The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

bertieinexile · 11-04-2018 01:57PM

_Dara_ wrote: »

Ooh, zing. Dorothy Parker, look out, there’s a new wit for the ages.

Couldn't pass up a mention of Dorothy Parker without quoting this

But, anyone with eyes must be awed by the gorgeousness of Mecca, and staggered by its vastness. It is advertised as “The Largest Production Ever Known in the World’s History,” which is a conservative statement. It is comfortable to reflect that it gives congenial and remunerative employment to hundreds, including two exceedingly shabby camels, who, I am willing to wager, although my memory for faces is not infallible, made their debut in the world premiere of Ben Hur.

Zubeneschamali · 11-04-2018 02:01PM

bertieinexile wrote: »

But right now we have a yes no referendum on abortion on demand up to 24 weeks.

What country is that in?

Here in Ireland, the referendum is just to delete the 8th, there is no mandatory legislative change at all associated with either Yes or No, that will be up to the government of the day afterwards.

The current government has given an outline of what they intend to pass, but they are a minority government and could collapse at any time. We could end up with Repeal passing, the 8th deleted but then the Government falls trying to pass the 12 week legislation they intend. Then we would have no 8th but the existing POLDPA legislation would remain in effect.

Eponymous · 11-04-2018 02:04PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

What country is that in?

Here in Ireland, the referendum is just to delete the 8th, there is no mandatory legislative change at all associated with either Yes or No, that will be up to the government of the day afterwards.

The current government has given an outline of what they intend to pass, but they are a minority government and could collapse at any time. We could end up with Repeal passing, the 8th deleted but then the Government falls trying to pass the 12 week legislation they intend. Then we would have no 8th but the existing POLDPA legislation would remain in effect.

He's been posting this as fact for a while and he needs to be called out on it every time. It's dangerous to let this little snippet pass unchallenged.

....... · 11-04-2018 02:05PM

This post has been deleted.

....... · 11-04-2018 02:08PM

This post has been deleted.

Sofiztikated · 11-04-2018 02:17PM

bertieinexile wrote: »

But right now we have a yes no referendum on abortion on demand up to 24 weeks. If you want to campaign in this referendum these are the only two options you can campaign on.

the fact that you don't know what the vote is actually on, kinda rules out any of your arguments, if there was any coherence to them at all.

You are wrong, you are willfully wrong, and it has been pointed out consistently.

thee glitz · 11-04-2018 02:23PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

We could end up with Repeal passing, the 8th deleted but then the Government falls trying to pass the 12 week legislation they intend.

It's certainly possible, but there's approximately no chance of that happening.

nozzferrahhtoo · 11-04-2018 02:26PM

bertieinexile wrote: »

I'm glad we have got to discussing how widely held your view of personhood is nozzferrahhtoo.

"We" haven't. Only you have been obsessing over how wide or not you imagine the views of others are. And you have been doing so in a way that appears designed to flesh out the length of your responses to me without you actually articulating a response to me. However that you would be "glad" to move to that subject is hardly a surprise. You have been avoiding dealing with the actual CONTENT of my positions since pretty much day 1.

bertieinexile wrote: »

First though But your definition of the minimal requirements for sentience - and therefore for the first emergence of rights and first call on our ethical concern - is biological. The existence of regular waves in fetal brain activity.

The biological underpinnings of sentience however are merely incidental. There is nothing magical about meat that we know of. If your consciousness could be instantiated on a machine, or if in fact we manage to construct a General Artificial Intelligence, my moral and ethical concerns for it would be EQUAL to any meat based life form. This appears to be the core fact you are missing.

bertieinexile wrote: »

But right now we have a yes no referendum on abortion on demand up to 24 weeks.

No. We do not. We have a vote on a modification to our referendum. Any legislation on abortion will come AFTER that modification. You appear to be willfully contriving to feign ignorance about the content of the actual vote. While the vote might have the implications you speak of in the long run, it is absolutely NOT what we are being asked to vote on. If you wish (if, I am not convinced) to hold any credibility on this thread then I can but urge you to remove this ignorance of the content of the actual vote.

bertieinexile wrote: »

So what do "most people" think? Well let's put it to a test.

If you want to, do. But do it on your own time not mine. As I A) Do not care what most people think, I am telling you what I think and

I see your deflections into what you IMAGINE most people think as being a fetid and egregious dodge tactic you are using with regular consistency to avoid dealing with anything I actually say.

So rather than moan about what I said, and who thanked me for saying it, why not try and actually ADDRESS what it was I said instead? Is it a lack of willingness, capability OR both that is leading you to not do this?

bertieinexile wrote: »

Is there any pro choice poster on here with a reasonably long posting history ready to back you up? Or do "most people" find your position untenable, nozzferrahhtoo?

Or, more likely, is it that people prefer to defend THEIR OWN positions, and people are well aware I require absolutely no "back up" least of all against you?

I think people here are more than aware of my capabilities of both espousing and defending my own positions. They know I neither require, nor seek, their approval. All the validation I need for my position is the lack of any coherent rebuttals to it. Least of all from you. That is, for example, how science works. In science we do not prove anything is true. Rather we hold AS IF true anything substantiated that we have failed to falsify.

My rhetoric is the same. I have established my case, established the arguments, evidence, data and reasoning that led to it. And your response is to not rebut or address ANY of that, but to play some argumentum as populum game of your own to dodge around it. Other than imagining legions of nay sayers who happen to agree with you, you have not rebutted or falsified a single point I have made to date.

But if nothing else it is really comedy gold that in the absence of any way to rebut my position, your sole method of attacking it is to almost indict me for being CONSISTENT in it. That is seriously the funniest response I have had over the entire length of this threads 14ish thousand posts. So for that, if nothing else, I thank you.

ProfessorPlum · 11-04-2018 02:27PM

bertieinexile wrote: »

But right now we have a yes no referendum on abortion on demand up to 24 weeks. If you want to campaign in this referendum these are the only two options you can campaign on.

Again, no, that is not the subject of the referendum. Which you well know.

So what do "most people" think?
Well let's put it to a test.

I showed you video of a 23 week old premature baby in an incubator.
https://youtu.be/2RQ8ks-UH0E?t=22s
I told you he is now a healthy 3 year old. You can even look up the parents account on youtube and see video of him playing.

Your definition of the minimum requirement for sentience, and the first hint of a right to life, is regular fetal brain activity. The child in the incubator in those pictures wouldn't have that.

You say

nozz wrote:

You are asking me about an entity at 22 weeks. It is outside the purview of my position therefore. However if a mother in the UK decided, after it's removal from her womb not to put it on life support and to let it die..... like we do with adult patients when we turn their life support off for example...... then I would not be losing any sleep over it.

Call me Al, crustybla, DubInMeath, Fizzlesque, frag420, January, PopePalpatine, Simi, swampgas and Yeah_Right all thanked you for that.

Like I said let's put the question of how popular your view is to the test.

Are any of Call me Al, crustybla, DubInMeath, Fizzlesque, frag420, January, PopePalpatine, Simi, swampgas or Yeah_Right ready to back you up in the idea you shouldn't lose sleep over someone taking the life of that child hooked up to tubes in that incubator.

Is there any pro choice poster on here with a reasonably long posting history ready to back you up?

Or do "most people" find your position untenable, nozzferrahhtoo? And does that allow us to conclude that, for most of us at least, one of your starting premises was also untenable.

Anyone on the pro choice side? Just a one or two line post saying you wouldn't lose sleep over the taking of that life in the incubator?
If we hear nothing let's assume you disagree with nozzferrahhtoo and you wouldn't support taking the life of that child.

Let's check back on this in 24 hours.

Ok - to be clear - you are asking if people would be comfortable with the idea of withdrawing life support for a baby born at 22weeks?

If that’s the question, well then of course the answer is yes. That is a very reasonable course of action, and I would support any parent if that was their choice.

In fact it is policy in several countries not to resuscitate extremely premature infants. In countries where it is not a direct policy, in most circumstances, it is an option given to parents of extremely premature infants not to provide supportive measures, just ‘comfort care’. I fully agree with this scenario.

Zubeneschamali · 11-04-2018 02:28PM

thee glitz wrote: »

It's certainly possible, but there's approximately no chance of that happening.

Why? There are loads of FF and FG folks who are opposed to abortion, and more who are opposed to 12 weeks. SF are opposed to 12 weeks last I heard. The Independents include the likes of Mattie McGrath and the Healey-Raes.

January · 11-04-2018 02:29PM

I'd also have absolutely no problem with it either for the same reasons stated above by Professor Plum.

Triceratops Ballet · 11-04-2018 02:37PM

Turbohymac wrote: »

Hi.& thanks for all the replies within 30 minutes just to put things straight. Ivf for 6 years was our only option BUT this
Did not work either. Main point I was making is the very large divide between people who still value life . And the new generation that simply want an abort app on their phones & drone delivery of required advice & medication to terminate another life.. not here to offend anyone else this is simply my opinion but I honestly don't think that many people in favour of abortion on demand actually realises just how others people value life having been through many options. Its being used as a quick fix but this will have lasting negative effects for many at a later stage in their personal lives & we all know their decisions & actions cannot be reversed /repaired .

Thanks to all the above is simply my own personal opinion &experience. Feel free to pm me but I've now got my point out there & others need to air their valued opinions so I will not continue to post .

how condescending!
yes there are young voters supporting a repeal but to assume that because they are young they don't understand the complexity of the question they're being asked is just patronising, they're also not the only ones on the side of repeal, people of all ages with all manner of experiences with pregnancy, abortion, adoption, miscarriage and IVF support a repeal, and just because not everyone has your lived experience that doesn't mean they don't understand how sad it is for those who can't conceive. However if I became pregnant and were forced to stay pregnant against my will, that doesn't actually help a couple trying to have a child through IVF.

SusieBlue · 11-04-2018 02:50PM

Turbohymac wrote: »

Hi.& thanks for all the replies within 30 minutes just to put things straight. Ivf for 6 years was our only option BUT this
Did not work either. Main point I was making is the very large divide between people who still value life . And the new generation that simply want an abort app on their phones & drone delivery of required advice & medication to terminate another life.. not here to offend anyone else this is simply my opinion but I honestly don't think that many people in favour of abortion on demand actually realises just how others people value life having been through many options. Its being used as a quick fix but this will have lasting negative effects for many at a later stage in their personal lives & we all know their decisions & actions cannot be reversed /repaired .

Thanks to all the above is simply my own personal opinion &experience. Feel free to pm me but I've now got my point out there & others need to air their valued opinions so I will not continue to post .

There is so much wrong with this whole post, but as you've already been called out for the other parts, I'll focus on this.

If you can't respect how other people value life, why should anyone respect how you do?
I value life by trusting the feelings and opinions of the living, breathing woman who is pregnant.
You may wish to value life by holding the importance of the fetus over the health of the mother. That's absolutely fine and that's your prerogative.

A Yes vote will allow you to continue to hold that opinion. It will have no effect on how you live your life.
A No vote forces me to live my life arrested by your personal morals and opinions. That's so wrong.

Women don't need to be saved from themselves by you. They are more than capable of knowing their own minds and making their own decisions.
Trust them.
Statistically 97% of of women do not regret their abortions. I can pull up a link to prove this to you, if you want.

JDD · 11-04-2018 03:02PM

Bertieinexile, do you log on, post, and then immediately log off?

Because I directed a question at you yesterday, and have been checking to see whether you were online ever since. You've been online three times today, but only for enough time to post, before you log off again.

I, again, would like you to respond to my post.

Bertieinexile, pleas advise, you’re both online, you might answer my question.

During my last pregnancy it was suspected I had placenta accretia (google it). Very luckily, in the end, I did not. However, I was informed that should I get pregnant again, I would have a 70% chance of it occurring.

Statistics on placenta accretia are hard to come by as it is historically a rare complication latterly on the rise. From my own research and from the discussions with my consultant I was told the condition has a 7% mortality rate, a 30% chance of permanent injury to my non-uterus internal organs and an 80% chance I would lose my uterus.

As a result I had a tubal ligation. But no contraceptive is a fail safe. What do YOU advise as my current course of action:

A. Refrain from having sex with my husband until go through the menopause;

B. Have sex with my husband but, should my contraception fail, accept that I would have a 1 in 20 chance of dying, and a 1 in 5 chance of suffering a serious life debititating injury should I bring the pregnancy to full term.

Bear in mind that I have three young children who would be left without a mother if the 1 in 20 chance came to pass.

Your beliefs mean my choice has to be A or B.

SusieBlue · 11-04-2018 03:03PM

I would also be very interested in seeing a reply to the above post.

bertieinexile · 11-04-2018 03:20PM

JDD wrote: »

Bertieinexile, do you log on, post, and then immediately log off?

Because I directed a question at you yesterday, and have been checking to see whether you were online ever since. You've been online three times today, but only for enough time to post, before you log off again.

I, again, would like you to respond to my post.

I am looking forward to answering that JDD.
I want to do it justice.
I just don't seem to have as much time as a lot of people here for posting.

Soon as I can.

....... · 11-04-2018 03:21PM

This post has been deleted.

Fred Swanson · 11-04-2018 03:28PM

This post has been deleted.

captbarnacles · 11-04-2018 03:40PM

To state the blatantly obvious it's a sad attempt to keep his nonsense near the last page of the thread.

Keep donating and post your donations! as an added bonus his lies will be buried behind the donations

Annasopra · 11-04-2018 03:43PM

applehunter wrote: »

In contrast, hearing from a good source that the tiddlywinks game in the GAA club has a repeal majority.

#parlourgames4repeal

Im going to a polo match next week. Must ask around.

Ave Sodalis · 11-04-2018 03:51PM

http://crowdfund.togetherforyes.ie/?utm_source=fb&utm_medium=post&utm_campaign=cf250

355,868 in a day in an incredible achievement!

JDD · 11-04-2018 03:57PM

bertieinexile wrote: »

I am looking forward to answering that JDD.
I want to do it justice.
I just don't seem to have as much time as a lot of people here for posting.

Soon as I can.

Thank you.

I have to say, I don't agree with your viewpoint, but I do appreciate that you keep things civil and make an attempt to put your viewpoint across in a cogent manner.

erica74 · 11-04-2018 05:54PM

http://crowdfund.togetherforyes.ie/?utm_source=fb&utm_medium=post&utm_campaign=cf250

Don't forget to donate, if you are in a position to. If you can't donate money, donate time, if you're not in a position to donate time, post online, contribute to the discussion, contribute to the education of people who may not be fully informed on the topic and the FACTS around abortion.

amdublin · 11-04-2018 06:00PM

It's up at €366k now. The target is now €500k. Imagine that they aimed to raise €50k And when a load of people who support repealing donate tens, twenties and fifties it could add up to half a million euro.

It's just phenomenal.

I think we can do this. It makes me really hopeful for May.

_Dara_ · 11-04-2018 06:04PM

Somebody asked earlier about poster costs. My father was involved in the 2011 general election for one of the main parties. I asked him today and he said the large posters cost €20. They are very expensive.

Fred Swanson · 11-04-2018 06:11PM

This post has been deleted.

_Dara_ · 11-04-2018 06:13PM

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

He said the posters alone were €20. The plastic ties were extra and I guess the volunteers weren’t paid.

amdublin · 11-04-2018 06:14PM

Here seriously if anyone is questioning the cost of stuff why dont you go off and get involved in the campaign and see for yourself and support on the ground. Online is not the place for questioning it.

They're not flimsy paper posters like! My dad has a couple from a referendum a few years ago patching a hole on his shed roof!

Sofiztikated · 11-04-2018 06:22PM

A3 (or larger) corriboard printed in colour isn't cheap, no matter what the discount for quantity.

Kinda shows the disparity in financing, from the get go, the No posters were up and all over the country the morning after their campaign went "live", whereas Repeal posters are still rare, and relies on crowdfunding.

thee glitz · 11-04-2018 06:29PM

bertieinexile wrote: »

I just don't seem to have as much time as a lot of people here for posting.

It's quite interesting to extract the posts and visualise it. One poster had 18 comments in this thread alone one day.

The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

Comments