8th amendment referendum part 3 - Mod note and FAQ in post #1

amcalester · 08-05-2018 12:27PM

It goes to show how little regard they actually have for these fetuses/babies/unborn if they are willing to use their images like this.

Disgusting.

Eponymous · 08-05-2018 12:31PM

Gintonious wrote: »

https://www.buzz.ie/news/simon-harris-issues-statement-disgusting-posters-left-outside-home-284177

Sweet Jesus, what the hell is wrong with these people?

Love both. Hate everyone.

AtomicHorror · 08-05-2018 12:31PM

Eponymous wrote: »

Love both. Hate everyone.

I think we previously established that "Love Both" means:

Love:

The Unborn
Myself

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Since we are trading anecdotes I was talking once to a guy who said his parents used to travel up to the north of Ireland for contraception. They could not get it in the south.

He was conceived during a period between trips when the parents actually had no contraception. So basically, similar to your anecdote, he said "If contraception had been legal when I was conceived I likely would not be here".

Strangely is did not affect me in the same way it appears to have affected you. Mainly because "If things had been otherwise then things now would be otherwise" style arguments do not generally appeal to any part of my brain.

Cited in isolation, we could use that logic to justify banning literally anything. Would action A have prevented the outcome B? Do we like B or at least feel we should tolerate B? Yes? Then ban A!

Would A have prevented a given person from being born? Yes? A is murder!

PlaneSpeeking · 08-05-2018 12:33PM

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I think we previously established that "Love Both" means:

Love:
The Unborn

Myself

Cited in isolation, we could use that logic to justify banning literally anything. Would action A have prevented the outcome B? Do we like B or at least feel we should tolerate B? Yes? Then ban A!

Would A have prevented a given person from being born? Yes? A is murder!

Nonsense.

Sofiztikated · 08-05-2018 12:36PM

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I think we previously established that "Love Both" means:

Love:
The Unborn

Myself

Cited in isolation, we could use that logic to justify banning literally anything. Would action A have prevented the outcome B? Do we like B or at least feel we should tolerate B? Yes? Then ban A!

Would A have prevented a given person from being born? Yes? A is murder!

Most of them don't even love the unborn.

Love my feelz, but actual people can **** off.

AtomicHorror · 08-05-2018 12:37PM

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Nonsense.

Well of course it is. The whole No campaign is founded on that sort of thinking.

PlaneSpeeking · 08-05-2018 12:38PM

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Well of course it is. The whole No campaign is founded on that sort of thinking.

CF the posters Simon Harris referred to. Terrifying misinformation being accepted isn't it ?

People will believe it though. Worrying.

kylith · 08-05-2018 12:41PM

....... wrote: »

They must have money to burn to be at stunts like this.

The cowards haven’t even put their names on them.

AtomicHorror · 08-05-2018 12:43PM

kylith wrote: »

The cowards haven’t even put their names on them.

Isn't that grounds for removal?

PhoenixParker · 08-05-2018 12:47PM

I've started asking love bothers what they've done & campaigned for, aside from preventing abortion, that shows they love both.

Never do get a good answer.

kylith · 08-05-2018 12:47PM

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Isn't that grounds for removal?

Yes, along with offensive imagery. Which is probably going to be used by them to claim they are being ‘silenced’.

....... · 08-05-2018 12:51PM

This post has been deleted.

The_Brood · 08-05-2018 12:56PM

joe40 wrote: »

If someone let a 1 month baby die, then I think they should go to jail.
Do you think that someone who has an abortion, or a doctor that performs an abortion should go to jail.
If your answer is yes, then we will have to forego any possibility of a further discussion.
If the answer is no then you are also differentiating between a baby and a foetus.

Please explain why a 1 month old baby deserves protection if an unborn baby does not? Explain why in any way shape or form, given that we are ignoring all knowledge of what this baby is developing into, it deserves an ounce more protection than a mouse?

Sofiztikated · 08-05-2018 12:57PM

....... wrote: »

Well of course not.

I found it interesting that a video supporting choice was aired where various male and female irish actors and actresses publicly supported Repeal.

I notice no one has a made one supporting Save the 8th? Why would that be? Because its a shameful position to take.

I bet RobertKK and AnnFrank dont post the same kind of horrific nonsense they post here on their own social media accounts. Especially AnnFrank, mocking people who have suffered miscarriage. Because in real life there is no way they are saying the kind of disgusting stuff they say here. Here they can hide behind the anonymity.

Or that guy who suggested enforced womb removal for women.

All hiding behind anonymity.

To be fair to him, he did say it was a friend suggested the mandatory hysterectomies.

SusieBlue · 08-05-2018 12:58PM

The_Brood wrote: »

Please explain why a 1 month old baby deserves protection if an unborn baby does not? Explain why in any way shape or form, given that we are ignoring all knowledge of what this baby is developing into, it deserves an ounce more protection than a mouse?

Because a one month old baby is a born living citizen with complete human rights. What's so difficult to understand?

Now you might answer my question:

Why should potential people be given any rights at all at the expense of the living born citizen in which it resides?
You have provided no reasoning at all as to why a pre 12 week fetus should have an EQUAL right to life to that of a born living breathing woman. I'd like to here your arguments.

nozzferrahhtoo · 08-05-2018 12:59PM

The_Brood wrote: »

Please explain why a 1 month old baby deserves protection if an unborn baby does not? Explain why in any way shape or form, given that we are ignoring all knowledge of what this baby is developing into, it deserves an ounce more protection than a mouse?

I have already answered this. Only a couple of pages before the post you just replied to.

Further however your phrase "unborn baby" is too vague. Remember with abortion we are almost entirely talking about the termination of a fetus at 12 or 16 weeks. Actually the majority by far by 10 weeks. This is not really describable as an "unborn baby" as you yourself acknowledged when you wrote "it is a developing life that if left uninterpreted will result in a baby."

dundalkfc10 · 08-05-2018 01:02PM

Pity some of our TD's didnt get aborted!

Frank Bullitt · 08-05-2018 01:02PM

When were the last set of polls released?

The_Brood · 08-05-2018 01:02PM

bootpaws wrote: »

Women are being left on beds so they can begin to die before receiving medical care.

What about their futures? What about their lives?

If part of society is making the argument "we must do this horrible thing in order to prevent this horrible thing" then that is a separate part of the topic that can be examined on its own.

However, what is the prevailing argument is "we must stop this horrible thing because eh that other thing is not as important as some are claiming."

The worst of the worst of humankind is a story of denying others rights when it doesn't suit are needs. There is no category of human beings that we haven't tried to deny rights from. Whether it be by race, nationality, ability - and now stage of development, the list is endless. Whenever we want to do something in our benefit, we seek to dehumanize others and pretend that the being that will suffer should not have the same rights. This is what is happening here. You can't have it both ways. You can't both have abortions and pretend like it is not taking human life.

Timberrrrrrrr · 08-05-2018 01:02PM

Sofiztikated wrote: »

To be fair to him, he did say it was a friend suggested the mandatory hysterectomies.

Yeah

A "friend" :rolleyes:

threescompany · 08-05-2018 01:04PM

pleas advice wrote: »

just dismiss it as all lies so, there is no way the amount of abortions is that high, one for every four live births? they must be crazy to think we'd believe that!

theres no way 90 percent of diagnosed Down Syndrome pregnancies are aborted, that would be horrific! more lies so...

just tell people its lies and they'll believe you

Regarding the Downs Syndrome abortions....... please watch “a world without Downs Syndrome “
It’s been on channel 4 a few times so I’m sure it’s on repeat somewhere. We all want to be informed so please just watch this. The statistics are more than 90% in many European countries. Just watch the TV programme and come to your own conclusions. Aborting Downs babies is the absolute norm over there. Please don’t argue that. It’s a fact. It’s extremely insulting to try and argue it when it’s a fact so please continue with your repeal debate but accept that almost all Downs babies are aborted in UK, France, Belgium, Germany , Iceland ..... oh yeh, their choice, I forgot!!

Timberrrrrrrr · 08-05-2018 01:04PM

dundalkfc10 wrote: »

Pity some of our TD's didnt get aborted!

Disgraceful comment

ELM327 · 08-05-2018 01:06PM

threescompany wrote: »

Regarding the Downs Syndrome abortions....... please watch “a world without Downs Syndrome “
It’s been on channel 4 a few times so I’m sure it’s on repeat somewhere. We all want to be informed so please just watch this. The statistics are more than 90% in many European countries. Just watch the TV programme and come to your own conclusions. Aborting Downs babies is the absolute norm over there. Please don’t argue that. It’s a fact. It’s extremely insulting to try and argue it when it’s a fact so please continue with your repeal debate but accept that almost all Downs babies are aborted in UK, France, Belgium, Germany , Iceland ..... oh yeh, their choice, I forgot!!

Not possible to diagnose DS in a 12 week old foetus though, so your point is null and void (except as the strawman of which you intend it to be of course)

kylith · 08-05-2018 01:07PM

The_Brood wrote: »

If part of society is making the argument "we must do this horrible thing in order to prevent this horrible thing" then that is a separate part of the topic that can be examined on its own.

However, what is the prevailing argument is "we must stop this horrible thing because eh that other thing is not as important as some are claiming."

The worst of the worst of humankind is a story of denying others rights when it doesn't suit are needs. There is no category of human beings that we haven't tried to deny rights from. Whether it be by race, nationality, ability - and now stage of development, the list is endless. Whenever we want to do something in our benefit, we seek to dehumanize others and pretend that the being that will suffer should not have the same rights. This is what is happening here. You can't have it both ways. You can't both have abortions and pretend like it is not taking human life.

You are aware that women are currently denied rights to healthcare because of the 8th, yes?

Women are dehumanised as irresponsible trollops in order to pretend that they do not deserve the same rights.

The difference is that women are already living, thinking, feeling human beings.

What is your opinion on FFA? Should a baby be born only to die suffering?

Should a woman who becomes ill while pregnant be forced to suffer to the point of death before she can be treated?

ELM327 · 08-05-2018 01:08PM

Gintonious wrote: »

When were the last set of polls released?

2 days ago

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/abortion-referendum/poll-young-urban-women-giving-yes-side-referendum-edge-but-it-is-a-narrow-lead-36877996.html

"57pc to 43pc support repealing the Eighth"
"when undecided voters are included, the poll shows 45pc in favour, 34pc against, with a considerable 18pc undecided"

Interestingly the polled sample were in favour of at least 12 weeks timeframe or longer.
42% agree with 12 weeks, and a further 11% say it's not far enough.
"On the abortion referendum, in another finding which shows momentum for repeal, 42pc (up two points) say abortion without restriction up to 12 weeks is 'about right' and 11pc (up three points) say it does not go far enough, while 32pc (down one point) say it goes 'too far'. However, again there is a sizeable minority (15pc), down four points, who do not know or have refused to give their view."

seamus · 08-05-2018 01:08PM

As horrendous as the images are, it makes me glad that the No side have failed to restrain themselves and polish themselves up with a veneer of respectability.

On one side you have reasonable discussion, stories of heartbreak without gratuitous or unnecessary imagery, moral and ethical canvassing practices, and an overall theme of respect and compassion.

On the other side you have gratuitous imagery, unethical and immoral picketing practices, blatant lies, smear attempts and an overall theme of viciousness and anger.

The No side have truly shown their teeth in this campaign, and it makes me glad. Because no one who considers themselves a reasonable human being would find their conduct convincing or acceptable.

Dressing gown · 08-05-2018 01:08PM

The_Brood wrote: »

joe40 wrote: »

If someone let a 1 month baby die, then I think they should go to jail.
Do you think that someone who has an abortion, or a doctor that performs an abortion should go to jail.
If your answer is yes, then we will have to forego any possibility of a further discussion.
If the answer is no then you are also differentiating between a baby and a foetus.

Please explain why a 1 month old baby deserves protection if an unborn baby does not? Explain why in any way shape or form, given that we are ignoring all knowledge of what this baby is
developing into, it deserves an ounce more protection than a mouse?

Unborn “babies” do have protection. But it should not, when in an early embryological stage, have bodily autonomy when a born does not-I’m talking about its mother. It can’t have an equal standing to its host. It’s mother is it’s host. She does everything it needs day and night. If she decides she cannot, she should not be forced to incubate that fetus to her detriment. Would you think twice about it if your dogs pregnancy would prevent her from having cancer treatment?

nozzferrahhtoo · 08-05-2018 01:08PM

The_Brood wrote: »

The worst of the worst of humankind is a story of denying others rights when it doesn't suit are needs.

Thankfully that is not what is happening when it comes to 0-16 weeks choice based abortion. Rather what IS happening is more accurately described as "We have been assigning rights to something that does not at all warrant it, and more and more this not only does not suit our needs but is positively harmful to them, so it is time to stop making that initial error".

The_Brood wrote: »

There is no category of human beings that we haven't tried to deny rights from. Whether it be by race, nationality, ability - and now stage of development, the list is endless.

It is indeed! And the correct response to that is to discuss each and every one of those attempts on their own individual merits and demerits.

The incorrect, and frankly dishonest and agenda driven response, would be to conflate them all and suggest that because 1, 2, 3 4 were all horrific, bad and wrong that 5 must be too.

So let's not make that move, or allow anyone else to get away with trying it either, shall we.

The_Brood wrote: »

Whenever we want to do something in our benefit, we seek to dehumanize others and pretend that the being that will suffer should not have the same rights.

Except in this case we are not dehumanizing anything so much as pointing out we never should have humanized it in the first place as there is no coherent basis outside mere biological taxonomy to do so.

So no one has to "pretend" that the fetus at 0-16 weeks should not have such rights. It ACTUALLY shouldn't. And the only "pretending" that would actually be happening is your pretense that it will "suffer". It will not. It can not.

The_Brood wrote: »

This is what is happening here.

Except everything you just pulled, as I just showed, is the exact opposite of what is happening here. You are not at all being honest with us, or possibly yourself, in your evaluation of the content of this debate.

gmisk · 08-05-2018 01:10PM

seamus wrote: »

As horrendous as the images are, it makes me glad that the No side have failed to restrain themselves and polish themselves up with a veneer of respectability.

On one side you have reasonable discussion, stories of heartbreak without gratuitous or unnecessary imagery, moral and ethical canvassing practices, and an overall theme of respect and compassion.

On the other side you have gratuitous imagery, unethical and immoral picketing practices, blatant lies, smear attempts and an overall theme of viciousness and anger.

The No side have truly shown their teeth in this campaign, and it makes me glad. Because no one who considers themselves a reasonable human being would find their conduct convincing or acceptable.

I agree entirely, but those polls recently are worrying me a bit...so it is obviously working to a degree as is the very targeted and clearly expensive online ad spend.

The_Brood · 08-05-2018 01:10PM

SusieBlue wrote: »

Because a one month old baby is a born living citizen with complete human rights. What's so difficult to understand?

Now you might answer my question:

Why should potential people be given any rights at all at the expense of the living born citizen in which it resides?
You have provided no reasoning at all as to why a pre 12 week fetus should have an EQUAL right to life to that of a born living breathing woman. I'd like to here your arguments.

And why does the law do this? Why does the law protect a baby but does not protect other sentient creatures who are much more advanced than it? Why is the law blind to a human life that is still unborn when it fully protects a human being that is still worlds away from what we recognize as a fully grown man or woman? Is this not wrong?

That is my answer to your second question. If a 1 month old baby is provided full rights by the government, so should a fetus. Both are still growing and developing but a million miles away from anything we recognize as a fully grown adult. In fact, there is a much greater difference between an adult person and a 1 month old baby than a baby and a fetus.

If we are operating on an "you earn your rights as you grow" philosophy, then it is absolutely absurd that a new born baby should have the same rights to life as a 30 year old person. And yet, that is exactly what the law is, in almost every country.

8th amendment referendum part 3 - Mod note and FAQ in post #1

Comments