Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

1…288289291293294…324

Comments

  • #8702
    pleas advice
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,492 ✭✭✭pleas advice


    pleas advice wrote: »
    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Surely if you believe life begins at conception than logically an embryo (frozen or not) is alive?
    its in a state of suspended animation, what's the point of the question?

    is it so that you can deny embryos are alive, so you can justify the killing of them?

    ?


  • #8703
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,725 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Just her wrote: »
    there was an American comedian who is extremely Pro choice and came out with how she would like to get pregnant in order to get an abortion. How do you honestly feel about that and why?

    Just reads as an exercise in futility, a "**** you" to biological efficiency. I don't understand the reason. Abortions are performed to terminate an unplanned, unwanted (or dangerous, etc) pregnancy, I don't see the point of planning to conceive purely for the sake of aborting it.

    I'm sorry but where the **** was the punch-line?


  • #8704
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Just her wrote: »
    Question to yes voters. To those of you who say you truly believe the foetus has no right to life, is not sentient, its a woman's body and choice what to do with it: there was an American comedian who is extremely Pro choice and came out with how she would like to get pregnant in order to get an abortion. How do you honestly feel about that and why? For those of you who think the foetus is worth little to nothing. I'm not talking to people who have been talking on here about difficult cases, I'm talking to people who have openly made the foetus or as I consider it baby out to be worthless and have made out it has no right to life whatsoever.



    I was pulled up on a thought-experiment labelled "abort for sport". Mucho Problemo!

    The aim was to find out whether people valued life in the womb lower than the "right" to bodily autonomy of the lowest possible motivation for wanting an abortion. Abortion for the sake of a bet was how I pitched it

    Are you saying you actually found such a case?


  • #8705
    applehunter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,056 ✭✭✭applehunter


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    You can't have agreed with me because I didn't say anything of my own view for you to agree with.

    All I asked was whether you believed an embryo was alive. It was a question, not a statement.

    So much wriggling around when it's a simple yes or no.

    Apologies, I misread your post.

    I gave a qualified yes.

    I said because the embroyo was frozen it made it complicated.

    Your tone is one of a defence barrister badgering a witness.

    I am not on trial and this is not a courtroom.


  • #8706
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,725 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    pleas advice wrote: »
    its in a state of suspended animation, what's the point of the question?

    is it so that you can deny embryos are alive, so you can justify the killing of them?

    Frozen embryos are discarded quite often. Mad?


  • Advertisement
  • #8707
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Overheal wrote: »
    Abortions are performed to terminate an unplanned, unwanted (or dangerous, etc) pregnancy...

    Abortions are to be performed on demand. The reason can be anything at all in the world.


  • #8708
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,725 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    I was pulled up on a thought-experiment labelled "abort for sport". Mucho Problemo!

    The aim was to find out whether people valued life in the womb lower than the "right" to bodily autonomy of the lowest possible motivation for wanting an abortion. Abortion for the sake of a bet was how I pitched it

    All a big game to you. And the holocaust was all just a Nazi abortion etc.

    :rolleyes:


  • #8709
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,725 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Abortions are to be performed on demand. The reason can be anything at all in the world.

    Do you have any evidence of a woman ever planning to conceive a child just to go through the hoot of having an abortion performed on her?

    Thought so.


  • #8710
    Just her
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 171 ✭✭Just her


    Dressing gown wrote: »
    There is no playing going on here and I take so much offence to your flippant condemning remarks that you just keep on making. All these ‘selfish women’ the suggestion that people voting yes equivocate a foetus in the womb to a beer mat, frankly you are so out of line you’ve fallen off the flat earth.

    I’ve had a miscarriage at 11 weeks. That was my first pregnancy. It broke me. I grieved fornit more acutely than the death of my father. Yes I am an angry angry yes voter but it’s just horrible insensitive and frankly stupid remarks like the ones you repeatedly make without hesitation that make me angry. The women having these abortions are people. They have a life as important to them as yours is to you. They are going through a bloody hard time when the choose to have an abortion or choose to try to abort themselves when they lack the means to get there themselves.

    God if there is one and the son of his Jesus he may or many not have sent did not treat people or speak of people like they didn’t matter. It is you throwing the beermat and clump of cells remarks around and to be honest treating those pregnant women with no respect whatsoever.

    I wouldn’t say this to your face and I think I’m going to have to step back for a bit and I’m sorry for losing my cool but you need to think about the message and the fact that there could be young women in their own living hell at the moment reading this and they don’t deserve smart arse remarks belittling them as well as everything else they are going through.

    I'm honestly not being smart but one line jumped out at me, that you don't want people treated or being spoken of like they don't matter, not to put words in their mouth but I would wager antiskeptic feels the exact same only they are speaking up for those who have no voice


  • #8711
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Overheal wrote: »
    All a big game to you. And the holocaust was all just a Nazi abortion etc.

    :rolleyes:

    God knows for what reason I had you pegged as a poster worth talking to. Good riddance!


  • Advertisement
  • #8712
    pq0n1ct4ve8zf5
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,070 ✭✭✭✭pq0n1ct4ve8zf5


    Overheal wrote: »
    Or that she decided to have sex the night before, or the night after, or the contraception didn't fail, or a different sperm reached the egg

    You're trying to split a waveringly thin "what if" hair there.

    Didn't get my dad's ears, woo!


  • #8713
    Just her
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 171 ✭✭Just her


    Grayson wrote: »
    The nitpicking is accurate and warranted. No-one here want to kill a baby. When someone says someone is a baby killer that's inaccurate and extremely offensive.

    Now what do you mean by human when you say there's human in a womb. A two day old embryo is not yet implanted but is developing. Would you consider that a human being? If that's the case I guess you're against the morning after pill. One of the thing the contraceptive pill does affect the uterus wall making implantation less likely. This means that on the off chance an egg is fertilised it can't implant. So you would have to be against that if you believe an embryo at a few days development is a person.

    BTW, if anyone else wants to chime in and say that an embryo is a human being I'd like to know if they are against abortion and for the pill.

    My position is that just because it's got human DNA that doesn't bestow personhood on it. Being a human being is more than just DNA.

    Youd be a good one to answer my question posted on the last few minutes if you get a chance please


  • #8714
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Just her wrote: »
    I'm honestly not being smart but one line jumped out at me, that you don't want people treated or being spoken of like they don't matter, not to put words in their mouth but I would wager antiskeptic feels the exact same only they are speaking up for those who have no voice

    Speaking up? Bouncing off the ceiling more like...

    Not all see it my way I know. But if they saw it my way, they'd be bouncing off the ceiling too.

    I just see slaughter.


  • #8715
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,725 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    God knows for what reason I had you pegged as a poster worth talking to. Good riddance!

    For reminding you that you fail to discern any difference between the Holocaust and Abortions?

    Bye, I guess.


  • #8716
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,725 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    I just see slaughter.

    Yes, as I said, you're incapable of understanding that life isn't Black and White.


  • #8717
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    applehunter wrote: »
    Apologies, I misread your post.

    I gave a qualified yes.

    I said because the embroyo was frozen it made it complicated.

    Your tone is one of a defence barrister badgering a witness.

    I am not on trial and this is not a courtroom.

    I am simply trying to get a straight answer. One you seem very reluctant to give.

    It's not at all complicated. If life begins at conception than it follows that all embryos are alive. Therefore a frozen embryo - which may at some point be thawed and implanted into a womb - is, according to that definition, alive.

    It can't be a "qualified yes" alive. It either is or it isn't. It does, after all, have the potential to become a baby.


  • #8718
    Just her
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 171 ✭✭Just her


    Overheal wrote: »
    Just reads as an exercise in futility, a "**** you" to biological efficiency. I don't understand the reason. Abortions are performed to terminate an unplanned, unwanted (or dangerous, etc) pregnancy, I don't see the point of planning to conceive purely for the sake of aborting it.

    I'm sorry but where the **** was the punch-line?

    There wasn't one, it wasn't a joke, she was campaigning for pro choice and came out with that presumably to prove the point that out was her body and she could do what she liked, or else to annoy prolife people, who knows. But would you have a problem with her doing that? Getting pregnant in order to have an abortion. I'm not saying that is a common place thing that would happen, hopefully she is the only one on the face of the planet who would even think it up, but would you support it?


  • #8719
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,725 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Esmeralda Inexpensive Balloonist wrote: »
    Didn't get my dad's ears, woo!

    Not an extra in a Tolkien film? :D


  • #8720
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Overheal wrote: »
    Yes, as I said, you're incapable of understanding that life isn't Black and White.

    It will be next Friday. Ciao ;)


  • #8721
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    Just her wrote: »
    Question to yes voters. To those of you who say you truly believe the foetus has no right to life, is not sentient, its a woman's body and choice what to do with it: there was an American comedian who is extremely Pro choice and came out with how she would like to get pregnant in order to get an abortion. How do you honestly feel about that and why? For those of you who think the foetus is worth little to nothing. I'm not talking to people who have been talking on here about difficult cases, I'm talking to people who have openly made the foetus or as I consider it baby out to be worthless and have made out it has no right to life whatsoever.

    Firstly, I’d like to see a link to see how and why that woman is planning on doing that.

    Secondly, no I don’t think it’s acceptable for a woman to do that, but I still don’t think it’s a legitimate reason to take the choice away from every other woman.

    There will be a small minority who abuse every system.
    Do we abolish social welfare because a tiny portion of the country are dole scrounging wasters?
    No, because we’d be putting people in need at risk.
    Do we abolish medical cards because a small portion of the country take the p*ss out of them by clogging up the GP office every time they have a sore finger?
    No, because we’d be putting people in need at risk.

    It’s the exact same for abortion.

    I’d finish by saying that a woman who would do such a thing is not suitable material to be trusted with the responsibility of rearing another human being.
    Are you honestly saying that a woman like HER should be forced to be a mother to a poor innocent baby?
    That doesn’t seem very pro-life to me.


  • Advertisement
  • #8722
    Just her
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 171 ✭✭Just her


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    I was pulled up on a thought-experiment labelled "abort for sport". Mucho Problemo!

    The aim was to find out whether people valued life in the womb lower than the "right" to bodily autonomy of the lowest possible motivation for wanting an abortion. Abortion for the sake of a bet was how I pitched it

    Are you saying you actually found such a case?

    Yeah it was in the news not that long ago, I can't remember her name, I'll see if I can find it


  • #8723
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,725 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Just her wrote: »
    There wasn't one, it wasn't a joke, she was campaigning for pro choice and came out with that presumably to prove the point that out was her body and she could do what she liked, or else to annoy prolife people, who knows. But would you have a problem with her doing that? Getting pregnant in order to have an abortion. I'm not saying that is a common place thing that would happen, hopefully she is the only one on the face of the planet who would even think it up, but would you support it?

    Of course not, but her argument makes an absolute mockery of any push against "hard cases" - you know, things that actually exist, not ladies going out of their way to get pregnant purely for the sake of having abortions. I believe Rapes and Incest have that scenario well beat in the statistics. So, good luck canvassing on that.


  • #8724
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Just her wrote: »
    There wasn't one, it wasn't a joke, she was campaigning for pro choice and came out with that presumably to prove the point that out was her body and she could do what she liked, or else to annoy prolife people, who knows. But would you have a problem with her doing that? Getting pregnant in order to have an abortion. I'm not saying that is a common place thing that would happen, hopefully she is the only one on the face of the planet who would even think it up, but would you support it?

    Two U.S senators joked that women seeking an abortion should be sent to zoos to get them.
    linky: https://nwlc.org/blog/missouri-state-senators-joke-that-women-should-go-to-the-zoo-for-an-abortion/

    Is this a common place view among pro-lifers?
    Are these two elected officials the only ones who would think of saying something like this in their place of work?

    Do you support their statement?


  • #8725
    Wrongway1985
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,488 ✭✭✭Wrongway1985


    Just her wrote: »
    there was an American comedian who is extremely Pro choice and came out with how she would like to get pregnant in order to get an abortion. How do you honestly feel about that and why?

    The other stuff didn't apply to me so am responding specifically in relation to the comedian point even if it is slightly off topic...simply either every topic is open to comedians to attempt to apply humor to or nothing is. Comedians often raise issues that make people uncomfortable; ones that might be thought provoking outcomes people would've otherwise ignored.

    Bit closer to home Tommy Tiernan was heavily criticized for use of Down Syndrome jokes and more recently Ricky Gervais refused to apologize to a couple who attended a show who'd lost a child as he made jokes about dead babies. It's part of the act to offend for some comedians.

    I personally find these type of subjects have minimal use of trying to squeeze a laugh out of me but trying to introduce censorship is never ideal. Comedians tell jokes everybody won't agree with the whole time.


  • #8726
    applehunter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,056 ✭✭✭applehunter


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    I am simply trying to get a straight answer. One you seem very reluctant to give.

    It's not at all complicated. If life begins at conception than it follows that all embryos are alive. Therefore a frozen embryo - which may at some point be thawed and implanted into a womb - is, according to that definition, alive.

    It can't be a "qualified yes" alive. It either is or it isn't. It does, after all, have the potential to become a baby.

    Court adjourned.


  • #8727
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    applehunter wrote: »
    Court adjourned.

    Alrighty then.

    I put it to you that you do not believe that life begins at conception as you are unable to say that you believe a frozen embryo is alive although it has the potential to become a baby.


  • #8728
    Just her
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 171 ✭✭Just her


    Wrongway1985 wrote: »
    The other stuff didn't apply to me so am responding specifically in relation to the comedian point even if it is slightly off topic...simply either every topic is open to comedians to attempt to apply humor to or nothing is. Comedians often raise issues that make people uncomfortable; ones that might be thought provoking outcomes people would've otherwise ignored.

    Bit closer to home Tommy Tiernan was heavily criticized for use of Down Syndrome jokes and more recently Ricky Gervais refused to apologize to a couple who attended a show who'd lost a child as he made jokes about dead babies. It's part of the act to offend for some comedians.

    I personally find these type of subjects have minimal use of trying to squeeze a laugh out of me but trying to introduce censorship is never ideal. Comedians tell jokes everybody won't agree with the whole time.

    It wasn't a joke but, I've confused the point by saying she was a comedian, she's an actress perhaps comedian too but anyway it wasn't part of a comedy routine. Lena Dunham, I've dug it out, she actually said she wishes she had an abortion to experience it, she had a hysterectomy so its not possible now


  • #8729
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,725 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Just her wrote: »
    It wasn't a joke but, I've confused the point by saying she was a comedian, she's an actress perhaps comedian too but anyway it wasn't part of a comedy routine. Lena Dunham, I've dug it out, she actually said she wishes she had an abortion to experience it, she had a hysterectomy so its not possible now

    So nothing at all like what you said she said.

    Alright.


  • #8730
    Grayson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,778 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    The trouble is the arbitrary means at which you draw a line in the sand.

    Viability? Well abort up to then for a few years and come back and tell me what you think of all those abortions when science pushes viability back 5 weeks.

    When the brain develops? Which day has it enough brain and which day not.

    What happens when we don't know exactly which day the conception happened and the theoretical-person is aborted because the day of its conception was calculated to be was out a day?

    If it's personhood being conferred by you (along with the world of a difference between the rights you have as a person vs non person), you can't play fast and loose with it. I mean, you could be killing hundreds of "persons" a year mistakenly.

    You're playing God (and I don't mean that religiously). You can wrap it up all you like in legal-eez and medical-eez. But you'll never get to the essence of what it is to be a human


    Firstly I'm not being arbitrary. What makes a human is a consciousness. Some level of higher thought. When this occurs in development of the foetus is well established.

    Secondly, you can determine how far along a pregnancy is based on the development of the embryo/foetus. It's not rocket science. It's something doctors can do quite easily. Many GP's can do it with equipment they have in their office. It's not highly specialised.

    Thirdly, I never mentioned viability so please don't pretend I said that.
    I support a 12 week limit because it's long before higher brain functions develop. So a day wouldn't matter.

    Now the post you quoted mentioned the morning after pill and the contraceptive pill. Do you support the use of them? They stop (or can stop) implantation after fertilisation. If you say no because it's before implantation then you're picking an arbitrary time.

    Also, you've given no criteria on what makes a person. What makes a human being. And lease don't say DNA. Brain dead people on life support have DNA but we don't consider them people anymore. There's no moral objection removing life support from them because we recognise that although there's a body there, there's no actual person.


  • Advertisement
  • #8731
    Just her
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 171 ✭✭Just her


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Abortions are to be performed on demand. The reason can be anything at all in the world.

    Yeah I've seen pro choice argue amongst themselves on this, one saying no it's not right to abort because of down syndrome or cleft lip or gender, another lashing back with its all up to the woman and how dare you judge


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement