The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

horseburger · 13-04-2018 10:44PM

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

I do believe that this was already answered for you several times. Also, you say you never said anything about murder but, seeing as you also patronisingly gave dictionary definitions before, you could look up the definition of murder.

Mind answering my questions now?

I already answered you.

You smart assedly presumed I thought a particular way on this issue.

I never called anyone murderers. It is not helpful in debating this issue to call anyone murderers.

I stated that the main issue around abortion is the question of whether it is deemed acceptable to end a human life.

That does not mean that I called anyone murderers.

petalgumdrops · 13-04-2018 10:44PM

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

And yet, the wonderful maternity staff we have in this country, on an official level at least, are pro-repeal.

I prefer to debate/discuss in terms of tangible evidence based facts. To state maternity staff are all in favour is hyperbolic.

There is no consensus amongst any one group. A matter for each and every persons conscience.

Spanish Eyes · 13-04-2018 10:45PM

The sperm donors need to be outed also. I do recognise that some are ok, and will stand by the pregnancy. But most need a kick but just disappear.

Ah but it is always the women. That needs to change big time now really.

It will never be men that are affected by abortion, at the end of the day they can walk away.

Ave Sodalis · 13-04-2018 10:45PM

petalgumdrops wrote: »

Abortions under the 8th for FFA are not permissible. Think you are referring to when I said I would like an amendment to make separately to allow for them.

So you're saying you believe the 8th saved your childs life (disputable by the fact that abortions will not be compulsory but anyways), but you would be happy to have an amendment to take away the "protection" you are arguing for?

petalgumdrops · 13-04-2018 10:46PM

gctest50 wrote: »

Don't be daft

And what if, in say 20 years time, your child accidentally drives into a bus queue of schoolkids and kills them all

Can we say the 8th saved them ?

Is this meant to be a question?

Ave Sodalis · 13-04-2018 10:46PM

horseburger wrote: »

I already answered you.

You smart assedly presumed I thought a particular way on this issue.

I never called anyone murderers. It is not helpful in debating this issue to call anyone murderers.

I stated that the main issue around abortion is the question of whether it is deemed acceptable to end a human life.

That does not mean that I called anyone murderers.

I didn't mention murders in my questions. You never answered my questions.

nozzferrahhtoo · 13-04-2018 10:47PM

horseburger wrote: »

I stated that the main issue around abortion is the question of whether it is deemed acceptable to end a human life.

And I have explained to you multiple times that that assertion from you is false. Your response to that was to run away, ignore the rebutal, and to simply repeat the error again multiple times since.

The central arguments and issue around abortion is NOT about the acceptability of ending human life. The central argument around abortion IS whether there are any arguments, evidence, data or reasoning you can offer (none it seems) to establish a basis for affording a 12/16 week old fetus a right to life.

Wanna ignore that again and run away to recite your mantra? I bet you do.

horseburger · 13-04-2018 10:48PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And I have explained to you multiple times that that assertion from you is false. Your response to that was to run away, ignore the rebutal, and to simply repeat the error again multiple times since.

The central arguments and issue around abortion is NOT about the acceptability of ending human life. The central argument around abortion IS whether there are any arguments, evidence, data or reasoning you can offer (none it seems) to establish a basis for affording a 12/16 week old fetus a right to life.

Wanna ignore that again and run away to recite your mantra? I bet you do.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You are point hopping. We have already discussed numerous times that it is a biological human fetus. But YOU brought up the subject of pain and now we are talking about that.

This dodge a lot duck a lot tactic of yours is not likely to win you points with anyone but yourself.

For the second time you are taking the course of telling outright lies about what I have said. Why is that do you think?

No one here, least of all me is denying that the fetus is biologically human.

No one here, least of all me is denying abortion terminates the life of that fetus.

So when you say I am unwilling to accept this, when I have outright SAID IT MYSELF multiple times on the thread, you are simply lying. To me. To yourself. And to everyone else here.

And you know what? That is great! It serves my agenda on this thread very well indeed when you people start outright blatantly and transparently lying. Please do not stop soon.

If you are speaking in a biological context it should be assigned "human status" at EVERY state of development. Has anyone here denied that? I know I have not. Maybe some voices in your head have? Who knows.

However if you are talking personhood and humanity in the context of philosophy, morality, ethics and rights then I simply see no basis for affording it such a status. And.... Quelle Suprise........ in a long string of posts from today alone you have manage to avoid ANY attempts to have you explain to us why we should. I would stake quite a lot of money with my local Bookmakers that you are not going to any time soon either.

You are running away from not just my points now, but also your own. YOU brought up pain not me. And you shot yourself in the foot doing so because nearly 100% of abortions occur at a stage in fetal development when there is no one there to feel any pain. The fetus has no more sentience in it and capability to experience actual pain than a mannequin does.

Do you think it is ok to end its life on the basis of it being at an earlier stage of development?

If you are against later term abortions, what concerns you about later term abortions, considering either way, the intention remains the same - to end the life?

Ending the life at an earlier stage of development is still ending a life.

Madscientist30 · 13-04-2018 10:48PM

horseburger wrote: »

Madscientist30 wrote: »

No I dont think that life should be the goal at all costs. Why does it have to be known how long a child would have lived for? Do you think in a case of FFA the pregnancy should be forced to continue just so it can be stated with certainty how long the child would live for after birth? With no regard for whatever suffering that would bring to the parents and baby? That seems pretty sick to me, sorry.

Why is it so important for you to get involved with such decisions? If a team of medical specialists are telling a woman the heartbreaking news that their child may pass away before birth or shortly afterwards, then can we not trust them and the woman involved to make the best decision? I have heard of cases where, devastating as it is to think about for too long, women have terminated pregnancies early in the case of FFA so that they could have a chance to meet their baby alive.

How much of an interest do you usually take on a day to day basis in what strangers you dont know are doing in their personal family lives? Do you think that is any of your business? Or is it just because you and these foetuses you dont know are the same species that you think you are entitled to a say?

You seem to have a big problem with me considering the issues for and against, event though we will be voting on this issue next month.

Haven't heard you considering anything "for" it yet really

Clearly you do consider such private matters your business anyway. Repeal will allow women to make the best choices for themselves. So what you really have to decide is do you think your fellow humans are capable of making reproductive decisions without you getting a say. Realistically most of them are probably as smart as you or I if not more so. So on balance I dont think I need to be involved in their decision processes. Do you? And if you think humans are inherently not to be trusted, then why are you advocating bringing more of them into the world

NuMarvel · 13-04-2018 10:51PM

petalgumdrops wrote: »

Abortions under the 8th for FFA are not permissible. Think you are referring to when I said I would like an amendment to make separately to allow for them.

Nope. You specifically said FFA could be legislated for without repealing the 8th:

petalgumdrops wrote: »

The surprising thing is is that the government could have legistated for FFA years ago without repealing the 8th.

Perhaps you confused legislation with a new constitutional provision. But that's still contradictory, because you're saying the 8th stopped you from having an abortion because of an FFA, yet think abortions for FFA should be allowed.

Ave Sodalis · 13-04-2018 10:51PM

petalgumdrops wrote: »

I prefer to debate/discuss in terms of tangible evidence based facts. To state maternity staff are all in favour is hyperbolic.

There is no consensus amongst any one group. A matter for each and every persons conscience.

It's a good job I said on an official level then so, which is an evidence based fact. The Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists are pro-repeal on this matter. In fact, they had a hand in drafting the legislation.

ohnonotgmail · 13-04-2018 10:51PM

horseburger wrote: »

Do you think it is ok to end its life on the basis of it being at an earlier stage of development?

If you are against later term abortions, what concerns you about later term abortions, considering either way, the intention remains the same - to end the life?

Ending the life at an earlier stage of development is still ending a life.

you just continue to ask questions that have already been answered.

horseburger · 13-04-2018 10:52PM

DubInMeath wrote: »

You seem incapable of answering questions and just repeat yourself ad nauseaum

You didn't answer what I asked you.

horseburger · 13-04-2018 10:54PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you just continue to ask questions that have already been answered.

What I asked has not been answered.

Why be concerned about abortion at a later stage, but be ok with it at an earlier stage, when the intention of abortion is the same - to end a life?

petalgumdrops · 13-04-2018 10:54PM

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

So you're saying you believe the 8th saved your childs life (disputable by the fact that abortions will not be compulsory but anyways), but you would be happy to have an amendment to take away the "protection" you are arguing for?

My baby was born healthy with a misdiagnosis of a ffa or didn't you read that. The problem I faced was that I could not travel. I would like women with a ffa to be allowed to induce their pregnancies here in our materity hopsitals, on demand to 12 weeks but not unlimited abortion which repealing the 8th will provide

Why is it I was asked to look at the 100s of stories in - In her Shoes and you didn't dare dispute that their stories show how the 8th hurts women. Yet I say the 8th saved my child and you question it. Respectful tactic would be to acknowledge my experience -disagree if you like but please if something doesn't suit your narrative say nothing rather than dispute a horrific experience that I went through.

And people have you believe that this referendum is all about trusting and supporting women..... that should also be amended to..... "supporting and trusting women if it fits my narrative"

NuMarvel · 13-04-2018 10:55PM

horseburger wrote: »

You didn't answer what I asked you.

Oh, the irony...

Ave Sodalis · 13-04-2018 10:55PM

horseburger wrote: »

What I asked has not been answered.

Why be concerned about abortion at a later stage, but be ok with it at an earlier stage, when the intention of abortion is the same - to end a life?

Viability.

Can you answer my questions now?

Spanish Eyes · 13-04-2018 10:56PM

Do not stress yourselves.

Every country in Europe has abortion.

Even Italy OMG such a Catholic country.

And the Pope will be here in August.

Bollix IMV.

Ireland needs to accept the reality, it might not be nice but the Pope has no problem!

ohnonotgmail · 13-04-2018 10:56PM

horseburger wrote: »

What I asked has not been answered.

Why be concerned about abortion at a later stage, but be ok with it at an earlier stage, when the intention of abortion is the same - to end a life?

you need to spend more time reading and less time posting.

13-04-2018 10:56PM

petalgumdrops wrote: »

Is this meant to be a question?

Could you perhaps answer my question?

nozzferrahhtoo · 13-04-2018 10:57PM

horseburger wrote: »

Do you think it is ok to end its life on the basis of it being at an earlier stage of development?

To answer your first question here...... I think it is ok to end the life of ANY entity for ANY reason, including a 12 week old human fetus, that A) Entirely lacks the faculty of sentience and

has never at any stage had the faculty of sentience in any way.

Do you have an argument as to why an entity lacking that faculty and always having lacked that faculty should have a right to life? Or can I simply assume that you actually believe shouting the word "Human" at that question over and over and over and over again actually answers it in some magical la la land way?

horseburger wrote: »

If you are against later term abortions, what concerns you about later term abortions, considering either way, the intention remains the same - to end the life?

If you understand the answer to the first question, you will already know the answer to this question. If you find you do not though, feel free to let me know and I will answer it happily.

horseburger wrote: »

Ending the life at an earlier stage of development is still ending a life.

So is killing cows to obtain meat, or chopping down trees to make paper. We end life all the time. No one here AT ALL is denying we are ending life. Yet you keep saying it over and over like you are telling people something they either do not know, or have been denying.

The point that you are so DESPERATE to dodge however is that you seem entirely ignorant about where the line is, and what the line is, between life we end all the time and life we should not end. You just shout the word "Human" over and over because you think that is the line, yet you can not even begin to explain why.

horseburger wrote: »

What I asked has not been answered.

The third outright lie I have caught you at now. The questions you just asked me were almost word for word the questions you asked earlier today and everyone here saw me answer you.

Lying in person is one thing, and people do it often. But lying when the truth is right beside the lie in black and white.... that takes some gall.

horseburger wrote: »

Why be concerned about abortion at a later stage, but be ok with it at an earlier stage, when the intention of abortion is the same - to end a life?

Because at 12/16 weeks we are ending the life of an entity that is not and never has been sentience or conscious. At much later stages however, we would be ending the life of a human sentience.

The two are therefore not comparable, even though you want to pretend they are. Pretence, alas, being the main substance of pretty much everything you have written here today.

ohnonotgmail · 13-04-2018 10:58PM

petalgumdrops wrote: »

My baby was born healthy with a misdiagnosis of a ffa or didn't you read that. The problem I faced was that I could not travel. I would like women with a ffa to be allowed to induce their pregnancies here in our materity hopsitals, on demand to 12 weeks but not unlimited abortion which repealing the 8th will provide

Why is it I was asked to look at the 100s of stories in - In her Shoes and you didn't dare dispute that their stories show how the 8th hurts women. Yet I say the 8th saved my child and you question it. Respectful tactic would be to acknowledge my experience -disagree if you like but please if something doesn't suit your narrative say nothing rather than dispute a horrific experience that I went through.

And people have you believe that this referendum is all about trusting and supporting women..... that should also be amended to..... "supporting and trusting women if it fits my narrative"

so because things worked out you other women should not be given a choice? what a horrible attitude to have.

Triceratops Ballet · 13-04-2018 10:58PM

petalgumdrops wrote:

My baby was born healthy with a misdiagnosis of a ffa or didn't you read that. The problem I faced was that I could not travel. I would like women with a ffa to be allowed to induce their pregnancies here in our materity hopsitals, on demand to 12 weeks but not unlimited abortion which repealing the 8th will provide

Repealing the 8th does not provide unlimited abortion!

13-04-2018 10:59PM

horseburger wrote: »

You didn't answer what I asked you.

No it's not a human being as they are not seen so legally until birth.

NuMarvel · 13-04-2018 10:59PM

petalgumdrops wrote: »

...on demand to 12 weeks but not unlimited abortion which repealing the 8th will provide...

This is completely false. After repeal, the current laws stand, until the Oireachtas changes them. And they are NOT going to change them to allow "unlimited abortion" after 12 weeks.

Please don't repeat this lie again. It doesn't help your position in anyway to be so misleading or uninformed, and more importantly it doesn't help the discussion.

Ave Sodalis · 13-04-2018 11:00PM

petalgumdrops wrote: »

My baby was born healthy with a misdiagnosis of a ffa or didn't you read that. The problem I faced was that I could not travel. I would like women with a ffa to be allowed to induce their pregnancies here in our materity hopsitals, on demand to 12 weeks but not unlimited abortion which repealing the 8th will provide

Why is it I was asked to look at the 100s of stories in - In her Shoes and you didn't dare dispute that their stories show how the 8th hurts women. Yet I say the 8th saved my child and you question it. Respectful tactic would be to acknowledge my experience -disagree if you like but please if something doesn't suit your narrative say nothing rather than dispute a horrific experience that I went through.

And people have you believe that this referendum is all about trusting and supporting women..... that should also be amended to..... "supporting and trusting women if it fits my narrative"

I did read that. No need to be snotty about it. Abortions, even if the 8th is repealed, will not be compulsory. If someone with FFA does not wish to have one, they will not have to. I'm afraid your single example does not migrate the suffering of other women though.

Due to the numbers of women who do suffer. I am not disputing your experience. In fact I even said I wasn't. I'm disputing that repealing the 8th would have had any significant impact.

You're actually twisting my words... again.

Trasna1 · 13-04-2018 11:02PM

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

Repealing the 8th does not provide unlimited abortion!

Repealing the 8th removes the constitutional restriction on abortion, therefore leaving it up to the legislature to decide.

So in theory, though unlikely, a future government could introduce a Chinese type system if they wanted to.

Ave Sodalis · 13-04-2018 11:04PM

Trasna1 wrote: »

Repealing the 8th removes the constitutional restriction on abortion, therefore leaving it up to the legislature to decide.

So in theory, though unlikely, a future government could introduce a Chinese type system if they wanted to.

Or ban it completely. They could also change whatever laws they like, based on that argument.

seamus · 13-04-2018 11:07PM

Trasna1 wrote: »

Repealing the 8th removes the constitutional restriction on abortion, therefore leaving it up to the legislature to decide.

So in theory, though unlikely, a future government could introduce a Chinese type system if they wanted to.

"Unlikely" is understating it by a few light-years.

It would require several referendums and thousands of pages of rewritten legislation to remove all the EU and international treaties that currently prevent us from introducing "Chinese-style" (whatever that is) abortion in Ireland.

petalgumdrops · 13-04-2018 11:09PM

NuMarvel wrote: »

This is completely false. After repeal, the current laws stand, until the Oireachtas changes them. And they are NOT going to change them to allow "unlimited abortion" after 12 weeks.

Please don't repeat this lie again. It doesn't help your position in anyway to be so misleading or uninformed, and more importantly it doesn't help the discussion.

Contact lawyers for choice who seem to have a different view to you on this? The 12 weeks is merely a proposal, not even a bill. It will need to go in front of the oireactas to pass like any legislation. Changes to norama Legislation does not need the backing or approval of the people.,politicians will make these decisions. I have spent a long time researching this.

The removal of the 8th makes the ammendment unconstitutional and can be challenged in the supreme court. Who have already said that the unborns right to life will cease to exist with the passing of repeal.

I wait in anticipation for you to tell me differently.

The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

Comments