting a pregnant person’s ability to exercise her full range of legally protected rights during pregnancy, the Constitution effectively “relieves” her of the burden of ethical decision-making about the maintenance of foetal life, replacing it with the physical, emotional, spiritual, mental, and life-long burden of maintaining pregnancy and giving birth. In so doing, the Constitution purports to avoid an arguable moral wrong (abortion) with a certain moral wrong (abrogation of the will and diminishment of the rights of a pregnant person). However, where foetal life is maintained through voluntary and consensual pregnancy, both the arguable and certain moral wrongs are avoided. From the perspective of law, this can only be achieved by a legal arrangement that recognises that it is the pregnant person – ideally in an atmosphere of care, love, support, and deliberation with trusted friends and partners – who should make the decision about whether to continue with pregnancy and maintain foetal life. For people for whom abortion is a morally and ethically difficult matter, then, the question for the referendum surely is not whether abortion is wrong per se, but whether law should support pregnant people in making ethical decisions about maintaining foetal life. These decisions will sometimes end in abortion, and, far more often, with the decision to continue with a pregnancy. However, if the Eighth Amendment is repealed, it is the woman and not the State that will make that decision. Seen in this way it becomes clear that one who has an ethical objection to abortion can still support repeal of the Eighth Amendment. Indeed, many people who identify as pro-choice are also anti-abortion. If we believe that we are, each of us, moral agents, then surely our collective responsibility is to support ethical decision-making by individuals. The way to do this – for all of us, however we identify in the debates about the rights and wrongs of abortion – is to repeal the Eighth Amendment and recognise pregnant women as moral agents. – Yours, etc, Prof FIONA de LONDRAS, Chair of Global Legal Studies, Deputy Head of School, Birmingham Law School, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
J C wrote: » There are rules of war that specify war crimes ... and these determine what is and isn't legally (and morally) allowed to countries in self defence. ... unborn children who represent no threat to life are innocent ... and shouldn't be killed. Best practice is to care for both the mother and her child.
Delirium wrote: » That's illogical as murder is, by definition, an illegal killing.
Delirium wrote: » Saw this reply in Irish Times (which is a response to another letter that was quoted in the thread): Source
looksee wrote: » I have a friend who has a child with very serious medical issues. By force of will and total dedication she has defied all prognostications and not only kept the child alive but has made significant progress. He will be a life's work, never independent. The amount of 24 hour, specialised care that she and her husband have given this child for the last 8 years is unimaginable. Then she became pregnant again and was told this child had the same issues. It would be beyond the physical and emotional capabilities of a couple to do the same again for another child so she decided on the advice of her doctor(s) to have an abortion -under 3 months. She was utterly devastated at this decision, but realised it was the only option. She made the heartbroken trip to England and brought back the tiny foetus, which was given a funeral. She didn't make a particular secret of the situation, the support she received was 100%. As far as I know she did not have any negative reactions from any one else at all. It is entirely right that there should be discussion about abortion, and an awareness of the implications, but a great deal of the self-righteous, vicious posturing that goes on is sickening. There are real people in real situations, the sanctimonious preaching of a few does not help them. No individual is obliged to have an abortion. If you do not believe in them, don't have one - and hope you will never be in the situation of having to have one. But it is a decision between a couple, or a woman, and her doctor, and no-one else's business.
end of the road wrote: » that's my point. the "if you don't want to have an abortion/don't like abortion don't have one" nonsense is illogical because abortion is killing and in this country it is illegal killing. to follow that logic through would require having no laws at all.basically the responce is a non-argument with some failed logic and a few inaccuracies for good measure for a start the fetus being human is only disputed by some in support of abortion on demand. the experts don't seem to dispute it. what is disputed is when personhood begins. secondly, a woman's human rights isn't reduced by the 8th, her rights are equal to that of the unborn bar where her life is in danger. so technically she actually has more rights then the unborn in certain circumstances. thirdly, if one is against abortion they cannot morally vote for repeal, even though there are other issues with the 8th, as by disagreeing with abortion then one has an obligation to prevent it from being allowed to take place within the state outside medical necessity if they are truely against it. you cannot be pro-choice and anti-abortion, because by definition, being against abortion means you don't want it happening or being able to happen unless absolutely necessary. being pro-choice means you agree with it's availability, which by definition you agree with being able to access facilities to cary out the act should you need to. fourthly if we are to follow the logic of the author of the responce "If we believe that we are, each of us, moral agents, then surely our collective responsibility is to support ethical decision-making by individuals" then by that logic we must remove all the laws of the land and leave decisians up to the individual, as one person's ethical decisian is another's unethical decisian. as i knew would happen, they have put forward no argument to repeal the 8th, and that is why it is vital it must not be repealed until some actual proposals are put forward rather then abortion on demand, which isn't required in ireland. the killing of other human beings is very much society's business whether you want it to be or not. the fact some human beings are unborn doesn't change that reality. to follow your logic through would require the stance that killing a newborn should be between a couple, or a woman and a doctor or other trained professional. see how that doesn't work? abortion is rightly never going to be left to be between a couple or a woman and her doctor, elements of society will rightly condemn abortion on demand and that is how it should be.
Katie Full Leak wrote: » And yet the nation is being asked to decide!
end of the road wrote: » that's my point. the "if you don't want to have an abortion/don't like abortion don't have one" nonsense is illogical because abortion is killing and in this country it is illegal killing. to follow that logic through would require having no laws at all. basically the responce is a non-argument with some failed logic and a few inaccuracies for good measurefor a start the fetus being human is only disputed by some in support of abortion on demand. the experts don't seem to dispute it. what is disputed is when personhood begins.
secondly, a woman's human rights isn't reduced by the 8th, her rights are equal to that of the unborn bar where her life is in danger. so technically she actually has more rights then the unborn in certain circumstances.
thirdly, if one is against abortion they cannot morally vote for repeal, even though there are other issues with the 8th, as by disagreeing with abortion then one has an obligation to prevent it from being allowed to take place within the state outside medical necessity if they are truely against it. you cannot be pro-choice and anti-abortion, because by definition, being against abortion means you don't want it happening or being able to happen unless absolutely necessary. being pro-choice means you agree with it's availability, which by definition you agree with being able to access facilities to cary out the act should you need to.
fourthly if we are to follow the logic of the author of the responce "If we believe that we are, each of us, moral agents, then surely our collective responsibility is to support ethical decision-making by individuals" then by that logic we must remove all the laws of the land and leave decisians up to the individual, as one person's ethical decisian is another's unethical decisian. as i knew would happen, they have put forward no argument to repeal the 8th, and that is why it is vital it must not be repealed until some actual proposals are put forward rather then abortion on demand, which isn't required in ireland.
end of the road wrote: » that's my point. the "if you don't want to have an abortion/don't like abortion don't have one" nonsense is illogical because abortion is killing and in this country it is illegal killing. to follow that logic through would require having no laws at all. basically the responce is a non-argument with some failed logic and a few inaccuracies for good measure for a start the fetus being human is only disputed by some in support of abortion on demand. the experts don't seem to dispute it. what is disputed is when personhood begins. secondly, a woman's human rights isn't reduced by the 8th, her rights are equal to that of the unborn bar where her life is in danger. so technically she actually has more rights then the unborn in certain circumstances. thirdly, if one is against abortion they cannot morally vote for repeal, even though there are other issues with the 8th, as by disagreeing with abortion then one has an obligation to prevent it from being allowed to take place within the state outside medical necessity if they are truely against it. you cannot be pro-choice and anti-abortion, because by definition, being against abortion means you don't want it happening or being able to happen unless absolutely necessary. being pro-choice means you agree with it's availability, which by definition you agree with being able to access facilities to cary out the act should you need to. fourthly if we are to follow the logic of the author of the responce "If we believe that we are, each of us, moral agents, then surely our collective responsibility is to support ethical decision-making by individuals" then by that logic we must remove all the laws of the land and leave decisians up to the individual, as one person's ethical decisian is another's unethical decisian. as i knew would happen, they have put forward no argument to repeal the 8th, and that is why it is vital it must not be repealed until some actual proposals are put forward rather then abortion on demand, which isn't required in ireland. the killing of other human beings is very much society's business whether you want it to be or not. the fact some human beings are unborn doesn't change that reality. to follow your logic through would require the stance that killing a newborn should be between a couple, or a woman and a doctor or other trained professional. see how that doesn't work? abortion is rightly never going to be left to be between a couple or a woman and her doctor, elements of society will rightly condemn abortion on demand and that is how it should be.
volchitsa wrote: » That argument collapses in Ireland because of the 13th. We chose to allow women to terminate their pregnancies for any reason, or at least for reasons that we as a country have no control over. And the nonsense about it being our business when it happens in Ireland but not our business when the same fetus is aborted a few miles down the road is just that, nonsense. Repeating it doesn't make it true when Gail O'Rorke was stopped from travelling to Switzerland to assist her friend's suicide,
volchitsa wrote: » or when the UK and the USA have passed laws that allow them punish their citizens for serious crimes like child sex abuse or FGM even when they are carried out in a country where they are legal.
volchitsa wrote: » We could do the same for abortion if we wanted to. We just don't want to.
Delirium wrote: » Which is what the letter pretty much said given that it is addressing abortion. He said there isn't a consensus on a human being existing from conception. Ironically, your own 'disagreement' actually confirms what he said in his letter. But the letter was talking in broad strokes, not the narrow focus you would prefer. Ethical choices are removed from the woman regarding the pregnancy. Choices about her medical care and pregnancy are denied to her. The contested moral state of the foetus is given more importance to that of the uncontested moral state of the woman (i.e. no one is arguing she isn't a human being). Not correct. A person may only support abortion in cases of foetal abnormalities or rape, which necessitates repeal. Only if you didn't understand the letter. Society has a moral responsibility to human beings, which (pregnant or otherwise) women are. Foetuses are or are not depending on who you ask, there's no consensus. To suggest that murder, rape or torture should be legal shows you didn't grasp what the author wrote.
volchitsa wrote: » That argument collapses in Ireland because of the 13th. We chose to allow women to terminate their pregnancies for any reason, or at least for reasons that we as a country have no control over. And the nonsense about it being our business when it happens in Ireland but not our business when the same fetus is aborted a few miles down the road is just that, nonsense. Repeating it doesn't make it true when Gail O'Rorke was stopped from travelling to Switzerland to assist her friend's suicide, or when the UK and the USA have passed laws that allow them punish their citizens for serious crimes like child sex abuse or FGM even when they are carried out in a country where they are legal. We could do the same for abortion if we wanted to. We just don't want to.
end of the road wrote: » i did grasp it though. and it's not me suggesting rape murder or torture should be legal. it's the logic of the author that is suggesting it even though the author isn't suggesting it.
